“It’s fair to say . . .”
posted at 10:14 am on June 12, 2010 by Pundette
That’s one of Obama’s little ways of prefacing a statement that will be very unfair indeed:
“I think it’s fair to say, if six months ago, before this spill had happened, I had gone up to Congress and I had said we need to crack down a lot harder on oil companies and we need to spend more money on technology to respond in case of a catastrophic spill, there are folks up there, who will not be named, who would have said this is classic, big-government overregulation and wasteful spending.”
Is this not laughable? He did nothing of the kind. There would have been no point, says he, because the GOP is so bound by ideology they wouldn’t have given his prescient urgings the time of day. But he’s not really claiming the thought even occurred to him. It’s just a fantasy scenario. You’ve got to wonder, can he hear himself? You’d think one of his handlers might clue him in that reflexive blame-avoidance is not an attractive trait. It makes you come across as a weasel.
Another breathtaking example of Obama’s “fairness”:
But to be fair, a good deal of the other party’s opposition to our agenda has also been rooted in their sincere and fundamental belief about the role of government. It’s a belief that government has little or no role to play in helping this nation meet our collective challenges. It’s an agenda that basically offers two answers to every problem we face: more tax breaks for the wealthy and fewer rules for corporations.
That’s fair? He goes on:
The last administration called this recycled idea ‘The Ownership Society.’ But what it essentially means is that everyone is on their own. No matter how hard you work, if your paycheck isn’t enough to pay for college or health care or childcare, well, you’re on your own. If misfortune causes you to lose your job or your home, you’re on your own. And if you’re a Wall Street bank or an insurance company or an oil company, you pretty much get to play by your own rules, regardless of the consequences for everybody else.
The President sets up three straw men to make his case:
- Republicans want a Lord of the Flies-like anarchy.
- His critics claim the President wants socialism.
- We are coming out of a “lost decade” of failed economic policies that we must reject for the future.
The choice America faces, the President argues, is between no government and a reasonable balance.
The actual choice America faces is simply whether, compared to where we are now, we want bigger or smaller government. We are arguing about changes on the margin, not about a choice between anarchy and socialism.
Sigh. Obama’s use of straw men approaches addictive proportions. He’s even made one to stand in for himself when he senses some blame coming his way. Then he knocks him down and heads out for the next play, fundraiser, party, or whatever, sans souci.
Cross-posted at P&P.
Recently in the Green Room: