A Bitter Presidency
Division, not hope.

Kate Obenshain, author of Divider-in-Chief: The Fraud of Hope and Change


LOPEZ: I think just about every book from the right on President Obama mentions Solyndra. But do people really want to hear about it? Will they, when it’s not exactly on the news every night? Should it be?

OBENSHAIN: Solyndra is one of the great whitewashed scandals of this administration, and it has not been talked about nearly enough. I address it in Divider-in-Chief as what it is: a prime example of crony capitalism and yet another example of how the Obama administration has placed its narrow ideological interests ahead of the interests of the American people — particularly the middle class it claims to champion.

Over half a billion dollars in taxpayers’ stimulus dollars went to a failing “green energy” company — and the administration knew it. They even asked the company to delay layoffs until after the mid-term elections in 2010. Even the Washington Post reported that political considerations “infused almost every level of the decision-making on granting the Solyndra loan and later administration efforts to keep the company afloat.”

So, money that was supposed to go to shovel-ready jobs to help jump-start the economy and improve the struggles of the “middle class” instead went to a green company whose shareholders and executives made numerous and substantial donations to Obama’s campaign. Even after it defaulted on its $535 million loan, the administration continued to loan it money — our money. The American people are profoundly interested when they know they’ve been scammed. In this case, they have been — big time, and they deserve to know.

LOPEZ: Many of our readers may remember, but not every American saw it: Who is Julia and why does she matter?

OBENSHAIN: In one of their more blatant and I would say backfiring panders, the Obama campaign decided to show women how much government under Barack Obama had improved their lives. They released an interactive slide show called “The Life of Julia,” which chronicles how the government, in its beneficence, has sustained this woman from cradle to grave.

Of course, the website was instructive in the Obama administration’s condescension toward women (note it was not “The Life of Bob”), to which I devote some time in my book. He assumes they need government’s merciful hand in order to walk through this life. But it also is a lesson in Obama’s overall view of government. Recall Obama’s language when he was first elected. American could not rise out of the recession without government stepping in, hence the stimulus. The American people now cannot succeed without government’s help, hence the endless extension of unemployment benefits, the doubling of food-stamp recipients, the skyrocketing in disability recipients. As Nancy Pelosi pointed out, leftists believe programs that foster dependence are the best stimulus programs. Liberals like Obama truly do believe that government knows best, and that the little people, apparently women included, do best when they are in some way dependent on government’s largesse.