Monday, October 18, 2010

Special addition to today's posting

Expect a lot more of this in the coming months
The president’s apologists look for scapegoats

Interesting write up by a very engaging writer. I’m publishing the main points so it takes a bit of space. It was important enough for me to post this separately today.  Who’s to blame for the coming democrat defeat?

A few years ago, you met a dark, handsome stranger, with a cool, remote manner and a smooth line of talk. You didn’t know him well, but he had a certain je ne sais quoi that YOU FOUND IRRESISTIBLE. He was yourself, only better; yourself, only cooler; yourself, as you were in your dreams. You were a long-suffering liberal Democrat, and he was your airbrushed fantasy president come to life: FDR without polio, JFK without women, John Kerry with brains, Al Gore with charisma, Bill Clinton without those cringe-making vibes from Hot Springs. You swooned and you sighed, you got him elected, and you settled in to see how great life could be with someone like you in the Oval Office. And then things began to go wrong.

At first, the symptoms of trouble were small ones—a stimulus here, a GM bailout there—but the unemployment numbers kept inching up, and people got cross. YOU CALLED THEM RACISTS, CLINGING TO GUNS AND TO GOD OUT OF BITTERNESS, but when they began to make up a majority of the country (including a large chunk of the president’s former supporters), reality had to set in……

Here are list of the possible scapegoats.

IT WAS THE FAULT OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, that political juggernaut, which set out to subvert Barack Obama’s agenda and did. Alas, the Republicans could only dream of such glories: with 40 votes in the Senate (until 2010) and 178 votes in the House, they were in no shape to do anything, and for most of 2009 were the tail to the kite and caboose to the train of an enormous revolt of onetime Obama supporters and independents that turned the political world on its ear….

If not the GOP, then IT’S THE SENATE THAT DID IT, that “sclerotic, wasteful, unhappy body” in the words of George Packer of the New Yorker; that “profoundly undemocratic” institution, according to E.J. Dionne of the Washington Post; or, according to New York magazine’s John Heilemann, “a tiny band of verbose old folks” standing in the way of 300 million, who presumably clamor for left-wing ideas….

IT WAS THE FAULT OF THE MEDIA: While George Packer, E.J. Dionne, and friends were blaming the evil old Senate for the woes of Obama, Todd Purdum, their Condé Nast comrade at Vanity Fair, was placing the blame for the president’s problems right at the feet of .  .  . the press. …” the presence of Fox News on the national airwaves, the fact that “journalists who should know better ask the damnedest questions” just to get air time, and “the long-building trend toward coverage of the presidency and politics as pure sport.”

IT’S THE FAULT OF THE MAD: In the eyes of some of your number, the country’s gone bonkers, for no apparent reason at all. It’s a “weird mass nervous breakdown,” says Maureen Dowd, who ought to know weird when she sees it. Packer agrees. “The main fact of our lives is THE OVERWHELMING FORCE OF UNREASON,” he intones in the New Yorker. “Evidence, knowledge, argument, proportionality, nuance, complexity, and the other indispensable tools of the liberal mind don’t stand a chance.”

This sanity index also tracks the RACISM quotient, and both are tied to Obama’s poll ratings: When they are up in the 60s, the country is sane and postracial; in the 50s, it becomes borderline; in the 40s, the country is both xenophobic and stark, raving mad. (Translation: We’re too stupid for the great liberal minds and racists too.)

IT’S THE NARRATIVE, or lack of it, that is the real problem: People don’t know what Obama’s done. Or they do know, but they haven’t absorbed it. “They aren’t rationally aligning belief and action,” says Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter. E.J. Dionne says Obama has engineered “an expansion of government without an explanation for how this modestly larger government will enhance both private well-being and private sector growth.”

Evidently they don't consider the possibility that the dog simply didn't like the dog food they were serving. 

No comments:

Post a Comment