In a passage from his 2006 book, "The Audacity of Hope," he
sounds like a Republican complaining about the stimulus.
"Genuine bipartisanship," he wrote, "assumes an honest process
of give-and-take, and that the quality of the compromise is
measured by how well it serves some agreed-upon goal, whether
better schools or lower deficits. This in turn assumes that the
majority will be constrained -- by an exacting press corps and
ultimately an informed electorate -- to negotiate in good
faith.
"If these conditions do not hold -- if nobody outside
Washington is really paying attention to the substance of the
bill, if the true costs . . . are buried in phony accounting
and understated by a trillion dollars or so -- the majority
party can begin every negotiation by asking for 100% of what it
wants, go on to concede 10%, and then accuse any member of the
minority party who fails to support this 'compromise' of being
'obstructionist.'
I'm actually not a fan of bipartisanship. If Americans elected a
conservative president and a conservative Congress, I'd be urging
them to ram through as many conservative policies as they could,
without regard to editorial pages lamenting their tactics.
Therefore, I can't fault liberals from wanting the same thing
from Obama. But what I absolutely cannot stand is this phony
strategy of Obama to force his agenda through Congress without
making serious concessions to Republicans, releasing a 1,073 bill
under the cover of midnight on the day of the vote, while
claiming to be transparent and bipartisan.