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.”
Advertisement
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 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.
When are we Americans going to accept the fact that our President governs from a different rule book. He does not lead; he does not govern. He organizes. He searches out controversy. He stirs up dissatisfaction and discontent. He manipulates. There is no communication from this President unless there is common involvement. There is no relationship with a Republican member of Congress unless there is common involvement. He is truly out-of-touch because the Saul Alinsky rule book dictates that he must remain so. Our President's rich liberal friends are useful idiots, as are the great masses of his power base. Mr. Barone's essay and Ryan Lizza's perceptive article shed a much-needed spotlight on Mr. Obama's style. Wisdom, however, comes from reading the seminal Alinsky rule book. At that point 'Out of Touch ' becomes real and--- frightening.
Contrast Obama's checklists with Reagan's detailed notes counting each Congressman he could count on for a critical vote or hope to flip.
And do libs really believe Obama "showed bipartisanship" with the GOP on the stimulus by supporting an $800 billion deal instead of $1.5 Trillion deal? How did that court bipartisanship if no Republicans in the House voted for it?
