In a recent column, Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post complains that Obama "can be a strangely passive president." She cites Obama's reluctance to get involved in the details during the Obamacare debate,his inaction on entitlement reform, his not speaking up forcefully on Libya, or the Wisconsin labor battle. But her "biggest beef" with Obama's "slipperiness" is on economic matters:his refusal to specify which part of his deficit commission's recommendations that he agrees with.
Ms. Marcus also faults Obama for seeming more like a "passive bystander" in the current budget battle with House Republicans. She says thathe's unclear about what spending cuts he'd be willing to accept or fight for, and,unlike Bill Clinton,is not sending cabinet members and other flacks out to blame Republicans for hurting families and children. Obama is, she writes, "too often, more reactive than inspirational, more cautious than forceful."
Apparently, there's unhappiness with the Pharaoh amongst members of the State-Controlled Media apparatus. Imam Obama is not the grand sweeping agent of change they all hoped for,politically decapitating Republicans at every turn. No, he's not transforming America into liberal nirvana as quickly as they'd hoped.
Now, look.The economy is stuck in low gear,unemployment's still rampant,taxes are too high,and spending levels are beyond belief -- not to mention the mess that is Obamacare and the regime's dismal performance on energy, foreign policy, and everything else he touches.
Ruth, have you considered this: maybe he'sjustincompetent?