Ms Noonan’s alarm went off a little late. It’s hard to believe that this took until 2012. Take the first sentence of the piece that follows; even now Noonan fails to recognize that the attack on the Church predated Jan 20 and was in fact a carefully pre-planned political narrative that started its roll-out weeks before. Sucker! WSJ:
The shift started on Jan. 20, with the mandate that agencies of the Catholic Church would have to provide services the church finds morally repugnant. The public reaction? “You’re kidding me. That’s not just bad judgment and a lack of civic tact, it’s not even constitutional!” Faced with the blowback, the president offered a so-called accommodation that even its supporters recognized as devious. Not ill-advised, devious. Then his operatives flooded the airwaves with dishonest—not wrongheaded, dishonest—charges that those who defend the church’s religious liberties are trying to take away your contraceptives.
What a sour taste this all left. How shocking it was, including for those in the church who’d been in touch with the administration and were murmuring about having been misled.
Events of just the past 10 days have contributed to the shift. There was the open-mic conversation with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in which Mr. Obama pleaded for “space” and said he will have “more flexibility” in his negotiations once the election is over and those pesky voters have done their thing. On tape it looked so bush-league, so faux-sophisticated. When he knew he’d been caught, the president tried to laugh it off by comically covering a mic in a following meeting. It was all so . . . creepy.
Next, a boy of 17 is shot and killed under disputed and unclear circumstances. The whole issue is racially charged, emotions are high, and the only memorable words from the president’s response were, “If I had a son he’d look like Trayvon” At first it seemed OK—not great, but all right—but as the story continued and suddenly there were death threats and tweeted addresses and congressmen in hoodies, it seemed insufficient to the moment. At the end of the day, the public reaction seemed to be: “Hey buddy, we don’t need you to personalize what is already too dramatic, it’s not about you.”
Now this week the Supreme Court arguments on ObamaCare, which have made that law look so hollow, so careless, that it amounts to a characterological indictment of the administration. The constitutional law professor from the University of Chicago didn’t notice the centerpiece of his agenda was not constitutional? How did that happen?
Maybe a stinging decision is coming, maybe not, but in a purely political sense this is how it looks: We were in crisis in 2009—we still are—and instead of doing something strong and pertinent about our economic woes, the president wasted history’s time
2008: “let’s be frank. Something new is happening in America. It is the imminent arrival of a new liberal moment. History happens…Eras end, and begin. ‘God is in charge of history.’ And so my beautiful election ends.”
2002: “four days ago. The Democrats took a hard hit…Here is the Democrats’ problem: They have achieved every major goal they sought in the past 100 years. The party is losing because it won. They got Social Security. They got Medicare and Medicaid, with the help of some Republicans. They got civil rights with the help of a lot of Republicans. They supported equality for women, and women are equal…The argument as many Democrats frame it so far is: Should we tack left, or should we fight it out in the center for the center?”
Well, the answer to that last question has been obvious for a long time. Ms Noonan seems smart. How could it take someone so long to see that she was being conned? Meanwhile, others aren’t pulling punches anymore. A majority of voters is sick and tired of being shamelessly conned by an arrogant fool, and even more fed up with a media that has become America’s Pravda. HT: Ace