From a story in the WaPo by Dana Milbank: Obama is sad but not sorry about the election results
You can read the whole thing from the link above, I just want to point out a few key points.
The president, facing the media in the East Room the day after what he called his "shellacking" at the polls, admitted it had been a "long night." He confessed that it "feels bad." He acknowledged "sadness" that so many friends and allies had lost their seats.
But what he would not acknowledge is that his policies had in any way contributed to the shellacking and sadness.
Many have said Obama will moderate, or “pivot” due to the election. He will not, he is incapable of it. When asked if this election was a rejection of his agenda, he justified it as just being a result of not enough “progress” …whew… He still feels he was right in all of his decisions. We don’t dislike his policies, you see, we just are dissatisfied with his outcomes. It is not the policies we hate, I am sure, it is probably our lack of understanding as simpleton citizens.
Secondly, many obamabots believe he is a pragmatist, he is not, and his own words prove it.
No matter how many ways reporters phrased the question, the answer was the same. CNN's ED Henry suggested there may be "a majority of Americans who think your polices are taking us in reverse," and asked: "You just reject that idea altogether that your policies could be going in reverse?"
"Yes," Obama said sharply.
As the questions kept coming toward the end he said something else that proves he is locked dead onto target and there will be no moderation, no capitulation, and no compromise (not that I want to compromise with the communists)
He declined to rule out an effort by the EPA to regulate carbon emissions. He vowed to push back against Republican efforts to cut spending on education, research and infrastructure, reminding his audience that "we already had a big deficit that I inherited."
On a slightly different note:
Obama ultimately absolved himself of even the communications mistakes he acknowledged. "You know, a couple of great communicators, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, were standing at this podium two years into their presidency getting very similar questions, because, you know, the economy wasn't working the way it needed to be," he said.
I would just like to interject here that when the economy was going bad for both Reagan and Clinton, what got it turned around was lowering taxes and helping businesses, not raising them and bashing business on the head at every opportunity.
Thirdly, Obama says things that are quite alarming when viewed through the lens of history. His devotion to ‘action’ and ‘doing what is regrettable, but necessary’ are they types of phrases and justifications that dictators use, and have used throughout history.
He said "everybody in the White House understood" that his efforts to rescue the economy might be portrayed as government intrusions into the private sector, but "we thought it was necessary."
His closest admission to a failure of substance was that he failed in his pledge to "change how business is done in Washington." He explained: "We were in such a hurry to get things done that we didn't change how things got done."
But the Piece De Resistance was the last two lines of the story:
Obama's conclusion: "Getting out of here" -- the White House -- "is good for me."
On that, at least, he'll probably get Republican support.
For my part, we could vote on that right NOW.
-KOOK
