Would Obamacare be less popular today had it been called “Democratcare”? Would it still be law? Would the opponents to the Affordable Care Act be aligned in the same way? Would the GOP be less cowardly, or more so, were their Democrat “friends across the aisle” (and alleged opponents in the Congress) be the objects of the people’s wrath instead of Obama? Would their senior partner-junior partner collegiality be strained?
Considering what we now know of Obama’s unwillingness to accept any accountability for what’s going on in Washington (all part of his campaign to promote himself to worldwide El Supremo status and that “higher pay grade” he always says is above his own )…whose side would Obama even be on today, if all the public and political resource arrayed today against the Affordable Care Act Bill were aimed at the (g-d) Democrats in Congress instead of Jug Ears?
Would recent history be changed in any way?
Considering that Obama had fewer fingerprints on Obamacare than most of the other economic disasters his administration has wrought on America since 2009, I think things would be very different. And for us, the victims of this monstrosity, things would look much better.
In fact, I’m willing to wager “Obamacare” was a name devised from the beginning to lead us away from the main culprits in this crime. The misdirection is a common ploy, still well played by the Left and media since the Newt Congress at least. It’s a simple stratagem, a kid can be taught to understand it, but one which can seem as complex and unfathomable as a Voodoo curse when directed against men who have no earthly
idea what they stand for except to protect their own station.
Which begs the question, instead of trying to replace GOP Establishment thinking, maybe we should simply replace the establishment itself.
But enough about #cottonmouths. A thought for another time.
The recent turn of events for Anthony Weiner, Part Two, is more instructive.
Weiner, like Obama, is a narcissist. Only he likes to hold his stuff out for others to admire a little more impetuously. Also like Obama, Weiner has been conditioned, throughout his life, to repel the slings and arrows from people he has also been conditioned, throughout his life, to believe are beneath him intellectually, socially, and possibly in his case, anatomically (for he indeed has a large nose, just as Obama has large ears.)
We already know that Anthony was always immune to the attacks by the Right for having shown off his underwear that first go-round. The entire Right, from conservatives to GOP, from internet to Congress, he could care less what they thought or said about him. His special reputation, and what made him an up-and-comer in (g-d) Democrat Party circles is that he sought out conservative disdain, and wore it like a badge of honor.
From this “embarrassment” Weiner resigned his office in Congress, only not out of shame, for narcissists feel none, or even as punishment since Democrats never plat the “repentence” card when there are others that can be played. Rather his resignation was under circumstances (a loving wife—BFF of Lady Disdain Herself— standing by her man) that were 1) designed to save face for the Democrat Party, throwing away for a few months a congressional seat that was about to be redistricted anyway, and 2) provide him a pathway toward public rehabilitation which would allow him to rise again. (sic)
So now we have Weinergate Two, in the middle of what was believed to be an easy glide path into the Democrat nomination for New York City’s mayor.
Ordinarily Weiner could survive ten more Weinergates as long as it was conservatives and moralist enemies taking swipes at him.
And Anthony Weiner may yet win this, for it is, after all, New York City, where voters won’t have much to say in this, unless the Democrat Party establishment gives them leeway.
What has changed is the relationship between Weiner and his (g-d) party, and possibly, as well, Huma and at least one wing of that same (g-d) party. He is making them all look bad. And worse, he is making them look bad to each other. Again, conservatives, Christians, moralists, not to mention Republicans, are not part of this equation.
There’s a lesson here in the bigger Game, which conservative analysts may wish to consider.
On a couple of occasions, Obama has pushed the envelop between himself and his Party. From the beginning, before he was inaugurated, I reported that there is a natural fissure between the two, for Obama represents 1) me-ism magnified a thousand fold and 2) a socialism with a harder “get-even” edge,while on the whole the Democrats represent a decadent, 18th Century, aristocratic view of government. Hot-tub socialists; greasy, pot-bellied royals, chowing down on the wings, breast, thighs, both the light and dark meat of the American pullet, but from a feeder lot that is getting smaller and more underfed every day, versus an alliance of lean and mean primitives and pagans, 30% of whom believe we should all warm ourselves around an open fire and sleep in communal cabins, dig cat-hole latrines, but by some cosmic mystery as yet unrevealed, still keep our phones charged.
(A work in regress versus a work in progress.)
To date, Obama is not caught between these two opposing forces, but rather holds himself out as a standard bearer. For both.
Which can’t last forever.
The theory goes that these two opposing views of leftwing government will not come to open loggerheads until the GOP has been completely gelded (another work in progress, just a couple of snips away from a fait accompli) and conservatism completely vanquished, the survivors banished underground. Only when tyranny is firmly entrenched can leftwing True Believers and porcine gluttons call off the truce, squaring off with what has been a disintegrating alliance of some very contradictory policy goals for years. Then Obama can declare himself.
So, yes, I do wonder what might have happened had Obamacare not carried his name, but rather the name of its progenitors, the (g-d) Democrats? Democratcare?
For you see, Obama can wear the stigma of “Obamacare” like a fragrant garland of flowers around his neck, while Congress would carry it as a 1000-pound milestone. So it’s been a win-win for now Obama sleeps better at night knowing that 50% of Americans go to bed each night with his name on their lips—as a curse, and the Democrat Party still in no one’s headlights.
But Obama doesn’t sleep so well when he isn’t thought of at all, or when his party, peers, and water-carriers (the media) doubt him, or are embarrassed by him, or see through him. And the conditions for those circumstances to arise do exist, if one looks for them.
If I were in the strategy business with consultants who would actually like to see Obama, the Democrats, and the media all “eating through their flies”, I’d look for opportunities, as has has occurred with Weiner-2, to goad the Left into little petty wars with itself. These tend to accumulate. Peer disapproval is but one. Liberals, even get-even socialists, are a bundle of insecurities and vanities, always a volatile mix. Find them, expose them, and pick at them like scabs. Weiner is a lose-lose today because the Democrat Party, not just in NYC, but on the whole, appears impotent and weak by holding onto him, when in fact it is he who is holding onto them. He’s their David Duke. Every day he stays in the race is a day in which Party insiders think they appear weal, or incompetent because they don’t know what to do with him. Democrats don’t mind being seen as crooked (even criminal, if by the right people), certainly not immoral, especially dishonest, at least by the right people. (Think in terms of tribal laws, us and them.) But they cannot sleep at night if they think their own people believe they are clueless and incompetent. (Clearly this was what Hillary tried to salvage in the Benghazi hearings, her in-party mojo.)
Contradictory personalities, temperament, vanities are all the Achilles heels of all the Democrats. It was how they were bred.
A serious analyst could make a list of these “secret supplications” of the Leftist soul, the things they fear most. Then like a good fisherman, just lay out the fly and wait for them to rise to the bait.
Them, not Him
In the broader sense, since we’re not paid to do this sort of thinking here, I do know Obama is nourished and energized by the names we give him. He’s not insulted. I doubt he reads any blogs, especially right wing ones, but he knows. I wouldn’t be surprised if he had a staffer bring him a list each week of all the new ugly names given to him. How many do I see each week? A dozen? There are even sites that collect them. Almost any perjorative prefaced by an O’ has been used. Just search “Obama nicknames”.
So stop it. You may be scratching your itch, but you are feeding him.
Instead—-If you’re like me, you live in a world where you can never openly say ugly things about Obama, for fear some black person may hear you and be offended. Or worse. This is why we call him names in our private world on the internet, just to scratch those inner itches. (We learned this in First Grade.)
I spend an hour a day around older black people and have yet to hear one of them mention Obama one way or the other (it was different about Bush) so suspect that subject is just as sensitive to them as it is to me and for the same reason. Good manners.
But on the other hand, “Democrat”, which I know most blacks claim as their home party, is a term I use often, and often with a cocktail of suggestive adjectives. I can stand at the check-out counter at Food Beast and see a patron do something really stupid, or rude, and all I have to do is say “Must be a Democrat” and I get nods of approval, laughs, high-fives, or “damn straights” all around. If I weren’t married (and old) I’d use it as pick-up line, it works so well. It’s a sure winner, even among black folk, for while Democrats, still they know what I’m talking about in the broader context. And if the occasional sourpuss barks back, you have a ready answer, which of course is the truth.
I can’t tell you the number of complaints that have been levied against me for saying that very thing about a person in public in other venues. “Must be a (damned) Democrat” . Of course they’re Democrats, only that’s not the point. That’s not what they’re hiding. It’s that I politicized an act of bad manner or rudeness by equating it with the Democrat Party. Liars especially hate it and squawk like parrots once I point them out. I deal with these weekly. It’s as if I had spotted a transvestite 100 yards away, signifying his/her disguise wasn’t fooling anyone. That just kills them.
So while you are winning new support (not GOP support, not conservative nor even Christian support, but anti-Democrat support) you are not saying one thing about Barack Obama. Still the sting will work its way to his door.
See how this works?
If you want to hurt the Obama cause, lay into the (g-d) Democrats, and watch what happens.