More Hypocrisy from the One
Just caught this in Fred Barnes’s WSJ piece on why Obama isn’t changing Washington
“Change must come to Washington,” Mr. Obama said in a June 2008 speech. “I have consistently said when it comes to solving problems,” he told Jake Tapper of ABC News that same month, “I don’t approach this from a partisan or ideological perspective.”
He doesn’t? Hmmm. . . interesting comment to make from a guy who never forged a bipartisan consensus on a controversial issue while he was in the Illinois Senate or representing Illinois in the U.S. Senate. And while he had friends on the Republican side of the aisle, he never parted company with his Democratic colleagues on any major issue, always marching in lockstep with his partisan caucus.
If he doesn’t approach things from a partisan perspective, why then did he tap primarily partisan hacks to serve on his White House staff, picking a particularly ruthless partisan for the most important job (after his own) in the West Wing, Chief of Staff?
Obama won last fall in large part because people bought his rhetoric about being a postpartisan healer. But, the reality of his record–and now his Administration–shows an entirely different person.
Wonder why the media didn’t investigate this when they had the chance during the campaign. For there was abundant information to show just how much daylight there was between the Democrat’s rhetoric and his record. And they wouldn’t have needed travel all the way to Alaska to find such information, much of it could be accessed with just a handful of keystrokes.
25 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Wonder why the media didn’t investigate this when they had the chance during the campaign.
Do you really?
Comment by V the K — November 27, 2009 @ 3:08 pm - November 27, 2009
The media are so in the tank with Obi One that it is embarrassing. They have lost all focus.
Comment by straightAussie — November 27, 2009 @ 3:17 pm - November 27, 2009
There was more scrutiny in one week about Sarah Palin’s book than there was in four years about Obama’s book(s).
Go figure.
Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — November 27, 2009 @ 3:29 pm - November 27, 2009
“Obama won last fall in large part because people bought his rhetoric about being a postpartisan healer.”
That was just one reason the ship jumping Republicans and and jaded Independents gave for voting Obama in to office… The rest of his votes came from people that would have cast a vote for a serial killer if it meant beating the Republicans…….
To my one time loyal GOP brethren, “you have no one to blame but yourselves for the obamination now occupying the White House:his policies will inflict misery on the American people for decades to come.”
Next time I hope you’ll remember there has never been a good enough reason to elect a Democrat as President of the USA.
Comment by Spartann — November 27, 2009 @ 3:38 pm - November 27, 2009
“…why then did he tap primarily partisan hacks to serve on his White House staff,…”
another classic right-wing lie. He has “partisan hacks” in typical partisan hack positions (as opposed to Bush, for example, who put Karl Rove in charge of all domestic policy).
Obama’s WH staff members who hold policy positions are, overwhelmingly, highly distinguished policy people – like Larry Summers, Peter Orszag, Christine Romer, and yeah, even Republicans, like Jim Jones.
Comment by Tano — November 27, 2009 @ 3:48 pm - November 27, 2009
But Tano, Your President PROMISED not do so.
Aren’t you the little bit pissed that he has lied to you over and over and over again???
Or have you no principles either and that is why you worship Obama?
Comment by GayPatriot — November 27, 2009 @ 3:50 pm - November 27, 2009
what planet does tano live on?yhis is the most lying corrupt administration in history and wil be proven so.
Comment by your mama — November 27, 2009 @ 4:27 pm - November 27, 2009
What are you talking about Bruce? He never promised that, for example, Axelrod would not be an advisor. And I would not have wanted him to anyway. There is nothing wrong with having a few purely political people around to help an administration navigate though what is, obviously, a thoroughly political environment.
I am very pleased at the excellent policy people that he has appointed to the policy positions. Its a far more distinguished and accomplished lineup than any of his recent predecessors.
Comment by Tano — November 27, 2009 @ 4:41 pm - November 27, 2009
Oh, and I wonder (do I really?) why it is that when your attention here turns to whether or not Obama is actually changing Washington, that y’all somehow manage to miss the one actual news story of the day that is directly relevant to this question, and only give us mindless talking points from, of all people, Fred Barnes…..
Obama Bans Lobbyists from Gov Panels
Comment by Tano — November 27, 2009 @ 4:46 pm - November 27, 2009
Tano, please consider the meaning of the adverb that I used and which you quoted. And the word wasn’t only.
I think you may have well have listed the full range of the policy people in the Obama White House, but, let’s get to his primary staff appointment, can you identify any previous White House Chief of Staff who so lacked in a policy background as the incumbent? One whose entire career trajectory has been based on tearing down his ideological opponents and electing his fellow partisans?
Oh, and did you follow the link above which provided my detail on the point? Or do you just use the space we provide to rant against the conservative demons of your imagination?
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — November 27, 2009 @ 4:52 pm - November 27, 2009
Tano, what about the lie about getting rid of the lobbyists? What about the lie about no pork in the stimulus bill? And coming soon, the lie about the health care bill not funding abortion. Its okay, you can’t help it.
Comment by SpeakEasy — November 27, 2009 @ 4:56 pm - November 27, 2009
Don’t be too dispirited, there are those on both sides who simply vote ideologically and do not bother with facts. How else could McCain be a Republican nominee?
Comment by SpeakEasy — November 27, 2009 @ 4:59 pm - November 27, 2009
‘can you identify any previous White House Chief of Staff who so lacked in a policy background as the incumbent?”
Huh? Rahm was a sitting Congressman who dealt with policy on a daily basis. Not as a think-tanker, for sure, but he wasn’t a Karl Rove politico either. He was the Senior Advisor to the President for Policy and Strategy under Clinton, much involved with the healthcare reform effort.
And lets see some previous WH Chief of Staffs on your side…
Andy Card was certainly a policy person, I’ll admit that – as the chief lobbyist for the automotive industry. Is that the type of policy people you admire?
James Baker – chief to Reagan and Bush Sr. was a longtime political “hack” – running the presidential campaigns of Gerald Ford in 76. Papa Bush in 80, and in 88 and 92. How much more of a hack can you get? (note, I do respect the man for his other skills as well, but I am running with your definitions here…)
Comment by Tano — November 27, 2009 @ 5:15 pm - November 27, 2009
“I think you may have well have listed the full range of the policy people in the Obama White House”
Thats absurd. Those are the headliners of the major policy areas, but they all have staffs made up almost enitrely of serious policy people.
Why dont you list for us, just for example, all the members of the National Security Council who you find to be objectionable political hacks…
Comment by Tano — November 27, 2009 @ 5:17 pm - November 27, 2009
Tano, Tano, Tano, thank you for falling into my trap. Together with my nephew letting me hold him, you really made my day. I was being flip with that comment. In fact, I was being deliberately flip, knowing it would provoke a reaction from you. And it did.
As to your previous comment, let’s see James A. Baker had loads of legal and Administrative experience before he took the job as the Gipper’s Chief of Staff. He didn’t get actively in politics until he was just shy of his 40th birthday. Emanuel, by contrast, began his political career while still an undergraduate. And has been involved in promoting left-wing and partisan causes from the dawn of his professional career. As to Andy Card, wow, just wow, you’re reducing this man’s career to five year os his life?
Oh and since you inform us that Rahm was a sitting Congressman, please identify the legislative initiatives with which Rahm identified himself, working together with Republicans to enact them into law.
And go back and look just how he was involved with the healthcare reform effort, a reform effort which excluded Republicans–remember what the point of the post is here, Tano. The strategy in his very title was how to push this through. And it didn’t involve outreach to Republicans. Go talk to Steve Gunderson, a moderate Republican in the House at that time. He very much wanted to be part of efforts to reform health care, but was rebuffed when he approached the White House.
So, in short, please provide evidence of Rahm’s efforts to work across the partisan divide. In fact, please provide evidence that he had any kind of working relationship with Republicans. Or even amicable relations with them.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — November 27, 2009 @ 5:36 pm - November 27, 2009
Actually, the idiot Tano demonstrates better than ever how he and his Barack Obama lie and spin.
Notice the headline Tano quoted:
Obama Bans Lobbyists from Gov Panels
Notice what it specifically says in the story itself.
The lobbyists are not banned from joining committees. They are “encouraged” not to participate.
So Tano lied and his Barack Obama lied. What a surprise. That’s all Tano can do — lie and spin for his Barack Obama.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 27, 2009 @ 5:47 pm - November 27, 2009
#9: “Oh, and I wonder (do I really?) why it is that when your attention here turns to whether or not Obama is actually changing Washington, that y’all somehow manage to miss the one actual news story of the day that is directly relevant to this question…”
Talking Points Tano, just so I’m clear before I spend the next 15-20 minutes doubled-over with side-splitting laughter concerning your profound stupidity and consistent dedication to never letting us forget it, did you actually link to an article about Obama cracking down on lobbyists as proof of how he is “changing Washington”? Did you really just do that? Really? Because if so, that clearly means we need to go over this AGAIN: Tano, when you are walking toward an airplane and you don’t see the propellers attached to its wings, that doesn’t mean that the propellers aren’t there. It means that they ARE there and they are spinning VERY, VERY FAST.
Obama said point blank during his Presidential campaign, “I will not have lobbyists in my White House; the days of OLD Washington are over!” Of course, within hours of his inauguration, he was busted over his appointments of William Lynn and William Corr and Obama’s handlers had to hastily (and belatedly) talk about waivers to Obama’s own policy. And then came Eric Holder, Hilda Solis, Tom Vilsack, Mark Patterson, et al., and once the Administration finally began releasing White House visitor records, it became clear that virtually every health care lobbyist east of the Mississippi has had the “official” White House tour.
And now, Obama is CHANGING Washington because his Administration has “encouraged” lobbyists from joining federal advisory panels? Sweet Jesus, you are PITIFUL!
Comment by Sean A — November 27, 2009 @ 6:19 pm - November 27, 2009
You guys who argue with Tardo, may I ask you something? If Tardo once in a while put down the Kool-Aid and admitted that Obama was wrong about something, would that make him more credible as an opponent?
Would it make for a more interesting forum if more lefties were like Pat and would sometimes admit their side was wrong; instead of guys like Tardo and Gillie who so mindlessly loyal to the cult they give Scientologists the creeps.
Comment by V the K — November 27, 2009 @ 6:21 pm - November 27, 2009
Absolutely, V the K. In the process of passionately and consistently praising every speech, policy, and decision of Obama, Tano inevitably placed himself in a position where he regularly has to defend that which is irrefutably indefensible. His inability to offer even a single, tepid concession of an Obama misstep confirmed that he’s a feeble-minded, liberal zombie, incapable of going off the talking-points script for fear he will become confused by the debate and forget what he was instructed to believe in the first place.
Comment by Sean A — November 27, 2009 @ 7:16 pm - November 27, 2009
Actually tano and gillie march lock step with Obama more than someone from the DNC would. They aren’t free thinkers but trolls.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — November 27, 2009 @ 7:30 pm - November 27, 2009
Now here’s a change: Obama Shatters Spending Record for First-Year Presidents, I don’t think people are enthralled by it though.
Comment by Steven E. Kalbach — November 27, 2009 @ 7:31 pm - November 27, 2009
Hey Tano….
I’ve never said a damn thing to you…buy right now I gotta tell ya, I think you’re an ass….. My God,,,, Larry Summers, Bob Rubin and lil Timmy Geithner …all 3 should be hung out to dry for lying before Congress in 1998 about derivatives, not to mention how their actions destroyed Brooksley Born. When I learned Obama was placing all 3 of these men in key positions I knew the economy would suffer even more. I find it laughable you would praise Obama for such a bad judgement call.
Comment by Spartann — November 27, 2009 @ 9:35 pm - November 27, 2009
Speaking of bad Obama appointments…..did you see the boob Bidens pictures with the party crashers? priceless.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — November 28, 2009 @ 1:34 pm - November 28, 2009
And it gets better…..here’s a comparison of the experience in the private sector of Presidential cabinets.
No surprise; Obama’s puppets are nothing but government hacks who know nothing but bigger government and bureaucracy as the cure for everything. No innovation, hatred of the private sector, and an intense need to grow government — the perfect recipe for liberalism.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 28, 2009 @ 6:29 pm - November 28, 2009
Conservatives and liberals alike are now calling for tax cheat Geithner to resign in disgrace. Homeland security boob Napalatano should resign over ft Hood and partycrashergate. The social director of the WH should resign over partycrashergate. If unemployment (that is reported by the frauds) reaches 10.5% the whole economic team should resign. The chief of staff Emmanual should resign over the Copenhagen Olympic humiliation…getting 14 of 84 votes was pathetic. Biden should resign as he bungles the oversight of stimulus dollars. Remember when Obama said “no one will mess with ole Joe” and mis spend porkulus dollars. What a joke. Let’s see …..who else should resign….who picked all these boobs?
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — November 29, 2009 @ 1:21 pm - November 29, 2009