F. Chuck Todd: Obama Must Make TV Address to Provide Cover for Democrats
September 05, 2013
RUSH: Mike, grab audio sound bite number five. This is F. Chuck Todd. This, I think, is just another illustration of why what's happening is happening. It's the Limbaugh Theorem, again. It was on the Today show this morning. The co-host Savannah Guthrie (who's now engaged; eager to get married, I'm told), asked F. Chuck, "Obama faces skeptical world leaders, a skeptical American public. Are there any plans to have Obama address Americans?"
TODD: (echoing) Outside supporters of the president, former aides who are telling him he has no choice, he's got to go to the country, he's gotta do something in prime time, make this case. And to be totally politically crass about this Savannah, they believe, uh, he's gotta provide the political cover for a bunch of Democrats particularly in the House. If this passes the House it's gonna pass on the backs of Democrats, a lot of them who got elected on an anti-war, anti-Iraq platform a few years ago. And so the president has to provide that cover.
RUSH: So listen to this. F. Chuck is admitting here that Obama's got to go on national TV, not to inform the nation. He's gotta go on TV to provide cover, political cover for anti-war Democrats. And, in fact, I have here in the Stack of Stuff, ladies and gentlemen, Chris Matthews saying the exact same thing on MSNBC the other night. Well, I had it. What in the name of Sam Hill did I do with it?
It was in the Stack. Maybe I haven't gone deep enough. Yeah. Understandably I put it at the bottom. Matthews, MSNBC, said Wednesday, "I think the Democrats are gonna be forced to sacrifice men and women who really, really don't want to vote for this. They're gonna have to vote for it to save the president's hide. That's a bad position to put your party in."
That's essentially what F. Chuck Todd is saying here. So we have a situation here where even the regime's argument for intervening is becoming less coherent. And the only way it can pass is not on the merits -- and not on whether it's a good thing or a bad thing to do -- but whether or not Obama can provide cover for anti-war Democrats in the House who really don't want any part of this.
I love it.