Is Obama tough enough?

Obama is the first legislator to be President of the United States in a long, long time. And this is a material fact only in terms of his style of governing, which accepts the process of things as being somewhat of a fait accompli, when most Americans and the journalists who explain politics to them, have a Harrison Ford-type action movie character in mind about how a President should do his job.

To wit, the belief that the Lieberman or Nelsons of the world dont have incentives separate and apart from the White House, and if only Obama would bring them to the Oval Office and start screaming at the top of his lungs, or threatening them in some way, that he could bend their will to his. Its hysterical to listen to that sort of lunacy for me.

Political journalism is like "Around the Horn." 95% focus on personality and barking real loud, 5% analysis as to what happens on the field/in the real world. That isn't the worst column of all time, given its ability to recognize and critique, not just parrot, conventional wisdom. So reasonable people can disagree as to whether Seib is more like Jackie MacMullen or JA Adande. It'd be unfair to call him a Mariotti or Plashke.

Right on money, Ezra.

More lines like this please:
" If Obama punched 50 pit bulls in the face and then defeated them in hand-to-hand combat, but still refused to torture detainees, what would that do to his toughness quotient?"

Personality is awesome!

@zeppelin003: I'm not sure why you see attempts to maintain party discipline as lunacy, but campaign funds are important to every legislator and the president can certainly affect the distribution of those funds to "encourage" certain behaviors.

BigTunaTim, but the question is, "Will this get the bill passed?" Dropping monetary support for a Leiberman might be tough, but would it make the bill pass? People that want to enforce party discipline never get specific with me about how that moves a specific bill forward to passage.

"If Obama punched 50 pit bulls in the face and then defeated them in hand-to-hand combat"

No punching pit bulls. Or any other animals, for that matter.

Personally, from a party unity perspective, I'd like to see some evidence that the Administration would actually beat up on recalcitrant Democrats. Either through the media--by getting people out there mucking up these people's names--or through their allies in Congress--by threatening committee chairmanships and whatnot. In other words, I want to believe that Eric Massa is telling the truth about being a victim of Rahm's Machiavellian methods. But I can't.

Of course, it's possible that the reason I can't believe it is that the Administration is either really good or really bad at Machiavellianism. In which case, I say, go with your strengths as long as you get the job done. And let's be honest, it's that not getting the job done part that's the real issue here.

"People that want to enforce party discipline never get specific with me about how that moves a specific bill forward to passage."

As someone who does believe that certain well-conceived punishments do act as deterrents, I would say that sending a "This could happen to you too" message would at least dissuade others from straying too far off the reservation.

"@zeppelin003: I'm not sure why you see attempts to maintain party discipline as lunacy, but campaign funds are important to every legislator and the president can certainly affect the distribution of those funds to "encourage" certain behaviors."

They can impact it, but the question is to what extent and whether that's a smart strategy.

a.) Candidates have much more leeway in running campaigns in America than in other democracies. They have sources of funding independent of the party. Indeed, one of the most talked about phenomena of the past few cycles is the development of a small-money donating class...which is totally outside the realm of the party. So, it's of some question whether Obama, or the party, has as much say in this as we might think.

b.) Incumbents win. And usually big. Let's say the Dems threaten a Democratic incumbent and that incumbent wins. (Mind you, also, that money for incumbents isn't as important as it is for challengers, since the latter have to do the heavy lifting to get people interested in them, make themselves known, attack the incumbent etc). Well, Obama would have one less ally in the House/Senate, wouldn't he? He'd have another Lieberman on his hands. Maybe loyal on some measures, but willing to be a pain in the ass, since the lesson learned is that the candidate can buck the party (gaining benefits most likely) while suffering little.

y2josh_us gets the gold star here!

This isn't a parliamentary democracy, or even the Chicago democratic machine (as so many of Obama's detractors like to haul out and offend half my family in the process btw) where you can just drop someone's name from the ticket. Life in American politics really doesn't work like Clay Davis and Clarence Royce from The Wire would have you believe!!!

Mr Nelson of Nebraska, Lincoln of Arkansas, Artur Davis from Alabama, any number of other Southern or otherwise conservative Democrats do not have the same liberal base as Barack Obama, they in most cases got elected from places that this this "muslim" isnt even an American! So the idea that he has some massive leverage through campaign donations or whatever else to hold over these elected politicians is comical.

The good news is he knows this much, what I wish Obama would also demonstrate more of is a willingness to accept that regardless of his good intentions or the desires of at least some people in this country, bipartisanship is mission impossible, now and forever. And so what?!

To toughen hisself up, he oughtta buy hisself a ranch with no cattle 'n a pair a cowboy boots. That'd make'im one tough hombre, see?

Ha! bsimon1 huh. Good to finally hear from you Mr President, tell Laura we all said hi.

The dude bet his whole presidency on healthcare reform. That's toughness. He hasn't always been as courageous as I might like on the fine print, but in the big picture, this is a president, to borrow a Colbertism, with huevos grandes.

Tough Enough??? Does an amoeba have a spine???.. You Decide!

Either Obama is not "tough" enough to achieve his goals (I.e. health reform, gitmo, changing Bush policies) or he is not "smart" enough. You can use a lot of adjectives to describe a lot of Obama's goals - an underlying theme is that they are not being accomplished. People that do not accomplish things are considered weak - whats the opposite of weak?

IT IS ABOUT TIME WE HAVE A PRESIDENT WHO IS TRYING. PRESIDENT IKE WAS THE FIRST I VOTED FOR... HE STOOD HIS GROUND AND PASSED THE INTERSTATE HYWAYS ACT. IT HAS PAID FOR ITSELF MANY TIMES
PRESIDENT OBAMA IS STANDING ON HEALTH CARE ONLY GREED WILL STOP IT.
WE NEED IT NOW. AND THEN HAVE BOTH PARTYS REFINE IT WITHOUT 4500 LOBBIST IN THE WAY.

IT IS ABOUT TIME WE HAVE A PRESIDENT WHO IS TRYING. PRESIDENT IKE WAS THE FIRST I VOTED FOR... HE STOOD HIS GROUND AND PASSED THE INTERSTATE HYWAYS ACT. IT HAS PAID FOR ITSELF MANY TIMES
PRESIDENT OBAMA IS STANDING ON HEALTH CARE ONLY GREED WILL STOP IT.
WE NEED IT NOW. AND THEN HAVE BOTH PARTYS REFINE IT WITHOUT 4500 LOBBIST IN THE WAY.

Asking a liberal to define and/or apply "toughness" is like asking Lindsay Lohan to recognize "milkaholic" is not a phrase she need mount a vigorous defense. When a history of behavior exists, we already know what we're facing.

Punishing Dems that vote against the party might increase party discipline down the road, but it's not clear to me that it helps this bill get passed right now. Who knows, maybe it would be a good thing to have a more unified party. I think it's just as likely to make it a smaller party as vulnerable Dems either switch parties or lose to Republican challengers, but maybe it would be a good thing to make an example out of a few of the worst cases.

My point is that that's something you can achieve down the road, after the example has been made an the errant Dem punished. There's just not a lot of leverage that I can see right now to get most legislators in line in time for it to help this paticular bill pass.

It's all part of the meme - bowing before foreign dictators, not nuking Iran, not nuking Chavez, not nuking Cuba, allowing the Chinese to smirk, plotting the dollar's debasement... If you look close enough, there's a lot of sexism at work here.

It's all part of the internationalist half-breed sexually abused by communists no-father, mother an ivy-towered leftist who probably made art with the blood of aborted fetuses story line that the 20% dead-enders are feeding each other every day. Yeah, he could mud wrestle a walrus and it wouldn't make any difference.

Pretty sharp analysis, Ezra. The Obama mystery is not about toughness, though that cannot be wholly excluded. It's about real politique. But, the President has muddled how we all view his agenda.

The Nation needs leadership not another '20 Mule Team Salesman' with ready quips, gags, and a total vacuum between his ears.

Let's first put lipstick on those 50 pit bulls. Any Avon ladies here?

The problem is that once the initial euphoria over BO's election was gone, and his ratings started to go down the Moderate Dems saw no reason to blindly follow him and Repubs certainly saw no reason to agree with BO. After all BO was a JUNIOR SENATOR when elected. Most of Congress has MUCH more experience than he does.

Thats why electing past Govs has been a better practice, since they already have experience bartering their positions! BO has the LEAST experience this century of any elected President!

iF "ADVERSITY IS THE TEST OF STRONG MEN," THEN THE PRESIDENT IS ONE OF THE STRONGEST IN GOVERNMENT. IF THE POEM "IF" IS ANY INDICATION OF CHARACTER, THEN THE PRESIDENT EXCELS.
IF SMALL MINDS, PETTINESS, CORRUPTION, DISCRIMINATION, IGNORANCE AND GREED IS THE NORM, I SUGGEST THE PRESIDENT PUT ON THE WHOLE ARMOUR OF GOD TO FIGHT THOSE EVIL SPIRITS. STAY TRUE TO YOUR VALUES MR. PRESIDENT. THERE IS ANOTHER JUDGEMENT DAY COMMING.

"Tough" is an unfortunately loaded word. It sets liberal teeth on edge because it triggers images of "macho." It can also signify hard-headed. Bad word.

What we should fault Obama for is a lack of moral clarity, which is a defining characteristic of strong leaders. Even his strongest supporters consider his "nuanced" positions to be an asset, while it simply confuses others. Obama seems to doubt himself and his own choices.
When he announced the new nuclear power plants in Georgia, he spend a significant portion of the speech second-guessing his own decision by outlining reasons against nuclear energy.
He has backtracked repeatedly on his own promises and decisions, often denying that he has, although our "lying eyes" can easily see the truth on video.

A strong leader makes his position clear to his supporters and opponents. If he is wrong, he admits it, and does not blame others. He moves forward, not wallowing in what went before. And he never, never whines. Ever.

As Klein points out, Obama can be rolled. Our allies and our foes all know it. The only ones who don't seem to recognize this significant weakness are the koolaid drinkers, willing to take any crumbs of "progressive" movement they might be able to gain.
Obama is who Obama is. He can't change his fuzzy, nuanced stripes.

I do not like Obama's radical agenda so if asked what i would like him to do, I would ask that he stop pushing this horrific invasive expensive pathetic anything but cost reform health care takeover by the Feds. He should concentrate on jobs but that is laughable since he has no clue or experience to do that. His Stimulu I stimulated the palms of special interests. He has racked up the deficit to an embarrassing level. The Climate and Tax bill is a fraud based on fraudulent numbers. He has appointed people as inexperienced as himself to positions they should not be near.
Well, that made me sick. I guess I would ask him to resign for the good of the country.

When I saw the column lead "Is Obama tough enough?" I thought this would be about Israel.

It is not so much the shouting at the Democrats to do his bidding, it is Obama's
push for them to "hurry & get it done" quickly, when , he himself, dillies & dallies before he comes to a decision, a decision he soon changes.
His rushing them resulted in that miserable stimulus bill in which no oversight of the financial industries was written, no ban on huge bonuses made, with no decree that the money be used to help those losing their homes, or helping small businesses, or helping expand the job market. But those getting earmarks got them easily enough.
The Dems didn't learn their lesson. He again rushed Congress to get a health care plan finished & when it was done, it was the most miserable concoction of bribery, inequality, use of lobbyists, catering to the insurance & drug industries, at excessive cost, an attack on Medicare, a bill requiring massive tax hikes,& more.
HASTE MAKES WASTE should be branded on every Congressman's forehead.
Good bills can not be written in haste!They must be gone thru with a fine tooth comb, seeing that all for whom the bill is being written will benefit, equally, at the least possible cost. Lobbyists must be left out of all negotiations. Has any of those foreign nation inexpensive health care bills been written with the help of lobbyists?
A good bill is possible if, before a bill is written, the insurance & drug industries are regulated. After that, a bill would be simpler to write & Congress
could sail along, now knowing the sticking points, & being able to counter them.
As for Obama's toughness, where was this toughness with the banking industry & Wall St., where it was rightly needed? He complained loudly about them but kept his mouth shut when he convened with them. He later bellowed at them again when they weren't around but never followed thru. He bellowed at the auto industry, didn't he? Was there no one there that he was afraid of?
Why doesn't he talk tough to the insurance industry? Or the pharmaceutical industry?
That would be a good thing but, so far, he has shied away from doing so. When, according to Obama, is it necessary for him to be tough? I don't think he knows the answer. He's still groping around.

TO jbowen431....The Israelis can out tough anybody. Obama wouldn't dare order them about. He'd send Hillary.

Please accept a standing ovation from me.

do not like Obama's radical agenda so if asked what i would like him to do, I would ask that he stop pushing this horrific invasive expensive pathetic anything but cost reform health care takeover by the Feds. He should concentrate on jobs but that is laughable since he has no clue or experience to do that. His Stimulu I stimulated the palms of special interests. He has racked up the deficit to an embarrassing level. The Climate and Tax bill is a fraud based on fraudulent numbers. He has appointed people as inexperienced as himself to positions they should not be near.
Well, that made me sick. I guess I would ask him to resign for the good of the country.
****************************************************************************************** Is this guy under the influence or what, maybe president Obama should invade another country, killed hundreds of thousands of people, violate the Constitution, torture to make these people happy and never complaint about the deficit.

Tough? Who cares? The real problem is a lack of experience and an inability to focus and prioritize and get things done. He's looking more and more like some college kid occupying the White House.

I voted for him, but the choices were admittedly terrible. These are tough times for Americans, and we need a focused and hopeful president, not someone jumping from one costly program to another. I agree that Obama was handed a bag of dirt, but he hasn't shifted gears quickly enough to forcefully deal with the economic situation in which we find ourselves.

BO has an idealogical one track mind (extreme left wing in case anyone missed it) and has no room upstairs for anything else - NOT TOUGH JUST RABID!

Napoleon, George Washington, Churchill, De Gaulle were tough. They did not speak tough. They acted tough. They were of steel and that is why they had their way even when the odds were against them. Obama is weak The Palestinian status quo
is a blatant proof. Obama is a puppet on an a string pulled by Israel like it or not.
With Israel even a "Talleyrand "would get mowhere. You dont ask Israel please do this.
You TELL them or else you will get nowhere.
DRAW A LINE IN THE SAND ONCE AND FOR ALL
Mr President and TELL Israel to allow the
creation of a Palestinian state. It is your chance to become a Great President.
This tale which began 1n 1947 ( 63 years ago ) which Chaucer would have called the " Tale that bever ends. But it must end and fast. That is before Israel attacks Iran and the U.S Pays the price .
Will Obama raise to the occasion ? The jury is still out. But if he wants to leave his mark on History he must get Israel to OBEY. And to be obtain this Obama has to become A MAN OF STEEL. Never mind Lincoln whom I know you admire. Read
the story of the man who gave birth to the
greatest nation on earth, GEORGE WASHINGTON

Sorry, gang, but "toughness" is what the POTUS sorely lacks. He is unable to support his own Healthcare package, because like many of us, he doesn't know what in hell is covered by the bill....and he gives every indication that he doesn't care, either. All he wants is his "legacy" not to be tarnished. That's hard to do if you are a member of a rather effete salon composed primarliy of folks who never really have worked a day in their lives, but assume that their "stature" will always carry the day for them.
Guess what?
It won't.

Sorry, gang, but "toughness" is what the POTUS sorely lacks. He is unable to support his own Healthcare package, because like many of us, he doesn't know what in hell is covered by the bill....and he gives every indication that he doesn't care, either. All he wants is his "legacy" not to be tarnished. That's hard to do if you are a member of a rather effete salon composed primarliy of folks who never really have worked a day in their lives, but assume that their "stature" will always carry the day for them.
Guess what?
It won't.

What about the combination of tough but lazy? It's so clear he doesn't have any sense of what is in the bill, and argues in generalities. He was completely flummoxed by Paul Ryan and also, incidentally, by the evident diligence that had gone into Ryan's argument. "The time for talking is over.." "Everything has been said..." These can only be the words of someone uneasy about his own ability to discuss things in detail.

It's really amazing the extent to which posturing is seen as the same as governing. I think it has a lot to do with TV and the extent to which politics is viewed through that medium. TV is about soundbytes and images. It's tought to explain health-care on TV (althought the media could sure do a better job than they are now).

it is more important to be strong rather than tough,
wise rather than glib,
patient rather than petulant,
steady rather than unnerved.
president obama is calm, thoughtful, smart and a great leader.

he has already pulled us from the jaws of disaster, and soon we will have health care reform passed.
he is doing a wonderful job.
and for whatever it is worth, after health care reform is passed, i think his approval ratings are going to be high, and he is going to be greatly loved and admired:-)

i love our president and the first lady.
everyday that they are in the white house, is a good day for me:-)