…I was struck by this line. “Most of our Democratic voters aren’t aware there’s even an election on November 4th.” Which is funny, because most of our Republican voters are aware, and are grimly looking forward to it; but that’s not what struck me. What struck me is that this DCCC ad isn’t geared towards boosting the enthusiasm of those Democratic voters. It’s geared towards boosting the enthusiasm of its own cadre of volunteers.
Dudes. It’s October. Getting your people ready to get pumped for the election now is a little, erm, tardy, if you know what I mean? Should have been done over the summer… oh. Right. The Democrats mark time by Barack Obama’s clock, these days. Silly, silly me.
You can expect to see some variant of this in ads over the next month.
The first bit is from 2010: it shows then-Representative Bruce Braley pretty much backing the President to the hilt – and, to be fair: in 2010 that wasn’t such a bad strategy in Iowa. Back then people liked Barack Obama – well, more accurately they liked who they thought was Barack Obama. It’s all different four years later, but This Thing Of Ours is notoriously indifferent to the suffering that can ensue when a statement that one makes comes back and bites one on the rear.
The second bit is from yesterday, and it’s going to be replayed forever. Here’s the transcript:
Now, I’m not on the ballot this fall. Michelle’s pretty happy about that. But make no mistake: these policies are on the ballot. Every single one of them.
Just after that, every Democrat in America running in a tough race started to swear. Because the reason why they’re in tough races is because people don’t really like Obama’s policies right now. Especially in the states and districts that are hosting the tough races. The plan Democrats had was to not talk about it, not openly support the President, and to generally distance themselves from both Obama’s administration and his policies; apparently, however, nobody bothered to tell Barack Obama that, because he just stepped all over that narrative*. Whether this was done out of malice, or just stupidity, is beyond the scope of this post: suffice it to say that Bruce Braley (and the rest of his compatriots) are not going to be able to spend October running away from Barack Obama, either.
Barack Obama’s making a very stupid mistake, here.
[Former President George W.] Bush, who said that he calls former president Bill Clinton several times a year, including last week when his granddaughter was born, noted that President Obama hasn’t called him since Osama bin Laden was killed.
“He has not [called] on a regular basis, which is okay. It doesn’t hurt my feelings. It’s a decision he has made. Presidents tend to rely on the people they’re close to…and I understand that,” Bush said.
It’s always arrogance that gets the powerful, in the end. Arrogance and pride. Because here’s the situation – and I write this with an enormous grin of schadenfreude on my face from thinking about how progressive activists will react to what I’m about to write – it’s clear by now that George W Bush knows how to beat a terrorist insurgency, and Barack Obama does not. Barack Obama’s previous Iraq policy was a miserable failure. Barack Obama’s foreign policy staff was incompetent. The President himself demonstrated that, when it came to terrorists and figuring out why they hate us, Obama was fundamentally intellectually incurious and far too prone to episodes of epistemic closure. Do I need to keep using all those progressive antiwar sneers as handy flails, or has everybody gotten the point by now? (more…)
As Congress examines security breaches at the White House, even opposition lawmakers who have spent the last six years fighting his every initiative have expressed deep worry for his security.
…I had a more measured response planned, but Charles Cooke wrote it for me, and I’m not going to give Peter Baker the satisfaction of knowing that he made me swear at him. But, yeah: this is the sort of nonsense that we have to deal with: people who work with monsters… and then assume that the rest of us are just the same kinds of monsters, just with a different colored tie.
It’s really kind of horrible, when you think about it.
Not much point to further commentary on this, except to note that this is precisely what happens when somebody assumes that they know everything, and nigh-deliberately learns nothing. Although I will admit that it’s not like this is the first time that the people, to more or less quote Glenn Reynolds, have disappointed the Democrats. That dang messy objective reality…
PS: It will be fascinating to see who, if anybody, will attempt to justify this rather inane comment by Barack Obama. Because somebody of course will try. I recommend a reaction to said attempts of basic contempt, with just enough pity to give the whole thing a little flavor…
PPS: Hey, which Democratic candidates agree with Barack Obama on this one? Anybody? Anybody?
(Via comments here) …Oh, but you are going to love this.
I’m going to get a transcript up as soon as I get one, but the short version: Barack Obama is a lying, cheating, no-good, paranoid manipulator who keeps telling you that he’s going to change, but never does. And his friends are just as bad… but you can do something about his friends.
John Jordan, a California winery owner and head of the group Americans for Shared Prosperity whose work in outside groups has gained attention in the last year, is planning to air two women-focused spots nationally over the next few days during major news shows like “Meet the Press” on NBC and on Fox News, as well as digitally across national print publications including POLITICO.
…the ads he commissioned from Florida-based ad-maker Rick Wilson feature a woman speaking direct-to-camera about issues like the economy and national security, in a 30-second spot and a 60-second one. She accuses Democrats obliquely of treating women like single-issue voters, and talks about President Barack Obama as if he’s a boyfriend she’s stuck with for a few more years. “The goal here is to communicate with women voters in a way that outside groups and campaigns haven’t,” Jordan said.
I know Rick from online: he knows exactly where the boot needs to go in on this topic, and my but didn’t he just? – And the truth of the matter is, it’s all freaking true. The Democrats pretty much do treat every group in their coalition with neither consideration nor respect; and there is in fact a limit to how often you can lie to a person’s face before she starts to realize that she’s being played. Particularly if there’s somebody out there willing to, you know, actually try to present an alternative.
“The U.S. military campaign against Islamic militants in Syria is being designed to allow President Obama to exert a high degree of personal control over the campaign, going so far as to require that the military obtain presidential sign-off for any strike in Syrian territory,” the Wall Street Journal reports.
To expand on something I said on Twitter earlier today: considering just how much the Left loves to describe every military action in terms of Vietnam, you would think that more of them would actually have a basic familiarity with the war, its origins, and how we fought it.
The White House believes that Congress’s 2002 authorization of the Iraq war — and not just the 2001 authorization to fight Al Qaeda — provides a legal justification for President Obama’s air campaign against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, the Obama administration said Friday.
Via Instapundit, who is probably likewise feeling invigorated right now. Who needs stimulants, when you have schadenfreude?
Background: Bruce Ackerman is one of those people. You know: Harvard, Yale Law, a long and fruitful career writing articles in the right upper-crust policy journals and books that invariably get published via university presses. A fellow at that intersection of academia and Beltway culture, in other words: and my, but did he not enjoy the Bush administration! All the wrong sort were around that decade, apparently.
Succumbing to the crudest partisan temptations, the Republicans managed to get their man into the White House, but at grave cost to the nation’s ideals and institutions. It will take a decade or more to measure the long-term damage of this electoral crisis to the Presidency and the Supreme Court – but especially in the case of the Court, Bush v. Gore will cast a very long shadow[*].
Bruce Ackerman, December 11, 2008. After saying that the Bush administration’s “cavalier treatment of the rule of law has embarrassed America,” he ended with:
Abandoning his pledge to act by the end of summer, President Barack Obama has decided to delay any executive action on immigration until after the November congressional elections, White House officials said.
The move instantly infuriated immigration advocates while offering relief to some vulnerable Democrats in tough Senate re-election contests.
…in no small part because it will not, in fact, give any relief to vulnerable Democrats (all of whom I want to see defeated at the polls, by the way). The President has picked the worst possible solution, even if you assume that Barack Obama basic motivating principle is rank partisanship (which it is). And here’s why: doing something out of rank partisanship implies that you expect to get something back. But there’s nothing to get back, here. (more…)