Wednesday, July 18 , 2018, 3:09 pm | Mostly Cloudy 70º

 
 
 
 

Michael Barone: Obama’s Unfulfilled Promise Change

All we see is a president more comfortable campaigning than governing

“The most important lesson I’ve learned is that you can’t change Washington from the inside,” President Barack Obama said in an interview Thursday on the Spanish-language Univision network. “You can only change it from the outside.”

A better way to put it is that Obama has proved he can’t change Washington from the inside.

One case in point is the comprehensive immigration legislation Obama promised to steer to passage in his first term. The Univision interviewers, who asked tougher questions than Obama has been getting from David Letterman or various rappers, zeroed in on this issue.

With a 60-vote supermajority in the Senate and a solid Democratic majority in the House of Representatives in 2009 and 2010, Obama could have pushed for an immigration bill.

Instead, he acquiesced in then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s decision not to bring such a measure to the floor. It would require some of the California Democrat’s members to cast tough votes.

But, with Obama’s encouragement, she did bring to the floor and pushed through a cap-and-trade bill that also required some of her members to cast tough and in some cases career-ending votes.

Cap-and-trade was a favorite of gentry liberals, the kind of people Obama regularly has seen at his 200-plus fundraising events. As for the Hispanics who want immigration legislation, he’s now promising that he’ll push it in his second term. Wait in line.

President George W. Bush managed to get congressional votes on comprehensive immigration bills. Obama didn’t bother.

Obama’s inability to change Washington from the inside is also on display in Bob Woodward’s latest bestseller, The Price of Politics.

He tells how in a meeting of congressional leaders Pelosi muted a speakerphone as Obama droned on lecturing members on the national interest, so the legislators could get some work done.

He shows how Obama blew up the summer 2011 grand bargain negotiations with House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, by suddenly raising his demands.

Boehner had already agreed to increased revenues from high earners through tax reform that would eliminate or limit deductions whose benefits go largely to those with high incomes.

That’s the kind of tax reform recommended by Obama’s Simpson-Bowles Commission, whose report quickly found its way to his round file.

It had the support of congressional Republicans such as vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan and Republicans on the supercommittee.

But Obama insisted on higher tax rates for high earners — proposals that tend to bring in less revenue than forecast — and raised the ante on Boehner.

All of which prompts the question: Would the economy be doing better today if the grand bargain had been successful, and if we were not headed toward the fiscal cliff resulting from the sequestration process congressional leaders improvised after Obama spiked the negotiations?

We can’t know the answer for sure. But it’s certainly possible. Instead, the economy is in such disarray that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has embarked on a third round of quantitative easing.

Obama has spent about half of his career in public office running for other office. A couple of years after his election to the Illinois Senate, he ran for Congress. He lost, and a couple of years later ran for the U.S. Senate.

Two years after taking office, he started running for president. And he’s spent a lot of time this last two years — all those fundraisers! — running again.

In the meantime, he has skipped more than half of his daily intelligence briefings, including those several days before the attacks on our embassies and consulates that started on Sept. 11, 2012.

Afterward, White House spokesman Jay Carney, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice and Obama himself (on Letterman) characterized the attacks as spontaneous responses to a video criticizing Islam.

That story line was punctured when the director of the National Counterterrorism Center stated what seemed to be obvious — that Ambassador Christopher Stevens was killed “in the course of a terrorist attack.” The video was a pretext.

The video alibi was obviously politically motivated. One of the premises of the Obama campaign was that his election would make Muslims love America.

What we see in all this is a president who is much more comfortable campaigning than governing.

What we also see is disarray — an economy that is foundering, a world where America is on the defensive and under attack. A president who can’t change Washington and whose election did not magically change the world.

Michael Barone is a senior political analyst for The Washington Examiner, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a Fox News Channel contributor and a co-author of The Almanac of American Politics. Click here to contact him. Follow him on Twitter: @MichaelBarone.

Support Noozhawk Today

You are an important ally in our mission to deliver clear, objective, high-quality professional news reporting for Santa Barbara, Goleta and the rest of Santa Barbara County. Join the Hawks Club today to help keep Noozhawk soaring.

We offer four membership levels: $5 a month, $10 a month, $25 a month or $1 a week. Payments can be made through Stripe below, or click here for information on recurring credit-card payments and a mailing address for checks.

Thank you for your vital support.

Become a Noozhawk Supporter

First name
Last name
Enter your email
Select your membership level
×

Payment Information

You are purchasing:

Payment Method

Pay by Credit Card:

Mastercard, Visa, American Express, Discover
One click only, please!

Pay with Apple Pay or Google Pay:

Noozhawk partners with Stripe to provide secure invoicing and payments processing.

  • Ask
  • Vote
  • Investigate
  • Answer

Noozhawk Asks: What’s Your Question?

Welcome to Noozhawk Asks, a new feature in which you ask the questions, you help decide what Noozhawk investigates, and you work with us to find the answers.

Here’s how it works: You share your questions with us in the nearby box. In some cases, we may work with you to find the answers. In others, we may ask you to vote on your top choices to help us narrow the scope. And we’ll be regularly asking you for your feedback on a specific issue or topic.

We also expect to work together with the reader who asked the winning questions to find the answer together. Noozhawk’s objective is to come at questions from a place of curiosity and openness, and we believe a transparent collaboration is the key to achieve it.

The results of our investigation will be published here in this Noozhawk Asks section. Once or twice a month, we plan to do a review of what was asked and answered.

Thanks for asking!

Click Here to Get Started >

Reader Comments

Noozhawk is no longer accepting reader comments on our articles. Click here for the announcement. Readers are instead invited to submit letters to the editor by emailing them to [email protected]. Please provide your full name and community, as well as contact information for verification purposes only.

Daily Noozhawk

Subscribe to Noozhawk's A.M. Report, our free e-Bulletin sent out every day at 4:15 a.m. with Noozhawk's top stories, hand-picked by the editors.

Sign Up Now >