Chris Christie's positive statements about Obama on several television interviews yesterday:


What Christie did was inoculate Obama from whatever minor screw-ups that take place in the next week. There will be a failure to get resources somewhere, which is inevitable in situations following a huge storm, but Christie's grand statement of praise speaks to the larger view.

Christie also undercuts Romney's persistent charge that Obama isn't a leader. What does a leader do? One thing is help expedite lower-level agencies and set them on the right path. Christie said that's what Obama did.

Right wing radio is countering by bringing up Benghazi: If he's so on the ball with Sandy, why did he mess up with Benghazi. That's not going to work with constant pictures of flooded subways, downed trees, boats on dry land, and damage along the shore. The visuals - and there are literally millions of them - will be the focus by the media for quite some time.


posted by Quiddity at 10/31/2012 01:26:00 PM

This has been obvious for some time now:

Ezra Klein tells us:

Mitch McConnell and John Boehner’s strategy worked

I’ve spent the morning reading various endorsements of Mitt Romney for president, and they all say the same thing: Mitch McConnell and John Boehner’s strategy worked.  

Okay, that’s not quite how they put it. But it’s precisely what they show. In endorsement after endorsement, the basic argument is that President Obama hasn’t been able to persuade House or Senate Republicans to work with him. If Obama is reelected, it’s a safe bet that they’ll continue to refuse to work with him. So vote Romney! 

That’s not even a slight exaggeration. Take the Des Moines Register, Iowa’s largest and most influential paper. They endorsed Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996, Al Gore in 2000, John Kerry in 2004, and Barack Obama in 2008. But this year, they endorsed Romney. 

Why? In the end, they said, it came down to a simple test. “Which candidate could forge the compromises in Congress to achieve these goals? When the question is framed in those terms, Mitt Romney emerges the stronger candidate.”

Klein goes on to cite other editorials that share that view.  It has been abundantly clear that obstructionism works if nobody calls attention to it.  And nobody does.  The press has largely abandoned that role of informing people about why things are the way they are.  The Obama administration hasn't complained all that much, given its peculiar obsession with bipartisanship and finding common ground.

Of interest, the op-ed and book that came out in May of this year by Mann and Ornstein - two fair minded observers - made the case that what has happened in recent years is the ascent of a radical Republican politics.  And after the book came out, were they invited to the Sunday shows?  No.  Are they cited anywhere?  No.  Part of that is because their book is an implicit criticism of the press' failure to highlight this change in the Republican party, and the press will ignore criticism of what they do.
posted by Quiddity at 10/31/2012 01:02:00 AM

David Brooks writes a column about why Romney is better than Obama:

 He says that because the Republicans in the House will oppose Obama, but Democrats in the Senate (and Republicans in the House) will work with Romney, that Romney should be president. That's triggered a lot of responses. Kevin Drum says it amounts to giving in to hostage-takers. Over at Twitter, there is this slew of tweets from Jamelle Bouie (that also review Brooks' earlier endorsements):







Optimus Prime is  is a character from the Transformers franchise.






This is the head for Brooks' Salon article:

George W. Bush should be president
Forget his image as a callous, empty-headed frat boy. People like him, and that means he'll attract and retain the best minds.









posted by Quiddity at 10/30/2012 05:35:00 AM

Romney and charitable giving:

This is a moderately complicated report from Bloomberg about how Romney's "giving" to one particular charity was essentially a means of evading capital gains taxes.  If the charitable trust is set up just right, and it appears to the case for Romney, then the end result is a complete payback to Romney of the gift plus whatever growth occurred.  What does the charity get?  Close to nothing.

posted by Quiddity at 10/29/2012 10:58:00 AM

Rupert Murdoch tweets:




Public figures can parade their families, automobiles, books they've read, and lots of other things.  It does not mean that they have therefore surrendered the going's on within their household.




posted by Quiddity at 10/22/2012 07:02:00 AM

Fox Nation goes all out against Biden:







posted by Quiddity at 10/12/2012 08:03:00 AM

Remember when George W. Bush was criticized for not engaging the press?

Many on the left did. Now it's time to acknowledge that our guy is just as bad. Case in point, Dana Milbank's column:

Obama pays price for ducking the questions  

Barack Obama received a valuable reminder in his drubbing at Wednesday night’s debate: He is a president, not a king. In the hours after the Republican challenger Mitt Romney embarrassed the incumbent in their first meeting, Obama loyalists expressed puzzlement that the incumbent had done badly. But Obama has only himself to blame, because he set himself up for Wednesday’s emperor-has-no-clothes moment. For the past four years, he has worked assiduously to avoid being questioned, maintaining a regal detachment from the media and other sources of dissent and skeptical inquiry.

Obama has set a modern record for refusal to be quizzed by the media, taking questions from reporters far less often than Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and even George W. Bush. Though his opponent in 2008 promised to take questions from lawmakers like the British prime minister does, Obama has shied from mixing it up with members of Congress, too.

Towson University political scientist Martha Kumar, who keeps a running tally of Obama’s media appearances, tells me he has had 19 solo news conferences in the White House as of Sept. 30. That compares to 26 for Ronald Reagan at the same point in his presidency, 59 for George H.W. Bush, and 31 for Bill Clinton. Obama had more formal news conferences than George W. Bush (13), but Bush engaged in many more informal Q&A sessions with reporters: 340 at this stage in his presidency to Obama’s 105. (Clinton had 585 at this point, the elder Bush had 309 and Reagan had 135.)

Obama hasn’t held a full-fledged news conference at the White House since March. After a Cabinet meeting in July, a reporter tried to ask him whether new gun laws were needed after the Colorado shooting — and Obama brushed off the inquiry with a joke.

In lieu of taking hard questions, Obama has opted for gauzy, soft-focus interviews with the likes of “Entertainment Tonight,” gentle appearances on late-night comedy shows, kid-glove satellite hits with regional TV stations, and joint appearances with the first lady where questions are certain to be gentle. Tough questions are rare in one-on-one interviews, because Obama has more control over the topic — and the interviewer wants to be invited back.

Engaging with Republican lawmakers is a waste of time, especially after they declared 100% opposition to Obama's agenda. But dealing with the press is another matter.

Obama has received surprisingly little criticism from the left on his remoteness from anything other than set-piece oratory.  Not that Obama would have changed, since he's demonstrated a stubbornness that will not be swayed (e.g. thinking that he can heal the partisanship and secure a Grand Bargain).
posted by Quiddity at 10/07/2012 01:20:00 AM

First debate summary:

Obama is not a detail man,  Never was.

Sure, Obama looked like he was in command of the facts compared to George W. Bush and John McCain, but so would most anybody.

Obama is a high-concept, broad-brush kind of guy.  Witness the hands-off approach to policy development during 2009 for health care legislation.  For a while he pretty much let Max Baucus run with the ball (partly on delusional bipartisan goals).

He's never been good in debates and should have prepared for an aggressive Romney, who was quite visible during the Republican debates.



posted by Quiddity at 10/05/2012 02:57:00 AM