President Obama accused Republicans on Tuesday of launching an “ideological crusade” to hold the “economy hostage” over “ideological” and “reckless” demands to dismantle his health care law. “In other words,” he said, “they demanded ransom just for doing their jobs.”
Several readers who support Obama said they were disappointed by the tone of his remarks. One from Ohio wrote, “He needs to chill. He looks defensive and has no reason to be.” An independent voter in Michigan wrote, “He seems like an angry kid.” A Maryland Democrat complained, “I love the man, but why is he yelling at me?”
I had a similar reaction listening to the remarks shortly after writing a column in defense of Obama’s position.
Is the president lecturing, belittling Americans right now? Or the GOP House? Comms issue: Voters watching might not know difference— Ron Fournier (@ron_fournier) October 1, 2013
An otherwise solid argument can be undercut by the words a president chooses and the tone that greases them. It’s not enough to be right as a leader if you insult voters with your righteousness. It’s not just Obama. Senior White House adviser Dan Pfeiffer recently said the White House is opposed to “negotiating with people with a bomb strapped to their chests,” an irresponsible and overheated image.
The Republican Party engineered this stalemate and is likely to shoulder most of the blame. That is, unless the Democratic Party matches the GOP on pettiness, stubbornness, and demagoguery. Presidents Reagan and Clinton had a way of attacking their rivals with a smile, making their point without making themselves look smaller. Can Obama?
Twenty-six hundred words into a long-winded address, Obama took a breath and said, “Let me repeat, I will not negotiate over Congress’ responsibility to pay bills it’s already racked up. I’m not going to allow anybody to drag the good name of the United States of America through the mud just to refight a settled election or extract ideological demands.” Ten sentences later, he added, “We’re better than this. Certainly, the American people are a lot better than this.”
Yes, they are. And they might expect a better tone from their president.
What We're Following See More »
"The Obama administration on Tuesday called on U.S. states to ban agreements prohibiting many workers from moving to their employers’ rivals, saying it would lead to a more competitive labor market and faster wage growth. The administration said so-called non-compete agreements interfere with worker mobility and states should consider barring companies from requiring low-wage workers and other employees who are not privy to trade secrets or other special circumstances to sign them."
House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz plans to spend "years, come January, probing the record of a President Hillary Clinton." Chaffetz told the Washington Post: “It’s a target-rich environment. Even before we get to Day One, we’ve got two years’ worth of material already lined up. She has four years of history at the State Department, and it ain’t good.”
Hillary Clinton's transition team has in place strict rules to limit the influence that lobbyists could have "in crafting the nominee’s policy agenda." The move makes it unlikely, at least for now, that Clinton would overturn Obama's executive order limiting the role that lobbyists play in government
Federal employees from 14 agencies have given nearly $2 million in campaign donations in the presidential race thus far, and 95 percent of the donations, totaling $1.9 million, have been to the Clinton campaign. Employees at the State Department, which Clinton lead for four years, has given 99 percent of its donations to the Democratic nominee.