As of now, I am in control here, in the White House

Daily Archives: January 22, 2013, 11:23 pm

Carney: Obama’s Speech not Liberal

Because, don’t you see? We are all liberals now. And the others are “absolutists.”

From today’s briefing:

CARNEY: I would reject the idea that this was an “ism” speech.  This was in fact the opposite of that . . .

And I hardly think that pursuit of equal rights, pursuit of comprehensive immigration reform, pursuit of sensible policies that deal with climate change and enhance our energy independence are ideological.  The only “ism” that was a part of that speech was his rejection of absolutism . . .

Q    Not on behalf of liberalism or progressivism?

CARNEY:  Of course not.  It’s on behalf of ideas that represent who we are as Americans.  I mean, if you’re suggesting that it’s — I would reject the idea that pursuit of equal rights is a Democratic-only pursuit.  Or pursuit of energy legislation that enhances our independence, increases our production of domestic forms of energy and addresses climate change is only a province of liberalism or the Democratic Party.  I think — I would hope — I know that Republicans would reject that, too.

So this is his vision for how we can move together forward.

There is no serious analyst on either side of the aisle who doesn’t think Obama’s inaugural address was a summons to the barricades for liberals.

I’m not sure which is the truth here, or which would be more frightening: that the White House is trying to convince Americans that unadulterated liberalism is merely nonpartisan “American” values, or that the White House actually believes that unadulterated liberalism is merely nonpartisan “American” values.

Top Obama Aide: U.S. System Not Worthy of Obama

This has been around for a couple of days, but I wanted to make sure you saw it.

One of President Obama’s top advisers suggested to the Washington Post the other day that neither Republicans nor the American political system are “worthy” of Obama’s political agenda.

“There’s a moment of opportunity now that’s important,” said White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer . “What’s frustrating is that we don’t have a political system or an opposition party worthy of the opportunity.”

Checks and balances are a cruel thing when you are trying to do great things that Republicans couldn’t possibly understand, I know. But because of those idiots who founded our country, that’s the system we got, Dan.

People should understand that Pfeiffer is not just the West Wing Minister of Propaganda. He’s a smart political veteran who is one of a small handful of aides deeply trusted by the president. If he thinks this way, you can be sure the attitude is pervasive and extends straight to the top.

Thank you for reading White House Dossier! Today I’m reminding everyone that you may also subscribe. Just enter your email address here. You’ll receive the free OBAMAGRAM newsletter and updates on breaking White House news. No spam, and we won’t share your email address.

In Speech, Obama Fails to Mention Terrorism

President Obama failed to mention terrorism in his inaugural address, omitting from his remarks the existential threat that has plagued the United States for more than a decade.

Recent events have shown that al Qaeda and the threat of terrorism remain potent problems for the United States, which just months ago had its consulate in Benghazi overrun and which is now helping France try to root out Islamists in Mali.

But as Obama busies himself with his domestic agenda, terrorism does not seem to be figuring prominently in his thinking.

Instead, Obama sought in his address to impress upon America’s enemies that, effectively, We come in peace:

A decade of war is now ending . . . We will defend our people and uphold our values through strength of arms and rule of law.  We will show the courage to try and resolve our differences with other nations peacefully –- not because we are naïve about the dangers we face, but because engagement can more durably lift suspicion and fear.

While the White House has continued to track and kill terrorists around the world, Obama’s policies and methods may also be laying the groundwork for another attack on the United States.

By choosing to kill terrorists with drones instead of capture and subject them to tough interrogations, the administration may be losing a chance to pick up crucial information. The interrogations of captured terrorists during the Bush years, while raising concerns about whether captives were tortured, nevertheless yielded critical details that prevented future attacks.

What’s more, some believe the continued use of drones radicalizes local populations.

Meanwhile, the complete withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and the increasingly rapid departure from Afghanistan deprives America of longstanding sources of data about terrorist activities.

That Obama would minimize the threat in his speech suggests that, eleven years after 9/11, the White House may be taking its eye off the ball.

The Obama Morning News || January 22, 2013

Obama takes the oath of office . . . Washington Post
President offers a liberal vision for America . . . New York Times
Dodges hard choices on entitlements . . . Politico
Speech signals fight over to-do list . . . Wall Street Journal
Makes history with references to gays . . . Washington Times
GOP to vote to stave off debt ceiling . . . Associated Press
Paul Ryan booed at inauguration . . . Huffington Post
The besmallification of the presidency . . . Joe Curl
Stars were out at the inaugural balls . . . Politico
Michelle wears pricey but gets no grief
. . . New York Times