Posted on 10/25/2012 3:17:19 AM PDT by markomalley
If President Obama loses this election, the Democrats will need a scapegoat. The obvious scapegoat would be Obama himself. But he’s been getting free passes all of his life, and the left-liberals who comprise the Democratic mainstream will think long and hard about holding him accountable now. For one thing, he’s manifestly one of them. For another, he’s African-American.
Accordingly, the need for a different scapegoat would arise. That scapegoat would have to be someone significant enough to be plausible in the role and someone not strongly associated with the Party’s left-liberal faction. Someone like Bill Clinton.
If this sounds far-fetched — after all, Clinton helped confer upon Obama a Convention bounce — consider this piece by Matt Bai of the New York Times. Bai blames Clinton for persuading Team Obama to adopt the strategy of portraying Romney as a conservative monster instead of a flip-flopper. That strategy worked well for months, as Bai acknowledges, but seemed to backfire when Romney declined to play his assigned role during the debates. So Bai speculates that painting Romney as a flip-flopper was the better option.
There are two problems with trying to blame Clinton for Obama’s current problem through such reasoning. The first is obvious — Obama controls his campaign and is responsible for its decisions. Clinton only made suggestions; Obama made the calls.
Bai tries to talk his way around this problem by citing Clinton’s stature. How, he asks, could Obama brush aside advice from a politician with Clinton’s record of success?
But Obama beat the Clintons in 2008, even though they held what looked like a winning hand. The notion that Obama felt cowed by Bill Clinton is silly. If Obama and his advisers accepted the former president’s advice, it could only have been that they agreed with it.
Which leads to my second point — Clinton’s advice was reasonable and probably correct. By following it, Team Obama nearly accomplished its stated goal of “killing” Romney.
To be sure, Romney came roaring back thanks to the first debate. But this was mostly because he was sharper than Obama, not because he abandoned conservatism, as Bai and his fellow leftists like to believe. Romney was more energetic and focused than Obama, and he pointedly attacked Obama’s record, which anyone in the president’s position would have had great difficulty defending.
Let’s suppose that Obama had never tried to paint Romney as a horrid reactionary, and instead had focused on his flip-flops, real and imagined. The net effect likely would have been to give Romney an edge with moderates and swing voters right off the bat.
Take Obamacare. Romney actually hasn’t flip-flopped on this — he still supports Romneycare, and points to the differences between it and Obamacare. Had Obama made a big deal of this, voters would have known early on what they learned during the first debate — that Romney is a centrist on this issue. How would this have hurt Romney?
Romney did change his positions on abortion and certain other social issues. Many successful politicians have followed this path. What group of voters would Romney lose because he once supported “a woman’s right to choose” but no longer does? Not pro-abortion voters, not anti-abortion voters, and not voters who don’t care, or can’t make up their minds, about the issue.
Bai himself says that Romney can “get away” with “an obvious change of course late in the race.” Why, then, would he not have gotten away with it early in the campaign?
It’s true that John Kerry lost ground because the Bush campaign portrayed him as a flip-flopper. But Kerry flip-flopped on the major issue in the 2004 campaign — the war in Iraq. Romney’s positions on the key issues — from Obamacare, to taxes, to entitlement reform, to debt reduction — have been consistent.
There are, to be sure, questions about whether Romney’s numbers “add up” when it comes to taxes/debt reduction But that’s a point the Obama campaign has been making all along. And no one has made it more effectively than Bill Clinton did during his speech to the Democratic Convention.
If the left-liberal Democrats wants to pin an Obama defeat (assuming it occurs — a premature assumption) on Bill Clinton, that’s fine with me. I’m all for a nasty civil war between Democrats. On the merits, however, scapgoating Clinton wouldn’t wash.
Bill Clinton and Barack Obama have no integrity , decency or shame and neither one of them knows when to shut up. Clinton will have only his stupid self to blame for whatever is thrown his way when Obama loses.
Clinton’s successes in office were the result of Newt Gingrich pushing him around to get the best policies for America.
Clinton’s failures were camouflaged by the MSM. He was never held accoutable.
Can we even imagine that George W. would have survived Monicagate?
We have traitors in our midst - they call themselves journalists.
I fear that it is almost Arkacide season and we are on the verge of a major outbreak.
If Zero loses, he will NOT continue to be some force in the Democratic party; he will, in my opinion, slither off to live under the rock from whence he came and his presidency will be something people will do their utmost best to forget as it sits FOREVER on the scrap heap of history.
He’ll get a job as a talkshow host on NPR.
Can we even imagine that George W. would have survived Monicagate?
We have traitors in our midst - they call themselves journalists.
Bush never would have survived a 'Monicagate'. The New York Times would have made sure of that... The Times is proud of their bias and unfairness - they wear that disgrace as a badge of honor...
The scapegoat would also have to be someone who has no future in Democratic politics. Bill Clinton is the perfect foil.
It's kind of shocking that they haven't stuck to their incessant "Bush's Fault" mantra.
“If Zero loses, he will NOT continue to be some force in the Democratic party; he will, in my opinion, slither off to live under the rock from whence he came and his presidency will be something people will do their utmost best to forget as it sits FOREVER on the scrap heap of history.”
IF he loses, (and I am so scared Zero is going to steal this election) I predict Zero will become Secretary General of the UN. Zero would consider that a higher honor than POTUS, and he would get to bash America with an adoring press following him everywhere. (Which is no different from the last 4 years).
W A C O
WE would have driven Bush from power WAAAAY before the NYT would have!!! We BEAT and EAT our own....Dems PROTECT their own deviants and HALE them!!
And so, the blame game begins just two weeks before America unceremoniously sends the Ohaha’s packing.
Apparently, Obama brushed aside Bill Clinton’s debate advice-—seen now as the reason Ohaha flopped at the first debate——a cataclysmic event from which Ohaha never recovered.
Then another flop-—Hillary got under the bus WRT Benghazi which was supposed to give Ohaha a leg up. Was that flopola Bill’s idea, too?
Obama figured, heck, he beat the Clintons in 2008, even though they were on a roll——the Clintons had pics of Obama dressed as a Muslim-—and were using them to make the case for Hillary.
REALITY CHECK But Obama’s victory over the Clintons was orchestrated by liberal icon—Teddy Kennedy. Uncle Teddy phoned the Clintons and told them to back off—the Muslim pics were not to be used.
Then sap-happy Kennedy launched a full-fledged endorsement of Ohaha, as a sign of his liberal “tolerance and compassion.”
Now Teddy’s dead and buried, and America is stuck with cleaning up the Ohaha mess.
I don’t think he will go away. Can you imagine him being quiet and classy like GW has been? He will be a thorn in Romney’s rear end.
A STROLL DOWN MEMORY LANE-—When 2008 Barack Obama campaigned, he proclaimed “I am running for president to tell the lobbyists in Washington that their days of setting the agenda are over. They have not funded my campaign. They won’t work in my White House.” Despite this vainglorious promise, Obama hired over 50 lobbyists in his administration.
Self-serving Obama uses the US Treasury as an open checkbook for his supporters who he rewards taxpayers’ expense.... But-—Obama says he wants everyone to “play by the same rules.” Remember when Michelle Obama received a $100,000 raise at her Chicago nonprofit job shortly after then-Sen Obama obtained generous govt assistance for her employer (used to be known as money laundering). And the beat goes on:
EXHIBIT A-—Obama vetoed the Canadian pipeline, causing a loss of thousands of construction jobs——that benefited his biggest financial supporters, Warren Buffett, who just happened to buy an interest in the railroad that will deliver the oil-—instead of the pipeline.
EXHIBIT B-—Obama’s Defense Department rejected a multibillion-dollar aircraft contract to a US manufacturing company and instead awarded it to a Brazilian company in which the same fundraiser has an interest.
EXHIBIT C-—Another Obama fundraiser benefited from a $528 million taxpayer loan for Solyndra which promptly went bankrupt, leaving the taxpayers with massive losses (contrary to standard lending practices, Obama’s supporters, not the taxpayers, had the only claim to the firm’s assets. Can you say money laundering?). Not to mention financing other so-called losing “green companies”
controlled by Obama supporters who received taxpayer loans and proceeded to go bust.
EXHIBIT D-—Obama halted Gulf oil drilling in violation of court orders. Do workers forced out of their jobs think he was playing by the rules?
EXHIBIT E—Obama talks a lot about the economy, but says only things that make him look good. The whoppers keep on coming-—now seeking reelection he says taxpayers got back every dime used for TARP to rescue the financial system, and also passed a “historic law” to end taxpayer-funded Wall Street bailouts for good.
He keeps forgetting to say US taxpayers are still owed big bucks for the billion dollar bailout of the financial industry. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac together owe taxpayers over $140 billion.
What about Axelrod? Isn’t he Obama’s brain? He’s been driving the SS Obama from day 1.
Clinton’s 23 million ‘new jobs’ were because of Silicon Valley-—not because of a single thing that Clinton did.
Those new jobs led to a surplus in the Clinton coffers at the end of his term.
IF we could switch Clinton & Bush terms, would the press be hammering Clinton over 9-11? Would they be praising Bush for millions of new jobs?
I think not.
Just when I thought clintoon could not go any lower I heard that he is going to be in some movie.
These self serving egotists called democrats really are lower than whale shiite.
Can you imagine a former repub president doing this?
At least the Bushes have some class.
Ted Kennedy did untold damage to this country.
Good outline, Liz. Hopefully this POTUS-POS will be gone soon.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.