Patterico's Pontifications


Dog Trainer Editorial Writer Brilliantly Parodies Obamabot Media

Filed under: Dog Trainer,General — JVW @ 10:43 am

[guest post by JVW]

Jon Healey, a member of the Los Angeles Times editorial board, wrote an opinion piece on Friday which brilliantly trolls progressives by pretending to make an argument that only the most pathetic and desperate Obamabot could conceive of floating. The gist of the clever piece is contained in its incredible headine: “House GOP leaders are outmaneuvered again on fast-track vote.” Virtually every single other left-wing media outlet rightly recognized the failure of the House to pass both trade authority bills last week as a “major blow” and “stunning defeat” for the President with one outlet pointing out that Obama failed to win over even California Democrats whose state should theoretically benefit from more Pacific trade. Other media outlets who have generally supported the Administration are left wondering if this signals and end to Obama’s ability to work with even his own allies in Congress. But Healey, that charming scamp, has decided to troll progressives (or is he trolling conservatives? — maybe he’s just trolling all of us) by spinning this as a defeat for the GOP:

It’s tempting just to blame (or credit, if you’re anti-TPA or anti-free trade) Democrats for the results, which were a major setback for the Obama administration and its trade agenda. But consider this: About 125 of the Democrats currently in the House voted to renew the trade adjustment program three years ago, compared to 40 on Friday. Had the Democrats produced 125 votes for the TAA Friday, it still would have fallen short because Republicans voted by almost a 2-1 margin against that portion.

By contrast, 191 Republicans voted for the TPA provisions. Had that many Republicans voted for the trade adjustment section, it would have passed easily, and the package would have gone to President Obama to sign.

In other words, the House GOP leadership couldn’t persuade Republicans to back a program they dislike in order to pass a bill that they strongly support, while Democrats happily voted against a program they cherish in order to block TPA.

Oh, that clever Healey! It’s not a failure of President Obama to bring along his fellow Democrats to support a key item in the administration’s agenda, it’s a failure of Republicans to vote us further into hock to support the “trade readjustment program” — a typically inefficient and unsuccessful federal program beloved by progressives because it spends federal dollars to give the appearance of “caring” about workers. So Healey is completely baiting the Barbra Streisands of the world by telling them that the reason Obama may be the first President in a generation to fail to receive the ability to fast track trade deals is because of the recalcitrant GOP, not a Democrat Party that is in bondage to organized labor and the anti-capitalist left. This is of course just the message that clueless yet smug progressive Los Angeles Times readers long to hear and will be happy to parrot. Talk about your Irish wit, Mr. Healey! Keep up good work poking fun at gullible liberals.


24 Responses to “Dog Trainer Editorial Writer Brilliantly Parodies Obamabot Media”

  1. I mean, this piece was a parody, wasn’t it?

    JVW (8278a3)

  2. The only thing missing is that this was Bush’s fault.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  3. “…gullible liberals…” Is there any other kind?

    in_awe (adbcc4)

  4. The sky is blue and the grass is green, and I don’t know who is being tongue in cheek, the Dogtrainer writer or JVW,
    and I am not going to devote even one little brain cell to ponder the issue.

    But I might some time go looking for oatmeal breakfast stout.
    Might be the best thing that ever happened to that label, like when there was the beer summit and the officer asked for, was it pale moon or blue moon, I had one once in honor of him just because.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  5. obama must have tiger blood

    happyfeet (831175)

  6. JVW–

    I believe this TPA and TAA process and votes are as poorly understood and as inadequately reported on both in blogs and in the MSM as anything in recent memory. (Not that you have not done your part to try to clarify many aspects.)
    Confusion over the timing, the “secrecy”, who is being a traitor to whom, the purely economic concerns as opposed to political drama, and the possible long range endgame, is evident across the political spectrum– including even among some normally pretty savvy political watchers on earlier threads here at Patterico.

    Since the process itself is so complex, and for various reasons has some traditional dogs lying down with cats, it is all the more easy for narratives and emotions to be manipulated. It’s hard to tell who is purposefully lying– versus reporters/commentators who just don’t know what the hell they are talking about. Quite honestly I can’t think of a single source of information and analysis that I consider altogether reliable or that I fully trust concerning this trade authority agreement. Have you seen any? Can you recommend one?

    elissa (4e362a)

  7. elissa, I don’t know one soul in my not-too-small circle of friends and acquaintances including myself who understands the first thing about the TPA, TAA or anything else pertaining to this so-called trade deal. Being a conservative free-marketer myself with a degree in economics and a career of self employment in business you’d think I’d have an iota. I don’t! So either I really am as dumb as a box of rocks (which is possible) or these guys are deliberately obfuscating and confusing the issue to hide something nefarious. I’d like to believe it’s the latter.

    Black pride!

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie (f4eb27)

  8. Thank you Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie. It is reassuring to know that at least I am not alone!

    elissa (4e362a)

  9. How can any of us understand what is behind the process of this couplet if we are not allowed to know what is in one of the bills?

    To me it makes sense that if you don’t like the TradePact part of the pair , you would not vote for the ‘Assistance’ part either.

    seeRpea (0cf003)

  10. I would just like to add that i’m with Ace and welcome him/her to the enlightened side.
    There is no reason to trust the GOP hierarchy on any promises it makes.
    Including voting against the TradePact if it happens to include things that should be anathema to those with conservative economic principles.

    seeRpea (0cf003)

  11. Yes, it is odd to find yourself on the same side as, say, Fauxcahontas. You instinctively know it cannot be right. I guess my default position these days is that I don’t trust a one of them, from either side.

    Gazzer (be559b)

  12. So either I really am as dumb as a box of rocks (which is possible) or these guys are deliberately obfuscating and confusing the issue to hide something nefarious. I’d like to believe it’s the latter.

    The goal is to keep you guessing, both them and yourself. Completely off balance and in the dark. And, if you happen to actually make it out of the dark confusion, the next step is provided for you: who to blame.

    All without ever needing to know what’s in the damn thing.

    They are a clever bunch, aren’t they?

    Dana (86e864)

  13. The GOP supported TPA, just barely and against the weight of conservative response.

    Naturally, the LA Times is clueless.

    Nobody trusts Obama in anything and he is unable to get the GOP to vote for something they have been in favor of for decades. He is totally toxic in anything that requires trust. Even a little bit of trust.

    Mike K (90dfdc)

  14. Many Republicans, or certainly the tycoon-penthouse wing of the party, were known as being nonchalantly protectionist several decades ago, during the first half or first quarter of the 20th century. Big business happily and smugly didn’t want non-US sources muscling into the American economy.

    Then again, the notorious, supposed Simon-Legree Republican of that era, Herbert Hoover, was in reality full of a namby-pamby, liberal-tilting philosophy and merely a prelude to leftwing Franklin Roosevelt (sort of analogous to George W Bush and the ensuing Barry Obama?).

    As with controversies like SSM, illegal immigration or nanny-state governance, the ideological boundaries are breaking down and a certain kind of graspy, narrow-self-interested amorality and faux compassion are taking their place, on both the left and right. In effect, the future of the US be damned, suckers.

    Mark (a11af2)

  15. Nobody trusts Obama in anything and he is unable to get the GOP to vote for something they have been in favor of for decades. He is totally toxic in anything that requires trust. Even a little bit of trust.

    This is what Healey doesn’t want to see because it runs counter to his notion that the GOP is always on the verge of imploding: this whole scenario was a win-win for the Republicans. If the House had passed both the Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) and Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA), then the GOP would have to swallow a TAA bill that they don’t like but it would pale in comparison to the hard feelings that liberals would have about a Democrat President stuffing TPA down their gullets. In other words, passage of both parts would almost certainly hurt the Democrat coalition much more than the GOP coalition.

    On the other hand, with TAA failing the GOP gets to point the finger at President Obama for not getting his party to come along with the White House’s agenda. Healey overestimates how badly the GOP wanted this free trade agreement: it’s true that they are generally in favor of free trade, but they know that if Obama can’t reach a deal then the next President can come along and try again. Yeah, there is still a chance that they can salvage some sort of deal here, but the embarrassment still lingers and Obama has to know that his chances of getting congressional approval for his Iran deal are getting slimmer and slimmer. Lame ducks have never been so lame. It makes you realize how much Hairy Reed did over the last four years to protect Obama from having to deal with controversial legislation by burying it in the Senate.

    JVW (8278a3)

  16. A sweaty Jimmy Hoffa is dancing a jog in a hot corner of Hell as I write this.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  17. and then a jig!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  18. These days, Republican leadership only supports losers.

    Dirty Old Man (16494e)

  19. It’s hard to be a wife to Wall Street and a husband to working Americans. For both Republican and Democrat politicos. There’s a lot of denial in the rank and file of both parties, just as there is with abused spouses.

    nk (dbc370)

  20. Narcisco – that can’t be true. Milhouse told us there is no basis for our concerns.

    JD (3b5483)

  21. well in a perfect world, but we’re the farthest thing from:

    narciso (ee1f88)

  22. IMAO sanity prevailed. The Democrats voted for a massive blind shrink-wrap law when we got ObamaCare. Now we face the spectacle of Republican RINOs upping the ante for what has to be the biggest shrink-wrap treaty or other agreement ever made.


    {o.o} And that is far more polite than what I really feal.

    JDow (c4e4c5)

  23. Evidently Soft-Bottomed Boi Toy had an azzfull prior to partying:

    DNF (208255)

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1656 secs.