Options
Box-Checking Obama in a Liberal Cocoon
· Monday, February 6, 2012
It's unusual when a reporter sympathetic to a politician writes a story that makes his subject look bad. But Ryan Lizza of The New Yorker has now done this twice.
The first time was in an article last April on Obama's foreign policy in which he quoted a "top aide" (National Security Adviser Tom Donilon? It sounds like him) saying that the president was "leading from behind" on Libya. Not what most Americans expect their presidents to do.
Now, in an article based on leaked White House memos marked up by Obama, Lizza has done it again.
Contrarian liberal blogger Mickey Kaus sums it up: "The president's decision-making method -- at least as described in this piece -- seems to consist of mainly checking boxes on memos his aides have written for him."
A $60 billion cut in the stimulus package? "OK." Use the reconciliation process to pass the health care bill? A checkmark in the box labeled "yes."
Include medical malpractice reform in the health care bill? The man who as an Illinois legislator often voted "present" writes, "We should explore it."
According to Lizza, Obama prefers getting information and making decisions by staying up late and reading memos rather than meeting with people -- a temperament that's a liability because face time with the president is one of his major sources of political capital.
Lizza's reporting undercuts the stated thesis of his article: that Obama sought to bring bipartisan governance to Washington, but was foiled by Republicans' partisan intransigence.
Evidence that Obama ever seriously considered Republican approaches is minimal in the New Yorker article. The alternatives Lizza describes Obama as considering are for even more spending and government control, such as a much bigger stimulus package.
He mentions just in passing that Obama "had decided to pursue health care reform" as well as the stimulus package -- a choice that inevitably made bipartisanship harder to achieve.
At one point Lizza does quote Obama writing on a memo, "Have we looked at any of the other GOP recommendations (e.g., Paul Ryan's) to see if they make any sense?" Another president might have looked at Ryan's proposals himself or might even have called him on the phone.
George W. Bush, in contrast, worked with Democrats -- and sometimes even talked with them -- on his education plan, his tax cuts and the Iraq War resolution. He even tried, unsuccessfully, to negotiate with them on Social Security.
And on Obama's failure to reach a "go big" budget agreement with House Speaker John Boehner last summer, Lizza presents only the White House talking point: "conservative colleagues rebelled, and Boehner withdrew." He doesn't mention Republican claims that Obama upped the ante, demanding more tax increases.
Lizza's White House sources apparently didn't leak any memos about some of Obama's more recent actions, but his article provides a jumping off place for understanding them.
As in Chicago, Obama seems to live in a cocoon in which Republicans are largely absent, offscreen actors that no one pays any attention to.
His personal interactions are limited to his liberal Democratic staff -- and to the rich liberals he meets at his frequent fundraising events. He has held more of these than George W. Bush, who in turn held more than Bill Clinton.
Two decisions in particular seem tilted toward rich liberals. One was the disapproval of the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada, even after it survived two environmental impact statements.
Obama says he wants more jobs and to reduce American dependence on oil from unfriendly foreign sources. The pipeline would do both, and is endorsed by labor unions. But Robert Redford doesn't like Canadian tar sands oil. Case closed.
The other astonishing decision was the decree requiring Catholic hospitals and charities' health insurance policies to include coverage for abortion and birth control. Here Obama was spitting in the eyes of millions of Americans and threatening the existence of charitable programs that help millions of people of all faiths.
Catholic bishops responded predictably by requiring priests to read letters opposing the policy. Who's on the other side? The designer-clad ladies Obama encounters at every fundraiser. They want to impose their views on abortion on everyone else.
Obama fundraising seems to be lagging behind its $1 billion goal, and Democrats fear Republicans are closing the fundraising gap. So Obama seems to be concentrating on meeting the demands of rich liberals he spends so much time with.
COPYRIGHT 2012 THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM
Third-party content does not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Patriot Post.
Options
Subscribe
Harvard Political Review notes: "The Patriot Post is leading a surprisingly well-organized charge into the world of Internet politics." It's Right. It's Free. Subscribe now!
The Right Opinion
- Rich Galen: Obama & Romney Tout Good News
- Edwin J. Feulner: 'Law of the Sea' Treaty: Sink It
- Arnold Ahlert: With Democrats, You're Either All In - or All Out
- Oliver North: Memorial Day 2012
- Ken Blackwell: Remarks on Religious Liberty
- L. Brent Bozell: Canada's 'Scientific' Museum of Smut
- Michelle Malkin: Obama's Land of the LOST
- Rebecca Hagelin: The 'Gay Marriage' Spin
- David Limbaugh: Obama and Leahy vs. Sir William Blackstone
- Linda Chavez: Overreach by Unions in Wisconsin
- Mona Charen: Obama's Education Hypocrisy -- Again
- Jonah Goldberg: Big Business Gets the Hollywood Treatment
Grassroots Commentary
Policy and Analysis
- Heritage Foundation Insider
- Heritage Foundation Research
- American Enterprise Institute
- Center for Strategic and International Studies
- The Cato Institute
- Hoover Institution
- National Rifle Association
- Ludwig von Mises Institute
- Citizens Against Government Waste
- National Center for Policy Analysis
- The Heartland Institute
Our Mission
"The Patriot's mission is to advocate for Essential Liberty, the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and to promote free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values. Our objective is to provide Patriots across our nation with a touchstone of First Principles through brief, informative and entertaining analyses of relevant news, policy and opinion from reputable research, advocacy and media organizations, so they may better support and defend those Principles, and enlist others to join our ranks." —Mark Alexander, Publisher
The Patriot Post is not sustained by any political, special interest or parent organization, and we accept no advertising. Our mission and operations are funded entirely by the voluntary financial support of Patriots like you!
























mmccrindle
I have to disagree.
Obama is always going to pander to his far left base. He has kept the boxing gloves on only to try to win re-election, but notice he's still in there punching.
Much of the stimulis money also went to his far left base so he has no worries of fundraising. He has effectively re-financed his election bid with tax payer funds, which will generate no coverage from his adoring MSM.
If he wins re-election those gloves will surely come off.
He's already tested the waters and sees no consequences of his ignoring the Constitution so with re-election and no more gloves, it will not be a liberal agenda but a tyrannical communist one.
Posted February 6, 2012 at 8:48:24 AM
Howard Last
"George W. Bush, in contrast, worked with Democrats -- and sometimes even talked with them -- on his education plan . . . " Can you tell me which section of the Constitution gives the federal government any say in education? Oh well what would you expect from a RINO.
Posted February 6, 2012 at 10:48:59 AM
Holmes Simons
A more appropriate title for an article about NotPresident Obama is:
Liberal Coon, Boxing Checks as Taxpayer Dollars Pour in as Donations from Liberal Cronies.
Posted February 6, 2012 at 1:21:08 PM
Abu Nudnik
Mccrindle didn't read the article, just the word "box" and Holmes Simons wants to destroy the right with stupid gratuitous racist slurs. Thanks guys! Another term of Obama with more crony judges deciding that Humpty-Dumpty was right: a word (or law) means whatever the person (or judge) who has power says it means. Robert Redford! Holy cow! America really does have an aristocracy! Actually two: the poor and entitled and the rich and entitled aristocrats. Then there's the working class (rich and poor) who provide the money.
For the sake of liberty, consider NOT posting here anymore.
Posted February 6, 2012 at 1:35:45 PM
Holmes Simons
Abu, I forgot how sensitive you are, and I apologize if you took offense at my referring to a coco-colored racist as a coon. My experience has been that a “racist” is one who hates a group of people because of their skin color, and I am not a racist. However, as above, I do not mind slinging a racial slur at a racist individual, which I believe Obama's words and actions prove him to be. In the future, I'll refer to him as "THE" partially-vanilla cococoon, so you'll know I'm not being derogatory, except to the group of one. OK?
Posted February 6, 2012 at 2:40:02 PM
Richard Ryan
Holmes Simons: I`m on your side! I`ve seen Abu Nudnik go on a politically correct rampage before. I personally prefer to call a spade a spade and let the cards fall where they may. The lefties certainly have no reservations about doing so, and the nicey/nicey mealy-mouthed approach dosen`t get the rest of us anywhere. It`s time to take off the gloves.
Richard Ryan
Lamar,Missouri - Birthplace of Harry S Truman
Posted February 6, 2012 at 4:54:51 PM
readinglady
Holmes Simons: Very spot on retort to the easily offended Abu. Good Grief!! All the nasty offensive comments directed toward Geo. Bush and nobody screamed "racist" even if they were made by the likes of Whoopie Goldberg. Don't some of these intellectual giants know the race card is worn out?
Posted February 6, 2012 at 4:55:47 PM
mmccrindle
Abu-
I read it.
You obviously didn't read my opinion.
I simply used boxing as metaphor.
I also will stick to my belief that Obama will fund his campaign with stimulis money that he gave to his cronies.
If you don't like what I write then tough, get over it - or yourself.
Posted February 6, 2012 at 5:45:43 PM
mmccrindle
BTW ABU-
I think your comment was condescending.
Maybe it should be you to refrain from commenting here.
Posted February 6, 2012 at 6:17:41 PM
mmccrindle
10 to 1 says Nudnik has a guilt thing going on.
I'd even bet he voted for Obama then discovered his mesiah's obvious disdain for his people.
Posted February 7, 2012 at 8:30:52 AM
Jake
Obama seldom meets with people with a different opinion than he might have because he might have to answer a question for which he doesn't have an answer. Just take, for example, Joe, the plumber. He screwed up his response to Joe and it took him quite a while to recover from that. In addition, Obama is very insecure, thin-skinned and needs to have "yes men" surrounding him. Strong, confident leaders do not need "yes men" and are open to the ideas and input of everyone. Weak, insecure people cannot deal with input that doesn't agree with what they may think. Think about Obama's recent interaction with Governor Jan Brewer over their differences concerning the immigrant problem Arizona faces. Another example of his insecurity. Obama never grew up and continues to exhibit an immaturity like we have never seen in a president.
Posted February 7, 2012 at 3:01:48 PM
mmccrindle
Jake- Most liberals have never grown up in terms of maturity. That's why they can only argue with either emotion or the race card. The truth and facts just don't compute.
They also rely on a voter base that has a 6th grade mentality.
Lenin called his useful idiots.
Posted February 7, 2012 at 5:53:17 PM
Holmes Simons
Thanks, folks. I'm just glad that I was able to refrain from calling NotPresident an enigma /i'nigme/. A stroke would surely follow.
Posted February 8, 2012 at 12:06:27 PM