RUSH: James Taranto at the Wall Street Journal. He's got a great blog called The Best of the Web Today, and he wrote about this yesterday.
This New York Times story, this column by Thomas Edsall on Monday where the regime, the Obama campaign says to white working class families: We're not interested in your votes; we don't care. Now, Taranto's point yesterday was (summarized): "Okay, fine. If after election strategery, why advertise it? Why talk about it? Why assign one of your minions to go out and write an op-ed about it in the New York Times? Why get people like Limbaugh talking about this?" And, frankly, it's a great point, and I, El Rushbo, I must admit, I hadn't considered that angle. I did raise a question: Imagine if the Republicans had done something similar. Imagine if whoever the Republican nominee is, after securing the nomination, says, "You know what? To hell with the Hispanic vote! We don't care. We're not interested in it. We're gonna win this election without them." Can you imagine the hell that would rain down on the Republican Party and that nominee?
Here you've got an assigned editorial, no doubt from the White House or Plouffe or whoever is running the campaign for Obama. They put it in the op-ed page of the New York Times, which guarantees it gets out. It guarantees it gets discussed just like remember that picture of Hillary and Bill dancing on the beach down at the Virgin Islands somewhere in their swimsuits a couple of weeks before the Monica Lewinsky story hit? The picture ran in one paper. It ran on the cover of the LA Times. At the press briefing somebody stands up and asks McCurry, "Wa, wa, what's the story behind that picture?"
Everybody said, "What picture?"
That's how they got it out. They wanted that picture out, and it was later discovered that Bill and Hillary were dancing with no music. The whole thing was staged just like the rocks on the beached at Normandy. It was all staged. So here you have this guy Thomas Edsall, he used to write to for the Washington Post, now writes for the Huffing and Puffington Post, and whatever liberal publication will have him. He's out there saying, "We're gonna win this election without white working-class voters." Why advertise it? Why advertise that? Well, the theory to explain it, the theory in answer to the question is that Obama's in such bad shape with his base that that's how he's going to rally them.
He is in such bad shape, they've got to roll the dice. In order to secure the base -- the takers, the people who aren't doing diddly-squat, the people who have been made dependent on government for everything -- he has to run against the bitter clingers; keeping his coalition of artists and professors and professor assistants, so forth, all that intact (plus the 47% that don't pay taxes and all the people on welfare to one degree or another). The theory is that it's so bad you advertise that as a way of getting the minorities that make up your base locked in. It's another example of division, of course: Promoting hatred, resentment, envy, all of that.
Now, you stop and think of it. Insane? It is. I've thought it's stupid from the get-go. I never did understand why advertise it. That was part of my incredulity. I just never expressed it 'til I saw Taranto wrote about it, but that was the one thing about it that had me curious. Aside from the act itself. I mean, the idea that they really don't think they can win if they pursue policies that will be supported by white working class voters? Imagine that, just by itself, and then they go out and advertise it.