Chris Cillizza, please define "post-partisan figure"
June 23, 2009 8:42 am ET by Eric Boehlert
This was from a couple days ago but it's so odd, and so indicative of the illogical mindset that dictates so much of the Beltway coverage under Obama, that it deserves another look. From the washingtonpost.com:
President Obama was elected as a post-partisan figure of sorts but in his first six months in office, he and his political inner circle have taken an aggressive stance toward recruiting their preferred candidates in Senate races.
To wit:
• Obama met with North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper (D) in an attempt to convince him into the race against Sen. Richard Burr (R) in 2010. Cooper ultimately passed on the race as have several other leading Democrats.
Cillizza goes on to detail other Congressional races in which Obama and his team have become involved. Okay. That's fine and interesting. It's what White Houses have pretty much always done. But how on earth does that relate to the hook of the story which was supposed to be that Obama has somehow flip-flopped; that he ran as a "post-partisan figure" (a tag the press completely concocted, btw), yet now he's trying to help recruit Democrats to run for office.
Is Cillizza actually suggesting that when he was running for president that Obama somehow signaled to voters that, if elected, he would do absolutely nothing to help the Democratic Party win more seats in Congress? That he would do nothing to help recruit and select worthy candidates?
Question: On what campaign trail (on what planet) did this stealth pledge take place?
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
The Friday Rush: A series of conflicts
Contrary to media hype, Sarah Palin is very unpopular
Who knows what "post-partisan" is supposed to mean... there's no end to making up new words, which I can only guess are supposed to signify new ideas... and if that's what they're pretending to do, pretending to think in new leading edge state-of-the-art ideas, then I guess they just have to make up new words to signify those ideas... because we all know that these media hacks aren't anything special, unless they know things you and I don't already know... and so they sit around and come up with new and strange descriptions of commonly known things, just to make for the appearance that they are saying something new and uncommon...
Because the English language just doesn't have enough words in it already, to suit the geniuses who think in terms uncommon and rare... and so they need to make up new words, to impress their leading edge state-of-the-art ingenuity on you.
If "post-partisan" is supposed to mean bi-partisan, then guess what, we aren't bi-partisan.
If bi-partisan means compromising your opinion or intentions with the opinions and intentions of another (who you might naturally oppose and who opposes you), and doing so in the spirit of "bi-partisanship", then that's simply being weak and unable (or unwilling) to defend your own convictions... if you're not weak and if you have the courage of your own convictions, then you don't compromise, not to appear "bi-partisan" or for any other stupid appearance...
We're not bi-partisan, especially not now.
[And when two navigators of one ship, one ship in the North Atlantic, are in disagreement which course to steer... and one says East but the other says West... they do not compromise and settle on South... as they may both agree there is nothing there in the middle ground, a middle course which is not the course believed in or recommended by either navigator... also, when two people wish to build a house on the lake, but are in disagreement about which side of the lake to build it on, they do not compromise and build the house in the middle of the lake... if you are not weak or stupid, and if you have the courage of your own convictions and beliefs, then don't compromise or settle, just for the sake of compromising and settling... and in politics, you would never do such a weak and stupid thing as that, with the political party of George W. Bush and IRAQ, just for the sake of a "bi-partisanship" that those Republicans cry about now, now that they cry because they've been denied political power by the American People... we're not bi-partisan, especially not now... and I don't guess we're "post-partisan" either, if I gave any thought to what that word is supposed to mean, or if I gave a crap about the media hack who used it.]
When you're popular, and people like you, you do this for the democrats running against incumbent republicans. When you're un-popular, you make yourself scarce, for example, what President Bush did during most of the election cycle in 2008. He wasn't popular, so he laid low for most of the time. Which is exactly what he needed to do.