President Obama appeared on Univision today, and Jorge Ramos asked what the president considers his greatest failure since taking office. Republicans and some political reporters seem pretty excited about the answer, but I'm at a loss to explain why they're worked up.
For those who can't watch clips online, Obama initially mentioned his disappointment on not having passed comprehensive immigration reform, but then spoke to a larger concern.
"The most important lesson I've learned is that you can't change Washington from the inside. You can only change it from the outside."
Ben Smith argued this might be the biggest "gaffe" of Obama's presidency. Zeke Miller said the comment "seemed to undercut a central premise of his 2008 election." Indeed, the YouTube clip included above was posted by the Republican National Committee's rapid-response team, as if the excerpt -- in which Obama clearly talks about the importance of Republican obstructionism in explaining what ails the political process -- was self-evidently embarrassing for the president.
I can usually understand when some random comment gets Republicans and political reporters riled up, but this one's even thinner than most. The president, right or wrong, believes that real political change is dependent on outside-the-Beltway activism, pressuring policymakers to do the right thing -- the whole notion of politics from the grassroots up. That's not a "gaffe"; it's not even new -- Obama has said this repeatedly, before and after his election.
One can argue about whether this assessment is accurate, but to consider it controversial seems pretty strange, even by the standards of the 2012 race.
It's a strained interpretation, but I suppose the reporter/Republican argument would be, "Obama made it sound as if there's no point in voting for him, since 'you can't change Washington from the inside.'" But that's silly -- Obama believes he can't change Washington, or major national policy, or the nation's direction by himself, and he's right. It's a cooperative process, dependent on engaged citizens and more than one branch of government.
I guess some are getting tired of the "47 percent" story, but to make a fuss over this is to try too hard to change the subject.
Update: As part of his answer, which the RNC left out of the video, Obama talked about doing more in a second term to engaged in "more of a conversation with the American people so they can move these issues forward." This context makes the so-called "gaffe" even less controversial and more mundane.
Here's a transcript of Obama's next sentences, not shown in the clip: "That’s how I got elected, and that’s how the big accomplishments like health care got done, was because we mobilized the American people to speak out. That’s how we were able to cut taxes for middle class families. So something that I’d really like to concentrate on in my second term is being in a much more constant conversation with the American people so that they can put pressure on Congress to help move some of these issues forward." This isn't at odds with the 2008 message; it's the whole point behind "yes we can."
Second Update: Romney mentioned Obama's remarks three times at the beginning of his rally in Sarasota. It's almost as if our political discourse is getting dumber as the election draws closer.
Leave a Comment:
Who will be his modern Frances Perkins?
It's called grasping at straws.
Let us discuss something of substance, like ,
WHERE ARE THE TAX RETURNS ROMNEY!
They must have added a grasping at straws event to the 2016 Olympics. Never too early to start training!
A moment like this is spelled d-e-s-p-e-r-a-t-i-o-n
I hope what Obama says is true. If Democrats could ever accept that the GOP doesn't compromise, they could use that too their advantage by getting the GOP to engage in the tactics that cost them at the ballot box over and over again.
Because Democrats never give up hope the GOP can change - and GOP obstruction only pays if Democrats play into it by reaching across the aisle - Democrats will play Lucy to the GOP football over and over again. (Obama, yet again, has expressed optimism the GOP will learn.) Embracing failed GOP ideas to gain their cooperation will fail, giving the GOP the opportunity to come back to power in an anti-incumbent election without having learned anything at all as happened this last midterm.
The only thing that will break this cycle is for the Democrats to abandon their cyclical belief that this time, the GOP will learn its lesson and instead govern under the assumption GOP obstruction is the norm and operate in a manner that costs the GOP politically when they do obstruct, rather than in a manner meant to woo them over, thus enabling the GOP to be rewarded for taking the opening to screw them.
The GOP won't learn. Eventually they'll lose enough times that the obstructionists will all end up working on K-street after their electoral defeats, and a new batch will move in. That new breed of Republican won't win unless they have a different philosophy from the losing one.
I would hope the comment is a prelude to the President running against a do-nothing Congress. This may be the time to make the argument because he has tried bipartisanship and that didn't work out. It would seem natural because Romney is stumbling badly and Obama may be free to begin a campaign against Republican obstruction. This would not be just for the benefit of the down ticket races, but the possibility of a Republican Congress in one or both chambers. Obama can strengthen his hand if voters agree and public opinion continues to run high against the Republicans after the election.
This was my first thought as well.
The public can either re-elect obstructionist Republicans and then demonstrate against them, or simply elect the Democratic alternative and let them get to work.
Obama needs to maintain a conciliatory tone for dealing with Congress. Once the elections are over, he will be free to go over their heads and appeal directly to the people. This may be necessary to get a jobs and infrastructure bill passed.
The polyanna view of a novice grassroots organizer would be to say- if only we had tens of thousands of people emailing and calling their GOP congressperson, then there would have been a compromise on the deficit plan.
Does Obama believe that? Or does he understand that the Tea Party congresspersona had exactly the view that Romney does- that "those people" deluging them with calls to compromise don't matter, and no number of grassroots complaints or protests would change their view.
If so, then the way "grassroots" organizing works is mobilizing brutal electoral ground campaigns, district by district, and state by state. You do it the LBJ way- those who don't bend get annihilated in their elections. We take back the house and we take back enough in the state legislatures to ratify constitutional electoral reform amendments which cripple plutocratic power for the next 100 years.
The problem is that I am not seeing a huge mobilization of a ground campaign, or a recognition of the error of allowing the Obama for America organization to radically demobilize after 2008. I see more technocratic campaigning techniques that do not work because of grassroots volunteers, but works in spite of the "herding cats" problem and their fickle, often unreliable natures.
Obama is not naive to believe that mobilizing people to call and mail their congress critter is going to be enough to stop Republicans from obstruction. But a large public opinion supporting Obama can make some Republicans afraid, particularly the ones who are not in very safe districts and are facing reelection in 2014. The possibility of loss of control of a chamber will make Republicans bend. These reps are not going to be Tea Party people who will remain intractable unless they sustain major losses this election.
I am not optimistic they will bend. Billions of dollars in campaign funding tends to insulate the non TP politicians from anxiety. As for the TPs- I don't see them getting less ideological. They have to be voted out, and moderate GOP candidates aren't going to make that happen anytime soon.
LBJ could make people bend because they feared him and trusted him to make good a promise to help when they needed help. Obama has no such long term relationships (Matthews thinks he should have developed some-- Woodward refers to it as his aloofness) but pick your most savvy legislative operator- even if a Pelosi were in the White House, I am afraid you would have had the same outcome.
The GOP needs to be routed in the House before they will change their ways. Picking up a slim majority is not good enough. They need a good shellacking and the way to do that is a heavily funded national organization, with long term strategic goals (eg. development of sufficient ratification votes for constitutional amendments).
Like so many things we often tend to think the idea/goal is to convince the other side to cooperate. Often the idea is instead to give our side the cover to move or to remind them what we care about when they listen too much to certain "advisers". It is also about giving the press something more in our favor to do--August 2009 seems a relevant example of the other side employing this to great extent. Just look at volumes of words written on any subject under the sun by right-wing writers and bloggers that always seem to rank higher when doing a Google search. You just about have to enter a site name to get any other view. They don't do that to convince lefty folks do they?
The President did not understand that the right viewed his compromises as not seeking common ground, but an invasion of their ground. They suddenly found that once pleasant ground tainted by something other than them. That is, they had zero interest in being under the same big American tent, and in fact their self identity is to be anything other than what the more progressive half the nation believes.
The upshot is that there is no point chasing them or seeking a Clintonesque third way. These well meaning endeavors take us in the opposite direction, and by their definition returns nothing for us to show for our mad race to the right.
Turnabout is fair play. How about this for the game.
They can chase us, and attempt to slow us down.
Do you want change? Well then wait until 2015 because the last thing the right needs to do is win the first election after citizens united took effect. I mean what further proof of how unAmerican that ruling was could you ask for? But...if the wealthy throw some cash down the toilet this time then maybe you peons will quit trying to get rid off the citizens united garbarge.
(Just a thought, not that I think they are bright enough to try such a con game)
Meanwhile at the state level...
Obama needs to read a good Harry Truman biography: Truman won in 1948 because he identified the real problem in Washington, CD. C. at that time" "the Repoblican "do-nothing Congress".
Obama seems to think that if he refrains from attacking the "Republican Obstructionist do-nothing Congress" this year they might cooperate with him if he wins this year. The fact is that they will ooperate with Obama only when pigs fly! Now Schumer thinks the same; how dumb can these Democrats be?
This Ben Smith?
The Audacity of Truth
http://soupsoup.tumblr.com/post/30683988863/the-audacity-of-truth
Ben Smith at Buzzfeed has a post called “Pants on Fire Politics” which sub headline is “The Democrats’ attack on Republican honesty is a campaign ploy, not an argument.”
I realize Ben is using “democrats” as his scapegoat here, but throughout the article he’s either pointing to different journalists or blaming them for being duped by the party into bothering to check the facts. If these journalists fail to do the same thing with lies the Obama campaign tells, I would gladly agree with him.
He goes on to say, regarding two articles calling out Paul Ryan over lies he’s told as
What else is it but evidence about his character? What else are we to judge a candidate on other than what they do and what they say, and how they distort the facts about themselves and the people they hope to defeat on their way to public office?
Ben continues
The personal exaggeration refers to Ryan lying about his marathon time, which in isolation would be a forgivable white lie, but given how many other documented occurrences now where Ryan has willfully lied about easily refutable facts, it seems to fall into a pattern.
A “rhetorical simplification” is probably a great way to describe the explanation journalists like to use to help us poor dear readers understand why we shouldn’t make such a big deal about what politicians say in their speeches. Some journalists will have you believe that speeches are also rhetorical simplifications of facts used to drive home a larger point.
Aiding those rhetorical simplifications in Ryan’s RNC speech alone are clear lies. We can discuss policy difference if we both agree on the same set of facts. There are records and data and votes that have been cast, legislation that has been blocked and passed, actions that any journalist can easily point to. Instead we hear journalists, especially on cable news, where I’d generously refer to them as “pundits,” acting like they’re doing us some public service by explaining how politics works.
I wish someone in the media would look into the following more and ask Ryan about it:
1. Paul Ryan’s financial disclosure forms for Congress that were made public, showed he and his wife own stake in 4 family companies that lease land in Texas and Oklahoma to energy companies that benefit from the tax subsidies in Ryan’s Budget plan. “Ryan’s father-in-law, Daniel Little, who runs the companies, told Newsweek and The Daily Beast that the family companies are currently
leasing the land for mining and drilling to energy giants such as Chesapeake
Energy, Devon, and XTO Energy, a recently acquired subsidiary of ExxonMobil”
When asked about the blatant conflict of interest, Ryan’s spokesperson offered up the newly-popular “wife” defense: Ryan’s office says the congressman wasn’t
thinking about himself or the oil companies that lease his land when he drafted
the budget blueprint that extended the energy tax breaks. “These are properties that Congressman Ryan married into,” spokesman Kevin Seifert said. “It’s not something he has a lot of control over.” http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/06/17/247570/paul-ryan-family-beneft-subsidies-for-big-oil-in-his-budget/
2. Did Paul Ryan benefit from news Congress received about the financial crisis in 2008 and would it show on his tax returns. Is there any truth to this story: “September 18, 2008 the day Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and then-Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson broke the news to congressional leaders that they would have to approve a bailout to avert a complete meltdown of the financial system.
Checking through Ryan’s financial disclosure reports, the Richmonder
discovered that Ryan had sold the stocks of several major banks that day, while
purchasing – surprise! – stock in Paulson’s old firm Goldman Sachs. The story
quickly circulated through the media. The Romney campaign rapidly issued denials, based on three separate — and clearly false — claims: 1) the trades were not individual stock trades, but trades made as part of an index that trades big blocs of stocks according to preset formulas; 2) the meeting took place in the evening, after markets were closed, so the meeting could not have played a role in Ryan’s trading decisions; and 3) the stocks traded within a trust over which Ryan had no direct authority.” http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/08/lynn-parramore-revealed-romney-campaigns-attempts-to-deny-paul-ryans-insider-trading-dont-add-up.html
i'd say this hits the nail right on the head:
"No president forces major social advancements by himself. FDR understood that when he responded to entreaties from the labor leader A. Philip Randolph by agreeing and then saying, 'Now go out and make me do it.'"
Yes, but back then the dumbing down of the populace hadn't been an earnest and concerted effort. My how things have changed!
Why do I get the feeling Republicans have just walked into another masterfully-set "shiny object" trap.
Because they are stupid.
Bingo.
It seems to me Obama has set a trap for Romney and he walked right in.
The Pres.said Washington is broken (GASP!) Who the hell does'nt know that?
"real political change is dependent on outside-the-Beltway activism"
Yes, sorta like the TeaParty, in 2010. Evidently the GOP has forgotten about the 'people who live in glass houses' cliche!
(For those in Rio Linda, the "real political change" was going from bipartisan cooperation to a Know Nothing Mob that Speaker Boner could not control.)
Obama is adult enough to admit to a mistake and learn from it. Romney OTOH isn't adult enough to admit to a mistake and apologize for it. Obama is a wiseman and Romney is a fool. Who would you rather be president a wiseman or a fool?
And the stench of Republican desperation gets a leeeeeeeetle bit stronger...
Folks are getting their knickers in a twist over that?
Comprehension is lacking with this crowd.
The President is right, it can only change from the outside, if you're on the inside you're too close, too swept up, and ignore what needs to be done. We, the voters, are the guiding hand.
Let's guide these idiots to the door, shall we?
They continue to think they can win the election solely by attacking Obama, without ever giving anyone a reason to vote for Romney. I understand that strategy is really all they have, since there really is no reason to vote for Romney. Still, it hasn't been terribly effective to date, it has not worked well historically, and few if any political observers think it has much chance at this point.
We know why the Republicans are jumping on this comment. But what about the press?
Here's my theory based on what I've observed in recent years. The mainstream media doesn't seem to like presidential elections where one side is pounding the other. It's not good for business. They like close races, and as far as I can tell, they will do their part to keep the race close. As far as they're concerned, Romney got picked on for awhile. Now it's Obama's turn.
This is the reason that Democratic voters cannot get complacent. Not for day...not for a moment.
https://contribute.barackobama.com/donation/index.html
One of my bigger disappointments with Obama has been his reluctance to appear TOO partisan. IMHO, after the hostile hateful attempts to block his stimulus package and the Affordable Care Act - while simultaneously calling it all akin to socialism YET NEVER OFFERING ANYTHING ELSE TO ADDRESS THESE PROBLEMS - Obama was in his rights to start shouting to the mountaintops "I can't get anything done with this Congress. They are not acting in good faith, they want America to fail rather than see a Democratic President help get something done that benefits the American people. If this makes you as mad as it makes me, elect me a better Congress." Can you imagine how much conceivably better the 2010 midterms could have been if he simply said that, "Send me a better Congress and we'll make a better America?"
But no, that would have been too partisan. We are soooooo much better off where we are.
I use to wonder this all the time. I never understood why Obama never talked to the public like he now says he needs to do. After 2008 I thought this was part of his plan. He needs to yell it every time he gets on tv, just as the thugs do.
Did the TRMS see this: http://www.salon.com/2012/09/20/invisible_obama_chair_lynchings/
Beyond disturbing!
That Texas home owner doesn't get that it isn't a chair "sitting out" as he put it. It's the chair hanging in a tree as though it where lynched that people find disturbing. What idiotic ass.
You know, no one has brought this up yet.
It is bad enough that Romney has nothing for the 47% and is not even interested in talking to them, but what he is REALLY saying then, is that he has contempt for the 53% also, because if that is the only group he is actually "talking" to, then he obviously thinks they are gullible and stupid and will believe ANYTHING he says!
It can only be that he has no respect for the intelligence of 53% that he won't release his taxes, that he refuses to come up with any real plans with real details!
It can only be that he has no respect for the intelligence of the 53% that he says one thing to one group, and then the opposite to another group, knowing that both statements will be broadcast and written about, and that each group will hear what he is saying to the other.
If the 53% group is the only ones he is politicking to, he obviously disdains them more than he does the 47%!
You know....can you imagine if Ed, Chris, and Rachel were on the side of the GOP instead of the leftie Dems? Think about it.
All 3 of them would be having a hay day full of material for their shows....with all that is going on with Obama and his "administration"
1. Blaming a terrorist attack on our country on the anniversary of 9/11 on a video and saying it was not a terrorist attack.
2. A DOJ with all the fast and furious scandal going on.
3. Going on Letterman, with Hollywood stars, the View...and saying he is too busy to meet with the Russian leader.
4. Playing golf over 150 times since in office.
5. The job numbers, the unemployment numbers, the debt he has added, ...etc.
6. GM going down the tubes...even after the bail out. Stock at all time low. GM wants to buy the company back from Obama but he won't sell because the stock is so low.
I could go on and on and on.
All 3 of them would have it made. Imagine for a moment that they were attacking Obama and all he has done and what he stands for instead of attacking Romney.
I mean, Ed spends a whole week of shows on the 47% deal. Ignores all of the other big things going on in our country. You know Ed, there are no words for you..........................other than you are the King of the lowest rated show on the lowest rated network in the good ole USA. Keep up the good work
All that blather, troll, and not one word of substance! AMAZING!!!
Obama's right, only we outside can change DC, and our statehouses, by voting for non-obstructionists, people we can trust to be reasonable and govern. At the end of an era, that means a straight Democratic ticket.
Then, if the millenial generation organizes around their concerns -- creating an equal shot for all, rule of law, transparency, and a strong economy benefiting from industrial systems without carbon energy's unintended consequences, so we can grow our way out of the deficit -- that generation will be on the "left", leaving Obama and then Hillary on the right. I could be very happy with that.
I hope this president will ask us to do it.
The payroll tax extension just in the last year is a perfect example of what Obama was talking about. The GOPs initial plan was not to vote for it but after they started hearing a lot of blowback from constituents -- even those of their own party --- they capitulated. Politicians may have some personal convictions and party loyalty, but as you can see with the race to see who can distance themselves the fastest from Romney's "47%" comments, they usually will do whatever they think will help them win elections. That being the case, change with help from the outside is a most appropriate strategy.
The root cause as to why the company Kodak went bankrupt was primarily because a few executives put their job security ahead of the company. They were so worried
about being left behind in this digital age, that they sacrificed an entire
company. This selfish act, by a few, impacted the livelihoods of thousand of
people.
At Kodak, it was extremely hard and damn near impossible for
the thousands of minions to stop what happened. Though they were in a position
to enact change they could have been silenced by being fired or simply ignored.
In fact I have no clue if they did anything or not. We can learn from Kodak's
example.
The individuals who attacked the President's comments completely missed the point he was making, or they're ignoring it. I'm sure it's the latter. I have to believe that or I will go bonkers. The government isn't there just to lead the people, it is the people who need to lead the government or the agenda of the few will ruin us all!
I don't mean to sound like a public service announcement, but it needs to be said. We should take Howard Beale's advice and let them, the "leaders" we elected, know that we are mad as hell and we are not going to take it anymore!
"I don't have to tell you things are bad. Everybody knows things are bad. It's a
depression. Everybody's out of work or scared of losing their job. The dollar
buys a nickel's worth; banks are going bust; shopkeepers keep a gun under the
counter; punks are running wild in the street, and there's nobody anywhere who
seems to know what to do, and there's no end to it.
We know the air is unfit to breathe and our food is unfit to eat. And we sit watching our TVs while some local newscaster tells us that today we had fifteen homicides and sixty-three violent crimes, as if that's the way it's supposed to be!
We all know things are bad -- worse than bad -- they're crazy.
It's like everything everywhere is going crazy, so we don't go out any more. We sit in the house, and slowly the world we're living in is getting smaller, and all we say is, "Please, at least leave us alone in our living rooms. Let me have my toaster and my TV and my steel-belted radials, and I won't say anything. Just leave us alone."
Well, I'm not going to leave you alone.
I want you to get mad!
I don't want you to protest. I don't want you to riot. I don't want you to write to your
Congressman, because I wouldn't know what to tell you to write. I don't know
what to do about the depression and the inflation and the Russians and the
crime in the street.
All I know is that first, you've got to get mad.
You've gotta say,
"I'm a human being, goddammit! My life has value!"'
~Paddy Chayefsky through his character Howard Beale from the movie 'The Network'
And apparently Mitt Romney said the EXACT SAME THING in 2007:
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2007/12/30/4429528-mitt-on-huck-mccain-ann
"I don't think you change Washington from the inside. I think you change it from the outside."