Jonathan Tobin gets to the heart of the matter when it comes to conservative failures

In an earlier post, I railed against the fact that conservatives, despite good ideas, good history, and good spokes people, get absolutely no traction.  Jonathan Tobin, in his post “The Rules Are Different For Obama,” gets to the heart of the matter, which is that the toxic amalgam of Obama and the media means that, no matter the situation, Obama always appears to the public as the one holding the Royal Flush:

Obama with halo

Obama’s status as the nation’s first African-American president and the consequent kid-glove treatment he gets from the press make it difficult, if not impossible, to hold him accountable for his hypocrisy or his failures. As I wrote earlier in the week, the White House’s innovative strategies for manipulating the media do not fully explain his ability to evade the normal tough scrutiny that any president gets. Nor does the liberal bias of the mainstream media, though that, too, is a contributing factor.

Obama’s identity as the man who makes Americans feel good about their country renders all other factors irrelevant. This is something that conservatives struggle to understand primarily because they are immune to the president’s personal charm and speaking ability. But it is a fact they must accept if they don’t want to spend the next four years banging their heads against a wall. That’s why the GOP must stop focusing so much on trying to attack a president who is impervious to criticism and concentrate on the sort of big ideas about growth that made them the party of ideas in the ’80s and ’90s.

Read the rest of Tobin’s post here.  As you can see, he says that conservatives had better get used to this reality.  Okay, that’s fair enough.  You can’t be a functioning conservative and pretend that you’re anywhere near a level playing field.  But if this is the game — a fixed one — what the heck is our strategy?

Obama's hand, every time

Tobin suggests that we just play out the crooked hand dealt, because the only corrective is time — time that will show that Obama’s policies are bad.  That’s a pretty scary scenario, because a lot of his bad policies are the type from which there is either no return, or the return will exceed any of our lifespans.

The hand Obama's been dealt

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. jj says

    I’ll take issue with one thing: that Obama, because of his black status, is able to evade the “normal tough scrutiny” that any president gets.  BS.  There was no “tough scrutiny” of Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter or Clinton, either.  There was barely anything resembling “scrutiny” of them at all.  In my lifetime there has been very little – if any – “scrutiny,” and none of it was “tough,” of any democrat president.
     
    The media, and before that broader term it was just simply the press, has been lapdogs fore democrats for at least my entire life.  And earlier.  Roosevelt’s unique status as a polio sufferer and wartime president worked just as well for him as Obama’s blackness does for him.  Truman’s unique status as a wartime president and unwilling stand-in for the sainted Roosevelt worked just as well for him.  Kennedy’s unique status as youngest president, war hero, and goat worked for him; and Johnson’s unique status as stand-in for another slain saint worked for him.  Carter’s unique status as Annapolis grad, submariner, peanut farmer, and general asshole worked for him, and Clinton’s unique status as whatever-the-hell you call him kept him from any “tough scrutiny” – or even honest reportage as well.
     
    Every one of the above: a rotten excuse for a human being.  Every one of them a shitty person.  Nobody ever subjected any of them to anything remotely resembling “tough scrutiny.”  If anybody had, they’d all have been run out of office, and a couple of them straight into jail.  Obama’s a democrat, plain and simple.  Any other singularity pales into insignificance beside that.

  2. says

     
    I think they better attempt to reverse some of the terrible stuff (Obamacare springs to mind)…the House can pass bills to this effect, even knowing that those bills will not be going any farther, at least until the Senate elections in 2014. 
     
    Going along and tweaking things to cause the least damage possible will not serve – there is no way to avoid the final implosion of it all, and the GOP had better not be associated with that.  This is the reason the governors who are going along with the Medicaid expansion in order to “get the money” are making a BIG mistake. 
     
    If the “Stupid Party” will do no more than that which is required by law, and the House majority will regularly pass bills attempting to get rid of Obamacare, and others to allow States to opt out of various parts of it, and others to stop the sections that give financial advantages to States that go along at the expense of States that do not, etc., they MAY be able to get rid of (part or most of) it, and in any case will be in good position to offer viable alternatives from a place of  principle when the inevitable collapse occurs.

  3. Mike Devx says

    Earl, you say in #2, This is the reason the governors who are going along with the Medicaid expansion in order to “get the money” are making a BIG mistake. 
     
    I totally agree, and jj was right way back in November when he bitterly commented on the Romney campaign’s refusal to wrap ObamaCare around Obama’s neck.  Romney essentially ignored it in favor of almost purely an economic message.
     
    I think the GOP House should *still* be wrapping ObamaCare around Obama’s neck, and mentioning it as *THE*  biggest Democrat initiative of the last fifty years.  Let the Democrats own it completely, success or failure.   MAKE them own it completely.  Have the courage of your convictions, Repubs!  But of course, they do not.
     
    The Republicans are not doing a very good job positioning themselves with strong messages for 2014.   They may have gotten VERY lucky with the rise of the Tea Party movement in 2009, leading into 2010.  Expecting another aroused and informed voting effort to again magically appear, the Repubs may continue to do nothing significant…. and find to their dismay that the 2010 groundswell does not reappear.
     

  4. Mike Devx says

     
    I like this proposed amendment.  Proposed by Michigan congressional representative Bentivolia, recently elected.
     
     
    Language of the proposed Bentivolio Amendment:
    `The Congress shall not have the power to lay and collect taxes in order to compel any person or persons to engage in commercial activity, nor shall Congress have the power to lay and collect taxes from any person or persons for a failure to engage in any form of commercial activity.’
    Prompted by ObamaCare and John Roberts’ Supreme Court arguments.  It’s a shame we might need such an amendment.  Some might claim we don’t need it; but some claimed we didn’t need the Bill of Rights either.  The government is such a ravenous octopus, eating away at all of our natural rights, that perhaps we *do* need more amendments explicitly constraining the government from doing what it obviously should not.
     
     

Leave a Reply