This is getting remarkable. We're seeing some possibly unexpectedly hostile reactions to the administration's decision not to send anybody to participate in France's anti-terrorism unity march:
- Mike Lupica: "Everybody knows how complicated this country’s relationship with France has been, in war and in peace. Certainly there have been times when the leaders of France could have done better by us. We should have done better by them on Sunday. Only you couldn’t find us."
- Jake Tapper: "I say this as an American -- not as a journalist, not as a representative of CNN -- but as an American: I was ashamed."
- Michael Tomasky: "Look, it's just my opinion, but extraordinary event; it's our fight too. I, as a citizen, feel underrepresented."
- Fareed Zakaria: "Fareed Zakaria, host of CNN's "Global Public Square," called the absence of top U.S. officials a mistake... France is the United States' "deepest ideological ally," he said, and it would have been a meaningful image to have a senior administration member, or the President, standing shoulder to shoulder with other leaders." (via Gateway Pundit, who is doing his own round-up.)
- The New York Daily News (endorsed Obama for President): "The United States of America, Barack Obama, President, was inexcusably absent from one of the most critical turning points in the war between radical Islam and the West since 9/11."
I picked these people because they represent a spectrum of folks who are not hostile to the current President. I mean, sure, it's hardly difficult to find a bunch of Righties who (correctly) think that the President was being an unfeeling dunderhead at best for shrugging off a horrific terrorist operation last week simply because it was directed at the French. But it's very interesting to see people who normally at least give Barack Obama the benefit of the doubt not do so, in this case.
And that's the Harriet Miers thing, right there. As I recall, that particular situation started off with a bunch of folks who were normally supporters of George W Bush (or at least well-wishers of the man) deciding that they couldn't go back to the well just one more time for this one. They had clear expectations of President Bush on what was to them (and me) an important issue, and the President did not live up to those expectations. Bush might have gotten away with that if it had happened in, say, 2003: and Barack Obama might have gotten away with it if this had happened in 2010. But it didn't.
Moe Lane (crosspost)
PS: I understand that there are many people still invested in the idea that there's nothing that can be done about Barack Obama, and that he's always going to end up winning and getting whatever he wants. I can't really do anything to penetrate that level of cynicism and despair; and, truth be told, at this point I kind of have better things to do with my time than try to talk somebody out of having a good case of masochism. But I will note this: despite Obama's best efforts, he is not actually a king. Every time his support from Democrats corrodes like this, it becomes just a little harder for Barack Obama to do anything. Including the things that might help the Democratic candidate in the next Presidential election.
(Image via Zombietime)