A Good Day For The President

Many have noted that last week was a bad week for the President. Two of his cabinet nominees went down in smoke. He lost control of the stimulus message to the Republicans. No drama Obama was beginning to show signs of frustration. The polls were starting to show slippage - especially as to support for the stimulus package. All of these signs were somewhat ominous in that the stimulus package was at the center of the early Obama presidency.

It seems only fair to point out, therefore, that Monday was a good day for the President. He began his day with a trip to Elkhart, Indiana. His town meeting was a success and demonstrated that he can still pull in the public and that they are responsive to his explanations. As the day wore on he had a successful cloture vote in the Senate on that all important stimulus bill. He got his three Republican votes and a special trip to the floor by Ted Kennedy to ensure its passage. Finally, he wowed the crowds with his strong performance in his first primetime news conference as president. He answered questions thoughtfully and intelligently about a wide range of issues. The reviews have been as positive as Joe Scarborough of "Morning Joe", saying that Obama may be the best ever at this kind of forum.

How do we tote up the pluses and minuses of the bad week and the good day and what can be expected in the future? Chuck Todd of NBC suggested on "Morning Joe" that the President may have waited a week too long to begin this offensive since the fate of the stimulus has already been determined. He seemed to be suggesting that an earlier offensive may have garnered more Republican votes and demonstrated more of the bipartisanship Obama had hoped for. This may have been true, but it is also true that we are only three weeks into the Obama presidency and continued offensives of this nature can have dramatic impact moving forward.

Certainly the White House has made some early mistakes, and because expectations have been so high many thought such mistakes might be avoided. It's hard to understand how the vetting process for Tom Daschle and others went so wrong but it did. Why did the White House not get out in front of the stimulus message? Did they think it would succeed more easily than it did? Perhaps these problems will turn out to be a good thing in the long run. For one thing it appears that the President has moved pretty quickly to reaasert his dominance in the battle over the stimulus. No president is immune from mistakes in taking over the most powerful position in the world. The real indicator of where this presidency is going lies in the learning curve from mistakes that occur. In that category the response so far is reassuring.

What about bipartisanship? Here I believe that is not wholly in the President's hands. Bipartisanship by definition requires two parties to engage. One might argue that here too mistakes were made. Many say Nancy Pelosi was given too much power to craft the bill. Others say that the timing of when and how Republicans were consulted was at fault. I'm sure the process could always be improved, but I still believe the major problem here was that Republicans decided it was a good idea to buck the stimulus, and they are generally effective in presenting a united front when that is their aim. What made their stand possible was their success in crafting their just say no message. What could have created more bipartisanship was a better performance out of the White House initially. I think the only thing that will change the dynamics between the two parties is tangible success on the part of what the Democrats are doing. I believe this kind of success is the only thing that is going to bring more Republicans on board down the road. I do think Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, and Arlen Spector deserve much credit for joining to pass the Senate stimulus bill.

Finally let me mention one caveat for Republicans. None of us know how these next two years are going to pan out. If, however, when the 2010 congressional elections occur, there is marked improvement in where the country is, and the public attributes much of that turnaround to the new president, the Republicans could be in a heap of trouble. I watched the town-hall meeting in Indiana, and saw hope and trust in this new president. If he can deliver, he will be making an impact on a lot of conservative, rural, Republican areas. These people will not forget him, just as they did not forget Roosevelt.

A number of Republicans today like to say unequivocally that Roosevelt failed. Yet he was elected to four terms in the oval office. Most people would call that success. The Democratic coalition was so strong that Republicans had to push through a constitutional amendment to limit each president to only two terms. Certainly, failure is always a real possibility, but I believe the possibility is also there for a major realignment that would label Republican policies as the failed policies of the past for years to come. The more Republicans insist on delivering the same message over and over again, the more they could be left behind.

Of course Tuesday brought a less than spectacular roll out by Tim Geithner - so stay tuned.