From today’s presser, which just happened to fall on Super Tuesday. It’s just a coinki-dink.
First, Obama was asked about Rush Limbaugh’s degrading comments about Georgetown Law student and liberal activist Sandra Fluke. Obama talked at some length about why Limbaugh’s remarks were wrong. But when he was asked if he agreed with his hand-picked DNC chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz’s comments that opponents of the mandate are waging a “war on women,” Obama declined to comment.
“Would you prefer the language be changed?” CNN’s Jessica Yellin asked.
“Jessica, as you know, if I start being in the business arbitrating–”
“You talk about civility,” Yellin interjected.
“And what I do is practice it,” Obama replied. “I’ll try to lead by example as opposed to commenting on every comment that is made by either politicians or pundits, I would not have time to do my job, that is your job to comment on what is said by them.”
Credit to Yellin for asking the question at all. The hypocrisy she exposed ought to damage the president’s credibility but it’s unlikely to have much effect.The MSM won’t follow up on it, or on Fluke, or anything relevant.
It’s not difficult to figure out what’s going on here. The president used the sequence to hit Rush, but not in a way that generates much mano a mano stuff or gives Rush the chance the reframe the debate, and to make himself sound like the adult in the room. He also avoided creating any sound that can be used to drive a wedge between himself and the person he placed atop the DNC. Wasserman-Schultz does her job — be outrageous, create headlines, rally the left — and Obama does his — try his best to look like a president, keep the pressure on Limbaugh. Good cop, bad cop, just like the old community organizer days.
Limbaugh, by the way, seems to be facing the worst crisis of his career since Bill Clinton blamed him for the Oklahoma City bombing. Longtime listeners may remember that. Clinton was sagging in the polls and had lost much of his relevance as a player in Washington. Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols committed an act of terrorism and mass murder in OKC, and the President of the United States used that to wage a campaign against “hate” on talk radio.
There was no evidence at all that McVeigh ever listened to Limbaugh’s show. Still isn’t any. That didn’t matter.
Making Rush and the entire right answer for the actions of a man who turned out to agree with the leftwing Unabomber was a ghastly but successful trick. Clinton got his groove back and won the following year, over a moderate GOP nominee given the nod mostly because it was “his turn.”
Anything about this seem familiar?
The main difference in the politics then versus now is that Obama has not left himself at the mercy of fate. He picked this mandate fight for the express purpose of having his allies cast opposition as a “war on women” and to provoke useful reactions, while solidifying ObamaCare’s transformational aspects ahead of the 2014 full implementation. He probably can’t believe his luck, that the assault on Limbaugh has gone as far as it has. But he’ll take it.
Has Obama ever acted in the same way towards *any* liberal as he has with Limbaugh? I actually don’t know, but there certainly have been enough times where he could have, so somebody should be able to come up with at least one time where he has called an assaulted conservative. I doubt he has, but admit I may be wrong.
Let’s stand our ground and fight the good fight. It’s a war, of the non-violent kind. Treat it as such.
You know who was listening to and monitoring Limbaugh’s show back then and wanting him off the air?
Eric Holder.
Just saying.
Clinton got his groove back and won the following year, over a moderate GOP nominee given the nod mostly because it was “his turn.”
Anything about this seem familiar?
No. Should it?
I am currently reading Belmont Club and there is this comment:
“Newt makes a great conservative pitbull but drags along too much personal baggage to be president. He believes it is “his turn” which is the entire problem with two-party politics. Professional politicians see this as a career instead of public service.”
link: http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/comment/197206/
I interpret there is thinking that people are being promoted on entitlement and not necessarily ability.
Yes, it should. Are you naturally obtuse, or just purposely being so?
Well I may not have caught the reference except I had just been reading something that might relate to it.
Perhaps my thinking is off. What’s the question again?
then again: holder was listening to rush to try to get him off the air?
lei’s give holder a break. i mean he might have been listening to limbaugh for other reasons. geez, cut the guy some slack, it might just have been a business thing. he probably heard rush was looking to buy some guns.
‘Debbie Wasserman-Schultz’s comments that opponents of the mandate are waging a “war on women,”’
Only the ones that are trying to rob me by getting the government to force me to pay other people’s bills, through various unconstitutional and tyrannical laws.
And, I make it a practice never to be civil to scum that are planning on robbing me. That’s just the way I swing.