Everything is an “attack”—Obama is now officially beyond criticism
It has now become a low blow to strike any blow at Obama. It has now become officially an “attack” to campaign at all against him—or even to suggest opposition to something he may have done or may have said, whether you mention him or not.
Case in point: President Bush is not allowed to allude to appeasement as a bad thing without Obama (and many Democrats) getting into an outraged hissy fit about it.
The weird thing is that Obama was never even mentioned by name in Bush’s speech. I guess Obama recognized that the shoe fit nevertheless, although he simultaneously denied it by saying (erroneously—but hey, who cares?) that he never advocated talks with Iran without preconditions. Anyone who has followed his campaign knows that he did, but he must be counting on forgetfulness and/or a free pass. He seems to be getting both from most of the MSM, so why not from the electorate?
The word “attack” has been morphing for quite some time now in political life. Used to be it meant something quite fierce and perhaps untrue, or outside the rules of combat (and a campaign is a sort of combat). Now it has come to mean any criticism, or anything that could be interpreted as such.
How else to explain the statement of Obama’s campaign manager that Bush’s remarks were an “unprecedented political attack on foreign soil?” Or Obama’s that they were a “false political attack?”
But somehow Obama’s strategy seems to be working; he’s doing well against McCain in the polls. Perhaps this is because the anti-Republican backlash is so strong this year, or perhaps it’s that vaunted 15 points that the MSM being in the tank for a candidate is supposed to confer (I can’t find the quote, but I believe it was someone from Time or Newsweek who said that, back in 2004).
I didn’t like John Kerry and found him to be a flagrant narcissist, but Obama is making him seem humble. I cannot in my lifetime recall a more entitled, narcissistic, naive, jumpy, arrogant, thin-skinned candidate than Obama. And none of those characteristics are exactly recommendations for the Presidency.
Obama has been trending this way for a long time. But I think the fact that he’s all but clinched the nomination has emboldened him to go even further in the direction of discounting honest debate. I commented earlier on how Obama would trivialize legitimate criticism by using the word “silly” (or “distraction”) to characterize it. Now instead of minimizing he’s doing the opposite, exaggerating and playing the victim of a dreadful and unworthy “attack” based on “fear tactics.”
As it grows more and more likely that Obama will be the Democratic nominee and perhaps our next President, I find myself contemplating—along with Michael Novak (that’s Michael, not Robert), the prospect: Jimmy Carter redux.
It’s not “fear-mongering” to take Obama at his word and to imagine, as Novak does, what the probable results would be. But let’s not be too sad; Novak’s concluding paragraph contains a few rays of hope:
My most hopeful moments derive from imagining that Obama, as president, will be dissuaded from acting as he now says that he will. In that way, God will once again take care of those who are drunk on statist illusions, and He will once again take care of the United States, despite itself. It is when I take Obama at his word that pessimism floods over my heart.
[ADDENDUM: In case you missed them, here are Bush’s offensive, Obama-attacking words:
Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: “Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.” We have an obligation to call this what it is”“the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.]
[ADDENDUM II: I’ve been impressed by Gerard Baker’s writing on Obama, and this is no exception.]
[ADDENDUM III: I rest my case.]
Since Bush is already a pariah, getting Obama to react in this way will not hurt him and will not hurt his causes. But if Obama says this often enough, people will begin to see through him. We’ve got five months; let’s make this fraud show us who he is.
If you allude in any way, even in the slightest bit, to the great Saint Obama and your disagreements with him, you’ll be made out to be a heretic.
Paranoid delusion in full swing. Such persons see any hurdle as somebody’s aggression and can at the same time recognize something and ardently deny it. But how his supporters so quickly caught this mental infection?
I feel like I live in some sort of Alice in Wonderland world. Democrats go around all the time talking about how Bush is a moron, a failure, a liar, and so on (and I really do mean “go around” — Al Gore and Jimmy Carter have been highly critical of Bush, by name, in speeches abroad). Bush takes it all in stride. Then he gives a speech in Israel saying we shouldn’t appease terrorists, and the Democrats loudly cry “foul!” They truly are beyond parody.
What makes me laugh is Obama’s phrase “politicization of foreign policy”. What the hell this means? Isn’t foreign policy a legitimate issue of debate in presidental election campaign?
Recently I reread Kipling’s “The Truce of the Bear”. It ends:
“There is no trnce with Adam-zad, the Bear that looks like a Man!”
Adam-zad rhymes nicely with Ahmadinejad.
I think Obama is doing the lawyer talk again.
Falling back on that he advocated talking to the leader of Iran… ergo, not Iran. Just this one guy… who happens to be it’s leader…
Sorta like Moveon claiming they were not against the Afghan war… because they claimed all their protests, at the time, were anti ‘war’… not Afghan war…
Another Kipling’s quote to the theme:
Whether the People be led by the Lord,
Or lured by the loudest throat;
If it be quicker to die by the sword
Or cheaper to die by vote–
These are the things we have dealt with once,
(And they will not rise from their grave)
For Holy People, however it runs,
Endeth in wholly Slave.
Whatsoever, for any cause,
Seeketh to take or give
Power above or beyond the Laws,
Suffer it not to live!
Holy State or Holy King–
Or Holy People’s Will–
Have no truck with the senseless thing.
Order the guns and kill!
Saying–after–me:–
Once there was The People–Terror gave it birth;
Once there was The People and it made a Hell of Earth.
Earth arose and crushed it. Listen, O ye slain!
Once there was The People–it shall never be again!
Sergey Says:
“But how his supporters so quickly caught this mental infection?”
Backwards. His supporters existed, as a group, before they found him to be their leader…. and they already were in that mode.
I think this is great..the man is a fraud and voters are not stupid. His Achille’s heel is his thin skin, it’s beginning to show.
Sergey Says:
“What makes me laugh is Obama’s phrase “politicization of foreign policy”. What the hell this means? Isn’t foreign policy a legitimate issue of debate in presidental election campaign?”
We do have a tradition that, while in the US, you can call the president a bozo / jerk / et cetera but that
A: You don’t do it when addressing formal foreign assemblies
B: You don’t join in if formal foreign assemblies are doing it themselves
Example, even left wing democrats refuse to join in and agree with Bush bashing by Hugo Chavez… that would be an example of it in action. They can say it on their own but they can’t join in when a foreign leader does it….
Now, the question would be whether Bush did it (a dem bash) in this speech… I say no… the dems are just thin skinned because they know they’ve really been pandering to an appeasement loving san fran democrat style crowd…
I remember Carter and the 70s. I have no excuse. I voted for him. What I cannot understand is how people who are concerned about our economy think that Obama is going to do anything but make it worse. And, I suspect the Dems jumpiness also comes from Pelosi’s visit to Syria. They’re all guilty 😉
Oh, I forgot. Their new tactic is “McCain did it too!”. POTUS08 played a clip this morning from a McCain speech in 2006 that they claim shows McCain would also negotiate with Hamas. I didn’t hear the clip to say anything like that, but that’s the spin they put on it.
And let’s notice again the recurring theme of “if you disagree with me, you’re dividing the country”.
Brrrrr.
What are the Presidential debates gonna look like with Obama demanding no politicising and McCain promising civility?
I hope they don’t screw up and put these televised debates in a time slot competing with Flipper reruns.
As it grows more and more likely that Obama will be the Democratic nominee and perhaps our next President, I find myself contemplating–along with Michael Novak (that’s Michael, not Robert), the prospect: Jimmy Carter redux.
That’s my fear too, neoneo. *sigh*
“Bush takes it all in stride. Then he gives a speech in Israel saying we shouldn’t appease terrorists, and the Democrats loudly cry “foul!””
Um, no, history is crying foul, because Bush just took a gigantic shit on it just so that he could take a swipe at the democrats.
My mother would whack my butt if I picked on retarded children and made them cry. Is there a difference in the democrats, all retarded but actually behind retarded children in American values.
warrior-poet, BDS may be treatable if you start early, even the most highly trained mental health experts say there is no full cure. BDS sufferers will spend the rest of their lives in treatment or be a danger to everyone around them. GWB will be in Tx Bass fishing, having fun, and laughing at your worthless ass. When you have a degree from Harvard, a degree from Yale, are a trained fighter pilot, serve two terms as governor of Tx and two terms as POTUS get back to us with your accomplishments. Every democrat politician knows the democrat voters aren’t smart enough to figure out they are being used and abused so they will keep it up.
Paradoxically, those who are hungry, clueless, and desperate are exactly those who will buy into “quick fixes” that make things worse. The Democrats offer them what they want and they slip deeper into the trap.
At some point we have to decide if we want to be worthy to be free people.
A reader has kindly supplied the link for the “15 points” quote. It’s Newsweek’s Evan Thomas.
Thomas says: “Backwards. His supporters existed, as a group, before they found him to be their leader…. and they already were in that mode.”
That’s a very important point. Conservatives, such as many of us, are atavists, throwbacks, to the age of entlightenment when the norm of reason was logic and a burgeoning empirical science. The rational person took his place with and was in direct competition with a king. Reason was God’s tool, and could be held by any person. And it was in this world view that the authors of this nation envisioned the sovereign citizen, the rational individual who could, if properly informed, make rational decisions regarding his/her government.
A social order based upon individual rationality is inevitably vertically structured: The best and the brightest lead. However, no person, no matter how best and bright, ever negates another’s sovereignty. That is to say, each and every stands before the bar of reason as an equal. You best me only if your reason, your case, is better than mine. The king’s argument is that of a fool compared to the better reasoned. Or, in the popular expression, we live in a rule of law, not a rule of men.
This world view is 180 degrees from the collectivist, materialist marxism that reduced humans to meat machines that were destined by historic/economic processes they could not begin to fathom–unless, of course, they happened to be party members. I don’t think you can understand contemporary liberal rhetoric unless you anchor it in group mentality, and, social scientists included, I don’t think anyone does that better than Orwell. “Duckspeak” is a very good descriptor of the rhetoric of Pelosi, Reid, or Murtha. Speech doesn’t need to make sense, it only need to affirm the party line, whatever it may be, and however irrational it may be. It is not the rhetoric of reason, but the rhetoric of consensus. And that is why liberals sound like jocks, like cheerleaders who expect “Rah! Rah!” to be responded to as if profound. It doesn’t have anything to do with reason.
Orwell’s O’Brien is the prototype of the modern liberal in power. Winston is the prototype of the Age of Reason atavist in the hands of the modern government. As O’Brien tells him, in so many words, it is his delusion of being a distinct, rational person that is his crime and must be burned out of him. When he is no longer anything of significance, he will be as the party wants him–able to love Big Brother.
If you’ve not read _1984_ recently, it’s worth a quick review, especially the dialogs between Winston and O’Brien in the Ministry of Love. O’Brien is a sensitivity training group and a post-modern before there were any.
nj commuter says:
“Paradoxically, those who are hungry, clueless, and desperate are exactly those who will buy into “quick fixes” that make things worse. The Democrats offer them what they want and they slip deeper into the trap.”
EXACTLY!
In the late 1930’s, a young man came along and promised “CHANGE,” to alleviate everyone’s problems.
They ended up with Hitler!
In the late 1950’s, the Cuban people were clamoring to get rid of Batista. Along came another young man who promised “CHANGE.”
They ended up with Fidel Castro!
In Iran, there were those who wished to rise up against the Shah. They were promised “CHANGE.” And they got it when the Shah was assasinated.
They ended up with Khomeini & the Mullahs (sp.?) — and their puppet, Ahmadinejad!
Not too long ago, the masses in Venezuela decried their leadership. And not surprisingly, a slick (and sleazy) politician came along who promised “CHANGE.”
They now have Chavez and his cronies. The guy has already tried to change the laws so that he could be annointed President for life!
“CHANGE” has no guaranteed connotation of good, better, improvement…….
As I watch the effect Obama seems to have on so many — including very intelligent, highly educated, accomplished people, I am absolutely mystified as to what they see, or what they THINK they see. And one phrase just echoes over and over in my mind:
BEWARE OF WHAT YOU WISH FOR……….
Excellent comments cSimon and DuMaurier-Smith.
Like others, I fear Obama would be a repeat of Jimmy Carter, but I also see the thin skin as leading in the direction of demonizing all those who disagree, a tendency which is already well-established on the left.
Finally, to add to Addendum III above, may I suggest taking a look at this article, which is even more in the Obama camp.
It doesn’t look like my link worked… here’s the url…
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080517/ap_on_el_pr/appeasement_politics
SteveH,
“I hope they don’t screw up and put these televised debates in a time slot competing with Flipper reruns.”
Perhaps McCain and Obama will kiss and kill both their campaigns. Except for in California and the other freaky state.
Scrapiron,
Nice call. I laugh when I hear a liberal say the President is stupid. First, I ask if they have met and conversed with the man. “Well, no”. Ok, then, have you studied his polices, what he has implemented in legal or academic terms, or at least as deeply as you are able? “Well, no, but…”. No buts, either you have an open mind or you are not a liberal. You are a brainwashed automaton if you are professing words others have professed to you without doing your own homework.
I waste my breath, but they usually shut up (and turn red, slam doors, and get out of my ao).
njcommuter,
I am amazed how little little men can be. There are small giants, and giant midgets, but the miniature moral midgets take the cake. Having nothing, they feed themselves promises which even they know cannot come true. Perhaps they intend to end the trap they are in as quickly as they can, if they also end beauty, freedom, religion, and any other hopes and graces of their betters.
Orcs, goblins, ghouls, and other monsters seem just under the skin. Sadly, it really isn’t so. They are just men who have chosen so poorly, they really have no hope. Odd, sad, and potentially disastrous.
I posted the following last night on another blog, but it bears repeating:
While listening to the Democrats’ apoplexy over President Bush’s remarks to the Knesset, I observed that when Democrats criticize Republicans it’s “dissent” which is noble, principled, and patriotic; but when Republicans criticize Democrats it’s a “political attack” which is partisan, cynical, and ‘unprecedented’.
It’s clear now its fully game playing between candidates, Bush playing his part as a big joker here.
Let see Hamas control US election outcome not IPAC!!!
And what exactly Dems expected from this visit? Bush was not there to talk weather. How the theme of Iranian and Syrian war threats could be avoided? Bush did not name any names, he was speaking about general principles of dealing with agressors. He simply must formulate US position in this question, election or no election going.
I think theres a lot of conservative minded folks who’ve pretty much resigned to the fact that it will take a major calamity like the democrats are heading for to right the minds of people.
There is no reasoning with this crowd. They need a dose of wilderness camp and unfortunately we all may have to chaparone.
Obama is the perfect example of the fruits of self esteem child rearing. He desperately needs a good whack on the bottom and a couple of sessions of sitting in the corner.
BTW, his sweetie remark was in the same vein: dismissive.
I would so love to see Bush come out and say that he was referencing Carter, making Obama look even stupider than he does.
SteveH Says:
“There is no reasoning with this crowd. They need a dose of wilderness camp and unfortunately we all may have to chaparone.”
They [moveon et all] got one in 04. We [or the republican establishment] got one in 06. No one seems to have learned anything since.
Maquis Says:
“I would so love to see Bush come out and say that he was referencing Carter, making Obama look even stupider than he does.”
heh…