The New Republic’s hating on Obama’s Egyptian speech, as seen through a partisan lens.

Not to go all domestic-politics on the subject; but this

[Obama’s Egypt speech] was not an impressive performance. The president kept tripping over himself, first claiming that America follows its values, then talking about American interests, and making no attempt to synthesize the two.

…is not exactly the sort of reaction from the Left that any candidate hoping to name-drop Barack Obama in next year’s election will be precisely happy to see.  It is, in fact, commentary that has a certain whiff of 2005, 2006 to it – only, this time it’s coming from, and is about, the other side.

Ain’t that a shame.

Moe Lane

PS: The New Republic, by the way, has a very poor opinion of the Egyptian military junta; and I have not yet in fact decided that they’re wrong.

PPS: we are unlikely to see 2006 replicated in the House, largely because it had already been replicated in 2010 and 2012 merely demonstrated how good Democrats were at gerrymandering in Illinois, California, and New York (spoiler warning: not nearly good enough to flip the House back). But the Senate remains promising.  Especially for anybody who kind of needs the 2009 Barack Obama, instead of the 2013 one we have now.

2 thoughts on “The New Republic’s hating on Obama’s Egyptian speech, as seen through a partisan lens.”

  1. Fish gotta swim, birds gotta soar, pendulums gotta swing.
    Now, if we can get enough of the congresscritters to strike while the iron’s hot, to spend their political capital before it’s only good for cadging drinks ..

  2. Why synthesize? As long as every talking point is hit, regardless of the context, Obama can turn to his friends in the press and say “Candy, please check the transcript: didn’t I say blab blab blab in my speech?”

Comments are closed.