Archives
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Michael Smerconish, man of principle. He would never pander to his audience.
Below, we say something about 'sorry ass.' Apologies up front for that. Sorry.
SMERC MUCH? On the long list of things we're tired of, Michael Smerconish is, well, on the list. How perfectly appropriate that he would play along with the latest Democrat gambit of defending Obama via sock puppet:
A letter defending Obama, over the signature of one "Ellie Light," drew some attention after it became clear that the same letter had been published in some 60 outlets, listing different, local hometowns in different newspapers.
The episode provoked various theories around the Internet, including that the letter writer was, in fact, Barack Obama himself. I first published he letter because it seemed to crystallize an argument that Democrats were struggling to make. Light wrote:
But today, the president is being attacked as if he were a salesman who promised us that our problems would wash off in the morning. He never made such a promise. It's time for Americans to realize that governing is hard work, and that a president can't just wave a magic wand and fix everything.
Well, the mystery may be over. A woman who said her name was, in fact, Ellie Light called this morning into the radio show of Michael Smerconish, a national talker based in Philadelphia who has been friendly to Obama, to clear things up.
"I'm only me," she said, identifying herself as a traveling nurse who works for 13-week stretches at hospitals around the country, and whose primary residence is in Southern California.
"I need to own up – I did misrepresent my home town in some places," Light told Smerconish. Her logic in faking the addresses is one familiar to advocacy groups: "If I thought it was written by a neighbor of mine, I would give it more credence."
Light mused on why the letter was so widely circulated: "My letter was pretty darn good. It took a long time to write. I took more interest in honing it than most people take today."
"I don't know why others are not making
the observation that, Why
are we all abandoning the president we so adored so quickly?" she said.
Is it serendicity
again? I've been thinking about Smerconish. After
all, he's the one-time Republican who endorsed Obama to a Philadelphia
radio audience that went 95 percent to 25 percent (yeah, Philadelphia
poll watchers see DEAD people, routinely)
back in November 2008. His argument at the time was that Obama was more
serious about catching Osama bin Laden than McCain was. Right. Which is
why we thought of Smerconish when Robert Gibbs said this the other day:
You know, to us, it sounds like the Obama administration has come to regard bin Laden pretty much the way the Bush administration did -- as an annoying figurehead who's less trouble where he is than he'd be if we actually caught his sorry ass. Yeah, McCain didn't want to capture him either, because it'd be bad publicity if a president shot a prisoner point blank in the head with a .45 instead of putting him in touch with a crack criminal attorney from Chicago. Which is undoubtedly why Smerconish decided Obama was so much more trustworthy on all matters pertaining to al qaida and the War on Terror. Unless it had something to do with the political propensities of his Philadelphia radio audience instead. How's that working out for you about now, Mikey?
We think about Smerconish because we never ever listen to Smerconish. He's the best living proof that moderates are not necessarily safe or sane. They can be way creepy too. Like Smerconish.
