Special Classifieds Feature

Buy Washington Post Inauguration newspapers, books, and more

RECENT POSTS
READER PICKS
Let us know what you are reading. We'll post Reader Picks throughout the day.
RELATED LINKS
The Rundown

4:30 p.m. ET: Is the GOP the party of "no'? By now you've heard that refrain plenty of times, and Democrats will ensure that you hear it many times more. Democrats were heartened by David Brooks' column in the New York Times today, which helpfully suggested that when it comes to economic policy, "The G.O.P. leaders have adopted a posture that allows the Democrats to make all the proposals while all the Republicans can say is 'no.'"

Brooks was not talking about the omnibus appropriations bill, which is currently grinding its way toward passage in the Senate, but no matter. Speaking to reporters today, Harry Reid lamented that the spending bill "has taken far too long." He then cited the Brooks column in saying of Republicans, "It just seems that they're saying no to everything."

Of course, from the GOP's perspective, as Mitch McConnell pointed out today, what they're saying "no" to is the 8 percent increase in domestic spending contained in the omnibus bill. And McConnell certainly hopes the Senate says no to the Employee Free Choice Act, which was introduced today with uncertain prospects for passage. Asked about the bill's chances, McConnell said, "I certainly hope they're bleak."

10:45 a.m. ET: Amid all the gloom and doom nowadays, wouldn't it be nice to hear just a little bit of good news? Well, here it is -- now you can get Political Browser updates on Twitter! Just head over to postbrowser and start following. We have no illusions we'll ever be as popular as TheFix, but maybe we can pick up some of his scraps.

8 a.m. ET: Today is the 50th day of Barack Obama's presidency -- halfway to the magic 100 -- and elite opinion is remarkably split on his tenure so far. Has he been transformational or conventional? Ambitious and broad, or scattered and unfocused? Is he an instinctive centrist forced by the economic crisis to propose historically huge programs, or is he really a "socialist" whose real goal is to engineer a permanent government expansion?

First, it's worth noting that public opinion remains strongly on Obama's side. Gallup pegs his job approval at 62 percent, within single digits of where he's been since Inauguration Day. (His disapproval has gone up more since Day 1, but remains relatively low at 25 percent.) And many of Obama's individual actions have been welcomed by voters, including his centerpiece $787 billion economic stimulus package, which inspired a mix of poll results but generally continues to be more popular than not. Obama's acting on the right side of the polls continued right up through yesterday, when his move to reverse President Bush's policy on stem cell research got the support of a (narrow) majority.

Outside the court of public opinion and inside the political class, the verdict is less clear. On the right, conservatives appear to have grown gradually more disappointed with Obama's actions, beginning with their united opposition to the stimulus package, moving through their scathing criticism of the president's budget and the omnibus spending bill, and continuing right up until yesterday's (completely predictable) move on stem cells. The unanswered question is whether Republicans really expected much different from a Democratic president, and whether they really anticipated more "bipartisanship" from Obama or are just seizing the tactical opportunity to turn his rhetoric against him.

On the left, Obama has gotten praise for the stimulus (though maybe it could have been bigger), for the budget and for repudiating Bush policies on issues like stem cells, torture and signing statements (though maybe he should be tougher with his predecessor). The jury is still out on some other key Democratic priorities, particularly the Employee Free Choice Act, which is now coming down the legislative pike -- without the required 60 votes, so far -- even as Obama's level of commitment to passing the bill isn't completely clear. And as The Fix points out this morning, many liberals are unhappy with Obama's suggestion that hundreds of billions more might be required to bail out the financial system.

There is little question on either side of the aisle that Obama came into office with a lot on his plate -- the banking crisis, the meltdown in Detroit, Afghanistan, Iran, Gaza -- and then chose to heap on even more, proposing an ambitious budget and talking openly of sweeping reform on health care, Social Security and other big-ticket items that could easily chew up large chunks of any conventional presidency. Today, for example, Obama is tackling education after hitting stem cells yesterday, health care last week and Iraq before that. Is he a man in too much of a hurry, or just responding to these extraordinary times? Perhaps we'll have a better idea when we get to 100 days

By Ben Pershing  |  March 10, 2009; 8:05 AM ET
Go to full archive for The Rundown »

COMMENTS

Please email us to report offensive comments.



Why is 100 days so magical? 100 is purely an arbitrary number, no more significant than 99, 101, or even 365. Since the Post is commemorating the first 50, perhaps they can inform us as to why. As a brief note, the reference to the first 100 days, began with FDR. Since then the world and the governing structure of the U.S. has changed, evolved, and increased in complexity. These are but a few of the reasons, we should be wary of drawing comparisons and analogies from the past to the present.

Posted by: ben91aro | March 10, 2009 8:55 AM

A brief lesson for ben91aro, the first 100 days of an administration has historically been viewed as the honeymoon period for a new president. Because of the economy and many controversial moves made by Obama, this period may be lengthened or shortened, depending on the media and whether his Oneness is perceived as making any headway. With this writer, Obama has appeared confused and unfocused thus far. My fear that we are seeing another Carter administration is palpable and grounded in the lack of consensus on anything and the total lack of clarity in what is on the table. Relying on House and Senate Democrats is a recipe foe disaster. He was elected to lead, not delagate.

Posted by: stvcar | March 10, 2009 10:19 AM

Thanks for the 'lesson.' But, my question was rhetorical. The first 100 days became significant with FDR, which in the span of U.S. history, is not much of a precedent. Particularly considering the unique landscape confronting the U.S. at that time.

My issue and reason for this post, is to demonstrate how the press manipulates terminology to suit their own marketing objectives. Just as I question the first 100-days, I question the term honeymoon. There is no honeymoon period. While perceived it is non-existent. You seem to use 100-days and honeymoon synonymously. But they have completely different meanings. Moreover, if 100-days is the honeymoon period, there can be no extension should new developments occur. This was not the case with FDR and he faced a more turbulent world than that of today.

So, my question remains. Why does the Post and other news outlets, think that 100-days is magical? T

Posted by: ben91aro | March 10, 2009 10:39 AM

To the writer who said Obama has been unfocused, I suggest you go through campaign 08 again. Everything Obama has done and is doing,he said he would. So maybe you were hoping he would be another politician that says something and does something else. And as far as delegating tasks is considered, maybe you were in an amnesia the past 8 yrs-that is what got Bush into troublind-doing things by himself along with Cheney. Being from the Senate, Obama is smart enough to realize that in order to get anything done he needs to go through the sausagemaking process, also known as congress. He has done more than any other president in recent memory in the first 50 days, so I suggest you take a break from your carter socialism days. Its funny how conservatives love to bring up Carter-but don't realize Bush will be seen as a worse president than Carter. I say, to all those who did not vote for Obama or do not care for him to succeed, I hear flights are kind of cheap-so move along. No matter how bad Bush was, I never wanted him to fail- because if he failed... I failed. Just remember the voters are not stupid and if we think that the republicans are not helping and just obstructing, you think you are out of power now. Looks like the Green Party will push the G.O.P right out of 2nd place. Herbert Hoover time, indeed.

Posted by: titilayo3 | March 10, 2009 11:53 AM

"Great Conciliator" Must Do More than Co-opt -- He Must Lead


POLICIES, 'BLACK OPS' JUSTIFIED UNDER BUSH DOJ 'TORTURE MEMOS' REMAIN ACTIVE...

DOING GREAT HARM TO INNOCENT AMERICANS AND TO THE RULE OF LAW.

YOU MUST ACT NOW, BEFORE THE 'END GAME' IS PLAYED OUT.


President Obama does not yet seem to be cognizant of a frightening reality -- that the Bush "torture memos" were used to justify "programs of personal destruction" that REMAIN IN PLACE ON HIS WATCH.

Obama must come to realize that federal agencies and commands have enabled the ONGOING covert microwave radiation weapons torture and physical degradation of U.S. citizens deemed "undesirables," "mental defectives" and "dissidents"...

...as well as the nationwide GPS-enabled "community gang stalking" of U.S. citizens, who are hunted down like prey by citizen vigilante goons as "target" vehicles and implanted GPS devices enter the "crown of evil" GPS screen grid of the gang-stalkers.

It appears that Obama and most liberal/progressives have yet to realize that the "war on terror" appears to have been a premeditated pretext for an American genocide/politicide -- a horrific silent holocaust that has destroyed, and continues to destroy, untold thousands, if not millions, of American families and no doubt has contributed to economic tumult.

One person who WAS aware, and deserves vindication, is the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

What has been happened since the dawning of the Bush administration has turned a just society into the "US of KKK-A," as harsh and impolitic as that sounds.

And the 21st century version of the Klan -- an American Gestapo -- remains on the march -- hiding behind covert federal "programs of personal financial destruction" and federally-funded community policing and town watch programs co-sponsored by local law enforcement nationwide.

President Obama must act immediately to restore American civil and human rights -- because each day he delays, the forces running these programs, the forces who will resist whatever "change" his presidency offers, are one day closer to making it impossible him to fulfill the "hope" he still embodies.

For more on "Gestapo USA" and why team Obama must move immediately to dismantle the Bush-Cheney "extrajudicial punishment network"...

http://My.NowPublic.com/scrivener

PS. -- Anyone reading this with access to decision-makers on Team Obama (notably, David Axelrod) and in Congress: Please send them this missive.

Posted by: scrivener50 | March 10, 2009 12:10 PM

I don't understand the high popularity rating of Obama. Could it be that I am one of the very few voters displeased with the President's lack of action to the economic crisis? I just don't see 62% of the people happy with his policies, unless, those people polled aren't taxpayers or voters.

I have discomfort watching Obama address the nation on television because he never once looks you in the eye (eyes the camera). In Orange County, California, there was a sheriff, "America's Sheriff" as quoted by a CNN commentator, that spoke in the same manner as Obama, always looking away from the camera, tilting his head up away from the lens. That sheriff was recently convicted of a felony and was forced to resign. Both men has the same mannerisms when speaking. I do not trust either.

Posted by: dodavatar | March 10, 2009 7:08 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

© 2010 The Washington Post Company