Friday question answered
In response to my question as to which Obama misstep of the week -- the budget, the U.N. veto bargaining or the Wisconsin labor stand-off -- would have the most serious ramifications a number of voters picked the Wisconsin labor dispute.
Dr. Berkeley writes:
All three of these are embarrassments for the Obama administration and will have hangover. The unwise Wisconsin intervention will cause the most lasting damage, however. Obama won election in 2008 by entreating the Independent vote. In November 2010 Independents overwhelmingly voted for Republicans because they were repulsed by Washington/Obamacare political machinations. Obama's words this past week about the Wisconsin governor's "assault on unions" will remind independents in 2012 and historians for years to come that Obama is a pawn of unions.
Bremwa designs the ad campaign:
Obama's comments about the situation in Wisconsin will hurt him the most. Visualize, if you will, the TV commercials now -- the Dem legislators running away, the distasteful protester signs, the schools closing due to the sick-out. All of this video with the president's words running above the scenes. The closer: When the going got tough in Wisconsin, was the president on your side, or did he side with people who fled their duties, spewed hate and forced children out of attending school??
And StatistQuo's answer includes these observations:
Nothing underscores the sophomoric Obama approach to his hyper-statism than embracing BIG UNION, at the expense of the children, their parents and grandparents.
His backseat driving directed at newly elected, Gov. Walker, is unbecoming for a President and reinforces his total tone deafness of the electorate, particularly after November 2nd election.
Moreover, the demonizing of Walker reflects well on the aforementioned Christie, who has been statism's most articulate, quotable and prominent foe.
Walker is the latest of the anti-Obama prototype: Governors like MacDonald, Christie, Jindal, Kasich, Pawlenty and Scott, among others, who are executives and who must make tough decisions, balancing budgets (not to mention dealing with natural disasters).
Obama stands in stark contrast with all of them who refuses to alienate any traditional Democrat constituency, while dithering and avoiding decisions to an almost pathological degree.
The readers have focused on a key point missed by most pundits: Obama's support for the most entrenched of special interests clashes with his self-image as an agent of change, an opponent of business as usual and a post-partisan intellectual. It turns out, he's just another liberal pol in debt to Big Labor. Not exactly hope 'n change, is it?
| February 21, 2011; 9:07 AM ET
Categories: Friday question | Tags: Jennifer Rubin
Save & Share: Previous: Yes, there is a reason to rein in public employee unions
Next: Traveling in the West Bank (Part 2)
Posted by: DocC1 | February 21, 2011 9:57 AM | Report abuse
Posted by: metanis | February 21, 2011 9:58 AM | Report abuse
Posted by: saintpeterii | February 21, 2011 10:09 AM | Report abuse
Posted by: DCRallyBus | February 21, 2011 11:39 AM | Report abuse
Posted by: cwillia11 | February 21, 2011 1:35 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: bbmoe | February 21, 2011 2:08 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: aardunza | February 21, 2011 11:00 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: aardunza | February 21, 2011 11:28 PM | Report abuse