Just as important, Wilson was correct on the underlying issue of abortion funding, for which Obama has never been held accountable. Wilson was substantively correct on immigration as well, because even though the then-active healthcare bill prohibited illegal immigrants from participating in the “exchange,” the bill contained no practical method for verifying the applicants’ citizenship. The administration implicitly admitted as much when it later backed a provision to require proof of citizenship as a condition to enroll in a plan on the exchange.35
It’s also worth noting that during that speech Obama hardly had clean hands. He was accusing Republicans of opportunistic partisanship and misrepresentations while he was opportunistically misrepresenting their positions and their actions. Obama wearily announced, “What we have also seen in these last months is the same partisan spectacle that only hardens the disdain many Americans have toward their own government. Instead of honest debate, we have seen scare tactics. . . . Too many have used this as an opportunity to score short-term political points, even if it robs the country of our opportunity to solve a long-term challenge.”36 Yet in the same address, Obama accused his Republican opponents of being “cynical and irresponsible,” peddling “misinformation,” and asserting “bogus,” “wild,” or “false” claims through “demagoguery and distortion.”37
THE STATE OF THE UNION IS PARTISAN
Obama’s partisanship was in overdrive in his 2010 State of the Union speech, in which he invoked the self-serving whopper, “Our union is strong.” Most commentators believed that having just been spanked in the Massachusetts Senate election—which was every bit about him—Obama would show some contrition, some indication that he received the voters’ resounding message and would embark on a course change. Instead, he launched into full-scale attack mode. He wasn’t about to acknowledge that the voters thoughtfully considered his ideas and rejected them. Rather, it was that he had not explained them “more clearly to the American people.” He did not offer to consider the people’s ideas or those of the Republican Party. He said, “I want everyone to take another look at the plan we’ve proposed.” Then he taunted Republicans to “let [him] know” if any of them had “a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors, and stop insurance company abuses.”
Of course, Republicans did have a better approach to address most of those problems, and they had let him know, but he turned a deaf ear and later denied they’d offered any plans. The hard reality was that Obama was ideologically opposed to the only approach that could lower healthcare costs without rationing or decreasing the quality of care—which is to reduce the role of government. Had Obama been honest he would have said, “If any of you can offer constructive ideas that will fit within my framework of expanding government control over healthcare, I’ll consider them.”
On spending, Obama once again blamed George W. Bush instead of taking ownership of his own bankrupting policies. He said he would freeze discretionary spending, but his proposed freeze would apply only to a small fraction of the total federal budget, which the Wall Street Journal noted would have but a “small impact on the deficit.” It was a trivial concession designed to mislead people into thinking he was getting serious about spending. In another display of his “bipartisanship,” he broke protocol by castigating the non-political branch, the Supreme Court, for its recent decision on campaign finance reform. Obama’s warning that the ruling would open the door to campaign contributions from foreign corporations was so erroneous that Justice Samuel Alito was seen shaking his head and saying, “Not true.”
Then, in a surreal move, Obama blamed Washington for the nation’s problems, as if he weren’t the biggest player in that city. Even worse was his brazen complaint about the atmosphere of partisanship—as if he weren’t its most egregious contributor. He declared, “Washington may think that saying anything about the other side, no matter how false, no matter how malicious, is just part of the game. But it’s precisely such politics that has stopped either party from helping the American people. Worse yet, it’s sowing further division among our citizens, further distrust in our government. So no, I will not give up on trying to change the tone of our politics.”38
THE BALTIMORE CAUCUS
A few days after his State of the Union speech, Obama met with House Republicans at their caucus in Baltimore. His aim was to convince the public he was reaching out to the GOP in a gracious, bipartisan gesture, but his real purpose—as usual—was to paint Republicans as partisan obstructionists. While his scheme produced superficial dividends in temporarily boosting his approval ratings, he further alienated Republicans by his many misrepresentations at the meeting.
Wearing his innocent face, Obama said, “I don’t understand . . . why we got opposition [to the stimulus package] . . . before we had a chance to actually meet and exchange ideas.” But as previously noted, Obama gave Republicans no opportunity to meet with him on the stimulus until its drafting—by congressional Democrats alone—was all but complete. Obama also denied his budget would triple the national debt—which it would—and denied he had demonized Republicans for offering no ideas and no solutions, when he had made that claim repeatedly, branding the GOP from the earliest stages of his presidency as the “Party of No.”39
At the retreat, Obama didn’t take kindly to Congressman Jeb Hensarling’s observation that the Democrats’ monthly deficits were nearly as high as the annual ones when Republicans controlled the House. Obama, with dripping condescension, told Hensarling, whom he mistakenly called “Jim” three times, that he disagreed with “half of his assertions” and that he didn’t like having to sit there and listen to them. He complained he wasn’t being allowed to answer. Obama further lectured Hensarling that he made “bipartisanship” very difficult with that kind of question, which “was structured as a talking point for running a campaign.” Then Obama insisted Hensarling’s assertions about the deficit were “factually just not true.”
Standing his ground, Hensarling issued a statement at the end of the retreat that cited CBO statistics showing the average annual deficit of $104 billion during the twelve years when Republicans controlled the House, contrasted with the average $1.1 trillion deficit under the three years of Democratic control.40 Hensarling noted Obama “didn’t answer my specific question on whether he would continue us on a path to tripling the national debt and increasing government spending to 24.5 percent of the economy.”41
“I WANT THEM TO GET OUT OF THE WAY”
Obama adopted the same divisive, accusatory tone a few days later when he became frustrated with his inability to shepherd his healthcare bill through Congress, despite his large majorities. In a tough-talking press conference, he accused Republicans of trying to sabotage his entire agenda for political gain. He proclaimed, “We can’t afford grandstanding at the expense of getting something done.... I won’t hesitate to embrace a good idea from my friends in the minority party, but I also won’t hesitate to condemn . . . what I consider to be obstinacy rooted in substantive disagreements.”42 Note the subjective standard he invoked—what he considered to be obstinacy, which is anything falling short of fully embracing his agenda. He was lecturing Republicans about grandstanding on job creation policy, when his own stimulus bill—a year later—had netted millions of lost jobs.
This was a regular partisan routine for Obama. Months before, at a campaign rally for Virginia governor hopeful Creigh Deeds, he declared, “I expect to be held responsible for these issues because I’m the president. But I don’t want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess. I don’t mind cleaning up after them, but don’t do a lot of talking.”43
On another occasion Obama said, “I told my Republican friends I want to work together with them where I can—and I meant it. And I told them I will also call them out if they say they want to work on something then when I offer a hand, I get nothing
in return.” Eventually even Reuters recognized Obama’s ruthless strategy to “appeal to Republicans to make compromises and if they do not, accuse them of obstruction.”44
Obama typically speaks more candidly when addressing Democratic audiences. For example, at a New York City Democratic fundraiser, Obama told the attendees that “Republicans—they’re another story altogether. They just kind of do what they’re told.” You know, sort of simpleton robots. But Democrats were different. “Ya’ll thinkin’ for yourselves. I like that in you, but it’s time for us to make sure that we finish the job here, we are this close and we’ve got to be unified.”45
Showing the same partisan belligerence, Obama told Senate Democrats in a question-and-answer session in early February 2010 that Republicans had been obstructionist throughout. “I’m reminded that when it came to the health insurance reform in particular, I sought out and supported Republican ideas from the start. So did you. . . . And I told them I want to work together when we can, and I meant it. And I believe that’s the best way to get things done for the American people.” Then the other—and now familiar—shoe dropped. “I also made it clear that we’ll call them out when—when they say they want to work with us and we extend a hand and get a fist in return.”46 As conservative Gary Bauer commented, “This is nearly the same rhetoric Obama used last year in describing his outreach to the Islamofascists in Iran when he said, ‘. . . if countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us.’”47
VILIFICATION THROUGH SURROGATES
Obama’s surrogates got into the act as well. His adviser David Axelrod was always quick to demonize Republicans as obstructionist partisans or special interest tools while simultaneously calling for bipartisanship, as when he said, “One thing for sure that people want is for us to have honest, open debate. The question is whether we can overcome the obstacles of hyperpartisanship and the excessive influence of special interests here. We are going to communicate that.”48
Organizing for America, a group run by the Democratic National Committee to advance Obama’s legislative agenda, routinely sends group e-mails to supporters. One such e-mail, signed by Obama’s handpicked political strategist, David Plouffe, called opponents of ObamaCare “swiftboaters” who were flooding the airwaves with “distortions.”49 The group later sent an e-mail to Obama “supporters” in congressional districts represented by Republican congressmen who voted “no” on the healthcare bill. “Unfortunately, your representative caved to intense pressure from insurance industry lobbyists and voted against health reform,” the e-mail read. A Democratic official, according to ABC News senior White House correspondent Jake Tapper, admitted the e-mail was not sent to constituents of the thirty-nine Democratic congressmen who also voted against the bill. “It’s our belief that all Democrats want reform and we believe some if not many Democrats will support a final bill,” said DNC spokesman Brad Woodhouse. “We believe that Republican opposition is political—intended to curry favor with the insurance industry and to break the president politically.”50
Following Obama’s lead, his partisan lieutenants in Congress were every bit as polarizing as he was. Just before the final House vote on ObamaCare, Democrats announced they planned to inflict “pain” on Republicans who tried to slow down or block the bill’s passage. Democratic senator Sherrod Brown warned, “If they’re going to try to filibuster in the traditional sense or the more modern sense that they do, they’re going to have pain, too.”51 No, you don’t dare get in their way—that’s partisanship, as they define it. But rolling over for them—that’s bipartisanship.
Obama’s choice of advisers also proves his partisanship. His hand-picked chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, is Exhibit A. The profanity-spewing Emanuel, a.k.a. “Rahmbo,” is known for being “ruthless” and “a relentless partisan warrior.”52 Steve Clemmons of the Washington Note commented, “The Rahm Emanuel I know is tenaciously focused on results and will do nearly anything to win.”53 Early in Obama’s presidency, writer Camille Paglia referred to Emanuel as “the arrogant Chicago scrapper,” saying he “already seems like an albatross who should be thrown overboard as soon as possible. Nobody wants a dawning presidency addicted so soon to stonewalling, casuistry and the Nixonian dark arts of the modified limited hangout.”54 Congressman Darrell Issa of California said Emanuel would “smile at the same time he flips you the bird. The best way to describe Rahm is that he’s a brass-knuckle Chicago politician.”55
While some say Emanuel has settled down since he notoriously sent a dead fish to an uncooperative pollster twenty years ago, he is still coarse, to say the least. During a weekly strategy session with liberal groups and White House aides, Emanuel got miffed when some attendees said they were going to air ads attacking conservative Democrats who were balking at ObamaCare. He called them “F—ing retarded” and warned them not to alienate any Democratic congressmen. He later apologized for the epithet to the head of the Special Olympics.56
Emanuel is also famous for uttering the remark, “You don’t ever want a crisis to go to waste; it’s an opportunity to do important things that you would otherwise avoid.” This cynical statement was an early indication of Obama’s intention to exploit the economic and financial crises that existed when he came to office in order to advance the most extreme leftist agenda of any president in history.
“SO AM I”
Some have noted a pattern in how this administration deals with unexpected problems—they immediately shift into CYA mode and downplay any suggestion they did anything wrong. Only after a few days have passed and the intensity of the initial moment has subsided will the administration admit its involvement in some way. When, for instance, a pair of party crashers gained access to the White House and President Obama due to a security breach, the administration denied any error on its part, only to quietly concede the truth later.57
The Obama White House must always have the last word over any slight to the president or any criticism of his policies. Based on Obama’s behavior at the healthcare summit—tediously responding personally to each and every Republican speaker—it’s fair to assume this attitude comes from the top. Whereas President George W. Bush rarely spoke up to defend himself against outrageously spurious attacks from leftist Democrats, Obama compulsively lashes out when criticized, putting the lie to his reputation as a gentlemanly stoic. When Republican senator Judd Gregg withdrew his nomination to be commerce secretary citing “irresolvable conflicts” with Obama’s domestic agenda, the White House immediately attacked Gregg, insisting he had volunteered for the position and had expressed support for Obama’s agenda. 58
The administration exhibited the same pugnacious attitude toward critics of its national security policy. In an op-ed titled, “We need no lectures . . . ,” John Brennan, Obama’s national security aide, wrote, “Politically motivated criticism and unfounded fear-mongering only serve the goals of al-Qaeda.” Brennan accused critics of the administration of “misrepresenting the facts to score political points, instead of coming together to keep us safe.” Brennan also employed the perennial Obama strategy of blaming Bush, saying the Obama administration was doing a better job than Bush in taking the fight to al Qaeda. “We need no lectures about the fact that this nation is at war,” wrote Brennan. USA Today’s editorial writers saw it quite differently, observing that although “the Obama administration’s national security officials have struggled to assure the public that they know exactly what they’re doing,” they are “achieving the opposite, and they’re needlessly adding some jitters in the process.”59
Obama’s pugnacity was not spontaneous. He was spoiling for a fight with Republicans from the get-go. In an early speech stumping for his $3.6 trillion budget, he made clear he would paint all opponents of his ambitious domestic agenda as being in the pockets of the “special interests” and lobbyists. “I know,” said Obama, “these steps won’t sit well with the special interests and lobbyists who are invested in the old way of doing busi
ness, and I know they’re gearing up for a fight as we speak. My message to them is: So am I.” As Politico’s Jonathan Martin wrote, “Obama was “making his case for the budget” in an “unmistakable us-versus-them tone.” He quoted Obama saying, “The system we have now might work for the powerful and well-connected interests that have run Washington for far too long, but I don’t. I work for the American people.”60
“A SUPERJUMBO DEMOCRAT”
For a while Obama successfully passed himself off as a bipartisan gentleman who, in the words of Camille Paglia, “projected a cordial dignity and thoughtful reserve that seem to have impressed and reassured observers across the political spectrum.”61 But some, like liberal writer Peter Beinart, at least noticed an “ambiguity” in Obama’s bipartisan overtures. Obama, said Beinart, struck some “as a polished Howard Dean,” and others as a “Joe Lieberman,” who “wanted to be loved on the other side of the aisle.” And, according to Beinart, Obama didn’t resolve this ambiguity in his first year. (Others, as mentioned in chapter two, recognized this as a tactical ploy on Obama’s part.)
But after Obama’s healthcare drive, even Beinart admitted the doubt “is over.” The Massachusetts Senate election, said Beinart, had forced Obama to choose either to moderate his position, like President Clinton did following his Democratic congressional thrashing in 1994, or to go all out with an unabashed liberal agenda—and Obama pursued the latter course. He pushed unrelentingly for approval of ObamaCare despite overwhelming public opposition. “And,” added Beinart, “in acting the way he did, Obama has turned himself into a superjumbo Democrat. For the foreseeable future, he has forfeited any chance of bridging the red-blue divide.”
Crimes Against Liberty Page 11
