Obama can do no wrong: Part Two
By Dave Andrusko
Editor’s note. If you are not currently receiving NRL News Today in your inbox, you can sign up at www.nrlc.org/join_our_mailing_list.htm
Editor’s note. Gallup released its survey this afternoon: pro-life Mitt Romney is ahead by one point, 49% to 48%, over pro-abortion Barack Obama, still more evidence the race will be a cliff-hanger.
Earlier today we wrote about the utter capitulation of political reporters/the “mainstream media”—aka, Obama can do no wrong (see “Pro-abortion columnist gets one thing right: Vast differences between Romney and Obama on abortion”). I thought it couldn’t get any worse [more slavishly pro-Obama] and then I read “Barack Obama the not-so-happy warrior,” by Glenn Thursh of POLITICO.
Everybody’s been wondering why Obama seemed three-quarters asleep at the first presidential debate in Denver (described not unfairly by Thrush as an “epic flop”). Ask no more. Obama was caught between his wonderful instincts—his “transformational, upbeat brand”—and the fact that he had no choice but to skewer Romney in the most negative manner, given the economy.
But that narrative only lasted a few paragraphs. The real reason he clobbered Romney (according to “Obama officials”) was because “their boss had no choice but to run the campaign he did, given Romney’s fact-challenged attacks on Obama’s record.” A campaign that accused Romney of everything but starting World War II is yammering about “Romney’s fact-challenged attacks on Obama’s record”? Amazing.
[There is one interesting admissions tucked away in the excuse-mongering. “A scorched-earth victor won’t do much to heal Washington’s divisions, with a probable GOP House and Democratic Senate set to be at loggerheads, regardless of who wins the presidency,” Thrush writes. No kidding.]
But Thrush is quickly back to Obama had-to-do-it-even-though-it-didn’t-suit-him-personally narrative. “His failure to nail down a larger, more durable lead in the Denver debate meant Obama had to stay personally negative longer — delaying the closing pivot to positivity he had looked forward to,” Thrush writes.
Get it? Romney is at fault for having done so well in Denver: that made Obama stay negative. If only Romney would have done as poorly as Obama, then Obama could have taken the high road. (Do these people have editors?)
One other thought. Thrush tells us that even though Romney was responsible for Obama staying negative so long (if only Romney had just withdraw), there is a happy ending. At the eleventh hour Obama has sort of resurrected his “hope” theme, spurred on by… “humility.” Pardon? Thrush writes
“The irony is that the perfect pitch for 2012 ultimately has been one from 2008 — not his own, but Hillary Clinton’s claim that her political ‘scars’ from the 1990s made her tough enough to change Washington in the future.
“’You know I’m willing to make tough decisions, even when they’re not politically convenient,’ Obama says in his closing pitch. ‘I know what real change looks like, because I fought for it.
“’I’ve got the scars to prove it.’”
What world does Thrush and/or Obama live in? What “scars” does he bear? Disappointing his media admirers by falling flat when he “doesn’t get enough shut-eye”? And what would these imaginary scars be for? “Leading from behind”? Expediting Planned Parenthood’s agenda on all fronts? Running a campaign that for pure negativity and vitriol is the worse we’ve seen in decades?
Maybe the explanation for what Thrush calls “Obama’s up-and-down performance as a candidate” is that he is as bored with being President as he was with being a United States Senator two years into his first term. Add that to the malice that is at the heart of his re-election campaign and you have the ingredients for a long, long second term.
All the more reason for a President Romney.