October 6, 2012
DANA MILBANK OF THE WASHINGTON POST FINALLY CATCHES UP WITH THE CONSERVATIVE BLOGOSPHERE:
● Frequent Tim Blair commenter Paco of Paco Enterprises, September 8, 2008: “[Y]ou can’t inflate an empty suit and blithely assume that the American people aren’t going to see that the clothes have no emperor. Not. Going. To work.”
● Orrin Judd of the Brothers Judd, October 12, 2009: “People have mistakenly used the ‘Emperor has no clothes’ analogy for the UR. The real point is the clothes have no Emperor.”
In the hours after the Republican challenger Mitt Romney embarrassed the incumbent in their first meeting, Obama loyalists expressed puzzlement that the incumbent had done badly. But Obama has only himself to blame, because he set himself up for Wednesday’s emperor-has-no-clothes moment. For the past four years, he has worked assiduously to avoid being questioned, maintaining a regal detachment from the media and other sources of dissent and skeptical inquiry.
OK, Milbank has the analogy backwards — Obama’s suits look great; it’s the man inside them that’s vacant (QED, the famous British Spectator illustration from 2009) — but give him points for finally noticing.
On the other hand, as Lisa Fritsch writes today at the American Thinker, had the media noticed more quickly what the rest of us knew in 2008, instead being in permanent Palace Guard/self-admitted Non-Official Obama Campaign mode, Wednesday’s debate blowout might not have happened in the first place.