Obama: Iran, I Can Deal With. But Congress?

.photo.right{display:none;} In a statement Friday afternoon at the White House, the president showed that almost anything can be easier than dealing with the Legislature.

President Obama discussed the budget fight in Congress and foreign policy challenges on Friday at the White House.
National Journal
Brian Resnick Matt Berman
See more stories about...
Brian Resnick Matt Berman
Sept. 27, 2013, 12:13 p.m.

{{ BIZOBJ (video: 4473) }}

Fri­day af­ter­noon showed how much move­ment the pres­id­ent can in­stig­ate on for­eign policy, and how help­less he can be when it comes to acts of Con­gress.

Speak­ing be­fore re­port­ers at the White House, Pres­id­ent Obama said he en­gaged in the first dir­ect talks an Amer­ic­an pres­id­ent has had with an Ir­a­ni­an pres­id­ent since 1979. In that tele­phone con­ver­sa­tion, the pres­id­ent said, “I have made clear that we re­spect the right of the Ir­a­ni­ans to ac­cess peace­ful nuc­le­ar en­ergy, so the test will be mean­ing­ful, trans­par­ent, and veri­fi­able ac­tions which can also bring re­lief from the com­pre­hens­ive in­ter­na­tion­al sanc­tions that are cur­rently in place.”

It’s a move that can be­gin to thaw the long-held sanc­tions and lack of dip­lomacy with the coun­try that only a year ago the U.S. seemed destined to meet in mil­it­ary con­flict — though there is still spec­u­la­tion that Rouh­ani’s out­reach is in­sin­cere, and just a means to end sanc­tions on his coun­try. As For­eign Policy magazine puts it, un­like his pre­de­cessor, Rouh­ani “has the polit­ic­al acu­men not to pub­li­cize” his an­im­os­ity to­ward the United States.

Re­gard­less, con­trast that con­ver­sa­tion to the debt ceil­ing.

If we’ve seen this epis­ode play out be­fore, we’ve also heard the pres­id­ent re­spond to it in a sim­il­ar way. His re­marks were boil­er­plate. He’s not go­ing to budge on the Af­ford­able Care Act in or­der to fund the gov­ern­ment. And he again called Re­pub­lic­ans out on what he sees as debt-ceil­ing host­age-tak­ing. “So over the next three days, House Re­pub­lic­ans will have to de­cide wheth­er to join the Sen­ate and keep the gov­ern­ment open or shut it down be­cause they can’t get their way on an is­sue that has noth­ing to do with the de­fi­cit.”

Obama, as he has be­fore, tried to turn the de­bate away from con­gres­sion­al mech­an­ics and Obama­care fund­ing and to­ward people who would be im­pacted by a gov­ern­ment shut­down, or a de­fault on the debt. “Nobody gets to hurt our eco­nomy, and mil­lions of in­no­cent people,” Obama said, ” just be­cause there are a couple of laws you do not like.” Speak­ing to the Re­pub­lic­an fac­tion led by Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, that is look­ing to de­fund Obama­care, the pres­id­ent said that you “do not threaten to burn the house down just be­cause you haven’t got­ten 100 per­cent of your way.” A shut­down, or a bust­ing of the debt-ceil­ing, could be a threat not just to the U.S. eco­nom­ic re­cov­ery, the pres­id­ent said, but to the en­tire glob­al eco­nomy.

So while the pres­id­ent might reach “a com­pre­hens­ive solu­tion” with a for­eign gov­ern­ment that has been blustery and caustic, he can’t seem to do the same thing with his own.

Up­date (4:32 p.m.): Speak­er Boehner’s spokes­man Brendan Buck sent around this quick quote after the state­ment from the pres­id­ent:

The House will take ac­tion that re­flects the fun­da­ment­al fact that Amer­ic­ans don’t want a gov­ern­ment shut­down and they don’t want the train wreck that is Obama­care. Grand­stand­ing from the pres­id­ent, who re­fuses to even be a part of the pro­cess, won’t bring Con­gress any closer to a res­ol­u­tion.

Noth­ing here on Ir­an, of course. As to what Amer­ic­ans ac­tu­ally want, “no shut­down, no Obama­care” isn’t so clear-cut.

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
These (Supposed) Iowa and NH Escorts Tell All
10 hours ago
NATIONAL JOURNAL AFTER DARK

Before we get to the specifics of this exposé about escorts working the Iowa and New Hampshire primary crowds, let’s get three things out of the way: 1.) It’s from Cosmopolitan; 2.) most of the women quoted use fake (if colorful) names; and 3.) again, it’s from Cosmopolitan. That said, here’s what we learned:

  • Business was booming: one escort who says she typically gets two inquiries a weekend got 15 requests in the pre-primary weekend.
  • Their primary season clientele is a bit older than normal—”40s through mid-60s, compared with mostly twentysomething regulars” and “they’ve clearly done this before.”
  • They seemed more nervous than other clients, because “the stakes are higher when you’re working for a possible future president” but “all practiced impeccable manners.”
  • One escort “typically enjoy[s] the company of Democrats more, just because I feel like our views line up a lot more.”
Source:
STATE VS. FEDERAL
Restoring Some Sanity to Encryption
10 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

No matter where you stand on mandating companies to include a backdoor in encryption technologies, it doesn’t make sense to allow that decision to be made on a state level. “The problem with state-level legislation of this nature is that it manages to be both wildly impractical and entirely unenforceable,” writes Brian Barrett at Wired. There is a solution to this problem. “California Congressman Ted Lieu has introduced the ‘Ensuring National Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommunications Act of 2016,’ which we’ll call ENCRYPT. It’s a short, straightforward bill with a simple aim: to preempt states from attempting to implement their own anti-encryption policies at a state level.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
10 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Hillary Is Running Against the Bill of 1992
10 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

The New Covenant. The Third Way. The Democratic Leadership Council style. Call it what you will, but whatever centrist triangulation Bill Clinton embraced in 1992, Hillary Clinton wants no part of it in 2016. Writing for Bloomberg, Sasha Issenberg and Margaret Talev explore how Hillary’s campaign has “diverged pointedly” from what made Bill so successful: “For Hillary to survive, Clintonism had to die.” Bill’s positions in 1992—from capital punishment to free trade—“represented a carefully calibrated diversion from the liberal orthodoxy of the previous decade.” But in New Hampshire, Hillary “worked to juggle nostalgia for past Clinton primary campaigns in the state with the fact that the Bill of 1992 or the Hillary of 2008 would likely be a marginal figure within today’s Democratic politics.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Trevor Noah Needs to Find His Voice. And Fast.
11 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

At first, “it was pleasant” to see Trevor Noah “smiling away and deeply dimpling in the Stewart seat, the seat that had lately grown gray hairs,” writes The Atlantic‘s James Parker in assessing the new host of the once-indispensable Daily Show. But where Jon Stewart was a heavyweight, Noah is “a very able lightweight, [who] needs time too. But he won’t get any. As a culture, we’re not about to nurture this talent, to give it room to grow. Our patience was exhausted long ago, by some other guy. We’re going to pass judgment and move on. There’s a reason Simon Cowell is so rich. Impress us today or get thee hence. So it comes to this: It’s now or never, Trevor.”

Source:
×