No, wait — more questions. Do they want it or need it to be true? Is blind insistence on it a way of putting the blame on evil Republicans, whose instincts and demeanor are ever-so-much worse? Because as I read Balz’s column, the whole thing pretty much hinges on the “instincts and demeanor” line being the key to Obama’s triangulation and eventual revitalization. Do they just need it to be true?
It was supposedly said of FDR that he had a “first class temperament and a second-class intellect.” And it’s certainly true that many have seen Obama as the Second Coming, if not of Jesus, then certainly of FDR. Well, Obama’s intellect seems stuck in Park, to borrow an analogy, trying to fix our very modern problems with New Deal solutions — which didn’t work the first time around. (Or the second with the Great Society.) And the President’s temperament certainly hasn’t served him or us very well these last few weeks months since taking the oath of office. But, hey, we’re stuck in the Great Recession and the Complicit Media is going to give us another FDR whether we want one or not.
So Obama has been compared to FDR, to JFK, to LBJ, to Reagan, and to Bush 41 — even to Lincoln. But what he is, is his own President with his own virtues and faults. But nowhere — not in his memoirs, not in his unaccomplished-yet-meteoric rise to power, and certainly not in his governing style — is there any evidence for Obama’s supposed preference for finding “common ground with his opponents.”
Perhaps the Complicit Media peddles this nonsense because, after the death of “hope and change,” “instinct and demeanor” is all they have left to push?