The title to this Hill article is “Frustration with Obama Builds” – which is highly ironic; or, at least the verb is.  The article itself discusses the President’s apparent public indifference towards getting involved with anything resembling negotiations over the ongoing budget problems; what makes it interesting is that Democrats (specifically, Sen. Kay Hagan of NC) are apparently now willing to go on the record to complain about Obama’s passivity.  What’s especially grating apparently is that the President’s planning to go to Latin America for a few days, starting tomorrow: it’s always grating when somebody goes on vacation just as the rest of the office has to start up an emergency, overtime-generating, critical rush project.

But here is the thing: why are Democrats surprised that this is happening?  We knew that the President was disinterested in governance.  We’ve known this for years.

Let’s look at some of the articles written on this, shall we?

You get the drift, and that’s just 2009.  Put simply, there is nothing – absolutely nothing – surprising about the fact that the President is almost terminally passive; it was, in fact, a large part of his cool, “No Drama Obama”… I suppose that ‘charm’ works, although I’ve only rarely found him to have any.  If Democrats are startled by this, they have only themselves to blame.  After all, the President himself wrote once “I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views” – a statement that had Froma Harrop respond “It takes some doing for a politician to write a 364-page book, his second volume, and skate past all controversy.”

Note: that comment was made in 2006.

Moe Lane (crosspost)