NRL News
202.626.8824
dadandrusk@aol.com

A blatantly self-serving and mistaken “explanation” of Election Night

by | Nov 9, 2012

By Dave Andrusko

Pro-abortion President Barack Obama

NRL News Today has carried a number of stories about the election and its immediate aftermath. I’d like to thank those who were kind enough to respond in particular to “Five Takeaways from November 6

As we’ve discussed in considerable detail, winners get to “define” what the election results supposedly meant. This is so even when some of the conclusions are self-evident (the capacity of President Obama’s team to get its supporters out was masterful, even if the numbers fell short of 2008), at one extreme, or blatantly wrong, at the other extreme (everything to follow).

Over the last three years, we’ve written an untold number of times about Mr. Obama’s ability to take less than sterling examples of his own behavior and falsely attribute them to opponents, most recently Mitt Romney. He couldn’t have accomplished this without a compliant/in the tank press corps.

For example, Thomas Edsall wrote an op-ed for the New York Times last July, entitled “The Politics of Anything Goes.” Edsall, an admirer of the President, observed

“He is running a two-track campaign. One track of his re-election drive seeks to boost turnout among core liberal groups; the other aims to suppress turnout and minimize his margin of defeat in the most hostile segment of the electorate, whites without college degrees.

“This approach assumes a highly polarized electorate and tries to make the best of it. … Interestingly, the Obama campaign is not spending the lion’s share of its money on these groups. Instead, Obama’s television ads, at $65.6 million the biggest cost of his re-election bid so far, are overwhelmingly aimed at discrediting Mitt Romney.”

To quote the immortal Mr. Dooley, “Politics ain’t beanbag,” so it’s hardly surprising that Obama, faced with an economy that was still limping along, would throw everything, including the kitchen sink, at Romney. But in its viciousness and utter disdain for the truth, it would be difficult to find a campaign whose attacks sank that low.

Flash forward a little over three months to just before the election–Edsall would write (presumably with a straight face) that “An equally significant development has been the strategic decision of the Romney campaign to set new standards in the use of untrue campaign claims.” The particular example Edsall used was not at all out of the range of normal political advertising and was not l/100th as over-the-top as any number of slimy Obama ads. The double standard (not to mention the inaccuracy) is breathtaking.

One other note in this post. On whom does the primary blame for a “highly polarized electorate” fall? On the same man who has told us going back to 2004 that he yearns for common ground, for a dialogue, who insisted that there is no Red America or Blue America, only a red, white and blue America: Barack Obama.

There is much more to say, which we talk about at “Countering the ‘conventional wisdom’ on the Election Day results.”

Categories: Politics