Potential Conservative Attacks On Obama If He Had Attended Paris March

I recently discussed why the right wingers attacking Obama regarding the recent rally in France are wrong as it was both impractical and noted why it would have been inappropriate for Obama to have attended. If he had gone there is no doubt he would have been attacked by the right for multiple reasons, including:

  • The cost of the trip
  • The security risks in appearing at such an event with inadequate time to prepare
  • Hogging the limelight, making the trip about him
  • The disruption his security measures would have caused in Paris if he attended
  • Ignoring the request of the French government that he not attend because of the disruption it would have caused
  • Wearing the wrong color suit
  • Having the wrong skin color (more implied than said out loud)
  • Not being in Washington at a time when there would have been a greater risk of terrorist attacks
  • Just for going to France, because conservatives usually hate France
  • For allowing his kids to remain home without parental supervision where they might listen to Beyoncé (and they would be even madder when this led to Jimmy Carter defending him)

On the other hand, if a Republican president had not attended, they would have had no complaints and would have praised him for not going to France.

Be Sociable, Share!

10 Comments

  1. 1
    David Duff says:

    You’re really scratching about for scraps, Ron, if you are reduced to criticising Republicans for *what they might have said* in a *hypothetical situation*.  Get real!

  2. 2
    David Duff says:

    Now here’s something *real* for you to get your teeth into:

    “The U.S. now ranks not first, not second, not third, but 12th among developed nations in terms of business startup activity as Gallup CEO Jim Clifton rages, for the first time in 35 years, American business deaths now outnumber business births. Wall Street, Clifton explains, needs the stock market to boom, even if that boom is fueled by illusion. So both tell us, “The economy is coming back.” Let’s get one thing clear, he exclaims, “this economy is never truly coming back unless we reverse the birth and death trends of American businesses.”

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-01-14/gallup-ceo-blasts-us-leadership-economy-not-coming-back

  3. 3
    Ron Chusid says:

    “scratching about for scraps”

    That must really hit close to home, considering that these are taken from other times they have criticized Obama, and we both know that this is exactly what you would be parroting if Obama had gone.

  4. 4
    Ron Chusid says:

    Thanks for the data. It certainly demonstrates the failure of Republican economic policies over the last few decades in concentrating wealth in a small number and harming small business. So much for trickle down (or as George H. W. Bush even admitted, Voodoo) economics. It is especially significant that this trend hit a “critical threshold” in 2008, when Bush totally crashed the economy, and presents a strong case against the Republican Congress which blocked most of Obama’s proposals to promote small business.

    This is especially bad for Mitt Romney and Bain Capital now that Romney is talking about running again.

  5. 5
    David Duff says:

    And how long as ‘The One’ been president?

  6. 6
    Ron Chusid says:

    Only since 2009, with the data showing the problem occurring before he took office (plus with Republicans blocking most of his efforts to address this problem).

  7. 7
    David Duff says:

    But the first two years he had the Congress and the White House – what more did he need?  Oh yeah, Chavez-style dictatorial powers, I suppose!  Still, blocking the Keystone pipeline should help -not!

  8. 8
    Ron Chusid says:

    Republicans still had enough votes to block things in the Senate for the first two years. Democrats had sixty votes for about five months during that period (including some conservatives who wouldn’t back the Democrats in making significant change). This was hardly enough to have much impact on a problem which your data shows has been progressing for decades, or to reverse what your link refers to the “critical threshold” when the Republicans crashed the economy before he took office.

    He did quite a lot under the circumstances to turn things around, but he could not solve everything in the face of such severe Republican obstructionism.

    It is Republicans, not Democrats, who seek dictatorial powers.

    The Keystone Pipeline would have negligible effect on the economy and certainly would not help with this problem.

  9. 9
    Steven Podvoll says:

    For the record, FYI, we had sixty votes for only about six *weeks*, i.e., the period between Al Franken’s late seating (due to contested election results) and Ted Kennedy’s death.  So, Obama’s 1st term legislative record is all the more remarkable.  

  10. 10
    Ron Chusid says:

    There was also the period when Paul Kirk was appointed to Kennedy’s seat, pushing it over five months (although Congress was in summer recess during much of July and August when the Democrats briefly had 60 votes):

    What this shows is is that there were only two time periods during the 111th Congress when the Democrats had a 60 seat majority:

    From July 7. 2009 (when Al Franken was officially seated as the Senator from Minnesota after the last of Norm Coleman’s challenges came to an end) to August 25, 2009 (when Ted Kennedy died, although Kennedy’s illness had kept him from voting for several weeks before that date at least); and
    From September 25, 2009 (when Paul Kirk was appointed to replace Kennedy) to February 4, 2010 (when Scott Brown took office after defeating Martha Coakley);

    For one day in September 2009, Republicans lacked 40 votes due to the resignation of Mel Martinez, who was replaced the next day by George LeMieux

Leave a comment