Jennifer Rubin notes that President Obama comes in for criticism from some newspaper editorial boards today because he has chosen to campaign rather than negotiate.
The Post editorial board, which endorsed Obama in part because “the president understands the urgency of the problems as well as anyone in the country and is committed to solving them in a balanced way,” now warns: “Since his reelection, Mr. Obama has fueled a campaign-style effort to pressure Republicans to give ground on taxes. That’s fine, but it won’t be enough. At some point, he has to prepare the American people — and his own supporters most of all — for the ‘hard decisions’ required to put the country on a sound financial footing. That means spending cuts, it means entitlement reform, it means compromise, it means a balanced solution that will please neither House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) nor Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). Only one person is in a position to make it happen.”
The Post’s editorial board is not alone. USA Today’s ed board also cautions that Democrats need to get serious on entitlement reform: “During Monday’s briefing at the White House, press secretary Jay Carney repeated the theme: ‘We should address the drivers of the deficit, and Social Security is not currently a driver of the deficit — that’s an economic fact.’ Well, saying it’s a fact doesn’t make it so.” Echoing Republicans’ current complaint, the USA Today editorial board asks, “How exactly do Democrats expect Republicans to bend on their destructive refusal to raise taxes if Democrats won’t bend on their destructive refusal to trim unsustainable benefit programs?”
Where did the Post ever get the idea that Obama “understands the urgency of the problems as well as anyone in the country and is committed to solving them” in a balanced or any other way? Where? Obama does not believe and does not say that hiking taxes on the rich will fix anything. Other Democrats claim that raising taxes back to the Clinton-era rates will help, but Obama himself is campaigning to keep the Bush-era tax cuts in place. Obama has no experience solving any problem of any scale, ever. He was a shakedown artist who decided that politics would allow him to perpetrate his shakedowns on a grander scale (and he was right!). Obama’s opponent, whom the Post rejected, was a man known for fixing huge economic problems. Mitt Romney’s entire professional career consisted of fixing things other people had screwed up. But Obama successfully cast him as a vulture capitalist meanie, with the Post’s help. The only place from the which the Post could possibly have drawn the conclusion that Obama is interested and capable of fixing anything is from its own collective posterior.
These editorials will have precisely zero impact on Zero’s strategy or thinking. He’s playing a longer game than anyone in the mainstream media will admit, whether they know what he’s up to or not. They won’t admit that Obama is setting the table for a crisis that he has no intention of letting go to waste.