That ridiculous comparison, courtesy of Rick Perry, is the latest meme from the far right. The Texas governor on Wednesday insisted that Obama visit the border as a show of leadership, but the president declined, saying he wasn’t interested in photo-ops and didn’t need to be there in person to understand what was going on. But Charles Pierce urges Obama to go, calling his refusal “politically idiotic and morally obtuse”:
There is a massive and growing humanitarian crisis on our southern border. The president can’t be drinking a beer and shooting pool in Colorado, while laughing off the offer of a joint, while we’re rounding up unaccompanied refugee children and sticking them in Army camps. He wasn’t elected to be fundraiser-in-chief. He wasn’t elected even to be the leader of the Democratic party; that’s an honorific that comes with the day job. He was elected to lead the whole country, and it does the country no good to have him up there at a press conference, even telling the truth about the inexcusable dereliction of duty in the Congress and talking airily about how he wouldn’t participate in “theater.” That’s every bit as tone-deaf as anything his predecessor ever said on any subject.
Kilgore agrees:
I’m reminded of an anecdote about former Sen. Chuck Robb … encountering a constituent while campaigning in a grocery store who was beside herself with agony over some obnoxious decision by her local government.
Robb responded by saying something along the lines of: “Your problem, as I understand it, is not within the jurisdiction of the federal government. However, my staff can direct you to the proper authority should you wish.” Some wag contrasted this with how Bill Clinton would have handled it: by hugging her, crying with her, and generally making her feel noticed. Clinton wouldn’t have been able to do anything about the local zoning board or whoever it was, but the constituent would have felt immensely better—a feeling that could easily be projected via media coverage. Instead, Robb basically wrote her a memo.
On occasion just showing up in a messy situation is more important than having a solution or being “right.”
Aaron Blake adds that a firsthand look would probably be more instructive for the president than he thinks:
Obama seemed dismissive Wednesday night of the idea that being on the ground and seeing the situation firsthand would give him any additional insights. “Nothing has taken place down there that I’m not intimately aware of,” he said. But just hours earlier, Obama was talking up the importance of hearing directly from average people who were struggling. In fact, he visited Denver expressly to visit people who had written him letters — something he said in a speech Wednesday morning was as important to his job as his daily national security briefing. We at The Fix are very data-driven, and we prefer numbers to anecdotes. But we also recognize that being on the ground lends perspective that you can’t get through other means — no matter how good your staff or your information is. Obama might not think that visiting the border is a good use of his time, but it’s hard to see how it’s not without some informational value.
Noah Gordon, on the other hand, makes the case against dashing to the border:
A visit can be useful for boosting a region’s battered morale, for shaking hands and airing anodyne messages of support for victims. This is not one of those situations. Rebuilding homes, or supporting the troops, is universally popular, and it’s easy to strike a pose of resolve in the wake of a storm. How to adjust immigration policy is more divisive and complicated. Does Obama embrace the illegal migrants whom Speaker John Boehner wants to dispatch the National Guard to stop? Or stand in the doorway, hands on hips, reminding these children there’s likely no safe haven here? Does he hand out water bottles or Notices to Appear? …
Besides, this isn’t the aspect of immigration policy the administration wants to trumpet, but the part it wants to sweep under the rug. Obama’s balancing act now requires asking Congress for $3.7 billion to pay for the removal (and humane treatment) of some illegal immigrants while using executive action—over the head of a House speaker who is suing him for doing so—to make overall deportation policy more lenient. Obama’s decision not to visit the border is a gamble, but it may still be a smarter bet than making the trip.
And Waldman rolls his eyes, saying the border crisis is the “exact opposite” of Obama’s Katrina:
In that case, it was Bush’s failure of competence and his inability to go beyond photo ops that resulted in so much destruction. In this case, the president’s critics are actually demanding a photo op, while refusing to take any immediate practical steps to address the problem.
Update from a reader:
Another factor in the president’s refusal to do photo ops at the Texas border is that the people most interested in the photo would probably be Central Americans – either those whose children have fled, or those who may be thinking of heading north. And this kind of photo sends the wrong message – unless the president is actually pushing toddlers back into the Rio Grande in person.
Another:
If President Obama were to visit the border to witness the situation there firsthand, the very people criticizing him for not going would be the first to criticize him for being there in person and seeking to turn the migrants/refugees into Democrats. It doesn’t matter what Obama does; conservatives will find a way to demonize him in their loudest voices.
The Dish 