Yes, it was Obama's idea to bring in the cameras. And he performed as well as one could when standing on the wrong side of truth. He took the opportunity to talk down to the assembly of GOP Congressmen. He corrected them in one sided and protracted monologue (and we say "monologue" because it was clear that he did not come to this conference with hat in hand and reconciliation on his mind). He was there to score points. The wheels have come off his political machine and he is busy trying to reboot his populace sounding agenda and take back the independents who have left him, marching away in droves. His most likely voter approval numbers have been under 50% (Rasmussen) everyday since November 16, 2009.Understand that performances such as Friday's confrontational appearance at the GOP assembly do nothing but energize a Leftist base that was going to support him [anyway] in the coming election(s) in spite of their deep disappointment with Obama's performance.
The following exchange frames the attitude implicit throughout this event.
In response to this comment from the floor, "Maybe it is the House Democrat leadership that is an impediment instead of a conduit . . . ." Obama started shaking his head "no" and interrupted the congresswoman making her point saying "no, no, that is not true." In this exchange, his purpose for attendance at the GOP Caucus was revealed: he was there as a representative of the Marxist wing of the Democrat Party and nothing more. It was clear that he had decided before walking into the room that he would not allow any criticism of his policies, conduct or party's leadership. He was there to convince a nation that the Republicans were obstructionists with no ideas. In the end, he was forced to admit that the GOP was not "the party of no" ---- perhaps the most remarkable accomplishment of the meeting.
Understand that the congress folk in attendance are at a disadvantage in the face of any Obama decision to "get down and dirty." There are limits to their response, even the tone of their response. He can be condescending, angry, politically bigoted, and persistently "inaccurate," but they cannot respond in kind. With those limitations in mind, we argue that they do not have to lay down and die in the face of the owner of the Bully Pulpit -- and they didn't. Their complaints were stated, denied, and restated over and over. On all sides, he faced a respectful opposition that refused to be run over by his insistence and abuse of the truth.
There was no more a ridiculous claim than when Obama asserted that "I am not a pundit. I am only a president," a comment he supported with the additional claim, "I am not an ideologue, I'm not."
If he had said, "I am not a professional politician," we would have agreed. If he had said, " I am not an economist, I know nothing of foreign affairs, I don't even like sitting behind a desk," we would have supported those statements. But, "I am not a pundit . . . only a president," well, that is just plain nuts. He is not only a "pundit," he is mean spirited about it and angry as a leader. His "enemies" list is as long as Nixon's but with different players in mind. He is the first president to actually organize against those who disagree - all 72 million of us !!! And he did nothing Friday morning to bridge the political divide between those who care for Constitutional values and those who are do not.
This editor was admittedly angry with Obama's performance - and it was a performance. At the same time, we are happy with the fact that GOP leadership did not allow the Obama strategy to get off the ground. Obama condemned some of the questioning as being nothing more than "talking points" when, in point of fact, his responses were precisely that. He appeared to be angry with the reality that GOP members decided to co-opt his strategy and use it against him. While there were no clear winners in this confrontation, that, in and of itself, is a victory for the Grand Old Party.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment