
In Ron Suskind’s new book, President Obama, in an interview with the author, compares himself to Jimmy Carter. “Carter, Clinton and I all have sort of the disease of being policy wonks,” he says, according to excerpts. Karl Rove, a former senior adviser to Pres. George W. Bush, tells National Review Online that he is amused by Obama’s navel gazing.
“President Obama has himself backwards,” Rove says. “His problem is not that he was a policy wonk: it’s that he wasn’t. He refused to get his hands dirty writing a good stimulus bill, drafting bipartisan health-care reform, or negotiating with Republicans. He found it easier to tell them ‘I won, so get lost.’”
“The president is comfortable with a technocratic approach because he is an imperious, arrogant, know-it-all left wing technocrat who leaves the details to his congressional Democratic allies, like Congressman Dave Obey with the stimulus bill,” Rove adds. “He is content to check the box on his list of achievements and tour the country with his teleprompter giving speeches.”
As Mike Allen of Politico reports, Suskind’s book, Confidence Men: Wall Street, Washington, and the Education of a President, “portrays Obama as uncertain and second-guessing himself.” In one passage, the president laments the “heavy” burden of the presidency. In another, he tells the author that it is “absolutely legitimate” for critics to complain about his “technocratic approach to government.”
But it is the Carter “disease” line that has political observers chuckling, since it reads like a line from a Republican strategist’s playbook. In Allen’s article, for example, former Newsweek editor Jon Meacham reacted to Obama’s Carter comparison much like Rove.
“For 30 years, fairly or no,” Meacham emails Allen, “‘Carter’ has been political and cultural shorthand for an ineffectual and uninspiring president who is captive to, rather than captain of, events. To compare oneself to President Carter is kind of like Nixon evoking Harding.”
That Carter "disease" line sort of sums up Obama: so clueless, he doesn't even know it when he insults himself...
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"He refused to get his hands dirty writing a good stimulus bill, drafting bipartisan health-care reform, or negotiating with Republicans. He found it easier to tell them ‘I won, so get lost.’"
Geez, Karl, there is no such thing as a "good stimulus bill". Nor is "bipartisan health-care reform" something we, the people, the base, finds desirable. Spare us, Mr. Rove, and stop touting your "conservatism".
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIs he that out of touch with American history that he thinks comparing himself to Jimmy Carter is a good thing?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseA couple of winters ago, at the Blair House meeting with Republican legislators, Mr. Obama told an anecdote about his decades-old dealings with the "Acme Insurance Company." The anecdote was principally remarkable for its demonstration that he was, and apparently remains, utterly unable to grasp the distinction between collision and liability automobile insurance coverage. Some "policy wonk."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell, gee! Mr. Rove has found someone besides a conservative to rip on.
As far as Obama, he is just trying to "carterize" his self-inflicted wounds to stop the bleeding. What a doofus our friends and neighbors elected to fill the seat of Washington , Lincoln and Reagan.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJust as "policy wonk" is too generous a term, I think "technocrat" gives our president too much credit.
I prefer "empty suit" or "Chicago machine crony."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseA tantrum set forth in complex language is not policy, it's still a hissy fit.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusek Karl Rove and the horse he serviced. the man has the moral stature of a ponce.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTelling that, in spite of your raging B.D.S., you stopped short of saying that Rove was incorrect in his analysis.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseShhhh...it's better to let the ignorant prove as much than to waste your time proving it for them. It wouldn't make sense to them anyway as it would require multi-syllabic words and thoughtful, intellectual phrases.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHeh!
Point to you, sir!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhich is likely because Rove is spot on. Haters gonna hate, I guess.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusenot sure that I have BDS. Bush didn't much and doesn't much bother me.
Accuse me of loathing Cheney and I'll cop to it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf you didn't care much for Bush why call him a horse?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusedidn't noticed that I had called Bush a horse.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThen you didn't read what you wrote above. If you didn't call Bush a horse then you used the wrong verb.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuseno chris, you made an incorrect inference
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYour writing was unclear, at best. For example, "k" was but 25% of the word you intended.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusetrue. that's an inference that I intended and expected to be drawn.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseActually, no I didn't. I inferred correctly that you were using horse for a euphemism for the compound because you used the wrong verb. You cannot service horse****, because to service is to be in the act of serving another. You *can* however serve horse**** as in giving out a thing to people.
So I stand by my original assertion that you meant Bush.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse