Originally Posted by
Jack From Waaaaaayyyyy Back
... normal people watching the president's
tete-a-tete with the Republicans only wondered why Obama always
responds to imaginary arguments no one made, rather than the questions
actually being asked.
That is Obama's signature move: Invent "people" who are "saying"
ridiculous things and then encourage the audience to laugh at these
made-up buffoons.
Since Obama's reformulations of Republican arguments are always
absurd, no further response from him is necessary -- and none is ever
forthcoming.
Thus, for example, Obama's description of Republican criticism of his
plan to nationalize health care was that "this thing was some
Bolshevik plot."
No. No one said it was a "plot," Bolshevik or otherwise.
Republicans' objection to national health care could be more
accurately portrayed as follows: Obama's plan to nationalize health
care was a terrible idea because it would turn over one-sixth of the
American economy to Washington bureaucrats, who would run the system
as competently as the federal government runs everything else, from
airport security to the post office to FEMA.
How about responding to that argument? (And as long as Obama brought
it up, can he explain which part of national health care the
Bolsheviks would have objected to most strongly?)
This isn't how adults conduct serious political debates; it's how
children argue with their parents. Don't have a cow! Liberals hide
conservative arguments from the public like teenagers hide contraband
from mother under the bed.
Repeatedly positing imaginary attacks by Republicans accusing him of a
"plot," Obama said that "the way these issues are being presented by
the Republicans is that this is some wild-eyed plot to impose huge
government in every aspect of our lives."
Again, not a "plot" and certainly not "wild-eyed." The only person
accusing anyone of "plotting" here is Obama accusing the GOP of
plotting against him. I guess they don't teach irony at Harvard Law
School.
If Obama is going to keep imagining others accusing him of "plots,"
could he provide just one example?
Republicans also did not accuse Obama of trying to "impose huge
government in every aspect of our lives." Just the part of it that
determines how long we get to live.
Continuing his fantasy battle with imaginary opponents, Obama said,
"What you've been telling your constituents is, this guy is doing all
kinds of crazy stuff that's going to destroy America."
I gather Obama is incapable of responding to his opponents' actual
argument, which is that he is proposing all sorts of things that would
be very bad for America.
Since he pleads innocence only on the claim that he is doing "crazy
stuff that's going to destroy America" -- an argument no one made --
apparently he's guilty as charged on the claim that he's merely doing
very bad things to America.
Adopting the pose of limpid nonpartisanship, Obama repeatedly accused
Republicans of horrible things using his peculiar straw-man technique.
He told Republicans he was "absolutely committed" to working with
them, "but it can't just be political assertions that aren't
substantiated."
Can Obama please name a single "unsubstantiated" political assertion
by a Republican before wasting everyone's time by instructing
Republicans to stop making them?
I can name a few from Obama!
How about the whopper he told about national health care not covering
illegal aliens? Or the one about it not covering abortions?
Weeks after Obama made those unsubstantiated political assertions
before a joint session of Congress, Democrats were in death-match
battles with Republicans (and some moderate Democrats) who tried to
exclude coverage for illegals and abortion from the very bills Obama
said never contained such coverage in the first place.
How about Obama's claim in his State of the Union address last week
that a recent Supreme Court ruling would allow "foreign corporations
to spend without limit in our elections"?
In the case Obama mentioned, the court overruled section 441a of the
campaign-finance law, which had banned all corporate spending on
elections. The case did not concern, nor did the court address,
section 441e, which prohibits foreign corporations from making any
"contribution or donation of money or other thing of value ... in
connection with a Federal, State or local election."
History will record that these remarks from his State of the Union
address were the only case legendary barrister Barack Obama ever
argued before the Supreme Court. And he lost.
Even when presented with a short, straightforward, simply stated
question by Rep. Mike Pence, Obama couldn't help but to formulate a
different question.
Pence asked: "Mr. President, will you consider supporting
across-the-board tax relief, as President Kennedy did?"
The question Obama wanted Pence to ask was: Mr. President, will you
join Republicans in cutting taxes of billionaires?
Luckily, Obama's reformulation gave him an opening for a killer
answer: "What you may consider across-the-board tax cuts could be, for
example, greater tax cuts for people who are making a billion dollars.
I may not agree to a tax cut for Warren Buffett."
Republicans should take that answer and run like a thief in the night!
OK, let's cut taxes on everyone except billionaires. I'd even support
a specific tax expressly on Warren Buffett. Now, son, how much will
you give us for these magic beans?
If only Republicans could maneuver Obama into answering a question on
abortion, we could probably get him to agree to ban all abortions –--
except in the case of teenage girls who have been raped by their
fathers. (This is how I assume Obama would rephrase the question.)
No conservative argues like this. To the contrary, we're morose that
Nexis archives are not more complete, so we can't quote liberals
directly more often.
Email Blog Entry
Mark as Read
