This not very shocking observation comes from long serving White House correspondent Kenneth T. Walsh.
From The Examiner piece by Paul Bedard:
A revealing new book from one of media's longest-serving White House correspondents reports that President Obama surrounds himself only with "idolizers," and top aides make sure that those whose views might "shake him up too much" are shoved aside.Yeah. This seems pretty consistent to the way Obama and his administration acts.
In "Prisoners of the White House, the Isolation of America's Presidents and the Crisis of Leadership," U.S. News correspondent Kenneth T. Walsh also discloses the extent to which Obama relies on polling for his political decisions, including a never-before revealed re-election project to investigate the thoughts and feelings of "up for grabs" voters and another dedicated to helping him build a lasting legacy.
Walsh, who has covered the White House for 25 years and written several books on the presidency, credits Obama for trying to get out of the so-called "bubble," but found that instead the president often relies on a tiny cadre of Chicago aides, thus living in "a bubble within the bubble."
He called top Chicago aide Valerie Jarrett "one of the leading idolizers" who blocks the access of critics to her boss. "Jarrett has gone too far in limiting others' access to the president, according to a number of White House and congressional sources," writes Walsh in the book, due out June 1. "Her goal is to keep Obama in a cocoon of admirers who won't, in her mind, shake him up too much or present views that might be contrary to her understanding of Obama's positions."
Democratic pollster Peter Hart told Walsh that Obama is more a performer than seasoned politician. "He likes performing. He likes crowds," said the pollster. But Hart added that Obama's White House is too distant from those in Congress who can help him. "It's closed. It's insular. It's shut out."
Obama seems driven by ideology, ego and incompetence-- a great deal of the incompetence coming from his inability to accept being wrong or ignorant on a subject. This (along with baseless arrogance) seems to be a hallmark of the modern academic, and just one more reason why electing academics to political positions is incredibly stupid.
No comments:
Post a Comment