At The Moderate Reliably Lefty Voice, ventriloquist Joe Gandelman again plays the dummy for Barack Obama’s campaign, dutifully relaying the talking point that Obama’s hysterical over-reaction to Pres. Bush’s comments on appeasement of terrorists and radicals shows he’s a fighter.
As Ed Morrissey notes at HotAir, Obama’s response shows that Obama is now claiming he would follow the very same Bush Administration approach he wants to claim has failed. This from the same candidate who (just two weeks ago) claimed Hillary Clinton sounded too much like Bush in adopting a deterrence strategy toward Iran.  Obama’s flailing response is actually not all that different from his ever-shifting policy on Iraq (and international trade, for that matter). Sen. Joe Biden rushed to Obama’s defense, calling Bush’s remarks “bullsh*t,” so it will be fun if and when someone asks Biden why he would support direct, unconditional presidential talks with someone Biden called a “madman” last year.
Though Gandelman — echoing WaPo blogger Chris Cillizza — look at 2006 as a Democratic success in challenging the GOP on national security and foreign policy, the fact is that midterm elections are simply not the same as presidential elections. For that matter, the results of that election (mostly GOP members losing to Blue Dog Dems) show that Congress did not change very much on the issue of Iraq.
What Cillizza gets right — and Gandelman totally misses — is that the kerfuffle demonstrates Pres. Bush’s ability to put foreign policy in the news pretty much at will. He could do it to help John McCain or — just as likely — he will do it because foreign policy is pretty much what lame duck presidents do.
Barack Obama is forced to react to situations like this (though not to over-react) and one thing that has emerged in the course of this cycle to date is that Obama does not do nearly so well when he is not in absolute control of his media environment.  And regardless of his reaction, public discussion of whether Obama would be too soft on Iran and too chummy with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad simply does not help him. Roughly half of Democrats worry that the US will wait too long to deal with the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear program. Moreover, to the extent that Obama flails about in his reactions, he will lose voters (especially the white male swing vote) who look for the candidate who “has clear stands on the issues,â€Â is a “strong leader,†or is “honest and trustworthy.â€Â
Welcome to the NFL, rook.
(h/t Memeorandum.)
Update: Gandelman has since updated his post, but does not mark what he has updated, because it would show he is responding to this post. He also added links to other blogs discussing the issue, so let’s cross reference Memeorandum:
You’ll be shocked to discover that Gandelman’s list leaves out pw, HotAir and RWNH (he includes a token link to Crittenden, so he doesn’t look like the one-sided clown he really is). And he throws his own little hissy fit in the comments when someone points out that his site is not moderate. That is going to happen when Gandelman’s site runs posts by someone who sheltered a fugitive member of the Weather Underground calling former Sen. Phil Gramm a terrorist.ÂÂ
Great post, Karl. Spot on. I paged through that website, and “moderate” must be French for reactionary Leftist.
Karl
Michael Ramirez captures the shrill Obama perfectly.
GW’s speech was spot on and it says more about Barry and Kerry that they decided to pitch hissy fits. Quilty consciences, boys?
Obama got gamed. He (and nervous Dems) took the bait. Everyone except the nutroots and their dog whistle who watches the loop of the president’s remarks (looped over and over because the Messaih reflectively, self consciously took offense) scratches their head and wonders where the Pres. referred to Obama and what exactly is wrong with the remarks that Obama takes offense.
Rookie indeed.
Obama’s only game is to holla “Bush!” followed by “Change!”
If only George Bush were running, he might get some traction with that. As it his his wheels will simply be spinning in the mushy minds of his base.
Make the nutroots heads explode: Sic Cheney on the Messiah.
Sticking with the football analogy, Barry’s jock strap is laying on the 50 yard line and he’s flailing wildly at the ref to throw a flag. If he had anything to stuff inside it in the first place, it mightn’t come off so easily.
[…] Protein Wisdom: Welcome to the NFL, Barack! […]
I laughed my ass off watching the Dims squeal, piss and moan over this. Bush never mentioned Obamasama (or Carry, or any other bend-over-and-spread-em-for-our-enemies Commiecrat appeaser for that matter) by name, but did he ever twitch like Pavlov’s dogs.
Furthermore, I got an even bigger kick out of the profligate hypocrisy the ‘Rats showed when they started mewling about Bush saying these things in a foreign country. Where were all these leftwingnut assholes when the likes of Jimmuh Carter, Bill “Suck It, Bitch” Clinton, or the Goreacle were running off at the mouth overseas, accusing the e-vil Bushco/Cheney/Rove/Rumsfeld/Repub cabal of assorted Crimes Against the Universe.
Hear that hollow echo…
Yeah, Cavebear.
Don’t forget this little Bush attack from Iraq by Obama supporter Bonior.
Don’t forget Kerry at Davos Cave Bear.
An obvious thing, I’d think, at the base of this story, but I haven’t seen it pointed out yet:
Does an Israeli audience know anything about a fleeting, already-over (until this re-ignition of it) primary campaign footnote re: a not-yet-nominee who’s very likely not to be the President next year? No.
Do they know what Jimmy Carter’s about? Yes.
So what was Bush talking about, and what was his audience applauding about? Right.
The Messiah’s gang is touchy. It’s like they’ve internalized his almost-psychotic insecurity about who he is.
psycho
Bingo. I, too, thought if the speech was actually aimed at anyone it would have been at Jhimmi (as in dhimmi) Carter, who never met a murdering dictator he didn’t want to have a cuddle party with.
Obamessiah’s camp runs around saying McCain is really GW’s 3rd term; however, Obama is really Carter’s 2nd.
Or Pelosi in Syria.
Heh. I think it was somebody here who summarized it: Bush yelled “Hey moron!” with no names attached into a crowded room, and the Obamessiah and his disciples started screaming “Don’t you talk about me that way!” Self-selection at its finest.
Regards,
Ric
Don’t forget Obama supporter patriot Rockefeller
Obama people would just say no one in america really knows who Rockefeller is anyway so it doesn’t matter.
VOTIING RULE OF THUMB
Find out who your enemy wants to win and regardless of policy differences, vote for the other guy
If the debate is between Obama and Bush, Obama wins. Unfortunately.
If the debate is between Obama and McCain, McCain wins.
Obama’s goal is to link McCain with Bush every way he can. McCain’s goal is to distance himself with Bush. This is why his response is directed at Bush and not McCain.
If this turns into Bush II or McBush, Obama wins.
McCain can beat Obama. Bush (in any “form”) can’t.
What I find particularly ironic is that this was a perfect opportunity for Obama “to reach accross the isle” and demonstrate a little bi-partisanship and actually agree with the President for once. I don’t think this outburst earned him any points with the Jewish voter, either.
I’m afraid a glaring point has been missed. Obama hit back, and Bush didn’t hit the hit back. This is why Obama wins. And this is why republicans will lose. Some fatal lack of rhetorical nerve has afflicted republicans, exemplified best by George Bush. Points are made but never carried to their risky and righteous closure. Some strange aversion to unpleasantness, a fear of offense, a genetic sense of courtesy — whatever, it will destroy them. The democrats, while never right, are always willing to take the risks for their outrageous words — understandable, I guess: with their media protection and in the face of gutless republicans they have no fear of the consequences.
Methinks I should have added an “etc, ad nauseam” to the list of Dim douchenozzles who have done exactly what the Dims are accusing Bush of doing in Israel…:)
Actually, I can understand why Obamasama and his gang would wet their pants over this. Let’s face it, Barry is clueless with a fucking TelePrompter, or unless he is in total control of the Q&A (with lots of cheat cards up his sleeves) insofar as the media is concerned. “Empty Suit” doesn’t begin to cover it.
And never mind the fact that O! already said he will treat with the likes of Ahmadinnerjacket, Syria, Hamas, etc. So I can see why Barry is a little insecure when dealing with anyone other than the datalessdaves, nishis and sashals of the world…
Rein,
I respectfully disagree. Bush is not running again, though the Dems are obviously going to try their best to convince people otherwise. The issue in no way helps Obama.
I became more convinced of this due to Obama supporters who took issue with a post I wrote recently demonstrating that the coverage of the Obama-Wright issue was not the tsunami that people thought it was and not as negative. Though the former was certainly true, the Obama backers who visit here argued — with some merit — that any news coverage of Wright hurt Obama, even if it was Obama distancing himself. Obama’s over-the-top response here warrants nothing more than a token (and semi-insincere) denial from the WH, because O’s over-reaction already insured that it will continue to be a topic through the Sunday morning talkfests — unless Ted Kennedy’s health moves everything else off the radar.
Hahahaha. Well done, Karl.
Geez, has anyone ever scrolled down to the bottom of this Gandelman’s comments section? Thirteen posting policy points and several more “disclaimers” after that.
I admit I stopped visiting leftie blogger sites long ago, due to the severe neurological trauma reading such mindless drivel can bring about. But I’ve never seen anything like that on any conservative blog. Are most proggies that paranoid?
Enquiring minds want to know…:)
– Yes, and more so. (When you betray your country, you have good reason to be paranoid.)
Points well taken, Karl, but some distinctions in order. In the Wright mess, Obama was playing defense. This is wholly different – always is, politically — than his aggressive attack on Bush. In the latter case, Obama, with the plenary support of the media, put Bush on the defensive. This is what most or a good portion people will come away remembering, I think. What Bush said was really not remarkable – he was only repeating what presidents of sound judgment have said for generations, and paraphrasing a fallacy of appeasement with many expressions in our current culture. He should have said this. Further, if George Bush really believes that this is such a momentous issue and appeasement has the catastrophic consequences he says it does, than he is compelled to say more. He needn’t be defensive or belligerent. But he and/or his surrogates need to say or ask – as nobody in the media was saying it or asking it – how was what I said controversial, wrong or inaccurate, and why would anybody disagree with what I said. This is a public service.
Again, there is a deeper problem – the strange discomfort with rhetorical conflict, of going to the mat for principle, of the White House. This is the least partisan president in my lifetime, and yet the left and media have caricatured him as a scheming demagogue. This caricature, I believe, has influenced Bush and circumscribed public debate. It is a victory for the Left, and only encourages more extremism and attempts to stifle speech.
For too long conservatives have depended on the common sense of people to sort these things out. But the goal of the left is to change the very nature of free speech and “common†sense in the culture, to establish new assumptions of discourse through just this kind of strategy. Conservatives need to calmly, deliberately and fearlessly take them on point by point at every step.
While I would agree that, historically, the Bush admin has been notorious for not defending itself against the countless egregious leftist attacks over the years, in this case I would say that they handled it very well.
As Rein pointed out, Bush said nothing that many other presidents have not said on this issue. Furthermore, he did not mention Baracky or any other Dim, or the Dims as a group, by name.
Yet the Obamessiah and his flacks instantly squealed like pigs, bringing attention on their own past words and deed when, if they had simply kept their collective mouth shut, in all likelihood nothing would have come of it.
In other words, Baracky and his gang shot themselves in the foot over this, and all Bush and company need do is sit back and enjoy the ride….
Obama over reacted in the same fashion as Democrats previously lost their shit when Rove said :
Move On guy recently denied this until the petitions were found on wayback machine.
– Now see, Rove, that magnificent bastard, would have had the wayback machine rigged to automatically morph the words of the petition changing it to a demand to GWB for retribution for the batbaric 9/11 attacks.
– Later, after O! made his embarrassingly naive comments about direct, unconditional talks with Amok-dinnerjacket, it would have morphed again calling for strong diplomacy.
– No wonder the Left hated him so avidly. They’re just not very good at this politics thing.
“They’re just not very good at this politics thing.“.
I get the strangest feeling that Bush is all done with politics for this term.
I can’t summon the energy to deliver one of my trademark, Sullivanesque fits of hyperbole. I just think that the president has some heavy lifting planned for the next few months and could, frankly, give a flying f*ck what the politicians he’s been saddled with for the last eight years think about anything.
If statesmen were gunpowder, we couldn’t blow our nose right now.
First, Gandelman is a pimp. All he does is go with the flow of his lefty audience. The man doesn’t have the convictions God gave a bowl of tapioca pudding, so he’s going to reflect the “Bush is Hitler” meme fed to him by his commentators.
Second, the Republicans won this round for one reason: Obama has been linked to appeasement of people Americans hate. The fact that McCain sort of rose above it and was able to make a flanking attack on Obama is all to the better. Muddying the waters with Jamie Rubin’s clowning doesn’t help turn aside the general thrust of McCain’s attack: Democrats are pacifists who will lose the war and would rather appease our enemies than fight them.
Democrats reacted with anger precisely because they know that this charge has the ring of truth with voters!
This charge was very strategic. Obama lost by playing into the chargeWhat’s important is to understand that he could have just as easily won hugely by coming out within hours and endorsing the President’s statement and issuing a ringing condemnation of Iranian Fascism and Hamas.
Phil Gramm?
This is an older campaign than I had thought. Seriously, McCain has old loser of the TA&M presidency Phil freaking Gramm as an advisor? Really? Seriously? And you guys are Republicans, Conservatives, or maybe Losers? (trademark Peggy).
OhhOhhOhh!!1!!11
I get it. You guys are classical liberals. Like Bill Bennett. I get it.
…as opposed to that swingin’ GenX hipster, George McGovern.
… and the other difference being that Jeff G (and, for the most part, his guests) really are classic liberals, and in any event don’t have to lie about what they are. Masui obviously hasn’t read much of what has been posted here — esp. by Jeff G — about McCain, either.
Re #29
“OhhOhhOhh!!1!!11”
Is this the sound proggie douchebags make as they orgasm to the name of some hated (Repub, natch) pol while supposedly taking a swipe at him?
And how could Phil Gramm be a loser of the Texas A&M presidency when he never held that job? Oh, I get it. He wasn’t given that job. Only problem with that is that neither Gramm nor A&M ever said he was in line for it, nor even interested in it.
Of course, it’s pretty safe to say that Gramm has forgotten more about economics than Masushi (or 10,000 like him/her/it) will ever know…
“Please log in to comment”
Fascists, the lot of ‘wm.
“’em.”
I drove from Philly to State College, packed up my daughters apartment, loaded the U-Haul, and then drove back to Philly.
I’m tired.
Gandelman seems to be making a passionate case for the utter redundancy of his own site. Who needs his twice-baked distillations of Axelrod talking pints?
oh. talking *points* … I think HuffPo does it more better and without as much blah blah blah.
It sounds mostly like Gandelman is working on a grant request to take to George Soros really. Me write good Baracky propaganda. And furthermore also me say same things as Axelrod but with more words. You get good value Mr. Soros and also me write good!
When the pints start talking, it’s time to pay the tab and call a cab.
It makes me laugh when I hear the left call Bush “stupid”.
Ha Ha! Obama’s response to Bush’s statement is what defines “stupid”. If Barry was a white man, I would be able to call him a goofy fag.
OOO! OOO! Am I still allowed to say that without being threatened with jail time?
[…] Original Post. Share:These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. […]
[…] Original Post. Share:These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. […]
thinking like yours has lead the country to this.
All Fucked Up.
tissue?
I guess appeasement is like a big hairy mole. You say something bad about people with big hairy moles on their faces and then the big hairy mole people get all red and wig out. “The man has nothing substantial to debate on, so he picks at my big hairy mole. Typical.”
or big ears.
[…] at protein wisdom welcomes the Messiah to the […]
[…] #1: when someone yells “hey you morons”, don’t freak out and respond. It tends to indicate to people that you are, in fact, a […]
The overreaction shows ‘amateur’ clearly. The proper response to the speech was to say nothing. If asked just say “I agree appeasement is a bad tactic; you never give in to the demands of bullies.” If someone asks if Sen. Obama thinks Pres. Bush was talking about him, the response is “No; I don’t equate talking with people when the circumstances require it with appeasement. The two are not the same, and Pres. Bush and I agree on that, as do the other candidates.”
The last thing you do is loudly shout “Pres. Bush made this awful shoe, and look! It fits!”
Amateur.