How Obama Is Making the Same Mistakes as Bush

An interesting article from Time Magazine:

Who would have thought that one of Barack Obama's biggest missteps as President would be repeating some of the bad habits of George W. Bush? No single factor was more instrumental in Obama's 2008 victory than his pledge to completely reverse the nation's course once in the White House. Instead, over the past year, Obama has mimicked some of Bush's most egregious blunders, leading to much of the political predicament in which the present decider finds himself today.

This is not to say that Obama has maintained Bush's policies, although his Administration's continuity on issues ranging from Afghanistan to Wall Street has alienated the left. And he certainly hasn't done himself any favors by failing to inspire the general public to rally around his agenda. But Obama's stumbles atop the high wire of running the federal government have created perhaps the greatest danger to his presidency, and they are oddly reminiscent of the misguided practices that tripped up his predecessor.
(See pictures of Obama's first year in the White House.)

Consider all the ways in which the current occupant of the Oval Office has — inadvertently or otherwise — repeated the errors of the recent past:

No Chief Economic Spokesperson. Quick: Name all three of Bush's Treasury Secretaries. Hard to do, isn't it? Like Bush, Obama has failed to install an economics commander in chief who can serve as the public face and the in-house honcho of the Administration's financial team. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, National Economic Council chief Larry Summers and Council of Economic Advisers chair Christina Romer all bring strengths to their positions, but none is especially effective at conveying either a consistent message or a sufficient urgency, and none stands out symbolically or practically as America's economics czar. It is not practical for the President himself to serve as the daily go-to guy on any one issue, and given the short- and long-term consequences of the financial and unemployment crises, Obama desperately needs a distinct leader to handle this vital job. Bush needed a Robert Rubin figure, and so does Obama.

Failure to Integrate Policy, Politics and Communication. By the end of Bush's two terms, even some of his supporters were disappointed (and, at times, horrified) by how much of the decisionmaking at the highest levels of government were more a result of political machinations than rigorous, substantive policymaking. From its earliest days, Obama's White House has failed to put in place the necessary procedures and personnel to move strong, serious ideas along the conveyor belt from the minds of wonky experts cloistered in the Old Executive Office Building chambers to the President's lips as he introduces new initiatives at dramatic public events.

Tying the Administration's Fate Too Closely to His Party's Congressional Leadership. Republican leaders in Congress effectively persuaded Bush in almost every year of his presidency to marry his fate to theirs — and all too frequently, to subordinate his vision of right and wrong to their short-term political demands. This problem was particularly pronounced in the area of spending, from a mammoth farm bill to an expensive entitlement in the form of a Medicare prescription-drug benefit to colossal business-as-usual earmark spending. Bush also tarnished his personal image by staying largely silent in the face of ethics flaps involving Tom DeLay, Jack Abramoff and other scandal-plagued Republicans. (Obama should take note, as he continues to sidestep meaningful comment on the long-running travails of Democratic Congressman Charles Rangel.) When Bush ran for President, he, like Obama, suggested he would regularly cross his party's congressional wing when he thought they were dead wrong. And Obama, like Bush, has lashed himself many times over to the political fortunes of the Capitol Hill portion of his party, allowing the agenda and vision of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, majority leader Harry Reid and a covey of mostly liberal committee chairs to define the public image of the Democratic Party and determine what his Administration can accomplish.

Failing to Empower Cabinet Members on Domestic Policy. Obama has put numerous talented people in his Cabinet, from a Nobel Prize winner to several successful governors, but like his predecessor, he has no system to get the most out of them. Cabinet members in the domestic-policy cluster have less input, and less of a platform, in determining and selling Administration policies than their counterparts at State and Defense. Finding the right balance — giving the domestic Cabinet enough influence, but not too much — is tough, but Obama, like Bush, has placed too little weight on the side of the Secretaries. Potent and active Education Secretary Arne Duncan is an exception that illustrates what the President could be doing with the rest of the team.

The good news for Obama is that each one of these errors is fixable, and there are signs that the President and his staff are working to address at least some of them — for instance, by adding new policy heft to the chief of staff's office. The more cautionary note, however, is that Bush never solved these problems, which plagued him from his earliest months in the White House until the day he left. Candidate Obama's repudiation of Bush's eight-year presidency was focused on his predecessor's ideology. He should have taken stock of Bush's executive process as well.

Story can be found here.

So what are your thoughts ATS. I think the article shows just how not so different one administration is, once another takes it's place.

Even if that administration touts itself as being the complete opposite. On important issues Obama is making the same mistakes. Economics and Domestic Policy being the most important IMO.

~Keeper




[edit on 3/10/2010 by tothetenthpower]

Well, my thoughts are that we're comparing an 8-year presidency to a one-year presidency. Not exactly equal ground. After 8 years in office, THEN I think any comparisons might be valid.

Secondly, I disagree somewhat with some of the opinions in the article. There are a LOT of opinions in that article. Some are valid, IMO, some are not.

Finally, yes, Obama did run on a platform of being the anti-Bush. That doesn't mean that he can be 100% different than Bush (or any other president) in every way. I mean, he's still the president and has to do the same job, deal with many of the same people and the bureaucracy that Bush did and that every president has to. He has to deal with what Bush left to him. Coming in and flipping the country upside-down wouldn't be the healthiest thing to do with the country. Some things are going to remain the same, at least until he can clean up the mess he inherited.

He IS very different than Bush in many ways. Obama has a very different world view. He cares about our position in the world. He respects other countries. Obama's not a "Bully". He's intelligent, well-spoken, and his political opinions are VERY different than Bush's. He's willing to admit mistakes, change his mind when he's wrong, he is very concerned about equal rights, he's a great problem-solver, he's open-minded... I could go on and on about the differences.

Them are my thoughts.

Edit spelling

[edit on 3/10/2010 by Benevolent Heretic]

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


I agree somewhat BH, however I think that sometimes Obama needs to incorporate more of Bush's style when he's trying to get things past.

He's too nice to tell you the truth, there's being a pully and then being a kitty cat, he's doing the ladder of the two.

I wish he'd grow a pair and get some things done. IT doesn't matter whether republicans support his agenda, he has the votes.

Progress is progress..

~Keeper

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


sure he can, if hes really commander in chief and has all the power hes suppose to have then he can reverse everything... but of course we know he doesnt cause he is a puppet to banking and big business interests who are the real masters in our society of capitalist greed. they dont want whats good for us, they want whats good for them... america is a fascist bankocracy run from the Fed. its all very simple and plain to see for me..

I do have to agree with you that Obama has been almost mimicking Bush's footsteps, but what do you expect? Left and Right are almost exactly the same and it is hard change everything wrong in the executive branch in just one year of being in office. And you are right he is too nice to get the things that he wants done.

With the national economic crisis and two wars he inherited, I don't know what else he could have done besides cancel everything the Bush administration did. He had to stay the course of certain things just to end them correctly, whether it meant breaking campaign promises or not. By now we shouldn't expect any politician to keep them, I don't know how most of us were duped into believing Obama was some how different.

However, I think the Obama administration's economic policies are godlike compared to the Bush administration's. If you look at any stock on the stock market from the beginning of 2009 (when Obama took office) to now, you will see a trend of rapid growth following the end of 2007-beginning of 2008 recession. It wasn't just the stimulus or bailout bills that did this. It was the confidence the Obama administration's policies (or the ending of the Bush-era policies) gave to investors.

www.marketwatch.com...
Type in any stock symbol you can think of at the top search box, then click 3y under the chart and look for yourself.

[edit on 10-3-2010 by tooo many pills]

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
I think that sometimes Obama needs to incorporate more of Bush's style when he's trying to get things past.

I feel that way at times, too. But I really have to give him credit for his dedication to bipartisanship. I wish he would be more of a Bully at times, too, but it's not who he is. He REALLY wants Democrats and Republicans to work together to govern the nation. REALLY. It might be a "pie in the sky" dream, but he's really going for it. He's stubborn and he campaigned on "changing the way things are done in Washington" and that's what he's trying to do with this bipartisan dream. He's trying to use compromise, discussions, etc to get a plan that both parties can agree on. It seems impossible at times (most times) but he's determined to change the GOP from the party of NO to the party that helps govern the country.

This is all a game for the amusement of you guys don't you get it. They are exactly the same and all they do is put a little spin on it for the weak of mind. They want exactly the same thing POWER. And the constitution and our rights are just a speed bump in the road to getting what they want.

They both believe in the same thing just one side goes really fast and the other a little slower. It still reaches the same end point and the faster we wake up to that the better.



I love all of my hardcore liberal friends who hated the war and the patriot act. Guess what they have flipped it was not about the issue but who was selling it to them. The issues mean nothing it is all about the delivery. What a sad state America has become. We deserve to fail and our apathy will be the cause.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Dedication to bi-partisanship? He looked shocked at the Republican response to his health care summit. No Obama is not interested in working w/Rep. All he and Pelosi and Reid are looking at is their "legacy". Not so many people would lack healthcare if the federal government was dealing with the economy. Instead they keep pushing a bill that would be practical when the economy is actually recovering. Other than their political offices what are they giving up to pass it? The typical American stands to have a lot change due to this bill. The pols who created it still have their sweet congressional plan.

Originally posted by hangedman13
All he and Pelosi and Reid are looking at is their "legacy".

I do agree that their legacy is important to them. (I don't know how Pelosi and Reid got into this. They are entirely different people and I don't believe we were talking about them at all.)

And I believe Obama wants to leave a legacy of successfully working with those of the other major party. I don't think it's such a bad thing to want.

I'm sorry, the rest of your post seems to be a general rant against the government and I'm not sure why it's posted here. I don't see what it has to do with Bush V Obama...

[edit on 3/10/2010 by Benevolent Heretic]

I couldn't agree more that Obama is indeed making the same mistakes as Bush.

What has to be understood to make sense of this observation is the fact that Obama like Bush is really not in control of anything. Everything we see in Obama we saw in Bush. Puppets for those that control what agendas get pursued, and maintain certain agendas no matter who the president is and no matter what party affiliation the president may represent.

Obama like Bush are nothing but sock puppets doing the bidding of those that control everything about the presidency and what really goes on behind the scenes. As such, it really is no surprise that Obama pursues what Bush began because in reality the president is doing the bidding of those that remain unseen so that they can continue to control matters while confusing the masses as to what is going on.

Anyway, thanks for the posting.

Well this how I see it, Obama is following Bushes step because they are slaves to the same masters, plain and simple.

If people have not waken up yet to see how politics are played for the delight of the patriotic population to then fall back into what has become the trend in Washingtons policies of the same and maintaining the status quo, then perhaps we are as stupid and dumb as those running our government think we are.

I cant help but to ahhhh ahhhhh ahhhhh WONDER! ahhh ahhhh ahhhh why folks ahhh continue to uhhhh ahhhh refer to Obama as ahhh as a ahhhh GOOD SPEAKER!.

Throw a couple of like's in there and he speaks about as well as a tenth grade valley girl.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


People always make this argument, and I can't help but wonder if they're just being obtuse. But I will explain it here, in hopes that it will answer the question that's been plaguing your brain.

When people say that Obama is a good speaker, they mean that he's intelligent and can deliver a speech (that he co-wrote) with emotion, inspiration, conviction and meaning, much like JFK, MLK and FDR. It's not about the way he talks off the cuff. Even I get a bit uncomfortable with the "ahhhs" when Obama is speaking in an interview. I suspect it's a habit he has developed to fill the time while his brain is working out how to complete his thought into a well-formed sentence.

[edit on 3/11/2010 by Benevolent Heretic]

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Even I get a bit uncomfortable with the "ahhhs" when Obama is speaking in an interview. I suspect it's a habit he has developed to fill the time while his brain is working out how to complete his thought into a well-formed sentence.

[edit on 3/11/2010 by Benevolent Heretic]

Other often used tactics by politicians to buy "thinking time" are..

-- to ask someone to repeat the question...even though you heard it.

-- Answer the question with a memorized talking point.."empty rhetoric"
Often the answer does not answer the question at all.

-- Bounce the same question back in a different way..."I am more interested in what the American people think we should do about the problem"

etc. etc. etc.

In the end I am just relieved to have a POTUS that genuinely THINKS and responds directly to questions.

During everyday conversations, people often sprinkle their speech with utterances such as “uh”, “um”, “like”, “you know”, etc. Linguists and psychologists consider this speech pattern, called “disfluency”, to be normal. Disfluences are defined as “phenomena that interrupt the flow of speech and do not add propositional content to an utterance”. In other words, useless vocalizations (although some researchers propose that speech pauses and fillers aid in listener understanding of what’s coming next).

womeninwetlands.blogspot.com...

Here is a posting from a speech pathologist that sums it up nicely...

The first time my spouse listened to some disfluent Obama responses a few weeks ago (he had not been paying attention to the campaign before then), he also made some negative assumptions about his speaking, adding something along the lines that for someone with such a reputation for speaking he appeared to be stumbling in his answers to some questions.

Obama is pretty consistently disfluent when being interviewed, not just in debates. I myself am pretty disfluent in similar situations. Neither of us would be considered clinically impaired, but we do fall in the normal spectrum of speakers who are relatively more disfluent, relating to some underlying cognitive and linguistic traits. And yes, it can in some individuals be related to a tendency to think carefully along with differences in speed of retrieval of precise words to express intent. Word retrieval performance can vary significantly within an individual according to situation, physical state (think fatigue), context, and even age (at 53 I am hitting a more disfluent period myself).

I'd like to add that as a graduate student I once had a job of trying to find 15 seconds of perfectly fluent speech in recorded samples of teacher education candidates that had provided samples during a speech screening (they were asked to talk about themselves and mostly provided "memories"), and it was an excruciatingly tedious task for me, as these so-called "typical speakers" rarely could talk for more than 5-10 seconds before becoming disfluent. I went through literally scores of candidates just to find a small number of fluent clips needed for the study.

Unexamined assumptions and stereotypes lead to faulty conclusions here.

letters.salon.com...

reply to post by maybereal11


I had heard something similar. I'd rather hear the "uhhh"s than more talking points or other evasive techniques. Thanks for posting that.

I also found this light-hearted comparison between Bush and Obama.

Top Ten Differences Between Bush & Obama

Obama, unlike Bush:

1. Has no plans to invade any new oil countries.
2. Knows who president of Pakistan is
3. Knows how to safely consume pretzels
4. Does not take orders from his veep
5. Not on vacation 40% of time
6. Clears away Bush's harm, rather than clearing brush on farm
7. Worried about 47 million uninsured, not about 47 thousand idle rich multi-millionaires
8. Not removing oversight from bankers on theory that financiers would never steal from own bank!
9. does not believe US menaced by Gog and Magog
10. Not ignoring threat of al-Qaeda

[edit on 3/11/2010 by Benevolent Heretic]

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Hahah^^^

Bush sure did love clearing brush constantly for 146 days a year. Crawford must have been spotless. "Ya'll keep fighting the wars while I'm gone, but don't go nucular without me."