Obama increasingly comes across as devious and dishonest.

• By DUMB CUNT AND BUTT-HURT PEGGY NOONAN

Something's happening to President Obama's relationship with those who are inclined not to like his policies. They are now inclined not to like him. His supporters would say, "Nothing new there," but actually I think there is. I'm referring to the broad, stable, nonradical, non-birther right. Among them the level of dislike for the president has ratcheted up sharply the past few months.

It's not due to the election, and it's not because the Republican candidates are so compelling and making such brilliant cases against him. That, actually, isn't happening.

What is happening is that the president is coming across more and more as a trimmer, as an operator who's not operating in good faith. This is hardening positions and leading to increased political bitterness. And it's his fault, too. As an increase in polarization is a bad thing, it's a big fault.



The shift started on Jan. 20, with the mandate that agencies of the Catholic Church would have to provide birth-control services the church finds morally repugnant. The public reaction? "You're kidding me. That's not just bad judgment and a lack of civic tact, it's not even constitutional!" Faced with the blowback, the president offered a so-called accommodation that even its supporters recognized as devious. Not ill-advised, devious. Then his operatives flooded the airwaves with dishonest—not wrongheaded, dishonest—charges that those who defend the church's religious liberties are trying to take away your contraceptives.

What a sour taste this all left. How shocking it was, including for those in the church who'd been in touch with the administration and were murmuring about having been misled.

Events of just the past 10 days have contributed to the shift. There was the open-mic conversation with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in which Mr. Obama pleaded for "space" and said he will have "more flexibility" in his negotiations once the election is over and those pesky voters have done their thing. On tape it looked so bush-league, so faux-sophisticated. When he knew he'd been caught, the president tried to laugh it off by comically covering a mic in a following meeting. It was all so . . . creepy.

Next, a boy of 17 is shot and killed under disputed and unclear circumstances. The whole issue is racially charged, emotions are high, and the only memorable words from the president's response were, "If I had a son he'd look like Trayvon." At first it seemed OK—not great, but all right—but as the story continued and suddenly there were death threats and tweeted addresses and congressmen in hoodies, it seemed insufficient to the moment. At the end of the day, the public reaction seemed to be: "Hey buddy, we don't need you to personalize what is already too dramatic, it's not about you."
Now this week the Supreme Court arguments on ObamaCare, which have made that law look so hollow, so careless, that it amounts to a characterological indictment of the administration. The constitutional law professor from the University of Chicago didn't notice the centerpiece of his agenda was not constitutional?

How did that happen?

Maybe a stinging decision is coming, maybe not, but in a purely political sense this is how it looks: We were in crisis in 2009—we still are—and instead of doing something strong and pertinent about our economic woes, the president wasted history's time. He wasted time that was precious—the debt clock is still ticking!—by following an imaginary bunny that disappeared down a rabbit hole.

The high court's hearings gave off an overall air not of political misfeasance but malfeasance.
All these things have hardened lines of opposition, and left opponents with an aversion that will not go away.
I am not saying that the president has a terrible relationship with the American people. I'm only saying he's made his relationship with those who oppose him worse.

In terms of the broad electorate, I'm not sure he really has a relationship. A president only gets a year or two to forge real bonds with the American people. In that time a crucial thing he must establish is that what is on his mind is what is on their mind. This is especially true during a crisis.

From the day Mr. Obama was sworn in, what was on the mind of the American people was financial calamity—unemployment, declining home values, foreclosures. These issues came within a context of some overarching questions: Can America survive its spending, its taxing, its regulating, is America over, can we turn it around?

That's what the American people were thinking about.

But the new president wasn't thinking about that. All the books written about the creation of economic policy within his administration make clear the president and his aides didn't know it was so bad, didn't understand the depth of the crisis, didn't have a sense of how long it would last. They didn't have their mind on what the American people had their mind on.

The president had his mind on health care. And, to be fair-minded, health care was part of the economic story. But only a part! And not the most urgent part. Not the most frightening, distressing, immediate part. Not the "Is America over?" part.

And so the relationship the president wanted never really knitted together. Health care was like the birth-control mandate: It came from his hermetically sealed inner circle, which operates with what seems an almost entirely abstract sense of America. They know Chicago, the machine, the ethnic realities. They know Democratic Party politics. They know the books they've read, largely written by people like them—bright, credentialed, intellectually cloistered. But there always seems a lack of lived experience among them, which is why they were so surprised by the town hall uprisings of August 2009 and the 2010 midterm elections.
If you jumped into a time machine to the day after the election, in November, 2012, and saw a headline saying "Obama Loses," do you imagine that would be followed by widespread sadness, pain and a rending of garments? You do not. Even his own supporters will not be that sad. It's hard to imagine people running around in 2014 saying, "If only Obama were president!" Including Mr. Obama, who is said by all who know him to be deeply competitive, but who doesn't seem to like his job that much. As a former president he'd be quiet, detached, aloof. He'd make speeches and write a memoir laced with a certain high-toned bitterness. It was the Republicans' fault. They didn't want to work with him.

He will likely not see even then that an American president has to make the other side work with him. You think Tip O'Neill liked Ronald Reagan? You think he wanted to give him the gift of compromise? He was a mean, tough partisan who went to work every day to defeat Ronald Reagan. But forced by facts and numbers to deal, he dealt. So did Reagan.

An American president has to make cooperation happen.

But we've strayed from the point. Mr. Obama has a largely nonexistent relationship with many, and a worsening relationship with some.

Really, he cannot win the coming election. But the Republicans, still, can lose it. At this point in the column we usually sigh.

His advisors are clueless... which is oddly comforting. Ineffective government isn't such a bad idea.

What a great article and brilliantly written, factually true how many people are feeling. Many people had so much hope for this man, gave him so many chances and really hoped he would make race relations better. He did not and has continued to make them worse from the first time he said "the cops acted stupidly" before knowing any facts, to not doing anything about the black panthers putting a bounty on the head on a private citizen.

Thank you for posting ncsternmark.

Yup - Noonan is a Conservative but she is fair and will take her own party to task when necessary.

Obama has been doing this from the moment he was sworn in - he says one thing (I'm willing to work with the GOP) and then does another (tells them that "he won" the election and blows them off). People can mock President Bush for his rhetorical shortcomings all day long, but at the end of the day you knew exactly where he stood on an issue and he acted accordingly.

very true

Is today a we're allowed to talk about Bush day ?

What time is the cutoff ?

The "stable, nonradical, non-birther right?" All 3 of them?

And they're mad that Obama is beating them at their own game? Welcome to politics in the Fox News era.

And yeah, like somebody already said, "Waaaaah!"

Wow..

The two biggest partisan hacks on Earth are praising Bush for acting on rhetorical shortcomings, and bashing Obama for not fixing the damage those shortcomings wrought fast enough..

You really can't make this shit up..

what exactly is he fixing?

Maybe it is convenient for you to forget 1990 to 1998 ?

Your little red wagon

stumped again huh?

According to you everything was perfect when Bush left, that being the case nothing needed fixing .

Maybe you could list the things you considered broke and when this break actually occurred .

Whatever it is I'm sure it happened on Clinton or Carter's watch

I guess she missed the byline.

You would know stumped ! Its the condition you are in most of the time !

It is partisan but unfair? I don't think pundits have "fair" in their quiver and don't really give a rat's ass about being fair but what the article is, is a giant waste of time, newsprint and bandwidth from a whining, butt-hurt cunt!

She gives it away, right in the beginning: Something's happening to President Obama's relationship with those who are inclined not to like his policies. They are now inclined not to like him. His supporters would say, "Nothing new there," but actually I think there is. I'm referring to the broad, stable, nonradical, non-birther right. Among them the level of dislike for the president has ratcheted up sharply the past few months.

What a bunch of butt-hurt clap-trap. None of assholes who "who are inclined not to like his policies" are going to vote for him anyway, all Noonan is doing is running cover for the nigger-haters in the republican party.

Fuck her, dumb bitch.

Why is this considered an attribute? The same can be said of Hitler. To be singularly focused on the wrong approach isn't something to admire, it's a sign of stupidity.

Stick, consider the source !

OK if you voted for Obama before, you will most likely be voting for Obama again, unless you are completely ignorant of politics and are swayed by media talking points.

There is no defensible position I could imagine you taking that would reasonably explain voting for Romney over Obama but if you want to take a shot at it, please do so.

Peggy Noonan wrote a very bad article. All she does is bitch and moan and generalize "liberals". It completely sucks but tell me what specific points you agree with, maybe I missed it.

another so-called Obama voter who hates socialized medicine and thinks Blammy is a Marxist. come up with a better story