See, there is the question you need to ask if you want to figure out whether the gaffe was really a gaffe. Stop and think. Do you even remember?
I had to look back at my stream of blog posts. The topic of the moment was: Obama seems to have claimed to have been born in Kenya: Why did he do that?
Just before that it was gay marriage.
So, you tell me: Do you think Booker was serving a deliberate purpose, in league with the Obama campaign, and not — as Chris Matthews put it — sabotage and betrayal?
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
३२ टिप्पण्या:
So, you tell me: Do you think Booker was serving a deliberate purpose, in league with the Obama campaign, and not — as Chris Matthews put it — sabotage and betrayal?
Those that believed Joe Biden's gay marriage statement was a ploy planned by the administration and not a gaffe would probably believe that Booker's statement was likewise coordinated.
I'm sorry, but the evidence just doesn't support the former. There is too much evidence that this group simply doesn't know what they're doing most of the time.
Why is "Saying what he believes" not a choice? Are you that cynical?
How about just speaking his mind?
Original Mike beat me to it. That would be my choice also.
"How about just speaking his mind?"
If that's what you think, pick the second option.
Before Booker, Obama was talking about another issue that was a loser for him politically.
It appears that Booker is far more astute than the average democratic hack. He knows the train wreck that is coming in November and he knows that unless democrats start acting and sounding like competent and capable and economically sane leaders the party is doomed for years. He laying the ground work for the recovery of the party after it crashes in November.
I amended option 2 to make this obvious.
I'd still quibble; often, being honest goes against your own "interests", but now I'm voting #2.
There's no reason to think Booker has done this in coordination with the Obama campaign. After all, what have they done for him that would make him step out in front of a bus of Democratic hacks to get run over? (And then have the bus back up over him, then run him over again, and so forth.) There would have to be a big pay-off for that kind of self-sacrifice. And where is that pay-off going to come from if the Big Shots in the party are now calling him a saboteur?
I would call this the Manchinization of the campaign. They believe Obama is going to lose and they don't want to go down with him, like the Congress did in 2010.
I think they are expecting the full fury of the electorate.
Ponder Booker along with the observation that many of the Bain partners are strong Democratic supporters. There are several multi million dollar contributors. Managing partner Steve Pagliuca ran for the Scott Brown Senate seat as a Democrat. Debbie Wasserman Schultz makes the rounds at Bain's offices right before she slams them in the media. All the Bain partners abhor public scrutiny for reasons of public ignorance of economics, greed, envy, etc., but I bet those in the D camp with any self respect have voiced a strong concern over the Bain bashing. Booker may be there to placate the donors...or, he just knows where his bread is buttered.
Booker suffered a rare attack of honesty. His spin was too weak to prop him up. Ergo, the walk back.
It's sad to see a formerly upright man turn into a weasel.
I don't know the guy.
The "all publicity is good publicity" rule may be in effect about the flood od stories about an Evil Capitalist Cabal that Braveheart Obama is taking on single handed.
But this also waives the wrong flag if the result is witnesses for Romney.
Mitt needs to keep up the talk about his strong suit of capital creation makes wealth and hires folks here.
The grey area would be that hiring folks in Finland, Mexico, and Singapore is a negative rather than a positive for the unemployed generation of Americans.
Do I trust Mitt with that angle...I am not sure yet. Mitt needs to answer that question.
"How about just speaking his mind?"
"If that's what you think, pick the second option."
"I amended option 2 to make this obvious."
Unfair; Cory Booker's first thought (or second or third or until reminded by "the campaign") need not be, "Is it good for Obama?"
Joe Lieberman was pretty easy to figure out, by comparison.
"Debbie Wasserman Schultz makes the rounds at Bain's offices right before she slams them in the media."
It's called protection money. Though the marks have got to be asking themselves if they are getting their money's worth.
I think he was speaking his mind but trying to help the Obama campaign--save it from its own folly.
When you are in a sinking ship, the number of vermin on board steadily decreases. Kinda like how our President has helped the traffic problem by making gas so expensive and jobs so rare.
Trey
Booker wasn't invited to the Obama campaign's strategy meetings, so he didn't know how much weight the Bain attacks were expected to carry. Booker honestly supports Obama. Like most honest supporters, he believes Obama's done a good job under the difficult circumstances. He had expected that (Obama's done a good job) to be the central argument for Obama's re-election. Until he was taken to the woodshed after his MTP appearance, he thought the Bain attacks were fluff meant to waste Romney's time and resources.
Now he knows differently.
Obamas presidency is so unique, gaffes are gifts.
Its going to be weird when we go back to the way we used to think about things.
Booker may well become our first black President.
So, you tell me: Do you think Booker was serving a deliberate purpose, in league with the Obama campaign, and not — as Chris Matthews put it — sabotage and betrayal?
Remember when Bush's really, really shitty former press secretary --- you know, that kind of tubby dude --- came out and attacked Bush?
I remember, VIVIDLY, all of the times Matthews cried about his act of sabotage and betrayal. A near-daily even on his show.
So this is absolutely consistent of him.
[/sarcasm]
Cory Booker has a lot of constituents (i.e., donors from Private Equity who are NJ residents) who are reaching out to second-tier Dem officeholders to call off the dogs.
The heretofore "pitchforks and torches" between whom President Obama claimed to be the only one standing. Infer from that what one likes.
Chris Matthews is p*ssed because heretics like Booker are harshing his tingle.
Oh, and Cory Booker is obviously racist.
Never attribute to malice what can explainted by stupidity alone.
The current Obama campaign.
Booker is also laying the groundwork for a gubernatorial campaign against incumbent Christie, whose confrontational Joisey style may be wearing on the electorate.
"...far more astute...", indeed. The man did go to Stanford, and was an all-PAC 10 tight end.
IOW, Obama's reelection strategy is gaffe-a-minute-induced sensory overload?
What's really sad is that it sounds plausible.
Hopefully some of you folks saw the quite stupid asshole Matthews get his ass kicked on Jeopardy. He missed some basic govt. questions and got huffy.
The next day Chris Wallace was on and kicked ass. Wallce and Chuck Todd were the smartest of celebrity week in DC. Dr. Oz was also pretty stupid.
This is all orchestrated, choreographed crap. Does no one see this?
This is all orchestrated, choreographed crap. Does no one see this?
You give them far too much credit.
the simplest explanation is typically the correct one. An explanation in which Obama and his team are geniuses is much too far-fetched to be true.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा