Green Room

“It’s fair to say . . .”

posted at 10:14 am on June 12, 2010 by

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.

Keith Hennessey explicates:

The President sets up three straw men to make his case:

  1. Republicans want a Lord of the Flies-like anarchy.
  2. His critics claim the President wants socialism.
  3. 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:

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

I wonder what Obama thinks the “never let it happen” 1990 OPA is all about?

It’s amazing that people like Obama think the answer to everything is anew law … I wants an investigation of MMS waivers for campaign cash. I bet that would be a very deep swamp.

tarpon on June 12, 2010 at 11:14 AM

We are arguing about changes on the margin, not about a choice between anarchy and socialism.

Hennessey may be right, but “changes on the margin” is neither what many others on the right accuse Obama of attempting, nor what they are promising or claiming to seek. A candidate speaking like Hennessey would face a Tea Party challenge and be hunted as a RINO.

CK MacLeod on June 12, 2010 at 12:41 PM

I think this president relies on such tactics far too much and I’m beginning to wonder if he doesn’t see these straw men as real people. I really hate to say it, but I think there is a real need to take a serious look at Obama’s psychological condition.

Believe me when I say that I do not suggest such a thing lightly. There comes a time, however, when you have to start asking yourself if there isn’t something seriously wrong. When you see the man on television clearly believing he and his gang were on task from day one, yet evidence clearly shows that not to be the case… it’s… well.. disturbing. From the beginning I have had absolutely no confidence in this president’s ability to do anything more than give speeches and screw things up. But the way things are now are far worse than I had imagined they could be.

This country is rapidly approaching a situation wherein we MUST have a leader, yet, as has been the case for the entire Obama presidency, there isn’t even an usher with a flashlight to guide us out of the burning building. To be honest, I think we’ve already shot past the edge of the cliff. Say what you will about the Bush/Cheney years, but I never found myself feeling as if there were no one navigating the ship of state. At least we always knew if we went down, Bush would be there, among the last men aboard, going down with the rest of us.

With Obama I get the feeling that not only is he unwilling to go down with the ship, but he’s already hopped off at the dock and is driving hell-for-leather inland so the resultant tidal wave of catastrophe doesn’t dirty his shiny shoes.

I’d bet if you asked the press and libs, they’d tell you they’re very well aware of how dire things are. And if you turned ‘em around and checked their pockets, you’d probably find them stuffed with what little goodies they’ve been able to find before they begin their retreat inland. They’ve little or no interest in a successful America. There’s no headlines in it. Destruction and chaos is what sells newspapers and keeps viewers, hence their need to make up what they could not find during the Bush/Cheney years.

Loyalty used to mean something in this country. And while I realize that for conservatives, for the most part that is, it still does mean something. That said, we’re going to have to let this president battle his straw men and stick figures and go about our business taking control of things and putting the country back on track. We just can’t wait any longer in hope the man will change his ways.

I’m not so sure Obama would be mad if we did, after all, I’m sure he’s pretty freaked out having to look as if he’s busy doing the job he was elected for, all the while knowing he hasn’t a clue how to go about it.

Mad Mad Monica on June 13, 2010 at 3:13 AM