In last fall’s campaign, particularly those parts which drew the most public attention, the presidential debates, then-candidate Obama often sounded like Ronald Reagan, promising to cut the waste out of the federal government.Â In the third presidential debate, he said, “what I’ve done throughout this campaign is to propose a net spending cut.”
Just after his victory, he repeated that commitment, promising to “scour the federal budget, line by line, and make meaningful cuts.”
Not only has he given us the opposite since his election, but he’s done so on steroids.
Now, Jen O’Malley Dillon, the new Executive Director of the Democratic National Committee takes issue with Rush Limbaugh for taking Obama, pointing out that “Americans voted in November for the very kind of change the President is bringing to Washington.“Â So, I’m wondering, isn’t Rush, in challenging the president on government spending, doing a better job of promoting the kind of change the American people voted for in electing Obama, given that Democrat’s rhetoric on spending?
Even our critics want to end the debate on the president’s policy proposals, contending “Engage in a debate over which policies will lead us? Didn’t we just do that? I think it was called an election.” But, given the president’s campaign rhetoric, it seems the president has changed the terms of that debate.
He seems to think that his victory in the fall gave him a mandate to do whatever he wants now that he’s in the White House. Kind of sounds like how George H.W. Bush treated his campaign rhetoric on not raising taxes and staying the Reaganite course. And look where that got him.