Romney spokesman: Obama’s a weak dirty foreigner so it’s “in vogue” to attack him

Former Mitt Romney spokesman Kevin Madden probably regrets his remarks.

Basically, his point is that, since Bush’s popularity was high after 9/11 and he’s a real American from a real American state, it was okay for him to wait six days to comment on the shoe bomber.

However, since Obama’s popularity has taken a hit due to rightwing and Republican obstructionism over hcr and he’s a calm and rational person from a foreign seeming state, it’s “in vogue” to criticize him for commenting publicly after 72 hours.

This is of course what the rightwingers and Republicans are thinking and saying among themselves but they’re not supposed to put it so explicitly in public.

The rightwingers and their increasingly subservient Republican comrades really are the party of “no.” They have no real long term strategy, only tactical opposition, obstructionism and keen jerk criticism.

TPM notes that Hoekstra’s spokesman relayed the same criticism and literally had no answer when asked about Reid.

While I think it’s not yet time to update the Republican party’s obit, this is a sign of a party in serious straits without a rudder. They are hewing hard to the base and, while I’m not going to continue the nautical metaphor, let’s just say a breakup is at least increasingly, if only still theoretically, conceivable.

It seems more and more likely that the Republicans will not do as well as they might otherwise be expected to do in 2010. The elections are a long way off and anything can happen of course. But as it stands at the moment, they’re not as strong as they might be expected to be.

If that turns out to be the case, the intra party — and intra movement — bloodletting will resume with a vengeance. Perhaps somewhat counter intuitively, it will make the post 2008 recriminations seem like a mild quarrel.

I don’t know exactly what the events in the sequence would be, but if the right sequence of events did in fact unfold, the Republican coalition just might formally split into two separate parties. I think that’s highly unlikely, because, as difficult as it may be to believe at the moment, calmer and more rational heads would almost certainly prevail in both the party and the movement. But still…

[Via Think Progress:] On CNN this morning, host John Roberts asked former Romney spokesman Kevin Madden about the hypocritical “heat for this president from the Republicans” regarding the Obama administration’s response to the attempted Christmas day terrorist attack. Madden claimed that the two reasons Republicans were launching attacks were that Obama “has very little political capital” on terrorism and that he is “on vacation in Hawaii” at the moment. Madden added that “Hawaii to many Americans seems like a foreign place“:

MADDEN: President Obama right now has suffered very greatly in the last few months because of the fight over health care, and he has very little political capital right now. So Republicans feel it is in vogue to criticize this president.

And then lastly, you have to also remember the fact that the president being on vacation in Hawaii, it’s much different than being in Texas. Hawaii to many Americans seems like a foreign place. And I think those images, the optics, hurt President Obama very badly.[emphasis in (Think Progress) original]

Update: TPM has video of another Republican casting about for an answer to the shoe bomber question:

12.30.09 — 4:06PM // RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)

Republican Rep. Mike Conaway (R-TX) gets asked why he’s complaining about President Obama’s delayed response when President Bush took says to comment on Richard Reid.

And it ain’t pretty.



Filed under Uncategorized

2 responses to “Romney spokesman: Obama’s a weak dirty foreigner so it’s “in vogue” to attack him

  1. Bob chewter

    just thought id have a looksee what you guys up to in usa, see if your version of our nhs is gonna happen..i dont understand what ‘sociliased medicine’ is sounds ominous..until you jst use the word ‘care’ and then it all makes sense.
    i looked that redstate site..glen beck? who who/ an rw ranter? siunds like a nut case to me..whats thus crap..Armed with Arguing with Idiots, you’ll be able to

    tell him all about England’s disastrous and short-sighted handgun ban (see page 53). wtf? is this c*t on about../ i dont see thousands of people shot dead every few months in UK do i?
    if you follow the right argument on guns its go like this.everyone must have a gun man/woman and maybe child after all gun are products and its our job to make companies richer isnt it? so logically you sell guns to everyone..eventually it’ll lead to a shooting war..wont it? will you need more cops to deal with that or corporation cops?

    • blahgblog

      ya, and one of their favorite sayings is:

      an armed society is a polite society.

      They’re basically saying they’d like to be able to brandish weapons at people who’s driving offends them and shoot people whose views and speech offends them.

      Then there’s this little gem from Beck’s “9/12” protest:

      We came unarmed. This time.

      Again, they’re saying if they don’t get their way, they’re going to start shooting. Most of it’s bullshit but if only a small percentage actually do follow through…

      It’s the American taliban. They’re not quite as backwards and trigger happy as the Afghan taliban, but they’re not all that different fundamentally.

      By the way, Canada is supposed to have similar per capita gun ownership but only a minuscule proportion of our gun violence. Why? Cos they don’t have the American taliban.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s