It occurred to me the other day that the lists of names and faces associated with Barack Obama haven’t had many (or any) added to them since he was elected, yet there are some who have left. I may be wrong, but I don’t thnk so.

That made me think about the “czars.” Why did he need so many (or any), when it was a rare appointment in other administrations, usually reserved for some campaign which wasn’t addressed well in existing cabinet bureaucracies, such as a “drug czar”? My conclusion was that (1) he doesn’t know enough about running a huge organization like the federal government to handle all that subversion within the standard framework, (2) by creating the czars, they were all at an organizational level that he could control through senior adviser Valerie Jarrett, (3) they were mostly far left ideologues, not the usual array of bureaucrat functionaries that we’d expect to see in those jobs were they filled normally within Commerce or HHS, for instance.

Then think about the Affordable Health Care Act (gag on the name). The President didn’t work on that at all, it seems. He told Reid and Pelosi to handle it, and what a mess it became. It’s clear he doesn’t work with Democrat leadership much, and with Republican leaders not at all. His idea of compromise is for others to agree to do things his way, or to say he’s “leading from behind” when bullying doesn’t work.

This President is more detached from other members of his own party than any other President in my memory. Reagan, as a Republican, worked more closely with Democrats than Obama does today. Obama’s communications to Republicans seem to consist mainly of “I won,” and he seems to get along better with the Russians than with other Democrats.

The fact that he’s surrounded himself with the likes of Jarrett and David Axelrod, ideologues with no record of high-level political success, and that they have remained in place from the beginning, betrays a lack of “creative destruction” within his inner circle. The same people keep giving him the same advice, which results in a decision to stay away from Wisconsin out of fear of becoming associated with a “loser” (Tom Barrett), rather than to “stand up for union members” in their fight to unseat Scott Walker. He showed himself to be a cautious coward (a loser) rather than a courageous fighter (a winner, even if in a losing fight) like Walker showed himself to be in victory.

Thankfully for us, his advisers remain intent on minimizing his risks rather than on maximizing his political/Presidential accomplishments. Thus, he is currently absorbed with fund-raisers to support his attempt to remain in office, trying to amass as much as he can so as to be able to counter anything Mitt Romney puts up, rather than applying himself to actually being President and doing something substantive that Romney would have to overcome.

If he actually had a close relationship with any veteran national Democrat, he’d be getting some good advice about his choices. He has none, so he’s getting bad advice from bad advisers. Bill Clinton spoke up this week to stop the counterproductive tactics Obama’s people were forcing, to keep the party from going down a rat hole that would hurt it in the end.

Didn’t he announce months ago that none of his coffers would go to help House and Senate candidate races (which made me extremely gleeful with his selfishness)?