Instructions: In this task, you are given a text of many news articles seperated by special token "|||||". Your task is to summarize them.
Input: President Barack Obama pauses as he speaks to the media about the government’s Ebola response in the Oval Office of the White House, Wednesday, Oct. 22, 2014, in Washington. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin) (Jacquelyn Martin/AP) 
  
 The president is upset. Very upset. Frustrated and angry. Seething about the government’s handling of Ebola, said the front-page headline in the New York Times last Saturday. 
  
 There’s only one problem with this pose, so obligingly transcribed for him by the Times. It’s his government. He’s president. Has been for six years. Yet Barack Obama reflexively insists on playing the shocked outsider when something goes wrong within his own administration. 
  
 The IRS? “It’s inexcusable, and Americans are right to be angry about it, and I am angry about it,” he thundered in May 2013 when the story broke of the agency targeting conservative groups. “I will not tolerate this kind of behavior in any agency, but especially in the IRS.” 
  
 Except that within nine months, Obama had grown far more tolerant, retroactively declaring this to be a phony scandal without “a smidgen of corruption.” 
  
 Obamacare rollout? “Nobody is more frustrated by that than I am,” said an aggrieved Obama about the botching of the central element of his signature legislative achievement. “Nobody is madder than me.” 
  
 Veterans Affairs scandal? Presidential chief of staff Denis McDonough explained: “Secretary [Eric] Shinseki said yesterday . . . that he’s mad as hell and the president is madder than hell.” A nice touch — taking anger to the next level. 
  
 The president himself declared: “I will not stand for it.” But since the administration itself said the problem was long-standing, indeed predating Obama, this means he had stood for it for 5½ years. 
  
 The one scandal where you could credit the president with genuine anger and obliviousness involves the recent breaches of White House Secret Service protection. The Washington Post described the first lady and president as “angry and upset,” and no doubt they were. But the first Secret Service scandal — the hookers of Cartagena — evinced this from the president: “If it turns out that some of the allegations that have been made in the press are confirmed, then of course I’ll be angry.” An innovation in ostentatious distancing: future conditional indignation. 
  
 These shows of calculated outrage — and thus distance — are becoming not just unconvincing but unamusing. In our system, the president is both head of state and head of government. Obama seems to enjoy the monarchial parts, but when it comes to the actual business of running government, he shows little interest and even less aptitude. 
  
 His principal job, after all, is to administer the government and to get the right people to do it. (That’s why we typically send governors rather than senators to the White House.) That’s called management. Obama had never managed anything before running for the biggest management job on earth. It shows. 
  
 What makes the problem even more acute is that Obama represents not just the party of government but a grandiose conception of government as the prime mover of social and economic life. The very theme of his presidency is that government can and should be trusted to do great things. And therefore society should be prepared to hand over large chunks of its operations — from health care (one-sixth of the economy) to carbon regulation down to free contraception — to the central administrative state. 
  
 But this presupposes a Leviathan not just benign but competent. When it then turns out that vast, faceless bureaucracies tend to be incapable, inadequate, hopelessly inefficient and often corrupt, Obama resorts to expressions of angry surprise. 
  
 He must. He’s not simply protecting his own political fortunes. He’s trying to protect faith in the entitlement state by portraying its repeated failures as shocking anomalies. 
  
 Unfortunately, the pretense has the opposite effect. It produces not reassurance but anxiety. Obama’s determined detachment conveys the feeling that nobody’s home. No one leading. Not even from behind. 
  
 A poll conducted two weeks ago showed that 64 percent of likely voters (in competitive races) think that “things in the U.S. feel like they are out of control.” This is one degree of anxiety beyond thinking the country is on the wrong track. That’s been negative for years, and it’s a reflection of failed policies that in principle can be changed. Regaining control, on the other hand, is a far dicier proposition. 
  
 With events in the saddle and a sense of disorder growing — the summer border crisis, Ferguson, the rise of the Islamic State, Ebola — the nation expects from the White House not miracles but competence. At a minimum, mere presence. An observer presidency with its bewildered-bystander pose only adds to the unease. 
  
 Read more from Charles Krauthammer’s archive, follow him on Twitter or subscribe to his updates on Facebook. ||||| President Barack Obama pauses while speaking to the media about Ebola before leaving the White House en route to Wisconsin, Tuesday, Oct. 28, 2014. (Jacquelyn Martin/AP) 
  
 In July, when House Republicans voted to sue the president, they spoke of the urgent need to stop “tyranny” at the other end of Pennsylvania Ave. “Our freedom is in peril,” warned Rep. Tom Rice (R-S.C.), the man behind the lawsuit. “We cannot stand by and watch the president shred our Constitution.” 
  
 Well, it turns out they can stand by. Three months later, no lawsuit has been filed. Politico’s Josh Gerstein, citing “lawyers close to the process,” reported that they don’t expect any legal action before the election. 
  
 Apparently, the Obama dictatorship is not such a threat, after all. Conservatives have, in recent weeks, done a 180 in their attack on the president. They have, for the most part, dropped their accusations that he is an out-of-control, overreaching autocrat. Instead, they are calling him a weak and passive leader, nothing more than a bystander. 
  
 My colleague Charles Krauthammer captured the revised consensus when he wrote on Friday that with “a sense of disorder growing — the summer border crisis, Ferguson, the rise of the Islamic State, Ebola — the nation expects from the White House not miracles but competence. At a minimum, mere presence. An observer presidency with its bewildered-bystander pose only adds to the unease.” 
  
 I don’t get to say this very often, so let me seize the opportunity: I agree entirely with Krauthammer. And I welcome conservatives to their new and more accurate critique of Obama. The real problem with Obama is not overreach but his tendency to be hands-off. 
  
 Since the second year of Obama’s presidency, I have been lamenting the lack of strong leadership coming from the White House, describing Obama in June, 2010, as a “hapless bystander . . . as the crises cancel his agenda and weaken his presidency.” I’ve since described him over the years as “oddly like a spectator ” and as “President Passerby.” 
  
 Krauthammer, like other conservatives, has frequently bemoaned this “imperial president” and Obama’s “executive overreach,” but he has also occasionally recognized Obama’s standoffishness. “The paradox of this presidency is that this most passive bystander president is at the same time the most ideologically ambitious in decades,” he wrote in December. 
  
 But it isn’t really a paradox. Obama’s ambitious agenda was shut down after Republicans took control of the House in 2010. The executive actions he has taken since then that infuriate conservatives are actually a reflection of weakness. The orders are limited in their reach (they don’t have the force of statute) and duration (they will only continue beyond Obama’s presidency if his successor opts to continue them.) 
  
 In the past, conservatives harmonized the contradictory criticism of Obama by saying he’s a tyrant at home but a weakling abroad. Ebola has caused the distinction to vanish. 
  
 Mitt Romney, the 2012 GOP presidential nominee, calls Obama unfocused on Ebola because the administration “couldn’t run the IRS right and apparently isn’t running the CDC right. And you ask yourself: What is it going to take to have a president who really focuses?” 
  
 Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), a sober voice in the party, voiced his hope on CNN that the administration “would take this more seriously . . . Unfortunately, this is another example where the administration was not as engaged early on as they should have been.” 
  
 A less sober voice, Sarah Palin, told Fox News that the “administration’s incompetency is really shining bright in this one.” She added that “there is a void of leadership here.” 
  
 Obama the unfocused tyrant! The disengaged dictator! The man who shreds the Constitution with . . . a void of leadership. 
  
 Dozens of Republican lawmakers, and a few Democrats, complaining about too little action from Obama, have called for travel bans to fight Ebola, while various governors, trying to placate a panicky public, have set up quarantines that the federal government has resisted. 
  
 Obama, as usual, remains dispassionate, cool, detached. “He responds in a very rational way, trying to gather facts, rely on the best expert advice, and mobilize the necessary resources,” Obama confidant David Axelrod told BusinessWeek’s Josh Green, who likened Obama’s crisis management to a graduate seminar. “There’s no doubt that there’s a theatrical nature to the presidency that he resists,” Axelrod said. 
  
 That’s very similar to the criticism recently offered by former Pentagon and CIA chief for Obama, Leon Panetta: “Too often in my view the president relies on the logic of the law professor rather than the passion of a leader.” 
  
 Ebola is doing many horrible things to humanity, but at least it has caused conservatives to join this consensus. Obama’s flaw is not that he abuses his power, but that he uses it too little. 
  
 Twitter: @Milbank 
  
 Read more from Dana Milbank’s archive, follow him on Twitter or subscribe to his updates on Facebook. |||||
Output:
Remember when House Republicans agreed to sue President Obama, because they accused him of abusing his authority? Well that lawsuit hasn't gone anywhere since, writes Dana Milbank in the Washington Post. It's no wonder Republicans aren't in a hurry, he writes, because "the real problem with Obama is not overreach but his tendency to be hands-off." Milbank finds himself in the unusual spot of agreeing with conservative Charles Krauthammer, who bemoaned Obama's "bewildered-bystander pose" on everything from Ebola to ISIS in a recent Post column. Ebola, in particular, has united conservatives in complaining about a void of leadership from the White House. Obama remains as "dispassionate" as ever in public as he assesses the problem, writes Milbank, but the public seems to want a decisive leader rather than a law professor in situations like this. "Ebola is doing many horrible things to humanity, but at least it has caused conservatives to join this consensus," concludes Milbank. "Obama’s flaw is not that he abuses his power, but that he uses it too little." Click for his full column.