One of the toughest things about reading political analysis these days is trying to filter the snarky, sarcastic, or ironic commentary from the straight-forward loony. I suspect that I know the answer to this one, but I'll ask for your help.
...when it comes to doing what is right versus doing what is expedient, you do what is expedient so that you can get reelected and do what is right in the second term.
via Obama, the one-term president - Roger Simon - POLITICO.com
Simon's point is that President Obama is on track to be a one-term president unless he decides to quit first.
A candidate says, as Bobby Kennedy did, “Some men look at things the way they are and ask why? I dream of things that are not and ask why not?”
A president says: “What do the polls say?”
Citing Eisenhower's decision to send troops to Little Rock or Lincoln to talk about slavery, both actions being off-message to the public sentiment, Simon continues
... But what’s so wrong about being off message if you are right about the issue?
This: An unidentified chief of staff to a “politically vulnerable House Democrat” told James Hohmann and Maggie Haberman of POLITICO that Obama’s statement “probably alienates a lot of independent voters” and “there are a lot of [Democrats] who are spooked in tough districts today” and “a lot of Republicans licking their chops right now.”
And what’s the point of doing the right thing if your party is going to lose seats because of it?
I believe that Simon is being ironic. His words and tone are so close to the sentiments of so many other analysts that I don't think that an intelligent person could write this way in seriousness without throwing up just a little bit.
No comments:
Post a Comment