Batchelor: Silver Blame Planet

John Batchelor writes on his blog:

POTUS assures America that, while some pols may demogogue about gas prices, he knows there is “no silver bullet.”

POTUS protests too much. When gasoline prices climb, the public mood darkens; and everyone blames Washington. POTUS polls are sagging badly just because he appears outwitted by facts and fate. POTUS passive aggression was less evident during the financial crisis: the banks failing made anything Washington did or said look inconsequential.

WaPo explicates POTUS 2009 sluggishness in pursuit of his campaign-promised closing of GITMO, as if POTUS is an observer to the passing scene, as if blame-shifting failure to execute is the best policy. During the healthcare offensive by the Pelosi House and Reid Senate, with the fancy maneuvers to overcome the Scott Brown victory in Massachusetts, January 2010, POTUS appeared involved at least in terms of message, though not in execution. Reid delivered the legislative snake-dance, and POTUS signed a purely partisan bill of grotesque proportions.

Since the late campaign of 2010, POTUS has seemed aimless and defensive. This “silver bullet” vlog pitch is half-hearted, unsubstantiated, reactive, unimaginative, fatalistic. POTUS may not know how to be gritty: he rose from a minor legislative post in a politically monolithic neighborhood to presiding over a byzantine apparatus of relentless competition all in 15 years. POTUS passivity may be numbness at the pace and scale of his feat.

Reports that POTUS arrives in the office at 9, leaves by 5, speaks much of basketball and golf, speaks little of policy with outside-the-executive voices. The passivity may also be defeatism. Unknown. Basing POTUS prospects on a retreat of gasoline prices is certain defeatism.

At Facebook Townhall in Palo Alto last week, POTUS tried blame-shifting onto the rich — a passive aggressive skill. Is it also a defeatist skill? And does POTUS truly want to claim credit for saving Earth if he plunders Big Oil?

“…the Treasury loses $4 billion a year on subsidies to oil companies. Now, think about this. The top five oil companies have made somewhere between $75 billion and $125 billion every year for the last five years. Nobody is doing better than Exxon. Nobody is doing better than Shell or these other companies. They are doing great. … They don’t need special tax breaks that cost us $4 billion. So what we’ve said is, why can’t we eliminate the tax breaks for the oil companies who are doing great, and invest that in new energy sources that can help us save the planet?”