December 8, 2010

It's the Obama I voted for: Obama the Pragmatist.

Now, Rush Limbaugh was talking about how "the media is just beside itself over how pathetic [Obama's] performance was yesterday" in the news conference about the tax compromise. And Rush is saying that Obama "knows full well that he had a meltdown yesterday."

Here's the video:



Rush says he can tell that Obama...
... has been festering, this has been effervescing inside him, that he's unappreciated, that he did something nobody else has done, and they wanted it for a hundred years, and by golly he got it.  He didn't get everything he wanted, he got 99%, and they don't appreciate me,...

So he's essentially telling them, look, I gotta back off on some of this stuff if we're to get anything done.  And that infuriated 'em even more because the question was, "Where you gonna go to the mat, what are your core values?" And he withered.  He caved.  And that made them even angrier.  I know it's hard to comprehend.  But these people on the left, they are truly enraged.  It is a lifestyle.  They are never happy.  I looked at the comments on the Daily Kos website, they are hilarious.  But they're real.  And it went on for ten pages.  I mean they are just fit to be tied because Obama is not what they thought he was....
I must say... I watched that video clip earlier today, and I liked the Obama I saw there. You could say he's beaten down, but there's fire there. It's the fire of pragmatism. I see a sensible and strong man. I never believed in Obama the Messiah, and I fretted about the signs that he was a left-wing ideologue. But when it came down to a decision between Obama and McCain, in the midst of a terrible economic crisis, I put my trust in Obama. I said:
I worry about what awful innovations the new President will concoct in league with the Democratic Congress, but at this point, I'm more worried about McCain than Obama. 
I thought that Obama would have some independence from the Democrats in Congress and that he'd use his common sense and pragmatism to work out some solutions. The more he departs from left-wing ideology and struggles to get to good solutions, the more I like him.

When I watch that video, I don't see a melt-down at all. I see Obama coming into his own at last. I see the Obama I voted for.

212 comments:

1 – 200 of 212   Newer›   Newest»
Fen said...

I made myself sit through the clip.

I agree, Obama didn't have a meltdown. He came across well, although I think he's the kind that needs an enemy to vector off of.

The Crack Emcee said...

Ann, I can't take anything you're saying now. To spew all that hatred, and then start to "move on" to something else without resolving the ugliness you unleashed?

That's so NewAge it's damning.

Bob Ellison said...

I heard the presser. It was a melt-down. Obama made everyone hate him. He told his left-wing base that they were fools to be so ideological. He told the conservatives they were evil jerks to hold the American people hostage. He told centrists that he couldn't talk without being angry.

He came across as a jerk.

EnigmatiCore said...

And you were clicking your heels together saying, "there's no place like home", and you told him that he was always your favorite.

But you did not do so on the method of Scorates.

You need a few mulligans.

pm317 said...

Dream on, Ann. It is all about the optics. What you see in that video is a hapless man who told everybody he could not win, not a pragmatist unless it is a euphemism for a loser. He should have started this months ago and not now in Dec when he is caught between a rock and a hard place and out lashing at everybody. Your pragmatist lied and hoodwinked on the campaign trail.. Byron York has a list of events in 2008 where he promised he would roll back Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy.

They (both sides of the aisle) will make him cry before this is all over -- that is what I saw in that press conference.

Fen said...

Crack: Ann, I can't take anything you're saying now. To spew all that hatred, and then start to "move on" to something else without resolving the ugliness you unleashed? That's so NewAge it's damning.

Geez, put a tampon in Crack.

To spew all that hatred,

which you still can't cite.

madAsHell said...

Obama is a socialist ideologue. In Chicago, he handed out $100 bills to bitter, abandoned women. This trick doesn't work as well with men. Men prefer to steal.

He can't conceive that others don't share his view. "What happened to the $100 magic?"

Obama thinks..."don't they know that I feel their need for $100??"

This was evident from the start. He's in so far over his head. He's incompetent.

The Crack Emcee said...

Not a word, Fen, not one word.

traditionalguy said...

Yes, Obama talks a good game of compromise here as if he is a pragmatic who maturely wants to get more of what he wants. That is what has me worried...what he wants is for our energy industry to be destroyed and he will tell any lie from Global CO2 poisoning to windmill nonsense to get that done. So he is either a total ideological fool, or he is another two bit evil actor playing any "Brave" role we will watch him play as an act like a President while he secretly rigs the USA to implode at any moment? I still see his goal as mine and my children's children's destruction, poverty and death like Chavez and Castro have lead their country's prisoners into so bravely

shoutingthomas said...

Obama isn't the Messiah. No, that's the Prophet Dylan.

But, I digress.

Obama did the right thing. He grew up a little.

I don't care who's president. Got absolutely no emotional investment in any office holder or candidate.

In this instance, Obama did what needed to be done. What else matters? Bickering over the larger significance of it all is meaningless.

I'm not interested in big philosophy. Don't want it. Just like I don't want big ideas in my songs. Just want a good tune and a satisfying beat.

pm317 said...

Ann, you should watch this clip from the press conference. Obama is highlighting his failure and you call that pragmatism. The man can't even spin it to help himself or his party. And we are talking about Bush's tax cut here (lefties hate Bush).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CssbsV5B1ak

Maguro said...

Now Obama's telling liberals that if they kill the tax cut extension that he campaigned against, it could "jolt the nation back into recession". Too funny. It's like Grover Norquist is programming his teleprompter or something.

rhhardin said...

I'd say everything he says is a lie and has always been a lie.

That's pragmatic, but only as euphemism.

HT said...

I also would like to have an inkling just what Crack is talking about. But thanks Ann for letting me know it's safe to test the waters and listen to a president again. It's been a while. Ever since just before Election Day, I sorta tuned out. I get exicted by the build up. I voted for Obama in the primary, not the general. And no matter who wins presidential elections, after nearly every election, I zone out for at least a year and a half. Having heard snippets of Obama here and there (and turning it off pretty fast), I know I was doing the right thing. But in that clip, he seemed like the old Obama, bolder and more self assured. Not spouting cliches, not tired-sounding, and not talking as if from behind a wall. He even looked younger. He looked good.

Jay said...

He's a whiny baby who never has been and never will be Presidential timber. A Muslim (oops, I didn't mean that) Jimmy Carter, if you will.

He may have lucked into making the right economic moves late (though I have doubts it's enough), but that hasn't changed his stripes.

Besides, with basically everyone in the country, including centrists, and just-left-of-center Democrats, telling him he must settle tax policy and stimulate the economy in a meaningful way, what else can he do? Ultimately, he's a politician who craves re-election.

The fact that he's still got some more of his far-Left agenda to enact is a side benefit of his staying relevant.

He's a left-wing ideologue. He didn't wipe away Bill Ayers and Jerry Wright and Van Jones with one aquiescence on taxes.

rhhardin said...

John and Ken diagnosed Obama early as an estrogen festival, and were baffled by the positive reaction to him.

There may be a gender divide here.

lucid said...

He looked too upset and rattled and angry to be embracing real pragmatism with a full heart. He was more cornered and desperate and feeling abandoned.

I don't think he is ever going to get his mojo back.

Ann Althouse said...

By the way, I voted against Carter in 1976 and for him in 1980.

chuckR said...

progressive sister souljahs
obama toldjahs
off

tim maguire said...

I suppose, if the "facts" he rattled off were true, there might be something of quality in his performance. Too bad so few were.

Sad to say, Prof., you wrote this post with the same part of your brain that caused you to vote for Obama in the first place--the part that likes to be lied to.

bagoh20 said...

"The more he departs from left-wing ideology and struggles to get to good solutions, the more I like him."

Of course, but hiring a boy to do a man's job and then admiring his journey through adolescence is still irresponsible.

pm317 said...

From here

“It’s true that I want to roll back the Bush tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans.” Chester, Pennsylvania, October 28, 2008

“We are going to roll back the Bush tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans, those making more than $250,000 a year.” Lake Worth, Florida, October 21, 2008

“Yes, I’m going to roll back the Bush tax cuts for the very wealthiest Americans.” New Philadelphia, Ohio, September 3, 2008

“I think it is very important to roll back the Bush tax cuts on some of the wealthiest Americans.” Chesapeake, Virginia, August 21, 2008

“We’re going to have to roll back the Bush tax cuts on the top one percent.” Fargo, North Dakota, July 3, 2008

“I’m going to roll back the Bush tax cuts back to the levels they were in the 1990s.” Interview with Fox News Channel, June 26, 2008

“I will roll back the Bush tax cuts on people making over $250,000.” Watertown, South Dakota, May 16, 2008

“We are going to roll back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.” Raleigh, North Carolina, May 3, 2008

“It is true that I would roll back the Bush tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans back to the level they were under Bill Clinton.” Fox News Sunday, April 27, 2008

“We’re going to roll back the Bush tax cuts on the top one percent.” Lancaster, Pennsylvania, March 31, 2008

“I want to roll back those Bush tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans.” Youngstown, Ohio, February 18, 2008

“Let’s roll back the Bush tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans.” Washington, DC, June 19, 2007

“I would roll back the Bush tax cuts for those making over $250,000.” Manchester, New Hampshire, June 3, 2007

Meade said...

The more he departs from left-wing ideology and struggles to get to good solutions, the more I like him.

It's as if he finally got the wake up call of the 2010 election. All the more reason to again vote the Dems out in 2012.

Palladian said...

This is like being proud of your puppy for finally making poopies on the training pad rather than on your bed.

GMay said...

Prof, watching your rationalizing contortions every few months about your vote is just painful. The only alternative is that you're just extremely gullible.

Or a fool.

If so-called "moderates" really are this silly, we're truly boned.

edutcher said...

As I said, he blinked.

No pragmatism.

He had the votes to hang on this. Granted, he wouldn't get a better deal in January, but the Senate is still Demo and this would not go through.

He could have done this 2 years ago and maybe the U-6 wouldn't be 17%.

That would have been pragmatism.

PS Calling the Republicans "Hostage takers" qualifies as a meltdown.

Bender said...

I see the Obama I voted for

You voted for a disingenuous, deceitful, divisive, hate-spewing, unpresidential, resentful, petulant, obnoxious punk? Well, you got one. And not just in this instance. I don't know that I have ever seen a time when President I Won is not giving the middle finger to someone.

A big problem though is that libs are so used to treating others like sh*t that they don't even notice Obama doing it.

chickelit said...

Althouse wrote: I worry about what awful innovations the new President will concoct in league with the Democratic Congress, but at this point, I'm more worried about McCain than Obama.

Only you and Cedarford consistently belabor that point.

It's still really all you two have. We just had a referendum on the Obama agenda (which I reasonably presume you supported) and he lost.

We have a new Congress coming in next year to clean up the damage still occurring.

Fred4Pres said...

I agree Obama did not meltdown. At least not in that clip. But his policies suck and he has basically admitted they will not turn the economy around. That is why the left is going nuts.

Seriously, is that a reason to vote for him?

Fred4Pres said...

Ann Althouse said...
By the way, I voted against Carter in 1976 and for him in 1980.


That is not something to brag about.

Beldar said...

Methinks you're projecting again, Prof. A.

And he's no longer a blank slate. So to believe what you think you're seeing, you have to ignore what's actually, demonstrably there.

Fool me once ....

Ken Pidcock said...

Thing is, that's the Obama that more people voted for than you are willing to credit.

mike said...

"I see the Obama I voted for."---Yikes. I thought you had moved on from that colossal mistake. Just looking for some redemption, huh Ann? Look, Obama is still the bumbling, half-wit, who somehow convinced some smart people to vote for him despite his complete lack of any military, executive, diplomatic, or private sector experience. They ignored his radical Marxist background and the fact that one of his mentors was a neo-segregationist, racist, anti-Semite. Conservatives, like you voted for this guy because you thought he was pretty and would be so bipartisan and post-racial and would bring the country together under the banner of change or something. Ann, you were wrong and you know it. Voting for this clown over McCain was an enormous mistake and you should be (and I think are) embarrassed by it. Obama is a disaster for this country and you contributed to that disaster. Own up to it and move on. Don't try to make excuses now ("see, he really is sort of conservative. I wasn't a total idiot for voting for him along with my law school friends who, at least for a little while, started to like me.") You'll just embarrass yourself even more.

garage mahal said...

When I watch that video, I don't see a melt-down at all. I see Obama coming into his own at last. I see the Obama I voted for.

Me too.

Cedarford said...

Back in September, Boehner offered to accept the tax cut for the rich recension if it was cut at 1 million, not 250K.
Obama, the alleged "pragmatist" said no.
On his way to a November debacle, he refused to consider fixing flaws in Obamacare EVERYONE said exist. Or deal with failed economic stimulus.

But was passionate about Start, The Dream Act, Suing Arizona, and pushing repeal of DADT.
After the election, "pragmatic" Obama's 1st move was to ban oil exploration off the East and West Coast, off the Eastern Part of the Gulf, off Alaska - and deep water drilling everywhere,
Then he comes in and rather than end tax cuts for millionaires, was so weak after rejecting the Sept compromise he caved on everything.

Now he is back to the Dream Act, fighting states on immigration, resisting any tampering with Obamacare, and still fighting for gay activists.
Oh, and standing by for his START triumph...something that Americans don't even have on their 15 most critical problems lists in polls.

However, Mr. Pragmatist didn't do himself any favors by simultaneously doing a blindside stab to the Left on his tax cut cave-in, then comparing Republicans to hostage-taking terrorists.

Coketown said...

It's the Obama you voted for, and it only took two years to find him!

He's only a pragmatist now because he has no fiddling choice. It was all, "Shut up because I won!" a year ago. Now he's faced with a new power structure in Washington and his only choices are either look impotent or compromise. He deals with Republicans the same way as his other enemies, like Iran and North Korea: Shower them with pragmatic rhetoric, indulge in compromises heavily weighted toward their interest, then turn around to his supporters and call it progress.

exhelodrvr1 said...

"Hostage takers" is being pragmatic?

Cedarford said...

mike said...
"I see the Obama I voted for."---Yikes. I thought you had moved on from that colossal mistake.

=================
It wasn't really a hard call for independents. They saw in McCain a warhappy dimbulb who was guaranteed to be a dismal President. Backed by someone, as he was 72 with major health issues, independents believed unfit for the office.

With Obama, you had at least the hope that he could be better than the treacherous McCain, who wanted 85% of what Obama wanted - plus starting a 3rd simultaneous major war (with Iran).
He could be worse, he could be much better.
But McCain was certain to be a bad President.

That is why the dice got rolled. By people that generally thought both the Dems and Republicans blew it and left Hillary and Romney by the wayside.

It would be interesting to do a poll and ask if voting Obama was a mistake, or that the idea of a Grumpy Grandpaw and Palin instead was worse.

Julius said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Coketown said...

I also want to say that it's to the right's credit that its collective response to that clip wasn't, "Angry black man! Angry black man!"

Also, Team Obama should Netflix "How Stella Got Her Groove Back" immediately and start taking notes. If she can do it, so can he!

Julius said...

Yeah, it's just like 1994 all over again.

Maybe Obama and his wife have invited Uncle Bill over to dinner so that he can explain to Malia and Sasha what "triangulation" is.

Actually, I think the Obamas are probably wise to keep Uncle Bill away from the girls. You can't be too careful with a dude like that.

Seriously, though, this sets Obama up well for re-election in 2012. The voters have already had a chance to express their outrage, just like they did in 1994. Outraged expressed. But did the object of the outrage get the message? If the public sees a change in Mr. President, then they'll grant him a fresh new start... just like you seem to have done, Professor!

I hope your readers will be as generous of spirit with regard to the President as you are.

Rose said...

Besides his utter lack of readiness for this job, Obama has two main problems.

1.) He does not understand anything except partisanship, us v. them, scorched earth, thus he always frames this as Himself against his enemies (who happen to be his own countrymen who he is supposed to represent). you would NOT accept this kind of speech from a city councilman much less should you accept it from a PRESIDENT. he is supposed to be more of a statesman than that. But he never will be.

2.) His definition of ENEMIES does not include people who truly are a threat - the reason why his relationship with Bill Ayres mattered. from other nations who seek to kill the President's countrymen and threaten the nation's security. He's too busy fretting about FOX News and his new critics, his own base - he should be focused on hunting down and killing Julian Assange, and preventing the leaking of any more crippling documents. He won't. Because that's where his real sympathies lie.

He's no pragmatist. He was trapped here, and he couldn't really even put a good face on it. I see a petulant, bitter, trapped man who knows he is so far out of his depth that no one can cover it up anymore.

IMO

Lem said...

This is funny - via Instapundit.

(recommend to my friend garage)

GMay said...

"If the public sees a change in Mr. President, then they'll grant him a fresh new start... just like you seem to have done, Professor!

I hope your readers will be as generous of spirit with regard to the President as you are."


Heh, one presser. One freakin presser and he's apparently got his mojo back. The self-delusion from some here is palpable.

Yep, we're boned.

Ralph L said...

By the way, I voted against Carter in 1976 and for him in 1980.
Althouse, party of one.

Methadras said...

Ann Althouse said...

By the way, I voted against Carter in 1976 and for him in 1980.


Are you sure you aren't schitzo?

madawaskan said...

Palladian said...
This is like being proud of your puppy for finally making poopies on the training pad rather than on your bed.

Ya, and only after the hostage takers, er Republicans dragged him to the middle of the floor and rubbed his nose in the mess he made.

And, when the hostages, Obama's American public vote for the Republicans all over again in 2012 I'm sure it'll be-

Stockholm Syndrome, according to Obama.

Obama won't be responsible.

madawaskan said...

She also voted for John Edwards-it's somebody else's fault.

Julius said...

Rose said...

he should be focused on hunting down and killing Julian Assange

That's the answer to everything for conservatives now!

Q: How's the weather today? A: Kill Julian Assange.

Q: What are you doing for Christmas? A: It doesn't matter... Obama just needs to kill Julian Assange.

It's a stupid idea that sheep-people without morals or values love.

Dark Eden said...

That's the answer to everything for conservatives now!

Q: How's the weather today? A: Kill Julian Assange.

Q: What are you doing for Christmas? A: It doesn't matter... Obama just needs to kill Julian Assange.
>>>

To be fair, killing Assange wouldn't make the weather or what I'm doing for Christmas any worse, and would be satisfying on several levels.

madawaskan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Chip Ahoy said...

Oi veh.

Fen said...

HT: I also would like to have an inkling just what Crack is talking about.

He's livid that we all don't bow down and worship St Elizabeth the Pure or somesuch. And he manages to tie it all in to his obsession with New Ager cults.

Christopher said...

So... Ann voted for a President who would not blow another hole in the hull of the U.S.S. Titanic, which is what our economy is right now. Yayyy!

Peter Wehner at the Commentary blog--

For another, the president, in calling both Republicans (“hostage takers”) and Democrats (“sanctimonious”) names, came across as a political hack. He almost sounded like Robert Gibbs. This all cuts against what was once one of Obama’s chief virtues — his coolness and detachment, his steadiness and “first-rate temperament,” and his perceived ability to place himself above petty politics. Mr. Obama — the heir to Lincoln, we were told — now comes across as a mix between a faux populist and a temperamental elitist.

I understand the need for a president to distance himself from his party. But there are ways good and bad, careful and reckless, to do that. Provoking a full-scale uprising among one’s core constituency is never wise.

Beyond all that, Obama has decided to attack and enrage Democrats at precisely the moment he needs them to pass a deal with Republicans on tax cuts. Right now, thanks in good measure to how Obama has handled things, passage of that deal is threatened. “I’m going to argue forcefully for the nonsensicalness and the almost, you know, moral corruptness of that particular policy. … This is beyond politics,” Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) told the Huffington Post on Tuesday. She is speaking for many Democrats at the moment. And if Obama fails in this effort, it will be a crushing political defeat.

Because of that, it’s hard to imagine that Obama won’t eventually get the Democratic votes he needs (probably fewer than four dozen in the House). On the other hand, the Democratic anger directed toward Obama right now is difficult to overstate. They believe they, and their cause, have been betrayed by the president. And a feeling of betrayal among one’s key supporters has a way of undoing a presidency.

Prosqtor said...

Well, I say he is still the left-wing knot-head he was in the Senate. I can't stand McCain, but I would vote for him over Obama any day. Of course, I would vote for (gag) Bill Clinton over Obama any day.

peter hoh said...

I'm pretty sure that back in 2008, I wrote that Obama would be a better president if he didn't have Democrats running both the House and the Senate.

Took a couple of years, but I got what I wanted.

AST said...

Curb your enthusiasm.

He's listening to Larry Summers, who told him if they didn't extend the Bush Tax cuts, there'd be a double-dip recession. The Democrats just got their heads handed to them. Not a good omen for 2012.

Another term for pragmatic is ruthless, as in throwing your allies under the bus. Clinton called it triangulation.

wv: mytoon - only shown on the inside of my eyelids

Chef Mojo said...

@Althouse:

By the way, I voted against Carter in 1976 and for him in 1980.

Hmm. Interesting how you phrase that. After seeing the "young Althouse" photo in NYC, I have a real hard time thinking you voted for Ford against Carter.

Did you really vote for Gene McCarthy in '76? Or was it one of the really whacked out ones like Gus Hall or Lyndon LaRouche or Peter Camejo or Margaret Wright?

I'm pretty damn sure you didn't vote for Lester Maddox.

The Musket said...

I'm with the 'fool me once' crowd. I think this is just smoke and mirrors. Not trusting Obama at all. And --- he has to earn a second chance at my respect, so far he's not even close.

I would have voted for Carter if I'd been old enough. However, being a farmer's daughter, I voted for Reagan when the time came.

I still don't understand how someone could believe that Palin wasn't fit to run the country but Obama was. I mean 'hello?' Obama had NO RECORD whatsoever.

Mark said...

Eh, he's a grifter. Not a good one either. He thinks he sees the angle, and he's got all the good folk who thought electing a black guy President would wash away their distaste with our past, but in the end he's a grifter and people burned by grifters are seldom burned by the same grifter twice.

murgatroyd666 said...

Stupid goddamn Nineteenth Amendment.

Revenant said...

I admit I voted against Obama the Left-Wing Extremist, not Obama the Whiny Washingtonian.

Still, if either one of them ran up to me on fire I still couldn't be bothered to pee on him to put him out.

kent said...

I see the Obama I voted for.

How dreadful.

Oligonicella said...

So you're still someone convinced by the last five minutes and not a complete record?

Moose said...

Isn't it fabulous!?

We're raising a president, right before our eyes!

He'll be such a wonderful man someday!

info said...

Ahh, the make believe world of the totally isolated liberal.
Obama is totally lost. He has never been tasked with accomplishing anything. Never had to forge a compromise. Never been held accountable for anything.
When he loses, like he did on the "compromise", all he knows is to lash out...at everybody.
only a delusional liberal would see anything admirable in his behavior. "Look how pragmatic!"sheeesh

Mick said...

Please, he is the same America destroyer you voted for. You can rationlize all you want, but the FACT is that you, a supposed "law prof" voted for the worst thing to EVER happen to America, and you voted for an ineligible Non natural born Citizen (his father was never a citizen). Every piece of legislation or controversy that is Anti- the American people, that is what he is for. He comes down on the right side, the American side of NOTHING. Obama said that he will "stand with the Muslims" and he is. Besides that he is totally LYING in that clip. It is not a "tax cut", it is a continuation of the current tax rates. What it is, is not a TAX HIKE. "Law prof" indeed, I guess that's why we have so many lawyers that are clueless about the constitution.

Michael said...

You wish, professor. This guy is very seriously out of his depth. As a result we are all in trouble.

AllenS said...

"This isn't the politics of the moment. This has to do with what can we get done right now."--President Obama, The Pragmatist

Pete said...

So I suppose a post that voting for Obama was a huge mistake isn't gonna happen any time soon?

Der Hahn said...

You can do all you want to keep your dream alive but Boehner and McConnell are gonna lead him around by the nose the next two years just like Pelosi and Reid did the last two.

Jay said...

The more he departs from left-wing ideology

When did Obama do this?

He also said he wants to raise taxes on "the rich" in 2 years. That is his plan.

Jay said...

I don't see a melt-down at all. I see Obama coming into his own at last. I see the Obama I voted for.

Really?

So it is a good sign when he calls Republicans hostage takers?

Jay said...

I'm in stunned disbelief that anyone could have watched that press conference and think Obama is "Presidential" or "Pragmatic" or "intelligent" or "informed"

He said without hesitation that "I think it's tempting not to negotiate with hostage takers, unless the hostage gets harmed."

Which is idiotic.

Finally, Obama has presided over a jobless rate that has now peaked at 9 percent for 19 months in a row. It’s the longest stretch on record.

He has no idea what creates jobs and he is feckless.

Nothing he said changes that.

Jay said...

I looked at the comments on the Daily Kos website, they are hilarious. But they're real. And it went on for ten pages.

I did too Rush!

It is hilarious, and they're still going.

Jay said...

but there's fire there. It's the fire of pragmatism. I see a sensible and strong man. I never believed in Obama the Messiah, and I fretted about the signs that he was a left-wing ideologue.

Ann,
he is a left-wing ideologue. The "fire" you're referring to is anger because he can't punish the wealthy.

Here is a good read:
He lashed "the wealthiest Americans" three times, not to mention "the wealthiest 2% of Americans," "tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires," "wealthy people" and—channeling the French revolution—"the wealthiest estates."

As is pointed out in that piece, he is a class warrior to the core.

Jason said...

So the new U.S. policy is that we DO negotiate with hostage takers - as long as they threaten to harm the hostage? Am I hearing him correctly?

Does he EVER think anything through?

Jason said...

A "pragmatist" does not begin the second half of his presidency by referring to his counterparties in an agreement and the new House majority as "hostage takers."

Only an idiot would do that.

Roger J. said...

You capacity for self-delusion, Professor, is genuinely astounding-

HDHouse said...

If I would like a blow by blow of what this absolutely lying shithead has to say I'll tune into fauxnoise.

if you are a scribe to this bastard you are in a nitwit class of your own.

yashu said...

Sigh. This again.

Now, as always, if you look at Obama selectively, pick and choose those fragments (in his words, actions, history, associations) that reflect what you want to see in him, and view those fragments isolated from the rest, you will surely find that version of Obama. He is sure to provide it. That's what the rhetoric on that O-teleprompter is crafted to achieve; that was the whole point of O's electoral strategy, and so it continues in the ongoing campaign that is his presidency. That's why the extent of MSM collusion in highlighting and eliding different aspects of O-- and any breakdown in that collaboration-- is so important (it obviously is to O himself).

If you look for it-- especially if you look for it in his *words*-- and want to find it, of course you will find evidence of O's vaunted "pragmatism" and "moderation." Especially if you want to find this to retrospectively justify your vote for him. All the more so since, after the electoral shellacking, "Obama the Moderate Pragmatist" is precisely the meme that this administration wants to project and promote-- in concert with the MSM. (Hasn't there been a resurgence of this meme in various articles lately? Uh, that should always be a clue.)

To interpret anything, whether it's a text or a person, is inevitably to be involved in the hermeneutic circle: to understand the whole you have to read the parts; but to understand the parts you have to read them in light of the whole… and so on, back and forth. When it comes to Obama, the fact that within the space of his life, his campaign, his presidency, or even of a single paragraph in a speech, or a few minutes in a press conference, a certain utterance/ pose/ persona will be entirely contradicted by another-- this is something that has to be taken into account, if you're going to offer a reading of any one utterance/ pose/ persona, and base your reading of O on that one part.

If you take O's flagrant contradictions, inconsistencies, and deceitful equivocations as in themselves evidence of his "pragmatism," then this is hardly the kind of pragmatism I would consider praiseworthy, substantive, or philosophically serious. The fact that O has continued and in some cases amplified many controversial Bush policies (which O self-righteously railed against in the past), forced by the exigencies of national security or political reality (e.g., in the case of the deal on tax cuts, an historic electoral shellacking), does not by itself add up to Obama the Pragmatist.

I mean, please. You cannot seriously propose a characterization of President Obama which brackets the passage of Obamacare, in O's own estimation the defining achievement of his presidency so far: a radically transformative legislative super-octopus, the contents & significance of which to this day remain unfathomable, forcibly imposed with scarcely any consideration of its potential implications and consequences, at a time when the country was/ is in terrible economic straits. The passage of Obamacare, which O himself asks us to judge his presidency by, was and is the OPPOSITE of "pragmatic" in practically every sense of the word. To contend, after the passage of Obamacare, that O is the consummate moderate pragmatist which he sold himself as during his campaign, the very Obama which you gullibly bought… is, I'm sorry, preposterous.

Mr.eNt said...

hi guys!
please visit my blog: http://www.tuned2go.blogspot.com/
sorry for my bad english
thanks

Ken said...

It's really sad, Ann. I thought you learned something over the last two years.

Skyler said...

Ann, you are very smart and so many times you have a clever and insightful take on what people say. This isn't one of those times.

You crave to see something that isn't there.

MadisonMan said...

I'm very happy that Obama has pissed off the far lefties, just as I was occasionally happy that W pissed off the far righties.

The extreme ends of the political spectrum deserve to be ignored.

shoutingthomas said...

I suspect, Ms. Althouse, that your support for Obama is actually tied to his support for continued quotas and set-asides.

You're a staunch proponent of quotas and set-asides, particularly for women... what you euphemistically call "feminism."

E Buzz said...

LOL, the Obama I voted for...FINALLY!

So who was the other guy pulling all those stupid stunts the past two years? I guess that's supposed to be ignored now...

You voted for the guy you saw before, the lefty weirdo with bizarre appointments to his cabinet and Mao Christmas ornaments, you must recognize that.

Penny said...

"The extreme ends of the political spectrum deserve to be ignored."

I was going to agree, until I realized that instead of ignoring, we should pay closer attention in order to learn the danger of sitting too close to the edge.

You are bound to fall off, and that's one helluva lesson in politics.

FloridaSteve said...

Well this is a bit delusional. If he'd waited for the new congress he would have had a MUCH worse time of it and he knew that. So is is pragmatic when you have absolutely no realistic choice whatsoever but to take the deal that's in front of you? When every single other option is worse for your "core beliefs" than what you did I would say certainly not. And by the way NO significant taxes were actually cut here especially when you project it against the new spending? It was just an avoidance of a hike.

And when you wrote "By the way, I voted against Carter in 1976 and for him in 1980." I'm curious, would you again vote that way in hindsight? If not, have you learned nothing?

Sixty Grit said...

That's the funniest thing I have read all morning. Thanks for the laugh.

AllenS said...

What seems to bother Obama The Pragmatist is criticism. He has never seen Liberals/Progressives criticize him in any way his whole life. What he's been used to is adulation and a promotion throughout his life without question. He has finally reached the top, and his lack of actual accomplishment is showing. Somebody needs to take the rose colored glasses off.

exhelodrvr1 said...

Could this have been written tongue-in-cheek? That's the only way to logically explain it.

rdkraus said...

Con man.

Nothing has changed.

Con man gotta con, mark still a mark.

Penny said...

"That's the only way to logically explain it."

There is no such thing as "logic" in partisan politics.

Ilona said...

Oh God.. this posting makes me want to throw up. I mean I got physically nauseated reading this sanctimonious, self-congratulating pile of poo.

It's not enough that he had to be brought to the table KICKING AND SCREAMING to discuss preventing a tax hike, he did it only after two years of shoving this country down the toilet economically, and pissing on/ignoring all who where trying to save it.

And now he is expecting Congress to pass the DREAM Act, the food Safety Act, and ignore the reparations of the Pigford settlement. He is a monster.

exhelodrvr1 said...

Penny,
I was referring to Ann A's "pragmatic" moment, not to Obama.

pauls lane said...

LOL I guess voting 'present' for most of his politial career proves Obama's pragmatism.

rdkraus said...

Althouse continues, understandably, to look for reasons to excuse/explain her vote for the Zero. People hate to admit they were wrong, and always look for ways to rationalize. You would think she could admit he's a con man by now.

Here is why I, as opposed to others here, give her slack on voting for this clown - John McCain - another Godawful choice, maybe worse than the Zero - we (well most of us) at least know that Zero is a leftist. McCain would be RINO impersonating a conservative. Leftist light.

Danger - like so many other "intelligent" moderate liberals, Althouse will vote for this loser again in the next election. If not him, someone just as bad. If Republicans nominate an actual conservative, she will vote the other way no matter who it is.

Clyde said...

Born-again! Hallelujah!

Actually, I think this Obama is the same thin-skinned, churlish fellow we've seen for the past couple of years, only instead of just pissing off the Republicans and independents, now he's made his base go absolutely insane. Have you seen the 11 minute Keith Olbermann clip in which he excoriates Obama? Have you seen Rachel Maddow's "reverse Gandhi" clip? If he's losing the far-left loons at PMSNBC (and their ilk elsewhere in the Left-o-sphere), who does he have left?

Apparently just Ann.

Clyde said...

@ pm317

Wow! It looks like he promised to roll back the Bush tax cuts for "the rich" in all 57 states! Good show!

donttread2010 said...

This is so contorted its sad!

I liken what happened here to a drug user that gets their 'intervention' moment...the user is confronted and remanded to drug rehab as a last resort. I guess you could say that if the person agrees to go to rehab, they are 'pragmatic'.

What is also sad is that was our president up there on that podium, calling his fellow Americans 'hostage-takers'. He also said that this is 'a game'. Really? I would suggest to my fellow Americans that this is NOT a 'game', its fiddling with people's lives, and very serious business. He's simply not up to the task, its the PETER PRINCIPLE in its ultimate form!!!

shoutingthomas said...

Althouse continues, understandably, to look for reasons to excuse/explain her vote for the Zero. People hate to admit they were wrong, and always look for ways to rationalize. You would think she could admit he's a con man by now.

I think you should look back at my previous post.

Set-asides and quotas for women, that's Althouse's most important agenda.

If that was the most important issue to me, I'd pick Obama over McCain, too.

SWWBO said...

Ann, there is so much more that Obama is screwing up than just this one possible compromise.

He has basically stopped all new offshore drilling. He doesn't want to extract oil from shale. He still wants to stop coal-fired plants.

Instead of suggesting any legislation, he and his minions are attempting to change the meaning of free speech via net neutrality and the FCC radio licensing process.
He and his bureaucratic minions want to substantially change how food is grown and distributed by regulating it from sprouting to farmer's market booth to supermarkets.

He has nationalized student loans - forgiving those who enter government service from having to repay them?

Is this what you thought he would do?

muddimo said...

Wow, this video clip is a real Rorschach test. Personally, I thought he came off very well. Everything that came out of his mouth seemed well grounded in reality and it seems that he has come to terms with his position. Maybe the results of the election will liberate him from the nutjobs in his base.

muddimo said...

And he did not seem to come off as angry to me. In fact, I detected a bit of a smile now and then. Basically, he was telling lib journos in the room that they had their chance, now he will be working within a new reality with a new congress and they might as well get used to a lot of compromises. The days of "screw you, we won" are over. I'm not sure that he is entirely disappointed. Compromise can look very presidential.

Clyde said...

And on a happier note than yesterday's EE unpleasantness, I read that the Lockerbie bomber is getting ready to croak in Libya. And I suspect that we can all hold hands, sing "Kumbayah" and agree that it will be a good thing when he dies.

None of that "no man is an island" bullshit when a terrorist bites it.

All I am saying is give peace a chance!

AJ Lynch said...

Petulance is what I saw.

Pogo said...

Obama has a brilliant future behind him.

shoutingthomas said...

So, here's the explanation for Althouse's vote for Obama, which I notice commenters keep ignoring.

1. The most important political issue to Althouse is set-asides and quotas for women. On this issue, she's ultra-liberal.

2. She's a fiscal conservative because she wants to keep her own money. She hoped that Obama would somehow be a fiscal conservative.

Obama is the spokesman for set-asides and quotas for women, blacks and gays. So, he appeals to Althouse on this issue.

I think she was whistling out her ass on the fiscal conservative bit. Now, Obama has given her a little bit of cover to hope that he will deliver on that.

dreams said...

Althouse is bullshitting herself and trying to bullshit us. Thanks, but no thanks. I'm glad that spoiled Anti-American socialist is finally doing something right for the country but I haven't changed my low opinion of him. We are the ones we've been waiting for, oh yeah.

Yos said...

"I see a sensible and strong man" .. OMG that AnnAlthouse lady has learned nothing from her 2 years fiasco, just to fall in love again .. how deep down will you roll this time? It's Obama's meltdown, yes, however, it's your Mega-meltdown .. again. Stupid woman. I hate PC, so I tell it right to your face. Stupid woman.

Drew said...

Having lost left, right, and center, Obama is now in self-preservation mode. He's attempting Bill Clinton's triangulation strategy, but with no understanding of how to pull it off with Clintonian finesse. Gone is the silver-tongued orator (who never actually existed).

What does an egoist do when no one pays attention to him anymore? How does a narcissist handle such a situation? If no one else loves you, is self-love enough?

muddimo said...

I did not see petulance or anger, I saw him basically talking down to some folks that he has come to regard as idiots out of touch with his electorate. 2012 is coming soon and he knows it. The way to 4 more years in the White House is not through the NYT.

shoutingthomas said...

What Althouse doesn't understand (or more likely, refuses to acknowledge) is that the set-asides and quotas can't possibly co-exist with fiscal conservatism.

The set-asides and quotas are a boondoggle, an open invitation to ever expanding government, cronyism and corruption.

The set-asides and quotas destroy the concept of competitive bidding. They undermine efficiency in personnel decisions. They justify endless payoffs to favored constituencies.

So, Althouse is working at cross-purposes here. Set-asides and quotas are sacrosanct to her. She wants women first in line for everything. Because of her son, she wants equivalent favoritism for gays. Blacks don't concern her much.

She also wants to keep her money. The problem here is that Althouse refuses to acknowledge that the set-asides and quotas blow all limits off government spending.

Lincolntf said...

As people have noted above, the "hostage takers...until the hostage is harmed..." rhetoric is beyond the pale. Even as a campaign speech to devoted supporters it would have been out of order. To "go there" while announcing a compromise (the thing he's always saying we need) with Republicans approaches the absurd. He's not being pragmatic, he's being petulant. And to call him un-Presidential would be a compliment. He's a full on bozo.

shoutingthomas said...

So, all of you commenting here are way off base. Althouse is not sentimentally attached to Obama. Althouse, as usual, is ruthlessly self-interested. (I'm not saying that's a bad thing.)

The problem is that her self-interests are contradictory:

She wants women and gays to be first in line for everything because she's a woman and her son is gay. She has no self-interest when it comes to blacks (or Asians or Mexicans for that matter), so she's not interested in their issues.

She like owning and buying things and she doesn't want the government to take her money. (I'm with her here.)

Trouble is, the set-asides and quotas ultimate corrupt the financial process.

I'd like to see some commenters actually address the reality of Althouse's support for Obama.

You are all completely wrong is ascribing it to some sort of personal adulation of Obama.

It isn't about reverence for Obama. She's pursuing her self-interest relentlessly.

pauls lane said...

I think a lot of you are being too harsh to Ann. I give lots of credit to Obama and also to Pelosi and Reid for the TEA Party. Without them the TEA Party movement might not have ever formed. So think about it! In about one year, Obama without even realizing it (just demonstrates his genius) helped create a powerful grass-roots political movement of ordinary everyday American citizens. All HAIL OBAMA! For this we should be forever grateful.

HDHouse said...

Interesting to see this blog implode. the right wing here is never satisfied and so remote from logic and consistency as to never come up with anything the rest of us can work with or debate against.

this blog has been overrun by the shoutingthomas types who are irresponsible blowhards spouting no set plan, no ideas, just venom and the the Fen types of zero intellect and responsibility.

I'm sorry Ann's once great blog has disintegrated into the hands of such lackluster "brains" (or lack thereof).

I'll watch from afar as you guys destroy things and piss on each other.

jr565 said...

his pragmatism is not by choice. He's been put over a barrel by republican wins. And he's awfully petty and vindictive about his pragmatism.
If he's forced into it,it's not really pragmatism.
And why you thought he was a pragrmatist in the first place and actually voted for him, I still don't get. What facts were you basing this on? You're actually owning that vote? Yikes.

jr565 said...

Ann Althouse wrote:
By the way, I voted against Carter in 1976 and for him in 1980.

..... THat explains a lot.

Clyde said...

"Not in anger but in sorrow," eh, HDHouse?

Does this mean you won't be holding hands with us and singing "Kumbayah" when the Lockerbie bomber croaks?

shoutingthomas said...

I'll watch from afar as you guys destroy things and piss on each other.

Does that mean you quit? That will certainly increase the IQ of this site by 15 to 20 points.

Interestingly, you don't respond to my argument, which is that Althouse's support for Obama is pragmatic, but she is trying to serve two masters.

Those two masters (1) set-asides and quotas and (2) fiscal conservatism cannot be reconciled.

chickelit said...

It's a pragmire!

donttread2010 said...

@hdhouse

"...never come up with anything the rest of us can work with or debate against."

Seems you've tried.

Let's review:

debate: a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints: a formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers.

Mr. Obama and the left's version of 'debate': I won.

Clyde said...

Wasn't he the guy who gave out the Golden Fleece?

MadisonMan said...

I read that the Lockerbie bomber is getting ready to croak in Libya.

It's about time.

Finally, someone dies whom everyone can agree is evil. Actually evil, and not just evil in the sense that they're on the other end of the political spectrum and did something "bad".

Fen said...

Shorter HDHouse: "You won't have this libtard to kick around anymore"

Can you take the corpse with you?

Hagar said...

This deal is going to hurt both the Republicans and the Democrats for the 2012 elections.

shoutingthomas said...

So, rather than trying to indict Althouse, I'd suggest discussion the central issue in this debate over fiscal conservatism.

Everybody's in favor of their own entitlements, and they think that the other guy's entitlements are BS that should be cut.

Seniors want their Medicare and Social Security, and they want the government to be fiscally responsible.

Althouse wants her set-asides and quotas for women and gays, and she wants the government to be fiscally responsible.

We all sort of in the same boat in this dilemma, aren't we?

How do we restrain government growth and spending if every constituency regards its entitlements as sacrosanct?

Roger J. said...

Alas poor HDHouse. I knew him Horatio, a man of infinite jest....

ya'betcha

AMF

rdkraus said...

And st sums up why

WE ARE DOOMED

Fen said...

Madison: Finally, someone dies whom everyone can agree is evil. Actually evil, and not just evil in the sense that they're on the other end of the political spectrum and did something "bad".

"Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, who has prostate cancer, is close to death"

Scratch that. He is dying of cancer. Therefore he is excused. He's a Saint and anyone who claims otherwise is dancing on his grave.


/s

shoutingthomas said...

I note that this issue is so conflicted and aggravating that nobody wants to respond to it.

But, it is the central issue.

How do you stop the growth of government and limit government spending if every constituency insists that its entitlements are sacred and cannot be touched?

You can bitch at Althouse all you want. But her viewpoint is no different than anybody else in this debate. She regards her entitlements as earned and sacrosanct. She regards set-asides and quotas for women and gays as simple justice.

And she wants the government to be fiscally responsible.

We're all making the same contradictory demands.

Easy to bitch at Althouse about it. What do you recommend as a solution?

rdkraus said...

st

There is no solution.

Plus, the Chinese want their money back.

jr565 said...

Madison Man wrote:


Finally, someone dies whom everyone can agree is evil. Actually evil, and not just evil in the sense that they're on the other end of the political spectrum and did something "bad".


Exactly. Spit on the graves of the Hitlers of the world. Not the wife of some guy who had an affair. That just show no class. And that's true if it comes from the left or the right.
Same thing when Ted Kennedy died. Don't be a dick because you disagreed with his policies. Same thing when Rush Limbaugh dies. Don't be a dick when you disagree with his views. Same thing when Ann Althouse dies. Don't be a dick.
Everyone hates Fred Phelps, because in the middle of funerals he's calling dead people "fags". Do you want to be like Fred Phelps?

jr565 said...

Fen wrote:
Scratch that. He is dying of cancer. Therefore he is excused. He's a Saint and anyone who claims otherwise is dancing on his grave.


ARe you suggesting that Elziabeth Edward's "crimes" are equivalent to this guys?

Dad Bones said...

Watching the undoing of Obama is cold comfort considering what the country has to suffer to bring it about.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

I can't understand it.

Ann still wants to believe that that magic man behind the curtain really exists.

Despite two years of Obama showing himself as being a dedicated socialist, autocrat ready to ram any ideas that he wants forcibly down the throats of the American public.....all Obama has to do is one "performance art session" and she is ready to clap her hands and believe again.

Clyde said...

@ DBQ

Darn it, why are you trying to kill Tinkerbell?! Hater!

Dust Bunny Queen said...

In addition. Obama's so called new centrist position is just a head fake.

He is really still planning to ram his big government socialist agenda through.

He will do it through the back door. Commissions. Executive orders. Regulations and rulings from unelected heads of agencies that operate as shadow governments.

Head fake. Get ready to be sucker punched.....once again.

Fen said...

ST: How do we restrain government growth and spending if every constituency regards its entitlements as sacrosanct?

You get rid of them all. Baseline everything to zero then add in only what is necessary to keep people from dying while they find a way to compensate.

Its a moot point. We're not going to have the money to continue this. And ObamaCare will make up 75% of entitlement programs.

Obama needs to get a grip. This was just a drip, inconsequential compared to the storm thats coming.

Kirby Olson said...

He's guarded about his true ambitions, which Dinesh D'Souza argues is guided by the north star of postcolonial theory, as his dreams came from his postcolonial dad:

"The most powerful country in the world is being governed according to the dreams of a Luo tribesman of the 1950s -- a polygamist who abandoned his wives, drank himself into stupors, and bounced around on two iron legs ... This philandering inebriated African socialist is now setting the nation's agenda through the reincarnation of his dreams in his son..." (The Roots of Obama's Rage, 198).

I don't know. It made sense to me. I do think he's cagey and careful, but that down deep, the agenda is his dad's agenda. but, yes, he's pragmatic about it, which his dad wasn't.

AllenS said...

I see Obama coming into his own at last. I see the Obama I voted for.

Yeah! How about another four years! Four more for Obama! Yeah, that's the ticket!

Pogo said...

There are few politicians I trust entirely, but I don't believe a word that comes out of Obama's mouth.

So I do not think what he says about anything has any useful purpose.

If he signs the tax cut deal, good for him. But what he says about it warrants not a minute of reflection.

At this point, only deeds matter. I would have hope that lesson were obvious by now.

Clyde said...

@ DBQ

Okay, well, there is all that. Stomp her flat!

kent said...

I'll watch from afar

Tease.

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

So almost two years into this odyssey Obama does the right thing and Althouse is a twitter. Now I'm glad he made the right choice but wouldn't it be great to have a President who didn't take two years to do what's best for the county? Instead, we have a clown how only flees from his talking points when his own hide is at stake.

Don’t get me wrong. A Democrat having to eat a big helping of their class warfare shtick is a wonderful thing to watch. However, the leader of the country should be above this. Unfortunately Obama isn’t.

Fen said...

Fen: Scratch that. He is dying of cancer. Therefore he is excused. He's a Saint and anyone who claims otherwise is dancing on his grave.

JR565: ARe you suggesting that Elziabeth Edward's "crimes" are equivalent to this guys?

[Are you really that stupid?]

And quit being so vile and evil towards Abdelbaset al-Megrahi. Don't you know he's dying from cancer?!

madAsHell said...

Pragmatist? Everyone is a pragmatist at age 20 with a desire to test their ideas...because they are my ideas...and they are good ideas.

Then your wonderful ideas blow up, and this is how you acquire experience.

This is more fall-out from his empty resume. He is still in the "I-have-good-ideas" phase. He is absolutely dumb-founded that his ideas are being questioned.

I thought he sounded confused.

Peano said...

Ann said: I watched that video clip earlier today, and I liked the Obama I saw there. You could say he's beaten down, but there's fire there. It's the fire of pragmatism. I see a sensible and strong man.

Dan Henninger said: Barack Obama is a Class Warrior with every fiber of his being.... That was no mere statement. It was a class warrior's cry from the heart.

My conclusion is that Ann hasn't learned one damned thing about Bambi. His supporters have a power of self-deception that is far beyond the norm.

Fen said...

jr565: Same thing when Ted Kennedy died. Don't be a dick because you disagreed with his policies.

People weren't dicks because they disagreed with his policies. They were dicks because guys like you used the sanctity of death as an opportunity to whitewash what he did to Mary Jo.

garage mahal said...

Screw THIS Althouse, I'm still ANGRY!

Why don't you just marry Obama!?

Dust Bunny Queen said...

@ Clyde.

Tinkerbell isn't really all that nice. It was just a facade to be able to control the Lost Boys, gain some power and appear to be a 'good' fairy while really working towards her own ends.

Classic passive aggressive behaviour that women excel in.

:-)

kent said...

I watched that video clip earlier today, and I liked the Obama I saw there.

If you genuinely liked watching the President of the United States referring to the duly elected members of the opposing party as "bomb-throwers" and "terrorists" simply for opposing him, Professor... then you're scarcely in any position to determine what legitimately qualifies as "pragmatism," and what does not.

Just out of morbid curiousity, mind: what is the most pragmatic course of action for one to take with "terrorists," anyway... hmmmmm?

exhelodrvr1 said...

jr565,
"Don't be a dick because you disagreed with his policies"

Discussing all aspects of a public figure's life when they die is not "being a dick."

Clyde said...

@ DBQ

So you're saying she's kind of like Michelle?

Clyde said...

@ Kent

"Just out of morbid curiousity, mind: what is the most pragmatic course of action for one to take with "terrorists," anyway... hmmmmm?"

Some would say to ship them back to Libya and wait for prostate cancer to take its toll...

Fen said...

jr565: Spit on the graves of the Hitlers of the world. Not the wife of some guy who had an affair

Don't forget to include the "evil" people who don't show St Elizabeth the proper amount of sympathy. Lump them in with Hitler and spit on their graves too. Right?

Really, you fucking libtards post that you hope Ann dies a painful death and that people piss on her grave because... wait for it... she DARED note that Elizabeth's farewell didn't include an apology to her people for misleading them.

And then the very next day, you have the nerve to complain about civility?

GMay said...

Fen said: "They were dicks because guys like you used the sanctity of death as an opportunity to whitewash what he did to Mary Jo."

It appears whitewashing is still in vogue among Democrat politicians and their supporters.

Misty said...

I didn't see anything except a man who is so far under his pay grade that he makes me nostalgic for Clinton. For the record, I'm no fan of McCain either.

I did vote for Carter in 76, but then I grew up and started to pay attention better.

It will take an extremely strong leader in 2012 to start putting our country back together after this poser is booted to the side. He has been such a divider at home and foolish abroad.

Economic solutions? Simple, cut spending and let people keep their hard earned money. If we keep it, we spend it and all win. They can start by cutting programs that the Federal government has no business in to begin with. This is supposed to be the land of the free.

Fen said...

Discussing all aspects of a public figure's life when they die is not "being a dick."

Well, in Ted Kennedy's case, it was because he got away with it. If he had paid for his crimes when he was alive, they wouldn't have returned to haunt his deathbed.

Triangle Man said...

Why don't you just marry Obama!?

See, people just *knew* that support for gay marriage would eventually lead to support for bigamy.

Back on topic, it is refreshing to get such a transparent expository post from the Professor. I love the divalogs because Althouse says what's on her mind. The blog posts are oblique by comparison

kent said...

Quick li'l query for the lefties, hereabouts: Alan Grayson, "progressive" darling, opposes Obama as well, re: the recently proposed tax compromise.

Logically, therefore: Alan Grayson must legitimately qualify as a "terrorist" as well... right?

Fen said...

Back on topic, it is refreshing to get such a transparent expository post from the Professor.

I think people are talking about 2 different clips. The one here is tame. I don't think Obama's bombthrowing is in it.

GMay said...

"I love the divalogs because Althouse says what's on her mind."

Which in this rare case seems to be very little.

But hey,
Obama's Back
!

Fen said...

Logically, therefore: Alan Grayson must legitimately qualify as a "terrorist" as well... right?

Unless he's dying of cancer. Then he's Saint Grayson.

Big Mike said...

... but there's fire there. It's the fire of pragmatism.

I disagree with your assessment, at several levels. At a fundamental level I disagree that pragmatism even has a "fire." Pragmatism has to stay calm, and keep a level head.

Secondly, I see nothing that changes my mind that he is and continues to be a dedicated advocate of class warfare who has a snooty disdain for the middle class.

Finally, your president (I didn't vote for him, so I'm not as starry-eyed as you) continues to demonstrate a woeful lack of appreciation for macroeconomics. Which goes with his class war orientation.

Finally, a gedanken experiment for you, Professor. Most economists agree that raising taxes during a recession risks prolonging, perhaps even a double-dip recession. If Barack Obama was a genuine pragmatist would he not have proposed extending the Bush tax cuts without the need for Republicans to push so strongly?

Drew said...

Henninger is right: Obama's reaction signals nothing more than another fight two years down the road. If businesses in this country aren't hiring due to skittish uncertainty about the economy, Obama did nothing to reassure them.

Big Mike said...

By the way, I voted against Carter in 1976 and for him in 1980.

You liked 15% mortgage rates?

Dust Bunny Queen said...

So you're saying she's kind of like Michelle?

More like Elizabeth Edwards

/ducks to avoid being egged.

Misty said...

"You liked 15% mortgages?"


and gas lines? Those were such fun.

Fen said...

If businesses in this country aren't hiring due to skittish uncertainty about the economy, Obama did nothing to reassure them.

Thats whats so crazy about his approach. If he was forced(*) to compromise, at least take the "restore certainty for entrepreneurs" as a consolation prize. But Obama managed to lose both. The "rich" view him as hostile and looking for revenge.

(*) The silver lining in Obama's push for Obamacare - he got congress so wrapped up in it that they failed to take this issue up when they had the supermajority.

jr565 said...

Fen wrote:
Don't forget to include the "evil" people who don't show St Elizabeth the proper amount of sympathy. Lump them in with Hitler and spit on their graves too. Right?

Really, you fucking libtards post that you hope Ann dies a painful death and that people piss on her grave because... wait for it... she DARED note that Elizabeth's farewell didn't include an apology to her people for misleading them.


Who has the reading comprehension problem Fen?
Where are you getting that I'm a libtard? If you look down at my posts in the same thread you'll note I dont have very kind words to say about OBama OR Carter, or Althouse for voting for either of them. ANd where are you getting that I'm saying we should piss on Ann Althouse's grave? I'm saying we shouln't piss on either of their graves, because whatever flaws they may have, they aren't serial murderers or haven't commited high crimes.

If you want civility for your heroes, show some civility for others as well. We're all flawed human beings.There ARE those for whom we should heap scorn on their deaths, when they die. But do you really think Elizabeth Edwards of all people is one of them? Give me a break. She's the wife of a two bit politiican who's son died, who's husband cheated on her and who had all of that hashed out on the national stage. He didn't even get to the white house, so remained a two bit politician. And she, after a long illness died of cancer. Give her a fucking break. And if you can't then don't expect anyone to give Rush LImbaugh a break when he dies for example. Don't expect civility when you can't give any yourself.

kent said...

Hillary Clinton, 2003: "We have a right to debate and disagree with any administration."

Ann Althouse, after hearing Obama refer to those disagreeing with him as "terrorists": "It's the Obama I voted for: Obama the Pragmatist."

Somewhere in the dead silence between those two quotes, one can actually hear liberalism's final death rattle.

jr565 said...

Fen wrote:

Unless he's dying of cancer. Then he's Saint Grayson.

Now Grayson is a bastard. Who has literally no civility for others. I would expect if Rush Limbaugh died he would be unkind and an asshole and rather than showing respect would use his death as an opportunity to score political points. Which is why I don't like him. So, then if I think he is an asshole for being uncivil why would I emulate him and be uncivil about his passing?
He got his. He was voted out of office. Good. Glad to see he got his ass handed to him, and hope he trips on the way out, because he's a douchebag. If he's dying of cancer, I hope he pulls through and doesn't needlessly suffer. And I wish all the best to his family. THere are a lot of assholes in the world, and very few of them do I wish painful deaths upon or whithold sympathy at their passing.Ted Bundy can rot. Alan Grayson, would still get my sympathy.

Fen said...

Jr565: ANd where are you getting that I'm saying we should piss on Ann Althouse's grave?

From yesterday's thread on Elizabeth.


If you want civility for your heroes, show some civility for others as well.

I did. And I kept asking you and others to point to the "vile evil uncivil" comments you kept making generalizations about. You all dodged.

There ARE those for whom we should heap scorn on their deaths, when they die. But do you really think Elizabeth Edwards of all people is one of them?

Where on this blog did ANYONE heap scorn on Elizabeth Edwards?

Don't expect civility when you can't give any yourself.

Yes, you falsely accuse people of being uncivil (without evidence) and then use that lie to justify treating them with contempt.

Thats fine. I can play that game too.

Titus said...

He made me a little wet in that video.

I have tons of stock options that I am able to exercise over the next 10 years and I just don't want to be taxed on them so I am supportive of this "compromise".

I also farted and the entire room smells like ginger fart...because I an into Ginger now, but don't call me Ginger.

When I was young I would walk around the house and act like Ginger from Gilligans Island, "Gilligan, can i have one teensy weensy little kiss".

Fen said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
c3 said...

Agree, not a meltdown but this is not the posture you want to take at this point in time. Several points for BO:

- Master the short and sweet answer. He went on too long. If the base is pissed, don't give them more words (i.e. "sanctimonious") to be upset at.
- If you're going to triangulate (and I wouldn't recommend it because you don't have that skill) then don't name call the other sides of the triangle (i.e. the "sanctimonious" liberals and the "hostage-taking" Republicans) otherwise you'll just unite them in opposition to YOU!
-You're better at high minded rhetoric so again, short and sweet and high minded (i.e. "moving the nation forward", "adding to the opportunities for all Americans", whatever)

This episode demonstrates several things about BO that I could see prior to the election (and why I DIDN'T vote for him)

-clearly he has limited skill and understanding of the legislative process. I think he truly believes he got a "good deal". Just like healthcare, he's more interested in getting something that he can then claim is "victory". When you spend essentially only two years in the Senate, don't introduce or shepherd a bill through committee etc, and generally only vote "present" you'll have limited ability to achieve, let along assess, success
-his sensibilities are still liberal and unfortunately he has the tendency to convince himself that he's meeting those sensibilities. Yea, this is good for the working man. He can't philosophically move to the "center" because he doesn't essentially understand the center, let alone the right.
-he too easily demonizes those who fight him. During healthcare he met and collaborated with Health insurance companies, doctors etc but then later demonized them. He did the same with the bankers. And now he does it with his base AND the Republicans he cut a deal with.
-he has a short term memory deficit. His healthcare bill wasn't about eliminating pre-existing conditions. He had that a year before the bill actually passed. He's forgotten his phrase "health insurance reform"

And Professor I agree this is exactly the Obama that ran during 2008. And I still wouldn't vote for him.

Fen said...

JR565: If he's dying of cancer, I hope he pulls through and doesn't needlessly suffer.

But only if he displayed the proper amount of sympathy for Saint Elizabeth. Otherwise, he deserves to needlessly suffer and you'll be there to piss on his grave.

[Fun game, this distortion and misreprentation of what people said. And I haven't even gotten to the hyperbole yet.]

Richard Dolan said...

"It's the Obama I voted for: Obama the Pragmatist."

Like the "first snow" that didn't quite count as such chez Meadhouse, "pragmatist" here has taken on a strange new meaning. Hint: for most people, it conveys a cast of mind that guides one's actions and (often) values -- a "see what works and go with that" approach. It is not synonymous with bowing to a (hated) reality while claiming to be itching to take up the good fight against the hostage takers and bombthrowers. The latter suggests a crusader, someone devoted to the true faith who is looking for better weapons with which to resume a fight to the death.

If that's your idea of pragmatism (it seems to be Ann's), it's no surprise that your view of the world can become a bit skewed.

c3 said...

And can someone help me.

I don't get the ire of the liberals. I mean I understand their intense disagreement with the "Obama compromise". But the Dems have the votes and the President can suggest but he's not in the House nor the Senate.

So if they have the votes (and the Dems are still sizable majorities in both chambers)then they can vote against this proposal. Is this simply another example of the Dems demonizing the Republicans when their real problem is the moderate and Blue Dog democrats?

Jay said...

You liked 15% mortgages?"


and gas lines? Those were such fun.


You don't understand, it was all for the common good.

Kirby Olson said...

Let's stink up the country with set-asides, and naturalize the illegals to get their votes, and not enforce any laws we don't like, and write some best-selling children's books while we have the prestige of the office. Pragmatique!

Jay said...

"It's the Obama I voted for: Obama the Pragmatist."


Wouldn't this super-duper smart "pragmatist" have extended tax cuts for the middle class while he had 60 Democratic Senators and a large house majortity instead of getting rolled in a negotiation while his party was still controlling congress?

kent said...

Logically, therefore: Alan Grayson must legitimately qualify as a "terrorist" as well... right?

... *crickets*...

Just out of morbid curiousity, mind: what is the most pragmatic course of action for one to take with "terrorists," anyway... hmmmmm?

... *crickets*...

Fen said...

I don't get the ire of the liberals. I mean I understand their intense disagreement with the "Obama compromise".

Its a hatred of "rich" people. Obama promised them a pound of flesh and didn't deliver.

If you study the bill, you'll find that Dems actually came out ahead in the compromise.

But their hatred outweighs their common sense. They really want that pound of flesh from the "rich"

franglo said...

As an Obama supporter I'm pessimistic. Long term macroeconomic trends-- i.e., the permanent shrinking of the economy after the housing meltdown-- may sour the public on this leader irrevocably. And every leader after that. What the government can do against existential shifts is paltry.

Clyde said...

@ DBQ

No, Tinkerbell is just pining for the fjords.

@ Misty

I can hardly believe you were old enough to vote in '76! (I didn't cast my first presidential ballot until '80 myself -- against Jimmuh -- and I'm decidedly middle-aged myself, alas!)

pauls lane said...

I'm quite proud of the fact and I don't hesitate to pat myself on the back that I didn't vote for McGovern,Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, Kerry or Obama. Pretty damn impressive line up of non-support, don't ya think?

yashu said...

The true pragmatist would take ownership of this kind of deal/ compromise/ triangulation. In disappointing the purists of his party, he'd evince his ideological independence, a kind of courageous integrity; he'd articulate why the pragmatic decision was (under the circumstances) a good one, a good for which he can henceforth claim responsibility, an achievement which he can claim as his own. In doing so, he projects strength.

Clinton was a master at this: welfare reform etc., but also little things like the "Sistah Soujah" episode. Whether or not (or to whatever extent) Clinton's triangulations were a reaction to Republican political power, or made on his own initiative because of his own convictions, by taking ownership & claiming responsibility Clinton always appeared strong and in control. Even if he disappointed the leftists in his party, did things they strongly disagreed with, he held on to their loyalty because he projected strength, competence, political mastery. He appeared larger than his political opponents-- even as (or precisely because) in triangulating, he was taking ownership of their ideas, thereby claiming authorship and credit for any good that came out of them. He appeared as the captain of the ship, negotiating various strong winds & currents.

Obama's fatal mistake, and I suspect what really triggered such extreme repugnance among the left, beyond the actual content of the deal, is that the presentation here is the inverse of the Clinton style. In O's attempt to demonize the GOP & deflect leftist criticism by calling the Republicans "hostage takers," the effect was the opposite of what he intended. What the metaphor literally spelled out conveys is: Don't blame me, I was forced into a corner and had to acquiesce to something that is wrong and goes against my convictions, I didn't want to but I had to give in to the terrorists to save the hostage. I negotiated with terrorists; so in the end (even if the hostage was saved) the terrorists won. O might as well have worn a "kick me I'm Carter" sign. He projected weakness. He may have painted the GOP as evil, but as so powerful that they forced his hand. The image conveyed is of O acting out of weakness, reactive, not as someone in control and in the driver's seat. The "hostage taker" metaphor effectively refudiates any responsibility, ownership, credit, authorship O might have taken for the deal (and thus any good that might come out of it) elsewhere in his speech.

And then, his rebuke to the purists in his party-- for their "sanctimony"-- also misses the mark that Clinton so deftly hit, because (as usual) O makes it all about HIM. In that analogy to earlier criticism over the public option, the emphasis falls not so much on "look at the overall good achieved at the cost of some pragmatic compromise" but rather "just like you did then, you're acting like ungrateful bitches, attacking me unfairly and minimizing the hugeness of my achievement, everything I struggled mightily to get for you." What he projects here is not ideological independence and integrity, so much as hurt feelings, narcissistic touchiness, indignation that his subjects are so ungrateful as to attack him, after everything he's done for them.

If the leftist outrage were just about the content/ substance of the deal, we'd have seen such outrage over previous compromises, extensions of W-ian policy, much more controversial than this. For all the leftist criticism of Clinton, he never lost the left's respect. What happened at this press conference, more than anything having to do with the content of the deal, something which has been building since the shellacking, is this: O has lost the left's respect. It won't help O to paint the Republicans as evil if in doing so he makes them look stronger than him.

Fen said...

franglo: Long term macroeconomic trends-- i.e., the permanent shrinking of the economy after the housing meltdown-- may sour the public on this leader irrevocably. And every leader after that.

The big problem for pols like Obama is that entitlement promises are their main weapon. But they can't bribe constituencies with worthless money.

kent said...

hurt feelings, narcissistic touchiness, indignation that his subjects are so ungrateful as to attack him, after everything he's done for them.

You've just provided the Cliff Notes for Zero's inevitable post-presidential autobiography.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

So if they have the votes (and the Dems are still sizable majorities in both chambers)then they can vote against this proposal. Is this simply another example of the Dems demonizing the Republicans when their real problem is the moderate and Blue Dog democrats?

YES.

It is exactly this. The Dems have had the majority in the House (since 2006) and Senate but continue to act as if they are the powerless minority.

As if the Republicans and teh eveeel Booosh were the ones in charge of spending, budgeting and anything else, when it is THEY who are responsible for the legislation that has been destroying the economy. It is THEY who are responsible for the obstruction of legislation that would have mitigated the economic meltdown.

The make the problem and then blame the Republicans.

The media is also culpable because they perpetuate the lie, the myth, that somehow the true minority party were the ones in charge instead of the Democrats who have been calling the shots for the last 4 years.

THIS is going to be Obama's meme as well.

He is going to say. "See how pragmatic (barf) I am? How "I" have compromised with the eveeel Republicans."

THEN when he sabotages the compromise with the backdoor resolutions, regulations etc......the Democrats will try to blame the Republicans when 2012 rolls around.

The Democrats do NOT care about the economy. They do NOT care about you.

They DO care about keeping in power and if it means many more years of high unemployment, tanking economy to do it......they just don't FUCKING care.

Get ready to be sucker punched.

Misty said...

@Clyde -

Yup, voted my first time in '76 and have been married since '77. Don't you know not to believe every picture you see on the internet? I prefer to think of it as late adolescence rather than middle age since I have pretty much refused to grow up.

exhelodrvr1 said...

I'm waiting for the "America wasn't ready for a black President, after all" line of comments to start.

Clyde said...

Well, Misty, that sure is true about the pictures, or I would certainly have a pigmentation problem! :-)

cubanbob said...

Obama spent two railing against Bush just to extend Bush's tax rate cuts. He just proved Bush right all along, but Bush is the idiot.

Obama is a moron. He basically did the dumbest thing of all, he extend the cuts for two years which will have no real effect since no one in their right mind will invest with such a short horizon. Either extend the cut for 7 or 8 years so investors and businessmen can plan reasonably timed investments or stuck to his guns on the tax issue. It would not help the economy had he done so but investors more than anything can't tolerate uncertainty. The economy will eventually recover despite the economic imbecility of the democrats so he accomplished nothing except to make himself look like a whinny little bitch.

He had two years with a bullet proof congress to get this and the rest of his agenda through and he blew it.

He is arrogant and stupid and fortunately for the nation grossly incompetent. He was handed a shit sandwich by the republicans who have no actual power in this congress and all he held out for was to be allowed to have mustard and mayo on the sandwich.

And this is the man according to the good professor is now finally becoming the man she voted for? Put down the bong, it's bad for your health. I can understand voting for Carter in 76 (don't blame me, I voted for Ford) but how could any sane person have voted for Carter in 80? Talk about back ass-wards voting!

mariner said...

And he's no longer a blank slate. So to believe what you think you're seeing, you have to ignore what's actually, demonstrably there.

Fool me once ....


Remember, you can fool SOME of the people ALL of the time. It's the Fundamental Principle of the Democratic Party.

And while Althouse has lucid moments she is, at the end of the day, a Democrat.

Holmes said...

You are not even remotely vindicate yet.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 212   Newer› Newest»