So. The New York Times published and then promptly removed this insight into the President’s television viewing habits:
Mr. Obama indicated that he did not see enough cable television to fully appreciate the anxiety after the attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, and made clear that he plans to step up his public arguments.
There are three ways to parse that. One, the President is cluelessly isolated, gets his information from “the shows” like Donald Trump, but doesn’t watch the right shows. Two, he was making a condescending joke about the drumbeat of the news cycle and denigrating the intelligence of Americans. Three, both.
It’s true that the media hyped the shootings in San Bernadino. Of course, so did the President in the service of gun control.
It’s true that the media hyped the shootings in San Bernadino. Just as they did Obama’s candidacy in 2008.
And maybe Americans should have been told what was in it rather than being told we had to pass it to find out.
“We got [Obamacare] done. Now, let’s face it, a lot of us didn’t realize that passing the law was the easy part.”
Yep, they supposed deconstructing 1/6 of the American economy would be as easy as convincing Nancy Pelosi to say something stupid. Hell, they assumed she needed convincing to say something stupid. I’m pretty sure she volunteered.
Of course passing the law was the easy part. Unfortunately, just waving your hands and saying, “Make it so.” doesn’t work when your minions have zero experience in actually building anything and are economically ignorant.
So, Barack, You did build that.
MSNBC idiot says:
[T]hey [the Clintons] represent a style of honesty that the public craves right now. And that’s reflected in the numbers.
Well, of course! I know I crave a more profound debate.
For example, parsing the meaning of “is,” is much deeper than interpreting what is meant by “You can keep your plan.” The “style of honesty,” though, is the same: It’s looking Americans straight in the eye and saying something the speaker knows to be untrue. I’d call that a style of lying.
Public preference for a “style of honesty” (whatever that means) isn’t why Clinton is preferable to Obama. For one thing, Clinton’s lies didn’t involve actually destroying one-sixth of the economy while screwing millions of people: Clinton was content with screwing just a few and lying about it afterwards instead of beforehand.
In any case, the question is substance, not style.
John Kerry today defended Barack Obama’s surprise decision to ask Congress to
share blame take a non-binding vote on Obama’s threat to mildly attack Syria. According to Kerry, it’s about American credibility (which apparently would not have benefited from Congressional approval prior to Friday evening):
The president then made the decision that he thought we would be stronger and the United States would act with greater moral authority and greater strength if we acted in a united way.
A post on this at Althouse elicited the comment of the day from wildswan:
If someone killed an American ambassador and we did nothing – then would we lose credibility?
If we suddenly dumped an ally who was a corrupt dictator in his twentieth year of being a corrupt dictator – would we lose credibility?
If we publicly insulted an old reliable ally – would we lose credibility?
If we stood by while the Moslem Brotherhood burned Christian churches and shot Christian priests – would we lose credibility?
Well, as far as I know it is the position of the White House that if a President allowed any of those (admittedly unlikely) things to happen or even if he allowed all of them together, none of them would affect American credibility or prestige. And so I think the same is true of doing nothing about Syrians killing each other.
And I think the President would mess up any action Congress did authorize just as he messed up the killing of Bin Laden by exposing methods and the names of secret operatives. And he messed up the good results of the surge in Iraq. And he instantly stabbed Kerry in the back when Kerry advocated Obama’s own policy of launching an attack on Syria. And he’ll stab the military if Congress approves an attack. So even if getting into Syria was a good idea it would not be a good idea under this President.
Remember, the president’s decision to ask Congress for a vote was taken after he denied he needed Congress and blustered about attacking on his own, after he dispatched five warships to Syria and after he sent Kerry out to make the case for an attack on Thursday. I guess that’s called leading from behind the curve.
Read the whole post at Althouse.