"
Posté le Dimanche 7 octobre 2012 par jc durbant
A l’heure où après l’incroyable raclée subie par leur poulain, les stratèges démocrates comme leurs relais médiatiques des deux côtés de l’Atlantique ont repris leur travail de sape contre le candidat républicain …
Comment ne pas voir avec deux tribunes particulièrement éclairantes de JR Dunn dans l’American thinker il y a trois ans (merci james) et de Shelby Steele dans le WSJ l’an dernier …
Que l’indéfectible canonisation du « Noir magique » porteur de rédemption n’est en fait que l’envers d’une tout aussi formidable haine, à l’instar du Goldstein d’Orwell et ses « Deux minutes de la Haine » quotidienne et selon le principe vieux comme le monde du bouc émissaire, pour ses adversaires républicains?
Et comment ne pas se poser la question, face à la véritable montagne à laquelle s’est attaqué Mitt Romney …
De savoir si le candidat républicain trouvera la force de finalement briser le charme qui est aussi un sortilège contre les successeurs de Lincoln, Nixon, Reagan et l’honnissime Bush?
Laisser un commentaire
30 réponses à “Présidentielle américaine/2012: Retour sur l’envers de la canonisation de Barack Obama (Will Romney finally break the anti-Republican spell?)”
9 oct 12 à 23:32
9 oct 12 à 23:25
Romney mène désormais dans RealClearPolitics.
9 oct 12 à 20:55
Même à Chicago, il y aurait un possible « Shake up » où Romney emporterait le fief d’Obama. Et c’est une chaîne de gauche qui le dit :
9 oct 12 à 20:51
Elle est pas belle la vie ? :
9 oct 12 à 19:05
Avec un tel état d’esprit, je le vois mal changer de posture dans les prochains débats :
9 oct 12 à 12:40
Pour une fois, tous les médias tombent d’accord :
Backlash: Politico, NBC, ABC, MSNBC Criticize Team Obama’s ‘Absurd’ Big Bird Ad
A media that is obviously disappointed with Their Precious One’s debate performance and recent collapse in the polls, is not at all happy with this silly and stupid Big Bird attack. Politico criticized the ad as small ball, NBC News described it as « absurd, » and ABC’s Rick Klein seems confused by the desperate smallness of it:
Team Obama makes a play using … Big Bird? The new Obama campaign ad uses a mock-serious tone to jump on Mitt Romney’s most famous debate line. It’s all in good fun, but the contrast may not be what President Obama is after, not now, not in this race. Romney is getting more serious by the day, with a foreign-policy sp
eech and now Paul Ryan about to make the case for conservative fiscal policies. Romney marches toward Benghazi, while the president marches down Sesame Street?
Even MSNBC’s Chuck Todd criticized the ad: « When is the Obama campaign going to stop talking about the debate? … They cannot seem to turn the page from the debate. … Any conversation about that debate, I assume, helps Mitt Romney. »
9 oct 12 à 09:58
Romney takes lead in Rasmussen swing-state tracking poll, 49/46
9 oct 12 à 08:54
POLL: Obama loses lead on key voter issues: Economy, national security…
9 oct 12 à 00:47
Yes, shit is finally hitting the fan and when it’s gonna rain, it’s gonna pour …
8 oct 12 à 22:26
And sorry, but, after all the BS they forced on us for years, it all sounds like pretty sweet revenge
8 oct 12 à 21:20
Yes, either way, he’s stuck: either he overreacts and he’s fried or he underreacts like at the first one and he’s toast …
Oh boy, this campaign is getting a lot more fun than I ever thought it would be …
And sorry, but, after all the BS they forced on us for years, it all sounds like pretty sweet revenge …
8 oct 12 à 20:14
Pertinente analyse :
I continue to believe that Barack Obama will over-react to last week’s debate debacle by coming out extremely aggressive against Romney — further hurting Obama’s personal likeability, which was his most enduring and electable trait given his failure in almost every other aspect of his presidency.
The VP debate on Thursday will give a hint as to how Obama will behave: If Obama’s team is planning for the president to try to rip Romney’s throat out, they will have given Joe Biden the same marching orders. I expect Paul Ryan to make Joe Biden look like the mental midget that he is, but then when you’re up against such a gaffe machine it is all but impossible to lower expectations. So if Ryan does not wipe the floor with Biden, the media will call it a loss for Ryan — and the public might too. Biden is an experienced debater even if being far from the sharpest knife in the drawer. Paul Ryan would make a huge mistake to underestimate Plugs Biden; fortunately, I’m confident that no such mistake will be made.
8 oct 12 à 19:36
The excuses for President Obama’s shockingly weak performance in last week’s presidential debate are taxing the imaginations of the left. We’re told President Obama doesn’t like confrontations because he wants to be president of all the people (Paul Krugman); he doesn’t watch enough MSNBC (Chris Matthews); he’s a great thinker but a so-so debater (David Remnick); he may actually need that teleprompter (Bill Maher); and of course everyone’s all-time favorite: it was the altitude (Al Gore). On the right, the argument has been that the media has coddled Obama — so much so that he is unable to respond effectively to the challenges presented by Romney.
Few people, however, even on the right, have cited the two most plausible explanations for Obama’s failure, although these are staring them in the face.
But there is another possible explanation for President Obama’s weak debate performance. Perhaps Obama isn’t the remarkable intellect his supporters believe him to be. He’s written two autobiographical books, and he clearly has a gift for delivering prepared speeches. But does he really know anything beyond what his staff prepares? His college and law school grades are under seal, and the media always showed less interest in them than in Romney’s tax returns. He never ran a business, so its success could not be used as an index of his abilities. He got a law degree but never distinguished himself as a lawyer, wrote a winning brief or made a brilliant oral argument in an appeal. He was a U.S. senator for four years and an Illinois state senator for eight, but — to say the least — he did not distinguish himself by proposing significant legislation in either chamber.
8 oct 12 à 18:53
8 oct 12 à 17:47
Pew poll: Romney erases eight-point deficit, now leads by four among likely voters
8 oct 12 à 17:47
8 oct 12 à 17:45
Even 45% of Democrats said Romney won the debate, compared to 24% who picked Obama.
“I don’t think Obama was on his game — it just seemed like he didn’t want to be there,” said Daniel Fulkerson, 62, a retired autoworker who worked 34 years for General Motors in Lansing. He now lives in White Cloud in Newaygo County and said Obama still gets his vote.
Gene Brauninger, a retired quality assurance manager from Commerce Township, said he was considering voting for an independent or third-party presidential candidate but is likely to vote for Romney after watching the debate.
“I thought Obama fell on his face,” while Romney “stayed on point,” said Brauninger, 68.
“To be honest with you, I never thought Obama would look that bad or Romney would look that good.”
8 oct 12 à 17:44
8 oct 12 à 13:58
8 oct 12 à 13:42
Ils ont prevu une chaise de bebe pour le remplacer
8 oct 12 à 13:35
James , on va peut etre pas mettre le Champ’ au frais mais on au moins choisir un cru …Je constate le lent grignotage des sondages et le passage de l’Ohio dans les Tossup States. J’attends de pied ferme le debat Ryan-Biden ! ( Ils ont prevu une chaise de bebe pour le remplacer )
8 oct 12 à 13:11
8 oct 12 à 12:24
Governor Romney’s speech today at Virginia Military Institute is important because it begins to sketch the Romney doctrine — and will vanquish any doubts on where he stands in respect of foreign policy. It was both an eloquent and substantive statement, delivered at an inspiring institution. In tone and substance it was strong but not swaggering. It reminded us of Reagan’s foreign policy vision, which the man who became the 40th president articulated against, in Jimmy Carter, a faltering president who reminds us increasingly of Barack Obama. Both Messrs. Carter and Obama reached out solicitously to our adversaries while running a weak-dollar policy and viewing a military buildup on our side as a threat to the peace rather than as a deterrent to war.
8 oct 12 à 12:18
It’s also going to extend to whether Obama has been overrated as a President — and why the media has worked so hard in overrating him as both.
Voilà un sujet qui va occuper les historiens dans les années à venir.
Pendant ce temps-là :
Polls Are Collapsing For Obama All Over The Place After The Debate
8 oct 12 à 11:07
It’s also going to extend to whether Obama has been overrated as a President — and why the media has worked so hard in overrating him as both.
8 oct 12 à 10:51
Le Washington Post se réveille progressivement de sa longue sieste et commence à percevoir des choses que nous avions très clairement vu dès 2008.
8 oct 12 à 10:35
Et en plus, pour la plupart, c’était avant le débat !
Commence à y avoir le feu au lac …
8 oct 12 à 07:48
8 oct 12 à 00:25
L’université du Colorado maintient ses prévisions.
7 oct 12 à 21:03
Morceaux choisis:
In George Orwell’s brilliant « 1984″, there’s a character named Emmanuel Goldstein, the « Enemy of the People ». Every night, in this totalitarian society, Oceania, Goldstein’s face was flashed on the TV screen for the « Two minutes Hate » employed for the citizenry to vent its hostility. « All subsequent crimes against the Party, all treacheries, acts of sabotage, heresies, deviations, sprang directly out of his teaching »… To some degree Nixon has become Goldstein to many in our society and this is bad.
Nick Thimmesch (1974)
Bien que Goldstein fût haï et méprisé par tout le monde, bien que tous les jours et un millier de fois par jour, sur les estrades, aux télécrans, dans les journaux, dans les livres, ses théories fussent réfutées, écrasées, ridiculisées, que leur pitoyable sottise fût exposée aux regards de tous, en dépit de tout cela, son influence ne semblait jamais diminuée. Il y avait toujours de nouvelles dupes qui attendaient d’être séduites par lui. Pas un jour ne se passait que des espions et des saboteurs à ses ordres ne fussent démasqués par la Police de la Pensée.
1984
La diabolisation de Bush – et de Reagan, et de Nixon – est simplement le miroir de la canonisation de Barack Obama.
JR Dunn
The problem Mr. Obama poses for Republicans is that there has always been a disconnect between his actual performance and his appeal. If Hurricane Katrina irretrievably stained George W. Bush, the BP oil spill left no lasting mark on this president. Mr. Obama’s utter confusion in the face of the « Arab spring » has nudged his job-approval numbers down, but not his likability numbers, which Gallup has at a respectable 47.6%. In the mainstream media there has been a willingness to forgive this president his mistakes, to see him as an innocent in an impossible world. Why? There have really always been two Barack Obamas: the mortal man and the cultural icon. If the actual man is distinctly ordinary, even a little flat and humorless, the cultural icon is quite extraordinary. The problem for Republicans is that they must run against both the man and the myth. In 2008, few knew the man and Republicans were walloped by the myth. Today the man is much clearer, and yet the myth remains compelling. What gives Mr. Obama a cultural charisma that most Republicans cannot have? First, he represents a truly inspiring American exceptionalism: He is the first black in the entire history of Western civilization to lead a Western nation—and the most powerful nation in the world at that. And so not only is he the most powerful black man in recorded history, but he reached this apex only through the good offices of the great American democracy. Thus his presidency flatters America to a degree that no white Republican can hope to compete with. He literally validates the American democratic experiment, if not the broader Enlightenment that gave birth to it. He is also an extraordinary personification of the American Dream: Even someone from a race associated with slavery can rise to the presidency. Whatever disenchantment may surround the man, there is a distinct national pride in having elected him. All of this adds up to a powerful racial impressionism that works against today’s field of Republican candidates. This is the impressionism that framed Sen. John McCain in 2008 as a political and cultural redundancy—yet another older white male presuming to lead the nation. The point is that anyone who runs against Mr. Obama will be seen through the filter of this racial impressionism, in which white skin is redundant and dark skin is fresh and exceptional. This is the new cultural charisma that the president has introduced into American politics. Today this charisma is not as strong for Mr. Obama. The mere man and the actual president has not lived up to his billing as a historical breakthrough. Still, the Republican field is framed and—as the polls show—diminished by his mere presence in office, which makes America the most socially evolved nation in the world. Moreover, the mainstream media coddle Mr. Obama—the man—out of its identification with his exceptionalism. Conversely, the media hold the president’s exceptionalism against Republicans. Here is Barack Obama, evidence of a new and progressive America. Here are the Republicans, a cast of largely white males, looking peculiarly unevolved. Add to this the Republicans’ quite laudable focus on deficit reduction and spending cuts, and they can be made to look like a gaggle of scolding accountants. How can the GOP combat the president’s cultural charisma? It will have to make vivid the yawning gulf between Obama the flattering icon and Obama the confused and often overwhelmed president. Applaud the exceptionalism he represents, but deny him the right to ride on it as a kind of affirmative action. A president who is both Democratic and black effectively gives the infamous race card to the entire left: Attack our president and you are a racist. To thwart this, Republicans will have to break through the barrier of political correctness. (…) there must be a Republican message of social exceptionalism. America has more social mobility than any heterogeneous society in history. Isn’t there a great Republican opportunity to be had in urging minorities to at last move out of their long era of protest—in which militancy toward the very society they struggled to join was the way ahead? Aren’t Republicans uniquely positioned to offer minorities a liberation from both dependency and militancy? In other words, isn’t there a fresh new social idealism implicit in conservative principles? Why not articulate it and fight with it in the political arena? Such a message would show our president as unevolved in his social thinking—oh so 1965. The theme: Barack Obama believes in government; we believe in you.
Shelby Steele
Comme dans toutes les affaires de ce genre, la haine envers Bush implique plusieurs facteurs sur lesquels les historiens débattront pendant les prochaines décennies. Mais l’un de ces facteurs, l’idéologie, ne doit pas être minimisé. Plus spécifiquement, la tournure idéologique de la politique américaine. Ce n’est pas par accident que les trois présidents les plus haïs soient Républicains. Ces campagnes sont un autre symptôme de l’effondrement de la gauche américaine dans une sorte de stupeur idéologique amorphe, caractérisée par des élans quasi-religieux, une division du monde en noir et blanc, et un embrasement émotionnel au-delà de tout contrôle conscient. La diabolisation de Bush – et de Reagan, et de Nixon – est simplement le miroir de la canonisation de Barack Obama. Il n’y a rien de nouveau là-dedans. Ce phénomène était déjà illustré dans 1984 de George Orwell, lors des « Cinq Minutes de la Haine » contre le personnage imaginaire d’Emmanuel Goldstein, lui-même basé sur Léon Trotski. La seule nouveauté vient de l’adoption délibérée de cette tactique dans la politique d’une démocratie – un fait sans précédent, porteur de grandes inquiétudes. En tant que démocrate, Obama n’a guère de raisons de s’inquiéter, même avec les éléments d’extrême-gauche de sa coalition commençant à déverser leur bile sur lui. La machinerie idéologique est trop peu maniable pour s’orienter contre un individu à gauche. Même si les circonstances l’amenaient à violer les convictions les plus profondes de ceux qui le soutiennent, des facteurs personnels – qui ne se limitent pas à la couleur de peau – serviraient à le protéger.
J.R. Dunn
