Written by Laurie Higgins
I have two quick comments on President Barack Obama’s embarrassing and insubstantial debate performance, both relating to Jim Lehrer’s question about ending partisan gridlock in Washington:
1.) Obama oddly responded to a question about ending gridlock by pointing out the importance of sometimes saying “no.” To illustrate his revolutionary gridlock-ending idea, he gave examples of his saying “no” to Republicans and then said Romney’s problem is that he doesn’t say “no” to members of his own party.
Just to make perfectly clear: Obama asserts that ending gridlock will involve Democrats saying “no” to Republicans and Republicans saying “no” to Republicans. The post-partisan president is right. That will definitely end gridlock.
2. ) Another peculiar statement from Obama on ending gridlock:
“Look, my philosophy has been, I will take ideas from anybody, Democrat or Republican, as long as they’re advancing the cause of making middle class families stronger and giving ladders of opportunity to the middle class. That’s how we cut taxes for middle class families and small businesses. That’s how we cut a trillion dollars of spending that wasn’t advancing that cause. That’s how we signed three trade deals into law that are helping us to double our exports and sell more American products around the world. That’s how we repealed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
–Say what? Repealing DADT was his bi-partisan way of “advancing the cause of making middle class families stronger”?