I’m very disappointed we didn’t feel that he was qualified purely because he had not the experience, he hadn’t – we didn’t know exactly how he was voting because he was only voting present when he was voting.Note to Republicans: no one was going to oppose Ronald Reagan in 1984 because he was just an actor, or Bill Clinton in 1996 because he ducked the draft, or George W. Bush in 2004 because of his Vietnam-era actions. Similarly, no one is going to vote against Barack Obama in 2012 because he voted "present" in the Illinois Legislature, before he served in the United States Senator for four years, and before he served as President of the United States of America.
Oh, also: no one is going to vote against Barack Obama for re-election because he doesn't have the experience to be president. Really. Trust me on this one: it's not going to be a winning argument.
Yes well they always have their fallback, the revisionist history. For example, did you know that the war in Afghanistan is "a war of Obama's choosing"? Yes, amazingly enough, it's true! There was no war in Afghanistan before 2010, the economy was chugging along like a high speed train, unemployment was non-existent and everything was peachy keen.ReplyDelete
Do people really believe this shit?
This post made me wonder what talking points would still work. I think "he's never opposed Dem leadership" will still work, although IIRC people care less about bipartisanship today than they did two years ago. Apparently Birtherism (and presumably secret Islam) still motivates the fringe. What else?ReplyDelete
I dunno- "never opposed Dem leadership" is weird since he IS Dem leadership now (by that I mean he's setting their agenda). It'd be effective in a state or local race to point out that a Congressman has never opposed Obama, but I don't know if people ever really expect the President to take a position that is broadly anathema to his party.ReplyDelete
Clearly "socialism" and "spread the wealth around" will remain potent among some sectors. I think his Chicago connections will get some traction, especially if, say, Valerie Jarrett gets a more high profile job, or Alexi Giannoulias becomes a prominent Freshman Senator. And of course, the usual litany of complaints against Dems will remain valid (soft on terror, anti-family, tax-and-spend, etc.)
Her statement that "he was only voting present when he was voting" is a flat-out lie with a kernel of truth. I won't go into detail, because sites like FactCheck.org and Politifact.com have already taken up that task, but basically he voted "present" over a hundred times during his eight-year tenure in the Illinois state senate, though it constituted a relatively tiny percentage of his total votes (something like 4%). There's a reasonable case to be made that he was overusing the procedure--regarded as normal in the Illinois legislature--to duck some issues. But this basically legitimate criticism has grown into an anti-Obama meme (I say "anti-Obama" and not "conservative" because the Hillary campaign also perpetuated it) that all he ever did as a legislator was vote "present," and this was further twisted into the idea that he also used the procedure while in the U.S. Senate--which is completely false. Palin, among others, has perpetuated the latter claim. That could be what Angle is getting at here, contributing to the right-wing mythology that Obama hardly did anything before reaching the presidency.ReplyDelete
Well said, Kylopod. I'd add that it was also part of a statewide strategy to protect pro-choice legislators in anti-choie districts.ReplyDelete
But of course, I'd argue that even the subtext of that meme won't matter in 2012. You can't argue that we don't know Obama's views on choice, or really any other major issue. And after he's been President for 4 years, no one's going to care what he did in the years BEFORE that.
I suppose, as a liberal Democrat, that I should hope the Republicans stick to these attacks. But I'd rather Obama faces some legitimate criticism...
I doubt this criticism or any other along those lines will be significantly heard in 2012. It was a good (if slightly dishonest) campaign attack in the last election, when not much was known about Obama before his presidential run, but it will seem feeble and irrelevant by the next cycle. Angle and Palin say these things mostly to motivate their supporters, not to gain new allies.ReplyDelete
i dunno. "Obama's lack of experience" really is a very popular wingnut meme these days. just Google the phrase.ReplyDelete
According to Jonathan Alter's "The Promise", he went against all the Democratic leadership (Rahm, Speaker Pelosi and ML Reid) when he continued his push for HCR. Does that count?ReplyDelete
It's pure dog whistle, just like "Kenya," "birth certificate," and "Chicago politics." It has symbolism for the base beyond any meaning to the charge. Really, I think they all get to the same thing, which is the larger attack of the President as "other."ReplyDelete
in 2012 will have been President for 4 years. Lots more experience than anyone else. DUH. unless you thi nk a second term for G Bush I is a good idea.ReplyDelete
How will any wingnut use "lack of experience" when in the next presidential election Mr. Obama will have been president for 4 years?ReplyDelete
The facts are that in 17 months as president, Mr. Obama has pass more major legislation than did Presidents Carter and Clinton in their 12 years as presidents.
The memes say exactly the opposite of reality, but the MSM promote them anyway.
Perhaps all these different memes will congeal into something like: "He didn't deserve to become/wasn't qualified to be/was too "other" to be president in 2008, and this is our only chance to rectify that mistake and throw him on the dustbin of history."ReplyDelete