So the Republicans had a rather feisty debate last week on CNBC. Only the feistiness wasn't among the candidates so much as it was between the moderators and the candidates.
The fallout from the left-wing bias displayed by the moderators has been almost universally to disparage the moderators and their performance (apart from the candidates also blaming the RNC for universally allowing the MSM and their liberal journalists from running the debates).
But along comes Obama to inject a little speaking-truth-from-power, bully-pulpit bullying into the mix. President Obama decided to take a jab at the candidates with this:
President Obama on Monday gleefully mocked the Republican presidential candidates who have called him weak on the world stage, suggesting the would-be tough guys "can't handle a bunch of CNBC moderators."
"Let me tell you, if you can’t handle those guys then I don’t think the Chinese and the Russians are going to be too worried about it," Obama said during an Democratic fundraiser at the Richard Rodgers Theater in Manhattan
Nyuck, nyuck. Don't quit your day job, Obama. Wait, I didn't mean that. Quit your day job, Obama. Obama seems to have missed the part where pretty much everyone thinks the candidates handled the CNBC moderators. Man-handled is probably a better description.
Anyway, this criticism is quite rich from this president. Here, let me list all the times that Obama "handled" FoxNews moderators in the debates during his 2008 presidential bid:
...
I'm kidding. There were none. Obama and the Democrats chose to boycott FoxNews because they couldn't handle the lack of boot-licking. Let's hearken back to the days of Hope and Change in 2007:
Both Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama said they would not participate in a presidential debate sponsored by Fox News Channel, throwing the event in jeopardy.
...
A spokesman for Obama, who is a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, told ABC News he would decline, saying “CNN seems to be a more appropriate host.”
Put another way, Obama felt he could "handle" being on CNN. Profiles in courage.
But let's not cast too harsh a light on Obama for his comments now. Subsequent events make his point for him: China and Russia saw that Obama couldn't even handle FoxNews, and have not been too worried about him since his inauguration.
Oh, and about a sitting President "going after" the candidates of the other party? Well, in 2008 President Bush gave a speech in Israel that created a bit of a stir. From a story from at the time, quoting Bush:
"Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along.
"We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."
Now, if one pays careful attention, one will notice that President Bush spoke in very general terms, and did not call out anyone by name, nor even refer to the candidates generally. But - and you may want to sit down for this - then-candidate Obama was cocksure that this was all about him, jumping right in the middle of the fray:
"It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel's independence to launch a false political attack," Obama said in the statement his aides distributed. "George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists"
And Nancy Pelosi declared this the worst thing since bread was not sliced, or something:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi also responded during her weekly press conference, saying, "I think that what the president did in that regard was beneath the dignity of the office of president
I'm so old I remember when dissent used to be so patriotic, and the office of the president had dignity.
Anyway, to bring this full circle, let's go back to Bush's words, "We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history." And why bring that back up now? Because while Obama's yukking it up with the 1% at Manhattan fundraisers in an effort to belittle political opponents, his legacy-making grand bargain with the Mullahs is headed for a discrediting kind of legacy . . . proving Bush's point:
The world powers are now experiencing what it means to negotiate with Persian theocrats. All is negotiable; nothing is ever finally decided. Words never commit one to action. Changing circumstances vitiate the substance of any prior commitment, leaving the door open to additional demands. Although the Islamic Republic insists that it be recognized as a normal member of the international community, it will continue to behave as if it is not bound by global norms.
Despite Iran's apparent acceptance of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA}, known as the "Iran Deal," after the document's submission to the relevant state bureaucracies, these institutions have agreed to it only on a conditional basis. The JCPOA was approved by Iran's Consultative Assembly (Majlis), the Council of Guardians, the Supreme National Security Council and by the Office of the Leader. These seeming approvals can tempt those who desire the implementation of the nuclear deal to assume falsely that the bellicose rhetoric of Iran's leaders and the continued opposition to the JCPOA are just face-saving turns of phrase.
This same shallow mode of thinking assumes that last week's launch of an experimental ballistic missile by Iran was a bone thrown in the direction of hardliners who oppose the nuclear deal. Iran's leaders seem to have calculated that the missile test would not invite a reassessment by the P5+1 signatories, despite the fact that the launch was a clear violation of the JCPOA. Iran's leaders were proven correct: both Russia and China refused to condemn the missile test at the United Nations.
Now, I'm not going to say that Iran is kicking Obama around - and China and Russia are sitting back enjoying the show - solely because he refused to debate on FoxNews back in 2008. They're all smarter than that. They saw weakness in Obama in dozens of other ways as well.
I may be under-counting.
Bush never says anything bad about Obama...
Posted by: Threadkiller | November 03, 2015 at 04:36 PM
First but I'm not happy about it, I can tell you that!
Posted by: lyle | November 03, 2015 at 04:37 PM
Now I'm happy...
Posted by: lyle | November 03, 2015 at 04:39 PM
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2015/11/03/rubio-says-he-wouldnt-revoke-obamas-executive-amnesty-even-with-gop-president-senate-and-house/
Ahem...
Posted by: lyle | November 03, 2015 at 04:39 PM
Never let it be said that Obama did not come to the support of his allies.
Posted by: Appalled | November 03, 2015 at 04:43 PM
One of your best, Jeff!
Posted by: clarice | November 03, 2015 at 04:49 PM
Rubio appears to have been misquoted on amnesty:http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/04/18/rubio-affirms-hell-end-obamas-executive-amnesty-univision-interview-mistranslated/
Posted by: clarice | November 03, 2015 at 04:50 PM
he promises some big effective action in Congress (which usually means shutting down the whole shebang) which inevitably collapses, then he raises money on the idea that the big old plan would have succeeded, if it weren't for those darn kids...er, establishment RINOs.
Which Senator best personifies the way you like seeing initiatives presented?
What was that Senator's most successful effort?
Posted by: Threadkiller | November 03, 2015 at 04:50 PM
Point taken, but would adelson and singer be really supporting him if he were really serious.
Posted by: narciso | November 03, 2015 at 04:54 PM
Well, hush my mouf.
Posted by: lyle | November 03, 2015 at 04:55 PM
Still praying that the shithead in the WH suffers early onset of rigor mortis.
Posted by: Buckeye | November 03, 2015 at 04:59 PM
narciso, I've no idea--but I do not base my views on badly translated stuff and I can't imagine he's say this in Spanish on Univision if that were not his position--maybe they're backing him because they think he's the likely winning candidate.
Posted by: clarice | November 03, 2015 at 05:05 PM
So, Obama is saying that if you are in a dark alley, you'd want him there in case there was a mugging versus any of the Republicans? Isn't this the same wuss who got all tippy-toed and scared wactching some guy thrown another guy in a judo exhibition?
Posted by: Jack is Back! | November 03, 2015 at 05:05 PM
I have to disagree, Buckeye. You think it's bad now? Try: St. Barack The Martyr.
Posted by: lyle | November 03, 2015 at 05:05 PM
New thread, new song. Simple, no bombast this time. Vaughn Williams, the Call.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTrHmAOk2Mg
I prefer it with a mezzo, but a baritone is OK too.
Posted by: DrJ | November 03, 2015 at 05:08 PM
Not exactly a tough target, but the destruction was near total. Nice hit!
Posted by: Cecil Turner | November 03, 2015 at 05:14 PM
Ed Driscoll (via Insty) quotes the ineffable Thom Wolfe in his liner notes to Bonfire of The Vanities:
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
Posted by: lyle | November 03, 2015 at 05:16 PM
If anything, [environmental economist Richard ] Tol argues, current and past climate policies have only served to make most people a little poorer while benefiting those in politically favored industries or with connections to powerful politicians.
Bob Dylan said “you don’t need a weatherman, to know which way the wind blows”, but apparently it takes an environmental economist to stumble upon the truth.
It was ‘Deep Throat’ who said “follow the money“.
Posted by: Neo | November 03, 2015 at 05:16 PM
Turnout for KC Royals parade:
Posted by: Miss Marple 2 | November 03, 2015 at 05:17 PM
That is one hell of a post, Hit! You rock!
Posted by: Jane | November 03, 2015 at 05:19 PM
Thought it was one of TM's til I saw the "link to last page" at the bottom.
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki | November 03, 2015 at 05:23 PM
Agree with Jane. Great work, Jeff.
Posted by: lyle | November 03, 2015 at 05:24 PM
Here's a chaser to Jeff's shot:
http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2015/11/our-insecure-culture-warriors.html
Posted by: lyle | November 03, 2015 at 05:26 PM
Quiz: Can You Guess the Prices of the World’s Most Expensive Guns?
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki | November 03, 2015 at 05:28 PM
TK:
You want a thesis, not a blog comment. If you want a model of effectiveness, look at Nancy Pelosi getting Obamacare through the House. (Not a bill I admire -- but the process was effective)
For a law I admire that has gotten bipartisan support -- let me think on it some. I will plead what Poli Sci professors call "rational ignorance" on why I can't give you an answer now. It is not my job to worry about how the sausage is made. I just notice when the sausage is not made, because some Senator has decided His Issue Is So Important That Nothing Must Happen.
Posted by: Appalled | November 03, 2015 at 05:28 PM
Two things about that Bush speech cross my mind, looking back on it now.
1) Bush used the same type of phrasing Obama does: "Some seem to believe..." Only when Bush used it, Obama jumped up and said, "he's talking about me!". When Obama does it, everyone scratches his head and says, "who the hell is he talking about" ("some say we should nuke every country who looks at us sideways, and others say we should dissolve the US...i reject that as a false choice...")
2) In Bush's presidency, you had an American president who went to Israel to defend Israel. In Obama's you have the Israeli Prime Minister forced to come to the US to defend Israel, all the while taking fire from the American presidential administration.
Posted by: Jeff Dobbs | November 03, 2015 at 05:30 PM
--the process was effective--
Lies and bribes?
That's the reform you're looking for from guys like Cruz?
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki | November 03, 2015 at 05:31 PM
For a law I admire that has gotten bipartisan support -- let me think on it some.
This goes back a ways, but the Kemp-Roth tax cuts would fit that description for me.
It's hard to think of much that has passed Congress since Reagan that is admirable.
Posted by: jimmyk | November 03, 2015 at 05:32 PM
Yeah we need more Louisiana Purchases and Cornhusker kickbacks, sigh...
Posted by: GMax | November 03, 2015 at 05:34 PM
If you like your plan, your can keep your plan, period. Repeated by every Democrat near a microphone...
Posted by: GMax | November 03, 2015 at 05:35 PM
because some Senator has decided His Issue Is So Important That Nothing Must Happen.
Pfft. I wish there were 99 more who decided the precise same thing and closed down the whole damn Senate for a year. Or longer. How would our lives be any different? Mine sure as hell wouldn't.
Posted by: lyle | November 03, 2015 at 05:37 PM
eell it wasn't a debate, but it was a point, made preciently, to a fool, signifying nothing,
Palin: We have trade missions back and forth, we do. It's very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia. As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border. It is from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there, they are right next to our state.
Posted by: narciso | November 03, 2015 at 05:38 PM
Lies and bribes?
Exactly. And what was it that Cruz did that was so heinous? One shutdown? (That I still think could've been made to work.)
I agree he pandered a bit (e.g., on the TPA and budget bill). But so what? No significant GOP legislation is going to survive Obama's veto, and the blame is not on the GOP. If Cruz (or any other Congressional Republican) wants to make some hay on that, more power to 'em.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | November 03, 2015 at 05:41 PM
Posted by: Miss Marple 2 | November 03, 2015 at 05:17 PM
Phew. At first I thought it was the latest [and worst] of the recent 'migrants' photos.
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | November 03, 2015 at 05:42 PM
"The false comfort of appeasement" sez it all about Pres. Big Stuff. He is comforted but not too many others.
btw, the photo from KC looks almost the size of the first Tea Party in DC.
Posted by: Frau Kapitulieren | November 03, 2015 at 05:44 PM
why exactly did they have an election last time,
https://www.rt.com/op-edge/320651-germany-refugees-crisis-bavaria/
Posted by: narciso | November 03, 2015 at 05:45 PM
You want a thesis, not a blog comment.
I wanted a baseline.
Posted by: Threadkiller | November 03, 2015 at 06:03 PM
As Clarice will attest, I called the fall of Merkel a few weeks back and now it is now close than before.
It is now at least a civil civil war but it is getting pretty nasty. And as Germany goes, the other northern European countries will be enabled. Sweden is on the cusp. They are more at risk of demographic and politcal failure than the others. Belgium and the Netherlands are moving slowly to the same conclusion. Eyes are opening but too late in some respects.
Watch Germany in the next few weeks. The Greeks are, of course.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | November 03, 2015 at 06:20 PM
question is what happens next, does the CSU have enough clout to take rump elements of the CDU and some of the Alternative vote, I can't imagine the SDP would benefit,
Posted by: narciso | November 03, 2015 at 06:29 PM
IIRC you've been asked this before JiB, but IYO is there enough Visigoth, Viking, Hun and Vandal blood left in the EU to mount another Battle of Tours or Vienna despite their Quisling leaders or is Europe bound for a caliphate?
I can't see the Poles and some of the other Eastern European tribes not resisting and possibly the Finns, but they seem about as far gone as the other Nords.
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki | November 03, 2015 at 06:38 PM
so this is where it seems to start,
http://www.unian.info/world/1173240-afghans-set-up-human-trafficking-network-into-europe-german-intelligence.html
Posted by: narciso | November 03, 2015 at 06:51 PM
"saying “CNN seems to be a more appropriate host.”
IMO, the Communist news networks suits him to a T.
Posted by: pagar a bacon, ham and sausage supporter | November 03, 2015 at 07:00 PM
Good law passage for good reasons and pure institutional interest? How about the repeal of Prohibition?
https://reason.com/archives/2007/07/31/the-politics-of-prohibition
Posted by: Thomas Collins | November 03, 2015 at 07:06 PM
The sausage being made is extremely unhealthy and way too expensive. I would prefer that the factory be shut down until it produces decent stuff we can afford.
Posted by: boatbuilder | November 03, 2015 at 07:55 PM
And Jeff: In my best imitation of the late Chris Farley--That...was...AWESOME!
Posted by: boatbuilder | November 03, 2015 at 07:56 PM
'excellent' referencing, bill and ted,
http://www.thetower.org/2520-iran-arrests-u-s-resident-for-espionage-man-had-been-invited-to-tehran-by-irans-vp/
Posted by: narciso | November 03, 2015 at 08:01 PM
"...Iran is kicking Obama around..."
Good news: Obama has a strategy to defeat the rogue terrorist nation.
Bad news: That nation is America.
They're not kicking him around. They're on the same team.
Posted by: Gen. B. Arnold, USA Ret. | November 04, 2015 at 01:11 PM
**** I want Mister Tough Guy President to come on my show.
[...]
Now, I have offered Barack Obama, on multiple occasions, to come on this show, where we would have a serious, professional, honest debate for an hour.
And I've said, "I will give one hundred thousand dollars to his favorite charity."
He's not comin' on this show, Mister Tough Guy.
He's not comin' on this show. He can do all this crap in front of a DNC crowd, or pretend Praetorian Guard journalists, or some damn fool with an i-pod, i-pod broadcast. ****
Mark Levin - Tuesday night.
Posted by: guinspen | November 05, 2015 at 12:23 AM