#rsrh The failure of the Activist Left…

in one handy sentence:

Their questions, about Obama’s economic appointments and about his messaging problems, all began with some variation of “I’m going to vote for Obama again, and work for him, but …”

Let me channel the administration’s effective response to any question that starts in such a fashion:

  • Really?
  • Then shut up.
  • Get out your wallet.
  • Sit down.
  • Do as you’re bid.
  • Say “Thank you” afterward.

I shouldn’t feel too superior: after all, the Right had to induce one heck of an attitude adjustment in the Republican party leadership last year before they’d pay attention to our worries and concerns – and, not incidentally, stop picking candidates like Charlie Crist or Arlen Specter (or, heck, Mike Castle*) to represent the grassroots.  Politicians do not reliably respond properly to appeals to their better nature, and they do not always succumb to cajolery or flattery.  But a naked political threat will always get and keep their attention.  However, it has to be a credible naked political threat.  When you tell a politician that you’re mad, but you’re not going to do anything about it, the politician stops caring – because s/he doesn’t actually think that you’re mad in the first place.  And you know something?  S/he’s probably right.  Put another way: you know what would put the fear of progressive wrath into Barack Obama?  A legitimate, stands-a-chance, honest-to-God primary challenger.

It won’t happen, of course.

Moe Lane

*Yup.  Paris may or may not have been worth a Mass, but graphically demonstrating the extent of conservative unhappiness was probably worth a Delaware Senate pickup.


  • Rob Crawford says:

    They’ll never challenge him. He’s not their politician, he’s their Savior.

  • lovelalola says:

    You got that right. What kills me is the constant complaining by activist on the left that “Democrats don’t have a spine.” Yeah, well, neither do they.

  • Murgatroyd says:

    Put another way: you know what would put the fear of progressive wrath into Barack Obama? A legitimate, stands-a-chance, honest-to-God primary challenger.

        I can only hope that the reason Ms. Clinton took the Secretary of State gig was to stay in politics without having to go on the record as voting for any of Obama’s programs in the Senate … so if Obama crashed and burned in his four years remaking the country in Alinsky’s image, she could challenge him. There are, after all, several issues that could cause her to “reluctantly break with this administration as a matter of principle” — Obama’s flouting of the War Powers Act, his mishandling of the economy, undercutting her role in the State Department, and more and challenge him. Trouble is, she just might win the nomination and the Presidency.
        Alas, I can’t shake the feeling that John Huntsman is being groomed by the media and the Democrats (I repeat myself) as a “spoiler” for the 2012 election. I could see him mounting a third-party challenge, especially if Bachmann or Palin were the Republican nominee. The media would back him as the “reasonable” alternative. He doesn’t need to get many votes — five percent of the total (i.e., ten percent of the center-right half of the electorate) would do it.

  • Ray Alderman says:

    Matt Welch of Reason Magazine has of late been promoting his new book, and tells the story between the Anti-War movement of Howard Dean circa 2004 and the Tea Party movement, and how one was taken over by a political party and the other… wasn’t. He uses it as an example of why you don’t want to be part of the big two parties.

    • Moe_Lane says:

      Kai the Libertarians and all that, but you get more being on the inside pissing out more than you do on the outside pissing in.

  • Rob Crawford says:

    Ray, the “Anti-War” movement was never anything but the Democrats wagging the Wobblie dog.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Site by Neil Stevens | Theme by TheBuckmaker.com