Little-Acorn
10-10-2014, 05:16 PM
In sharp contrast to the almost-delirium that greeted Obama when he first ran, Democrats are now pretending as hard as they can that they aren't associated with him, don't know him, never had anything to do with him.
And they're even acting like they expect normal people to believe them.
Can these failed leftists get any less relevant?
---------------------------------------------------
http://online.wsj.com/articles/democratics-anonymous-1412971909
Democratics Anonymous
Obama? Never heard of him.
by James Taranto
October 10, 2014
The front-page story in Wednesday’s New York Times hardly qualified as news: “In This Election, Obama’s Party Benches Him.” Reporter Jonathan Martin described the president as “an isolated political figure who is viewed as a liability to Democrats in the very states where voters by the thousands had once stood to cheer him.” Four days earlier, the paper had reported (also on page A1) that even Michelle Obama was making herself “scarce,” although she seems nearly ubiquitous by comparison with her lesser half.
But this is getting ridiculous.
Alison Lundergan Grimes is Kentucky’s secretary of state and the Democratic challenger to the state’s senior senator, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. In an editorial board meeting yesterday with the Louisville Courier-Journal, she “refused to say . . . if she voted for President Barack Obama in 2008 or 2012,” the paper reports.
The video of the exchange is comically awkward. An off-camera female editorialist asks a straightforward question: “Did you vote for President Obama, 2008, 2012?”
“You know,” Grimes replies, “this election, uh, isn’t about the president. It’s about—”
“I know,” the editorialist assures the candidate. “But did you vote for him?”
Grimes remains on message: “—making sure we put Kentuckians back to work, and—” By this point, the editorialist has repeated the question a third time: “Did you vote for him?”
The candidate changes tack, responding with not one but two non sequiturs: “I was actually in ’08 a delegate for Hillary Clinton, and I think that Kentuckians know I’m a Clinton Democrat through and through. I respect the sanctity of the ballot box, and I know that the members of this editorial board do as well.”
“So you’re not going to answer,” says the editorialist.
Whereupon Grimes displays her own keen command of the obvious: “Again, I don’t think that the president is on the ballot.”
But as the Daily Caller notes, she was an Obama delegate in 2012, so she voted for him at least once.
Anyway, how likely is it that she voted for John McCain or Mitt Romney (or Ralph Nader or Gary Johnson) in the general election? It is reasonable to surmise that the question makes her uncomfortable because the answer is that she did what anyone would expect and voted for her party’s presidential nominee.
Grimes is not the only Senate challenger whose evasiveness strains credulity. “Kansas Senate candidate Greg Orman has refused to declare which political party he will caucus with if elected,” reports the Washington Free Beacon. In fact, on Wednesday “Orman said he was insulted” by the question: “ ‘I sort of reject the premise’ of identifying a party, Orman said. ‘I think it’s an opportunity for Kansas to define the agenda in the United States Senate.’ ” We don’t think the word “define” means what he thinks it means.
Orman is running as an independent, but if he defeats Republican incumbent Pat Roberts, he will owe his victory to the Democrats, who last month threw their own nominee, Chad Taylor, under the bus to clear the way for him.
And they're even acting like they expect normal people to believe them.
Can these failed leftists get any less relevant?
---------------------------------------------------
http://online.wsj.com/articles/democratics-anonymous-1412971909
Democratics Anonymous
Obama? Never heard of him.
by James Taranto
October 10, 2014
The front-page story in Wednesday’s New York Times hardly qualified as news: “In This Election, Obama’s Party Benches Him.” Reporter Jonathan Martin described the president as “an isolated political figure who is viewed as a liability to Democrats in the very states where voters by the thousands had once stood to cheer him.” Four days earlier, the paper had reported (also on page A1) that even Michelle Obama was making herself “scarce,” although she seems nearly ubiquitous by comparison with her lesser half.
But this is getting ridiculous.
Alison Lundergan Grimes is Kentucky’s secretary of state and the Democratic challenger to the state’s senior senator, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. In an editorial board meeting yesterday with the Louisville Courier-Journal, she “refused to say . . . if she voted for President Barack Obama in 2008 or 2012,” the paper reports.
The video of the exchange is comically awkward. An off-camera female editorialist asks a straightforward question: “Did you vote for President Obama, 2008, 2012?”
“You know,” Grimes replies, “this election, uh, isn’t about the president. It’s about—”
“I know,” the editorialist assures the candidate. “But did you vote for him?”
Grimes remains on message: “—making sure we put Kentuckians back to work, and—” By this point, the editorialist has repeated the question a third time: “Did you vote for him?”
The candidate changes tack, responding with not one but two non sequiturs: “I was actually in ’08 a delegate for Hillary Clinton, and I think that Kentuckians know I’m a Clinton Democrat through and through. I respect the sanctity of the ballot box, and I know that the members of this editorial board do as well.”
“So you’re not going to answer,” says the editorialist.
Whereupon Grimes displays her own keen command of the obvious: “Again, I don’t think that the president is on the ballot.”
But as the Daily Caller notes, she was an Obama delegate in 2012, so she voted for him at least once.
Anyway, how likely is it that she voted for John McCain or Mitt Romney (or Ralph Nader or Gary Johnson) in the general election? It is reasonable to surmise that the question makes her uncomfortable because the answer is that she did what anyone would expect and voted for her party’s presidential nominee.
Grimes is not the only Senate challenger whose evasiveness strains credulity. “Kansas Senate candidate Greg Orman has refused to declare which political party he will caucus with if elected,” reports the Washington Free Beacon. In fact, on Wednesday “Orman said he was insulted” by the question: “ ‘I sort of reject the premise’ of identifying a party, Orman said. ‘I think it’s an opportunity for Kansas to define the agenda in the United States Senate.’ ” We don’t think the word “define” means what he thinks it means.
Orman is running as an independent, but if he defeats Republican incumbent Pat Roberts, he will owe his victory to the Democrats, who last month threw their own nominee, Chad Taylor, under the bus to clear the way for him.