Ed’s take on Penn’s unintentional cynicism
November 5, 2010 Leave a comment
Go over to HotAir to read Ed’s full analysis as well as watching the vidya in question, but this excerpt is dead on, not only in the (unintended, I believe) cynicism expressed by Penn regarding a bombing that killed 168 and led to the execution of one of the perpetrators, but also the implied bizarro wagthedog hypocrisy if the shoe had been on the other foot.
My Facebook feed is already filling up with Liberals proclaiming they don’t want this Congress to fail and look forward to the spending cuts and new jobs the GOP will create – what a line of fecal matter. What Liberals forever miss (and this makes them much better at politics) is that Conservatives aren’t playing politics 24-7 – it would be inconceivable for a typical Conservative to wish Bush could have had (another) “Oklahoma” moment, and they would be blackballed to even suggest such a thing.
Even though Pres. Clinton did well – cynically so – in the wake of the Oklahoma City Bombing (take it from someone who lived a mile or two from it when it happened), his Administration was far more responsible for it than Pres. Bush was with 9/11, even though many Liberals (and Libertarian-type Conservatives) are convinced that Bush had a hand in it.
I don’t think Oklahoma City was the fault of Bill Clinton or Janet Reno, I think it was the fault of Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols. However, I do think if a President needs a disaster of 9/11 or OKC proportions, that President is already in deep, deep trouble.
Read the full thing here. Here’s Ed’s analysis:
So it will take a terrorist attack for people to like Obama, or perhaps a natural disaster? That’s what Penn says here, and it’s worth noting that Matthews doesn’t bat an eyelash at the suggestion. Had a Republican pollster suggested in 2004 or 2006 that George Bush could really use an “Oklahoma” to reconnect to the American people, the media would have run endless stories about “wag the dog” notions.
It’s also worth noting that Obama did have that opportunity a year ago in the wake of the Fort Hood shootings, a massacre at least inspired by al-Qaeda that left 14 dead and more wounded. Instead of reconnecting to the American people in his speech that day, Obama took two minutes to give “shout-outs” to his allies at the conference that got interrupted by news of the attack before getting to the attack itself.
Also, this notion that Clinton needed the domestic-terrorist attack to reconnect to the electorate is ludicrous. Clinton always had a talent for making emotional connections to voters. His problem in 1994-5 wasn’t a lack of emotional connection but having drifted too far left and too fast, and losing control of his agenda. He righted the ship by “triangulating” on the Republican agenda and staring down Newt Gingrich. Even during impeachment, when it became known that he had lied under oath, Clinton remained personally connected to the electorate and survived because of it.