Good for the president. The IRS' actions were Nixonian. I was worried about what this showed about Obama in conjunction with Benghazi.
Benghazi: I never remember a foreign event timed to be more damaging to a president facing re-election. And the administration reacted that way too. They panicked. The initial responses, for ease of reference "The Rice Reaction," were attempts to contain the political fallout: the editing of the talking points, the finger-pointing at "Innocence of Muslims," the arrest of the creator of the film, Secretary Clinton's pathetic, plaintive appeal to followers of Islam, "that great religion." Not just the political threat to the president, to Clinton too. I remember the images of Clinton and Obama when Ambassador Stevens' flag-draped coffin was returned to the U.S., the look on Clinton's face as she and Obama, both dressed in black, holding hands, were walking away. The look on Clinton's face said "I fucked up." The American people did not hold Obama responsible for Benghazi, they reelected him comfortably. How much of that was the administration's success in containing the political damage with their lies? The polls did tighten, if I remember correctly, afterwards and Romney ended up taking a slight lead. My gut sense is that The Rice Reaction helped the president initially by directing the electorate's focus away from the administration entirely. It was, in a sense, like Hillary Clinton's blame of "a vast right-wing conspiracy," for the then rumors of her husband's philandering. That helped Bill Clinton initially. People are inclined to believe their presidents. In both cases however, the truth would soon out. The fact is even when Bill Clinton got caught in his lies, there was no stomach in the American people for impeachment, not for that. And my gut says Obama would have won re-election anyway. The American people really liked, really like, Barack Obama, they did not really like Mitt Romney. As timed for political damage as Benghazi was, the fact is too that election-year foreign policy surprises seldom effect a presidential election.
Foreign policy surprises: But. But,what if the American electorate had believed the truth about Benghazi, that Obama and his administration were, are, ideologues when it comes to Islam and that their ideology was shown by Benghazi and its aftermath to be a FALSE IDEOLOGY. Then it wouldn't have been a foreign policy "surprise." That would have been more damaging. If the American electorate had believed that the Obamas entire approach to Islam was wrong, was, is, in fact, appeasement, then the electorate may have gone for another approach, Romney's approach, whatever that was, any approach other than the Obamas. The 1972 presidential election was waged and fought on foreign policy. The differences between Nixon and McGovern (who I actively supported) were vast. They were entirely different approaches. The American people roundly rejected the foreign policy approach of the Democrat in 1972. Might they have in 2012 if the issue were put to them as a difference in approaches? I voted for Obama in 2012 despite believing that he and his administration were ideologues, despite believing that that ideology was appeasement of Islam. Benghazi never morphed in the public's consciousness as an "exposure" of a "false ideology" and was overtaken by other events in the electorate as a whole, and in my mind. I paid close attention to Romney's VMI speech, dissected it here. I did not see a "there" there. I didn't know what Romney's approach was. If though "foreign policy approach" had been the issue in 2012 as it was in 1972 and even if Romney's approach never came into sharper focus than it did at VMI, I would have voted for Romney. I think. I have to imagine those two "ifs" coming true. If 2012 had been about foreign policy and if Romney never became more specific...Yes, I would have cast a frustrated ballot for Romney (I remember Nixon had a "secret plan" to end the Vietnam War too, and the electorate voted for the secret plan over the unsecret doveish approach.). I would have gone with the devil-I-didn't-know-well-enough.
This post has not gone in the direction I intended at the start. The direction I intended at the start was to hope Obama made a clean, manly break from his squishy appeasement of Islam like he made a clean, manly break from the IRS' Nixonian targeting of the Tea Baggers. I hoped, and I wrote here in the aftermath of Benghazi, that the Obamas would have a Neville Chamberlain moment, that they would realize, as he did, that their appeasement approach was FALSE. T'aint gonna happen. Benghazi has still not morphed in the public's consciousness into an exposure of a false ideology. There are very few people who believe as I do about Islam, fewer still who have any credibility. So there is absolutely no political incentive for the president to express any doubts on appeasing Islam. Islam qua Islam is just not the issue for debate. Never has been, not even right after 9-11-01. The irony here, the supreme irony, is that this whole approach started with Bush43. When Bush43 said "The issue is not Islam," that was it for the public discourse! What if 9-11-01 had happened under a Democrat? What if President Gore had said "The issue is not Islam" in the aftermath of 9-11-01? I think there would have been public discourse. I think the Republicans would have made Islam the question if not "The Answer." Instead the doveish approach was co-opted by one of their own. (See, it really is all Bush's fault.) The public believes Islam is "just" a religion, a religion, just like, or close-enough-to, the other religions they know, Christianity, Judaism...Mormonism; The public believes that religion is, generally, "good," and we Americans are tolerant of other religions, we don't countenance attacks on religion--or religions. And so, yeah, that is pretty much that. Pisses me off.
Oh well.
Benghazi: I never remember a foreign event timed to be more damaging to a president facing re-election. And the administration reacted that way too. They panicked. The initial responses, for ease of reference "The Rice Reaction," were attempts to contain the political fallout: the editing of the talking points, the finger-pointing at "Innocence of Muslims," the arrest of the creator of the film, Secretary Clinton's pathetic, plaintive appeal to followers of Islam, "that great religion." Not just the political threat to the president, to Clinton too. I remember the images of Clinton and Obama when Ambassador Stevens' flag-draped coffin was returned to the U.S., the look on Clinton's face as she and Obama, both dressed in black, holding hands, were walking away. The look on Clinton's face said "I fucked up." The American people did not hold Obama responsible for Benghazi, they reelected him comfortably. How much of that was the administration's success in containing the political damage with their lies? The polls did tighten, if I remember correctly, afterwards and Romney ended up taking a slight lead. My gut sense is that The Rice Reaction helped the president initially by directing the electorate's focus away from the administration entirely. It was, in a sense, like Hillary Clinton's blame of "a vast right-wing conspiracy," for the then rumors of her husband's philandering. That helped Bill Clinton initially. People are inclined to believe their presidents. In both cases however, the truth would soon out. The fact is even when Bill Clinton got caught in his lies, there was no stomach in the American people for impeachment, not for that. And my gut says Obama would have won re-election anyway. The American people really liked, really like, Barack Obama, they did not really like Mitt Romney. As timed for political damage as Benghazi was, the fact is too that election-year foreign policy surprises seldom effect a presidential election.
Foreign policy surprises: But. But,what if the American electorate had believed the truth about Benghazi, that Obama and his administration were, are, ideologues when it comes to Islam and that their ideology was shown by Benghazi and its aftermath to be a FALSE IDEOLOGY. Then it wouldn't have been a foreign policy "surprise." That would have been more damaging. If the American electorate had believed that the Obamas entire approach to Islam was wrong, was, is, in fact, appeasement, then the electorate may have gone for another approach, Romney's approach, whatever that was, any approach other than the Obamas. The 1972 presidential election was waged and fought on foreign policy. The differences between Nixon and McGovern (who I actively supported) were vast. They were entirely different approaches. The American people roundly rejected the foreign policy approach of the Democrat in 1972. Might they have in 2012 if the issue were put to them as a difference in approaches? I voted for Obama in 2012 despite believing that he and his administration were ideologues, despite believing that that ideology was appeasement of Islam. Benghazi never morphed in the public's consciousness as an "exposure" of a "false ideology" and was overtaken by other events in the electorate as a whole, and in my mind. I paid close attention to Romney's VMI speech, dissected it here. I did not see a "there" there. I didn't know what Romney's approach was. If though "foreign policy approach" had been the issue in 2012 as it was in 1972 and even if Romney's approach never came into sharper focus than it did at VMI, I would have voted for Romney. I think. I have to imagine those two "ifs" coming true. If 2012 had been about foreign policy and if Romney never became more specific...Yes, I would have cast a frustrated ballot for Romney (I remember Nixon had a "secret plan" to end the Vietnam War too, and the electorate voted for the secret plan over the unsecret doveish approach.). I would have gone with the devil-I-didn't-know-well-enough.
This post has not gone in the direction I intended at the start. The direction I intended at the start was to hope Obama made a clean, manly break from his squishy appeasement of Islam like he made a clean, manly break from the IRS' Nixonian targeting of the Tea Baggers. I hoped, and I wrote here in the aftermath of Benghazi, that the Obamas would have a Neville Chamberlain moment, that they would realize, as he did, that their appeasement approach was FALSE. T'aint gonna happen. Benghazi has still not morphed in the public's consciousness into an exposure of a false ideology. There are very few people who believe as I do about Islam, fewer still who have any credibility. So there is absolutely no political incentive for the president to express any doubts on appeasing Islam. Islam qua Islam is just not the issue for debate. Never has been, not even right after 9-11-01. The irony here, the supreme irony, is that this whole approach started with Bush43. When Bush43 said "The issue is not Islam," that was it for the public discourse! What if 9-11-01 had happened under a Democrat? What if President Gore had said "The issue is not Islam" in the aftermath of 9-11-01? I think there would have been public discourse. I think the Republicans would have made Islam the question if not "The Answer." Instead the doveish approach was co-opted by one of their own. (See, it really is all Bush's fault.) The public believes Islam is "just" a religion, a religion, just like, or close-enough-to, the other religions they know, Christianity, Judaism...Mormonism; The public believes that religion is, generally, "good," and we Americans are tolerant of other religions, we don't countenance attacks on religion--or religions. And so, yeah, that is pretty much that. Pisses me off.
Oh well.
