New York Times Editorial, "The Senate Tries to End the Crisis": Leon Panetta for President?

In an editorial entitled "The Senate Tries to End the Crisis" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/15/opinion/the-senate-tries-to-end-the-crisis.html?_r=0), The New York Times tells us:

"The Senate, forced to extinguish the wildfire set by the House, is nearing a deal to reopen the government and end the imminent threat of default by the United States government. Some of the provisions in the deal are troubling, and senators need to ensure that it doesn’t in any way give in to Republican blackmail.

. . . .

But the tentative agreement includes two problematic provisions related to health care reform. One would require the Department of Health and Human Services to verify that people receiving subsidies for insurance have incomes low enough to qualify."

Of course, we wouldn't want to ensure that people receiving subsidies for insurance have incomes low enough to qualify. After all, we want to make certain that Obamacare is just as prone to fraud as Medicare.

Meanwhile, over at The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ruth-marcus-leon-panetta-rebukes-obamas-handling-of-shutdown/2013/10/14/d5252dc4-34f9-11e3-be86-6aeaa439845b_story.html?tid=pm_pop), uber-liberal Ruth Marcus notes Leon Panetta's criticism of Obama's handling of the shutdown crisis. Marcus writes:

"Leon Panetta served in Washington with nine presidents, starting with Lyndon Johnson. He has been a member of Congress, Office of Management and Budget director, White House chief of staff, director of the Central Intelligence Agency and secretary of defense — the last two under President Obama. He is a man who knows Washington and knows how to choose his words. So Panetta’s implicit rebuke of the president’s hands-off approach to the budget crisis at a breakfast Monday was striking.

. . . .

'We govern either by leadership or crisis. . . . If leadership is not there, then we govern by crisis,' Panetta said at the start of the session, sponsored by The Wall Street Journal. 'Clearly, this town has been governing by crisis after crisis after crisis.'

. . . .

Then, to Obama. 'This president — he’s extremely bright, he’s extremely able, he’s somebody who I think certainly understands the issues, asks the right questions, and I think has the right instincts about what needs to be done for the country.'

Next came the 'but' — without a name but with a clear message. 'You have to engage in the process. This is a town where it’s not enough to feel you have the right answers. You’ve got to roll up your sleeves and you’ve got to really engage in the process . . . that’s what governing is all about.'"

And so, even Ruth Marcus has come to realize that Obama lacks leadership capabilities.

Marcus's conclusion:

"As to the notion that any proposal associated with Obama was inherently toxic to Republicans, Panetta said, 'If the president, for whatever reason, feels he can’t do it because the Republicans don’t want to confront him, then he ought to be willing to delegate that responsibility to someone who can do it.'

I’ve got a stellar candidate in mind. His name is Leon Panetta. He seems awfully happy back home in Monterey, Calif. But he also remembers the way to Andrews — and what it takes to get things done once you arrive."

If you are a regular reader of this blog, you know that I have been calling for round-the-clock negotiations to end the shutdown crisis (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/10/paul-krugman-dixiecrat-solution.html).

A "stellar candidate" to manage the shutdown negotiations? Heck, how about a stellar candidate to be the next president of the United States?