“In his half-hour infomercial” the Wednesday before the 2008 election, the Washington Post reported, candidate Barack Obama “repeated earlier assurances that he had ‘offered spending cuts’ to pay for every cent of the post-election bonanza that he plans to shower on his fellow Americans.” (Emphasis added.) Indeed, in the third debate that fall, pointing out “that we’ve been living beyond our means and we’re going to have to make some adjustments” he told what he’d been doing “throughout this campaign”: he had proposed “a net spending cut.”
So, if he favored a net spending cut throughout the campaign, why would he be so upset if Republicans opposed en masse a post-election spending bonanza that didn’t offer any compensatory spending cuts as Obama promised in his infomercial:
Three days after he decried the lack of civility in American politics, President Obama is quoted in a new book about his presidency referring to the Tea Party movement using a derogatory term with sexual connotations.
In Jonathan Alter’s “The Promise: President Obama, Year One,” President Obama is quoted in an November 30, 2009, interview saying that the unanimous vote of House Republicans vote against the stimulus bills “set the tenor for the whole year … That helped to create the tea-baggers and empowered that whole wing of the Republican Party to where it now controls the agenda for the Republicans.”
So, we see two things here about Obama. He’s incredulous that his political adversaries would act in the spirit of his campaign rhetoric. And that he responds to a grassroots political movement based on principles identical to that rhetoric.
Guess he just assumed those ideas would stop resonating once he won election.