1. He did not understand economics, the most important issue.
2. He [never had] the ability to make the experience argument.
3. He never defined himself as a principled [liberal].
4. Erratic and incoherent, he lack[s] sufficient [courage].
২০ জুলাই, ২০০৯
How Obama lost me.
Meade writes the (inevitable) post for me:
এতে সদস্যতা:
মন্তব্যগুলি পোস্ট করুন (Atom)
পোস্টগুলি
৪৬৯টি মন্তব্য:
«সবচেয়ে পুরাতন ‹পুরাতন 469 এর 201 – থেকে 400 আরও নতুন» সবচেয়ে নতুন»Sy said...
Well, is this Ann's official mea culpa to the nation? Voters like her helped elect an inexperienced, liberal politician from Chicago. Instead of paying attention to their intuition, they got beguiled by the incessant MSM, portraying Obama the greatest thing since slice bread.
Pretty much what Sy said, except with a lot more profanity.
Ann voted for Obama solely because she wanted a black President. I am in no mood to forgive that.
the real question Ann, is why you voted for him in the first place?
Did you not know about his Chicago days (still coming to light I know, but anyone who knows anything about how IL works would see that).
Did you think he would (or wouldn't) stick to some of the things he said?
I'm curious.
Gina -
Silly. Of course you recall that Obama is our second black president.
Thus far we have focused on Obama and his domestic programs, and his congenital problems with the truth, transparency, cronyism, rule of law, keeping promises etc.
If his popularity plummets, and the GOP picks up seats, he may lack a working majority the last two years.
Given that the world's despots already know exactly what a cojones free place the WH has become, they are going to keep challenging The O. Apology tours and bowing to despots gets old fast. I see The O attempting to salvage his legacy with foreign policy, the last refuge of a failed President.
This doesn't bode well for Israel.
Jim -- She explained it all around the election.
It's important to remember what a horrific candidate McCain was, people, and how the mainstream press was so dedicated to Obama winning.
By the way, if you don't believe in cosmic justice, consider the simultaneousness of Cronkite's death and Obama's dismal performance.
Also though, isn't this Meade's mea culpa (from an earlier thread), and not Ann's?.
I'm still uncertain about that. My current take is that it's Ann's, but she's putting it out there via Meade to attenuate her level of responsibilty.
It's not like Ann couldn't clear this up with a simple declarative statement. The absence of such a statement means that, for whatever reason, she wants it ambiguous.
Actually I believe it is Althouse's mea culpa as well since she said "Meade writes the(inevitable) post for me:"
Or I might be mistaken. Hopefully Althouse makes it unambiguous.
Obama gave another health care reform speech today.
While he was speaking, a few House Democrats and Joe Lieberman were blowing up his health reform plans.
Serious lack of political management skills.
But then managing Dems is like herding cats.
Chaz gets the poke. We shall use the same basic setup as in Clockwork Orange.
Echoing Seven, I'm convinced that many people commenting on this thread have not clicked the link posted.
Those who know history are condemned to explain it to those who don't.
Zero always plays the morality card, the emperor of theft plays the morality card -- he is a walking obscenity.
I don't blame Hillary, Darcy.
Firstly... she works for Obama and is bound to support his decisions. She's not a free agent in this.
Secondly... the first thing he did after appointing her was strip her office of authority and influence.
I DON'T think she'd have made this mistake.
I've never liked her and don't agree with her politics, but she's not stupid. In fact, during the primaries her answers on foreign policy issues were the most conservative of any of the candidates. Obama, OTOH, spouted howlers whenever a question arose, be it a reasonable time-line for bring troops home from Iraq or anything else. His campaign remarks about Pakistan were utterly outrageous. He had to revise his initial statement about Georgia, having come down on the wrong side of THAT as well.
For policy issues of what we should do about Gitmo, Iraq, etc., Althouse has been going the "Obama is like Bush" route.
Honduras is different... we HAD no set policy on Honduras... this is all Obama. It's HIS first reaction, like the one in Georgia. And who is going to tell him he's wrong? More likely that his advisers are going to tell him he's RIGHT... that so long as an election is called the majority will is more important than any constitutional limitations.
And after all... those are just pointless rules with no real purpose?
No doubt, the fact that the deposed guy in Honduras is on the socialist side of political philosophy has nothing to do with it.
Because we all know that Obama is NOT socialist.
Suggesting that he obviously thinks that a socialist presidente for life is a GOOD thing would be uncalled for slander.
It was that goddamn Instapundit who sent people over here to ask the same question over and over.
The Drill Sgt - Bibi Netanyahu is a brilliant political strategist and understand the American mind. He knows that if Obama is tanking domestically that gives him very little leverage to pressure Israel into unilateral concessions. I'd be much more scared if it were an incompetent like Olmert still in charge over there.
The constraints on my time are such that I can not stay fully versed in all things Althouse. However, I will now go read the posted link.
Alex, good point. In fact today is a bit of a repeat of the 30's. The delusions from that era are no doubt still with us today among many. One good example: Massive govt. meddling, make work jobs, experimentation and govt. takeover and/or direction of industry saved the country. when in truth it made the depression last more than a decade".
To my defense though, I was not alive in the 30's and never saw it. I said I thought I would never see it. History does though repeat. I was wrong. I just hope it is corrected sooner this time. I am not optimistic. Perhaps when they start teaching economics in high school I will be optimistic again.
Minn Mark... Why does this good natured and slightly arrogant affirmatve action promoted Black Man seek to destablize Mexico by fighting to install a Communist Revolutionary Dictatorship on its southern border? And why does he aim to create an alliance with Iran at Israel's expense? And why does he demand the USA forever give up on cheap energy supplies Unilaterally for a known fraud? And why does he pull out all the stops to start Government Rationing everybody's access to a doctor and medical treatments? Only intent and a will to destroy explains that many acts of destruction.
Synova said:
"Obama is just doing what I expected Obama to do domestically and it doesn't worry me over much because it has the potential to be enough of a shock to the system that there is more of a chance NOW, in my opinion, for some real push back than would ever have happened with a continual slow creep forward in spending, debt, and ubiquitous government interference in our lives."
That is exactly the way I view things. I feel the American people actually have the poltical class on the run. They are stating to show fear that we have caught on to their kibuki acts.
Republicans better not get too comfy and fall back to their old ways.
"It's important to remember what a horrific candidate McCain was, people, "
He really was.
He wouldn't have made the foreign policy mistakes, though.
But he was a terrible candidate.
why you voted for him in the first place?
Althouse chose Obama because he was the cool Apple dude. McCain was the old white PC guy.
Another point, following AJ: also remember, people, what a giant kick in the ass the Republicans needed in 2008. They were governing like Democrats by 2006, fat and lazy on the federal teat.
Nothing like losing to focus the mind.
Hopefully his overreach, hubris and arrogance will trip him up when his admin's criminal activities finally catch up with him and we may finally see a guilty president actually removed in an impeachment. I truly believe it may happen.
We will never seen the first black president removed from office by impeachment. In much the same way that our society is nowhere near being ready, mentally (physical abilities aside), for women and men together in close combat units, there is no way in hell this is going to happen. There aren't enough people in power with enough backbone and lack of liberal guilt.
Ann,
Does this count as an apology for voting to make America into Yeswecanistan?
Obama misread the election results. He also projected his adoring/worshipping crowds from 2008 onto the rest of the people who voted for him. He doesn't seem to get it yet. I wonder if it will take his approval rating going down to his core base to finally get it like being hit in the head with a 2x4.
President McCain was indeed a very scary option, but the same idiots that helped BHO win also refused to take the actions against McCain that would have kept him in a box. For instance, starting in January 2008, I urged people to go ask him about a staffer who used to be a top official with the Mexican government. Malkin also urged people to go ask about that. While some did ask McCain, they didn't do it the right way. If even just one person had really pressed him on that, it could have helped keep him in a box.
Those of you who don't like BHO should take a close look at what your leaders do, and whether they're suggesting effective things or not. For instance, engaging a politician in debate is about a million times more effective than waving loopy signs on streetcorners, yet the latter is almost all your leaders suggest you do. They're just demagogues, trying to whip you into a frenzy in order to support their entertainment careers or the like.
Interesting article by economist Robert Samuelson: The Squandered Stimulus:
"WASHINGTON -- It's not surprising that the much-ballyhooed "economic stimulus" hasn't done much stimulating. President Obama and his aides argue that it's too early to expect startling results. They have a point. A $14 trillion economy won't revive in a nanosecond. But the defects of the $787 billion package go deeper and won't be cured by time. The program crafted by Obama and the Democratic Congress wasn't engineered to maximize its economic impact. It was mostly a political exercise, designed to claim credit for any recovery, shower benefits on favored constituencies and signal support for fashionable causes."
Read the whole thing.
I think "honesty" in American politics might be translated by the press as-
stupidity.
Obama as a Progressive sold change which would by necessity break with the past, with the developed mode of doing things, and would be by definition novel, abstract and complicated.
That Obama could at length-{and it is always "at length"} communicate and sell America these ideas he was by default-considered more intelligent.
Republicans when they speak of the American Experience, incremental change and not tossing out tradition by extension always will have a "simpler message" which effectively by the media is translated to-
simple=stupid.
One way for Republicans and their few media friends to counter that would be to paint someone that believes they have all the best and newest ideas-that not much of the past is worth salvaging as arrogant.
Liberal, progressive=Arrogant.
Unfortunately it is obvious in which way the scales are tipped and-
Arrogant won.
I can see that a lot of you would rather indulge in recriminations, rage and retaliations instead of forgiveness. In the larger scheme of things we NEED Meade/Althouse types if were are going to restore sanity to government. Berating them doesn't accomplish anything.
Do we really need Meade? Isn't he just the luckiest hanger-on?
Obama will be the last black President in my lifetime. After this debacle, no one will ever beleive that any black Presidential candidate is not a closet Maoist looking for racial payback.
I really hope people don't see Obama's failure as a black thing, despite the fact that his election so clearly was a self-congratulatory black thing by so many.
That's not reality. The reality is that it's an inexperienced, bookish, leftist thing.
Jim -- She explained it all around the election.
What did she say?
It was that goddamn Instapundit who sent people over here to ask the same question over and over.
What's the answer?
Seven Machos said - . . . . also remember, people, what a giant kick in the ass the Republicans needed in 2008.
I disagree. That "needed" kick in the ass happened in 2006. By and large, in 2008 those repubs left in office were farther from Bush than most democrats, who loved that lameduck because they could irresponsibly control the purse and blame him for his fiscal recklessness.
There was, of course, that final 2008 kick in the ass from "Hammerin' Hank" Paulson. McCain didn't know what hit him then, and probably still doesn't.
Come on, Jim. It's in the archives. I'm not necessarily defending it. A lot of it was twaddle as I recall. I just think it's not fair to ask for a rehash.
Speculating on the GOP 2010-2012 campaign themes...
How about "Return to Normalcy." I think we have had enough with "spreading democracy" "dynamic government" and "change." What we really need is a boring government that stays small and doesn't mess anything up. We need a boring government that doesn't pass any new laws and tries to balance budgets.
Where is Calvin Coolidge when we need him.
John -- Do you not agree that the Republicans of 2008 were inept and bereft of any disciplined message?
Here's an easy test: what was the Republican message of 2008? Was there one?
Come on, Jim. It's in the archives.
Where? What terms should I search for? Is there a particular date it appeared on? I'm asking because I don't know.
Alex -
"In the larger scheme of things we NEED Meade/Althouse types if were are going to restore sanity to government. Berating them doesn't accomplish anything."
I agree...to a point. In much the same way a parent must discipline a child who has erred. First, you point out the error. Second, you must give them the room to make an apology. Then third, and perhaps most importantly, you ask the all important question: "What are you going to do to make up for it?"
It's important to teach children that mere words do not suffice when someone has wronged another person. You must also do your best to make that person whole again. If you broke their lamp, then it is up to you to do your best to replace it, etc.
My only question to those who voted for Obama is:
"Great. I'm glad that you've recognized your mistake. Now what are you going to do about it?"
And per your post, once the issue is past, then you once again take the child into a warm embrace and remind them that although you deplore what they did, you are proud of them for being responsible enough to admit they were wrong, and that you never stopped loving them even when they were.
[Not to imply that our hostess is a child, but the principle holds nonetheless.]
"That's not reality. The reality is that it's an inexperienced, bookish, leftist thing."
Just so.
The Obama administration is a total disaster and its barely even begun. When the 1982 recession hit and ended the future looked bright. The future was lower interest rates and lower inflation.
The end to this recession is the opposite - higher inflation and higher interest rates. What a disaster. Obama has F*#cked America for decades.
Sloan -- Wasn't that Taft?
How about: lower taxes, balanced budgets, and restored American pride at home and abroad.
I write too much shit for free, for both sides. Republican lackeys: please contact me in these pages if you would like to stop being so bereft of a message.
Re: Those who read Althouse's original post as a mea culpa for her vote last election need to re-read the post. She said the sentiment was written for her by Meade; she didn't say that she agreed with it; she did say that it was "inevitable" that she would eventually post on "how Obama lost her" -- but that's NOT this post. Nor do I think it's fair to read into her post that Obama has lost her now; Althouse may simply anticipate that, like all politicians, eventually he'll do enough she disagrees with for her to reject him. The most we can fairly read into her post is that Althouse found Meade's comment entertaining and worthy of front page treatment.
So, all the snark about "How'd it take you so long to see the truth?" is misplaced. She may have recognized all of the faults many now claim to have seen in Obama before the election; she still might have voted Obama despite that knowledge because she didn't like McCain. Or, she might not acknowledge that the faults many see in Obama are faults at all. Or, she might agree Obama has faults, but still believes he was the better choice. Etc. She hasn't admitted she was wrong, so it's at best premature to wonder aloud why it took so long for her to admit the obvious.
John -
"After this debacle, no one will ever beleive that any black Presidential candidate is not a closet Maoist looking for racial payback."
Unfortunately for this country, that will probably be the impression of many.
However, I would remind you that there are several up-and-coming conservative blacks who might one day also stand for the office. I heard one speak at a recent Tea Party, and if continued to espouse the principles he spoke of that day I would be proud to cast my vote for him - regardless of the color of his skin.
I think this post is a trial balloon. She's sticking her toe in the water to see how it feels.
Jim - I don't think alluding to Meade/Althouse as children is going to help matters. It's patent disrespect and we must be rise above it.
David Walser - yes I would prefer a more definitive statement from Althouse. I mean what the fuck more does she need to be convinced that Obama MUST be opposed?
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2008/11/how-mccain-lost-me.html
"What are the liberal principles?"
The principles that brought us the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the end of slavery in America, suffrage for women and blacks, and the passage of the Civil Rights Act, among other things. Everything about America that was good derived from its liberal foundation, while all that was and is dark in America derives from its reactionary id. Liberal principles and thought brought humankind out of the dark ages, and it is the resurgence of oligarchies and the reactionaries who love them that are taking us back.
Thank you, masked man!
Robert -- Tell us more about the war on terror is illegal. Come on. What's the law? What's the code say?
Why the strange silence. It's like you know you are full of shit or something.
Alex -
"Jim - I don't think alluding to Meade/Althouse as children is going to help matters. It's patent disrespect and we must be rise above it."
If you read all the way through the post, you would see that I explicitly did not characterize Ann as a child. It was merely an analogy to illustrating the proper way to deal with someone who has admitted a wrong. I was buttressing your argument, so I think you need to re-read my post.
"I heard one (a black conservative) speak at a recent Tea Party, and if continued to espouse the principles he spoke of that day I would be proud to cast my vote for him - regardless of the color of his skin."
How big of you.
It's only illegal when Bush was in office. Now that Saint Zero is in there, it's all legal again.
Jim, just click the link at the start of this article.
Geeze.
"What are the liberal principles?"
"The principles that brought us the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the end of slavery in America, suffrage for women and blacks, and the passage of the Civil Rights Act, among other things."
In other words... Classical Liberalism.
That thing that has been abandoned by progressives, who always look to the next best new thing.
And is being *conserved* by conservatives, who hold on to what was good about the past and are unwilling to toss it all out just because something distracting and shiny-new flashed through their field of vision.
Jim - I did read your entire post. No matter what it comes off as utterly patronizing and I don't think Meade or Althouse would appreciate it. The answer right now is to simply say "thank god moderate Democrats are coming to their senses" and leave it at that.
Great point, Alex. So the bombings of Serbia and Iraq from 1992 to 2000 were legal. And that shit in Haiti and wherever in Africa. And today, right now, the de facto occupation of Iraq and the continued hot war in Afghanistan -- those are legal, too, right?
Robert? Paging Robert Cook...
Code citations, please.
Robert Cook -
You're speaking of classical liberal principles, not the principles of the average modern liberal.
If you are indeed a classical liberal as you suggest, then you are horrified by Obama's government takeover of the private sector, his abandonment of the Iranian protesters, and his attempts to re-install a wannabe dictator for life in Honduras.
I'll anxiously await your outraged condemnation of all the illiberal policies that Obama espouses.
Or are you just a Leftist trying to hide behind a liberal label?
Jim, just click the link at the start of this article.
Geeze.
I did, and it went to the comment in a post about Biden. Please don't be cross with me.
I'm more of a liberal then Robert Cook or Jeremy could ever hope to be. I believe in MLK "content of one's character, then the color of one's skin" then they believe. They are the ones who stand for racial quotas which is anathema to true liberals.
"It's only illegal when Bush was in office. Now that Saint Zero is in there, it's all legal again."
If you're referring to our terror wars in the mid-east, they're still illegal, and Obama joins Bush as a war criminal.
If Obama can't read the numbers on the spreadsheet, then he is a complete idiot and unqualified to be the president.
If he can read the numbers, and he wants to forge ahead anyway, then he is a dangerous maniac.
Here's a "liberal" principle....
Protection of the individual against majority rule. Protection of the *minority* either racial, religious, or political, from being subject to majority opinion.
This has been abandoned by the "left" as illustrated by a President who automatically supports "majority rule" and the right of majority opinion to nullify the constitution of an entire Nation.
Alex -
Do you disagree with the thrust of my post which is that mere words of regret are insufficient? That only actions which show an earnest contrition matter?
You can disagree with my parent-child analogy all you like. But are you satisfied with mere words?
If not, then you and I agree, and you're essentially picking nits. If so, then I would argue that you are far too easily satisfied.
What U.S. law makes any war the U.S. has funded illegal, Robert?
Please educate us with your obviously superior knowledge of federal law.
Okay, all that explained why one would avoid voting for McCain. It still doesn't explain why one would vote for Obama.
Jim - I know it's a bad analogy but if I were a concentration camp victim, I'd just be happy that I was liberated and alive. I'd not have as my first priority berating the Allies why didn't they bomb the rail lines?
And we've hit reductio concentration campum!
Apparently any Democrat who continued voting for Iraq/Afghanistan funding is a war criminal by Robert Cook's "logic". This guy is funny, but not in a Titus titillating way.
And we've hit reductio concentration campum!
7/20/09 2:22 PM
It was only a matter of time before Godwin invaded this thread.
Robert is hilarious to me. He continues to insist that wars are illegal, yet he is unable and unwilling to cite any law that says so.
I guess what illegal means is "illegal in Robert World."
In Seven Machos World, there's a flat tax and a highly limited federal government. Anything else is illegal.
Yeah, I'm not sure what the "McCain post" explains, either.
If you're referring to our terror wars in the mid-east, they're still illegal, and Obama joins Bush as a war criminal.
Cookie's posts always remind me of the mental state of Dr. Ray Stanz when he just realized he chose the Stay Puft Marshmellow Man as the Destructor.
I think in Althouse-world she wants the perfectly pragmatic President who never panders to an extremist base. But reality is otherwise, it confused poor Althouse.
"Great point, Alex. So the bombings of Serbia and Iraq from 1992 to 2000 were legal. And that shit in Haiti and wherever in Africa. And today, right now, the de facto occupation of Iraq and the continued hot war in Afghanistan -- those are legal, too, right?"
Bill Clinton is no less a war criminal than Bush or Obama.
Of course Hillary would have been better on a policy level, but no one would have admitted it if she had won. The media would have keened and wailed for the lost fantasy 24/7.
The Clintons do know how to wonk. They understand the system on a programming level which leads to pragmatism burbling forth on occasion.
With two Ivy League law degrees, the Obamas couldn't pay off their student loans until their 40s and only then with help from Rezko and a corrupt system. What does that tell you? When they very belatedly started investing post-book $, they invested in munis - so they won't pay the taxes they are levying on private industry and private investment.
McCain (for whom I voted with regrets) would have been awful on economics as well, but *less actively so*. Palin would have had a platform to stress practical Energy Independence rather than Kewl Energy. (Not that I have anything against Kewl Energy, but back it up with nukes and traditional development because Kewlness is sporadic - ask Europe with its long time Wind Energy program.)
If/when we get out of this in a long term way, it will be because of the people on the ground coming up with creative new ideas to create value, not because the government provided a stop gap for those in pain or kept pumping blood into a fatty, diseased heart. Those are emergency measures- in this metaphore mixed with the less than pure motives of also buying the doctor a new vacation home in the process.
On the bright side, you can now find a contractor w/o an attitude. And Obama retains one of his main strengths, which was to make kissy face with The World.
Re principles, there is a candidate for Congress, Jesse Kelly, who has these on his website:
Limited Government
Fiscal Sanity
Free Market Solutions.
I would add Adequate Safety Net and Enforce Existing Laws.
In Seven Machos World, Bush, Clinton, and Obama are all tax criminals, government growth criminals, or both.
They will all be hanged at noon.
Hard to believe that Cookie still resides in Amerikkka, what with our constantly engaging in illegal wars of aggression.
You'd think he might go someplace more law-abiding, like North Korea or Burma, if it bothers him so much.
At least dtl had the decency to emigrate.
Alex -
"I'd not have as my first priority berating the Allies why didn't they bomb the rail lines?"
Which was exactly the point of my post. Using the parent-child analogy was an illustration that accepting an apology in no way includes berating someone after they have admitted error. That's an act of someone who demands "satisfaction" not someone who is looking for true contrition.
The exemplar was a way to ground that message in reality rather than speaking abstractly. If you'll notice, I ended the example with "take the child into a warm embrace and remind them that although you deplore what they did, you are proud of them for being responsible enough to admit they were wrong, and that you never stopped loving them even when they were."
So you'll have to point out to me where I was advocating berating people.
I don't understand why people think the President of the United States has any significant control over the economy. The current problems are a result of issues dating back for many years. Bush didn't deserve much of the blame, and the problems we currently face have little to do with Obama.
I am against the narcotic stimulus money at this point, because I don't see getting any real benefit.
Obama has sent Hillary Clinton overseas to apologize because the US has destroyed the planet.
Pass the aspirin please.
Elections have consequences, often irreversible ones.
The economy will get a bounce eventually during his first term. I don't think even he can't prevent at least a dead cat bounce. Short term he is a negative, long term he is a disaster.
Just as a very personal example of the Obama effect: I and people I know have money we wish to invest in some profit making enterprises, but currently will not take the risk with this guy running rampant. Therefore, many people will not be employed, and our little bit of the economy will rot rather than flourish. Multiply my personal story by a million and you understand the problem. Many people simply do not understand why they have a job. Too bad...for everyone.
I don't understand why people think the President of the United States has any significant control over the economy..
I do think they have the ability to trash it, and if we remain on our present course it will be truely awful five years from now.
Saul -- Bullshit. Glass-Steagall's repeal and numerous other banking depregulations led to this mess. So has the enormous debt. So has a monetary policy that has been too easy for too long. Far too long.
On the flip side, free trade agreements helped perpetuate an economic boom.
Government can and does affect economics. Anyone who tells you differently is a hopeless libertarian or, currently, an Obama apologist.
Obama just took open ownership of this economy. He apparently thinks he can control the outcome. Another deluded fool. At least Reagan and Bush 43 understood their limits.
Saul -
"I don't understand why people think the President of the United States has any significant control over the economy."
The President (along with Congress) has the power to control the business environment. For example, they created the housing crisis (the precipitating factor for the recession) by basically mandating that banks make bad loans. Absent government interference, the "housing bubble" would not have existed.
On the flip side, Bush encouraged economic activity by reducing the government penalties (taxes and burdensome regulations) for business activity. As a result, the economy grew for the vast majority of Bush's tenure in the White House.
Obama has taken that equation and turned it on its head. The massive borrowing required to finance the stimulus bill and his other domestic priorities have increased interest rates and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future, he violated bankruptcy laws and created an uncertain credit marketplace with the takeovers of GM and Chrysler, he is proposing massive new regulatory schemes which discourage business activity, and businesses are afraid to hire because of potential new expenses associated with a government takeover of the healthcare industry.
So Obama created the current environment with his policies, and if his future plans are enacted they will prolong the recession and prevent the marketplace from doing its work.
Yes, but it is such an HISTORIC Presidency. Well, see you all in hell, everybody. Barn door and all that...
It's going to be a long three years.
And now, by the way, to everybody who just wanted to elect a black man President: you have set that cause back a hundred years. See if people ever get their liberal heart strings tangled in that particular knot again. Maybe they'll stop thinking with their tear ducts, and start listening to the goddamned candidate himself when he practically promises to destroy our economy, alienate our allies and coddle our enemies.
Glad it's finally dawned on some people that we are boned, but I lost a lot of respect for a lot of people back in November, because of their intellectual dishonesty.
Korla - actually it could be a very LONG 3 years for left-wing Alinsky-ites and enjoyable for the rest of us. Imagine 3 years of a futile, floundering Obama with all bad news hurting only Democrats that entire time. Sure unemployment will hit some of us during that, but if we survive it 2013 promises to be very bright!
Seven - we were discussing "kick in the ass", not ineptitude. I agree, McCain was inept, however, the repubs up for re-election could not get much traction, nor get a coherent message out. Between the racial politics on the one hand, and the MSM-in-the-Obama-tank on the other, that shouldn't have been a surprise.
Ridiculous. McCain "lost" you during an election. "Lost" you to someone else, that someone else was Obama.
I guess Obama "lost" you to whom? Palin/Huckabee 2012? I await hearing how that ticket looses you in November of that year and you end up voting for Obama again.
alex -
Some wise words from Reagan which Obama would do well to heed:
"The problem is not that people are taxed too little, the problem is that government spends too much."
"Approximately 80% of our air pollution stems from hydrocarbons released by vegetation, so let's not go overboard in setting and enforcing tough emission standards from man-made sources."
"Concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty."
"Entrepreneurs and their small enterprises are responsible for almost all the economic growth in the United States. "
"Facts are stubborn things. "
"Government always finds a need for whatever money it gets. "
"Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them."
There are far too many to list them all, but this country would be far better off if Obama had bought tapes of Reagan's speeches to practice his oratory than those of Rev. Wright.
but if we survive it 2013 promises to be very bright!.
Sure, if things go as many of us think, Obama will be unelectable in 2012, but as to the future being bright, that will only happen if the Republican candidate can fart and chew gum at the same time (i.e. he may get elected, but will we want him?)
I don't understand why people think the President of the United States has any significant control over the economy.
Well through setting national policy they certainly can have an effect on it. Let’s put it this way, the Fed had a lot more to do with creating the environment that led to the credit crisis such as reducing interest rates to the point the economy was flush with cheap dollars. Neither Clinton or Bush had the foresight or the advisors to tell them that this was nothing more than the creation of yet another financial bubble that was going to burst with even worse consequences than the dot com bust. Put it another way, Bush whistled past the graveyard while the economy was hurtling down a dead end track. Now Obama is actively pursuing an economic policy that will mire us in so much debt that we will never be able to get out from under.
We are at $11 trillion in national debt, not counting the Medicare/SS oblifgations which are projected to exceed $70 trillion (that’s more than the GDP of the planet folks) and Admiral Obama is just damning the torpedos and just charging a national credit card that is about to get cut up by China. And when that happens we will have become Zimbabwe.
I know I am the national debt bore but this should be so blindingly obvious that even Stevie Wonder should be shading his eyes. The US savings rate is at an all time high because John Q Citizen has the sense to 1) Cut spending and 2) Save money in a time of economic downturn. Yet our very intelligent Harvard educated well spoken President along with the other geniuses in government think it’s perfectly sensible to spend our way out of bankruptcy. You know it’s a sad state of affairs when you hear Obama and Biden making these kinds of statements and they’re real quotes on appearing on CNN and not The Onion.
UWS reminds me of Al Queda dead-enders laughing right before the bunker buster hits.
Ms. Althouse -
We are only about a half year into President Obama's administration. I remember that somebody named Althouse made several arguements in support of voting for then candidate Obama. I remember one post in particular. A post on 1/22/09. The crux of that post follows:
"By contrast [with President Bush], the entire plan to bring Obama into office depended on the glorification of the man, whose actual experience was so bizarrely limited that it took some nerve to claim to be ready. Magic was required. The cult grew up not as he held power and needed to respond to a crisis. The cult was the campaign to bring him into power. It depended on our projecting all sorts of hopes and dreams onto him, and he knew it. Inside, he may have felt embarrassed by the whole enterprise, but he'd figured out that it could work, and he was right. Now, I think this worked because he really is a solid, normal person who remained grounded in the middle of all this craziness. And I like to think that, now that he's President, with his steely nerve, his intelligence, and his groundedness, he'll do the job that must be done. The trickery is over."
Of course that post was written by you. The best part is where you mention President Obama's "steely nerve" and his "groundedness".
Do you still think that President Obama's steely nerve, intelligence, and groundedness are sufficient to make him a good president? Has the President's lack of experience in just about every aspect of national government and international affairs affected his job performance in the first six months?
At any event, It appears you have come to regret your vote in the last election. If that is the case I applaud your candidness and your good sense, if somewhat belated.
Doug Santo
Pasadena, CA
Original Mike has the answer.
Presidents and Congress can screw the economy up, but they cant really make it better.
Presidents on the other hand, get the credit or blame when things happen.
The Problem with Obama's first legislative victories (Stimulus and Budget 2009) is that both drive up deficits and put in place unsustainable entitlements that are hard to back out of spending later.
Then here are the executive decisions like the TARP and auto bailout and various EPA decrees that scare the markets and call into question very settled laws on bankrupcy and fiduciary responsibility. Those decisions will have long term negative impacts.
The fact is California is the canary in the coal mine. America always follows CA's lead. They are massively cutting government programs, so shall it be on the federal level. Nothing Zero can do to stop history.
The President usually gets too much credit in a good economy and too much blame in a bad one.
But all the uncertainty Obama is introducing, with more taxes, more regulation, more nationalization, higher costs to business for even having employees - is exactly a recipe for killing whatever recovery there would have been, absent his radical policies.
He's going to be like FDR, alright - keep experimenting with bad policy & regulations, keep making business the boogeyman, and what might have been a deep, but typical-length, recession can turn into a decade-long economic disaster. Add in: continued wild spending for unproductive purposes (i.e., payback for campaign support), and borrowing beyond our means, and when the Chinese will no longer buy our debt - it's hello, Zimbabwe for our economy.
BTW they said that "the people of CA would never stand for any cuts in social services". So much for that. If it can happen in liberal utopia of CA, it will happen across the nation.
avwh - no need for hyperbole. America has many rungs to fall before reaching Zimbabwe. I'd worry more about becoming like Germany.
alex -
"BTW how can there be such a discrepancy between Rasmussen and CBS/ABC/Gallup polls?"
I just saw your previous post. One answer is that they are polling different groups of people. Rasmussen is only polling "likely voters" because, in reality, if you're not going to vote who really cares what you think? You're completely irrelevant.
The others polls either "adults" or "registered voters" which are meaningless numbers. Non-voting adults might matter if you simply want to find out what everybody in the office thinks of the latest personnel policy, but it's only management ("actual voters") who ultimately count.
This is one of the reasons why Rasmussen came out far ahead of their competitors in the 2008 election accuracy. Because conservative adults are more likely to actually vote than liberal adults (because liberal adults include many 18-30 year olds who are quite loud on the internet but are noticeably absent at the ballot box), all polls of "adults" or "registered voters" will always favor the liberal result.
A typical post over at Hot Air:
Centrist Democrats are like Nessie, the loch ness monster.
Few have seen one.
massrighty on July 20, 2009 at 3:48 PM
They can be found in the same habitat as moderate muslims.
Cicero43 on July 20, 2009 at 3:54 PM
Man, those people just look a gift horse in the mouth. They are such rabid right-wing ideologues they can't fathom how we need to learn to get along with different factions.
would have voted for Obama simply because he wasn't a Boomer.
McCain definitely isn't a boomer (born in 1937).
Barack is a boomer by most definitions. Born in 1961.
Ann made the simple mistake of believing what a politician said to get elected with no other corroborating evidence, NONE. Such a personnel decision would get someone fired in the real world.
Love ya Ann, but I'm just saying: maybe you couldn't face voting against the first black president because of the color of his skin and yours. I'm trying to be generous.
America always follows CA's lead. They are massively cutting government programs, so shall it be on the federal level..
There's one huge difference. The Feds can print money, CA can't. What this means is that the Feds can drive us into a much deeper hole before the chickens come home to roost.
Original Mike - yeah that's true the Feds can continue printing money. But once the inflation demon rises up, even that will not be available any longer. I can hope that sanity will prevail before inflation reaches 10%.
@Alex - I remember the early 80s well. I've always said, if I ever see bonds at 13% again, I was going to buy me a mess of 'em. I think I'm going to get my chance.
@Duncan
Perhaps I should rephrase. Obama was too young to be a part of the radicalized left, and the respondent evangelical right, that grew out of the late sixties.
It doesn't really matter. He ended up being radical all on his little lonesome.
I'm totally with Robert Cook on this war criminal stuff. Continuing:
Bush I: invasion of Iraq = war criminal
Reagan: occupation of Lebanon = war criminal
Carter: Invaded Iran without decl. of war = war criminal
Nixon: Bombed Cambodia (nearly hitting John Kerry) = war criminal
Johnson: illegal war in VN = war criminal
This is fun!
Kennedy: V.N. buildup Plus Bay of Pigs = double war criminal
Eisenhower: Supported Morganthau, yet stalled on invasion of Germany = double crimes against humanity
Truman: dropped the "bomb" = Ultimate war criminal
Roosevelt (the sainted one): interred Japanese Americans, developed the "bomb" = crimes against humanity
Hoover: Wall street crash, food lines = crimes against the working man.
Coolidge - appointed JE Hoover head of FBI = crimes against America.
I guess I could keep going. Lincoln boggles the mind.
I guess Dennis Kucinich is the ultimate anti war criminal, given his current position as head of "The Department of Peace"...
I take Ann at her word that Obama really has lost her. Megan McCardle on the other hand I have no doubt will come up with some whiney thumb sucking excuse to support Obama in 2012. Oh he is just so dreamy and those Republicans are icky.
@John
Truman: dropped the "bomb" = Ultimate war criminal
oooooo...that's a fun one. I'll go toe-to-toe with anyone that really, honestly believes that.
Megan McCardle will trail Althouse by 3 months. Just you wait and see.
Boy, what a surprise that Althouse is having her "How Obama Lost Me" Instalanche moment.
Some of us predicting this back when Althouse anounced she'd vote for Obama after spending the campaign mostly attcking Obama and defending Palin. I viewed it as a blog strategy. So when she spent the next 4 years attacking Obama, she could always say, "Hey, but I voted for him and wanted to give him a chance!"
Look, my region (Northeast Ohio) has been in economic crisis since well before Obama was sworn in. And our infrastructure has been in shambles for many years. Anyone remember the massive black out a few years ago (I was without water for days, too), during which I went to one of the few stores with a generator and found shoppers literall fighting each other for the last bottles of water? There's a bridge on Interstate 90 in Cleveland that they are scrambling to keep from collapsing like that brdge did in MN. They did this deserpate move recently where they had to move the bridge several inches to keep it from falling, while they ready plans for a new bridge. Why did it take so long?
The previous administration got us into economic crisis and severely damaged America's reputation in foreign relations. I will give Obama at leas until about 2010 before I start making conclusions on how his policies are working out in dealing with the horrible mess he inherited.
Alex, [re: enema]
HAR! HA HA HA HA HA.
Oh, boy. * breathes * Thanks for the one good belly laugh in this whole thread.
"...liberal utopia of CA...."
???
California is among the most conservative of states, San Franciso aside.
Oaf:
You do know the MN bridge collapsed due to a design flaw?
California is among the most conservative of states, San Franciso aside..
Of course it is. How else do you explain it voting for McCain, people?
Again, I don't care who Althouse voted for. Unless you think she is infallible, why should anyone?
She makes a decsion and provides her reasoning like any thinking person. You don't have to agree with it.
Robert Cook has apparently cooked his brains.
Robert Cook - thank you for the belly laugh. Yeah that was a good one!
Obama is the culmination of the failure of a long line of leftwing ideas and principles, starting perhaps in the 1930s or even earlier. You can date his failure to FDR's (in)famous 1935 speech where he declared, "Tax and Spend, Tax and Spend, Elect and Elect!" Ghosts of Conservatives Past are rising up from their graves to point a boney finger and intone ominously, "SEE I TOLD YOU SO."
There is nothing specifically wrong with Obama. He's a fairly conventional, oportunistic partisan hack. He's not a Machiavelli nor is he an economic dunce. He's very good at reading from a Teleprompter and, being an Empty Suit, has no strong convictions of his own. He joined Wright's church because it was politically advantageous to him, not because he believed any of Wright's rants. He voted as he was told by the Chicago Machine again not because he believed in anything they said but because it was expected of him. He had no clear ambition or personal reason for becoming President except perhaps to be the first Black President.
He has no goal and certainly no vision. If there's a plan to turn the US into a New World version of the EU complete with socialism and parasitism it's his advisors who dream of that. If he looks like he's looting the Treasury it's because there's another group behind him pushing for that. All he's doing is blowing in the wind his backers create. Now that he's President he's running through the checklist of leftwing projects they've given him and is checking those off, one by one. If health care "reform" and/or cap-and-trade fail I doubt he'll lose any sleep over it. Just sitting at the Big Desk in the Oval Office is all he ever aimed for.
What I'm actually alarmed about is Honduras.
What can that man have been thinking!
You bring up an interesting point Synova. When the Dems fail to bring about "change" in health care socialism will they decide that the current system is no longer palatable to liberal ideas and instead start moving for something like a consitutitonal convention to change our form of government.
I live in central california. People who get all their news from Glenn Beck and Hannity's America think California is some socialist haven.
Bunch of Yokols in the flyover states think they know what happens or what life is like in the Golden State.
Ya'll fuck livestock and marry you're sister out east right? 'cause that's what I read on huffington post.
AJ Lynch - I don't really care who Althouse voted, what I care is that she opposes Obama now.
LoafingOaf,
If your house is on fire, and some ass starts pouring gasoline on it, I hope you wouldn't just wait and see how that works out because after all he didn't start the fire.
Some of us are just yelling: PUT DOWN THE DAMN GAS CAN!
Ya'll fuck livestock and marry you're sister out east right? 'cause that's what I read on huffington post.
7/20/09 3:34 PM
I so wish blogger.com had an ignore feature just about now...
You fucking luddite moron it does.
I notice our resident trolls don't have much to say on this. Even they're feeling depressed!
"The previous administration (...) severely damaged America's reputation in foreign relations."
Only with the kewl kids.
He did quite well in Africa and in India. And while Obama might get a tingle from Chavez liking him, I don't see trying so hard to get along with him, or Syria or Iran as a *good* thing. The haters STILL hate us and always will....
And that leaves... who?
That Bush so ruined our foreign relations rests on an unsupportable assumption that 1) it's desirable to be liked, and 2) we used to *be* liked.
I've lived in CA most of my life and there is nothing conservative about it as a state. Plenty of conservative people, but the power is all in liberal hands and has been long enough to perfectly demonstrate the effect.
"I notice our resident trolls don't have much to say on this. Even they're feeling depressed!"
Jeremey showed up to say na na na na. And that was about it. The liberal response to criticism of Obama comes in a couple of varieties
1. It is Bush's fault.
2. Bush was worse
3. How dare someone who supported Bush say anything critical about Obama and of course
4. At least Bush isn't President anymore.
The fundamental difference between left-wingers and most of us(I think) is that they worship a politician like Obama and we are clear-eyed realists about ALL politicians, including Reagan. I love Reagan, but he could have done more on spending, been less harsh on Israel and handled the Iran-Contra thing better. No politician deserves to be worshiped.
Bush was president for 8 months before 9/11 happened, but nobody blames him, oh no.
If the sub-prime and the wall-street and Afghanistan going to shit all happened today Obama would still have one less month in office that Chimpy McBushHitler.
Bush was president for 8 months before 9/11 happened, but nobody blames him, oh no.
He didn't pay attention to memos that indicated young Arab men were planning to take over airliners, so yeah does deserve blame.
If the sub-prime and the wall-street and Afghanistan going to shit all happened today Obama would still have one less month in office that Chimpy McBushHitler.
Nobody is saying that Obama caused the current mess - but he is doing nothing to improve the climate. IN fact he's doing everything to worsen it by all these socialistic measures. Oh and your little snark at Bush is duly noted. So trollerific.
The irony is that the more it looks like Obama's policies are going to fail passing Congress and the less damage that it seems that Obama is going to be able to inflict on the economy....the more the markets will go up.
Obama's policies pass----market down
Obama Fails-----markets will go up.
But here IS the irony. As the markets go up Obama will claim that he is responsible for the rising markets. He will be right, but in a back asward way.
DBQ - there is no way the economy will improve in time to prevent huge Dem losses in 2010. Of course if the economy improves by 2012 enough Obama could pull a "Clinton" and just go with the flow the rest of his career... Either he loses in 2012 or becomes like Bill Clinton. Either way, America survives.
"Bush was president for 8 months before 9/11 happened, but nobody blames him, oh no."
Well... I don't blame him.
But I hardly think that *nobody* blames him. The (relatively) sane ones figure he ignored clear intelligence information so it's his fault anyway. The insane insist that he spent 8 months wiring the world trade centers with explosives, figuring out how to disappear four aircraft full of passengers, blow up the Pentagon, all in order to manufacture a war to punish Saddam for trying to have his dad killed.
In response to this the (relatively) sane ones felt that opposing Bush was more important than giving someone like "fire never melted steel" O'Donnel the shunning and smack-down she and people like her deserved.
Bill Clinton was one of the very *very* FEW who spoke up and denounced this sort of thing as obscene.
I suppose, because he had nothing whatsoever *political* to gain by tolerating it.
What's sad to me is that no matter how badly Obama fucks everything up, my neighbor will not remove that "OBAMA" etching in his car. A truly deluded idiot.
Synova - I'm pining for the Bill Clinton "glory days" of the 90s. What a paradise on earth that was!
And on que UWS guy proves my point. I get results.
DBQ - there is no way the economy will improve in time to prevent huge Dem losses in 2010. Of course if the economy improves by 2012 enough Obama could pull a "Clinton" and just go with the flow the rest of his career... Either he loses in 2012 or becomes like Bill Clinton. Either way, America survives.
Oh. I agree. It is going to be at least 5 years before we can recover from the damage that Obama has done. Probably never for the auto industry and related manufacturing subsidiaries.
I think 2010 we will see a change in Republicans taking over some seats and a more conservative Blue Dog Democrat presence. People are not liking this extreme socialistic leftward tilt. People are really really not like this mad RUSH to get bills passed that haven't been vetted.
As to America surviving. I have my doubts. What damage that Obama has done is not easily reversed. It isn't like we can just erase these massive spending programs and gigantic deficits. When in the history of the US Government have they EVER reversed an entitlement program or eliminated unnecessary wasteful spending once it is in place. These things take on their own life.
The US Dollar is in the tank and getting worse. It is likely that we will no longer be the currency of choice in a year or so. We will have to beg other countries to buy our debt and price the coupon through the roof to get them to take the risk. High taxes are driving businesses out of the country and driving those who can't move out of business. Once you start a downward spiral like this one it is very hard to stop.
Obama has screwed us into the ground for years to come. Maybe generations.
I think my 5 years is an optimistic figure.
We're all going to DIE!
Well, duh.
Alex - you fail to appreciate the enduring attraction of the BDS. I think, as does UWS, that it will still propel the Bush haters (Obama worshipers) to the polls in sufficient numbers in 2010.
I figure we still got about 2 more years good mileage out of blaming Bush for everything.
john - BDS affliction is only among the left-wing base. I don't think swing-voters are afflicted with BDS. 2008 was more about hopeychangey wishful thinking. Are you saying Althouse is BDS-afflicted?
I noticed our trolls have been reduced to un-witty one-liners that are total non-sequitors of the conversation we're having.
Humm, somehow it would seem that pulling a Sullivan of selecting and pasting in a "Writes for Me" comment doesn't seem to do it.
I'm looking forward to a more cogent and detailed post from Althouse on this seachange. Otherwise it becomes the sort of post a blogger hordes in the archives to point to when they say, "Hey, I admitted I was wrong. It's right here."
dbq -
"Obama has screwed us into the ground for years to come. Maybe generations. "
That all depends on whether or not the rest of his agenda survives. If his declining popularity (and that of the Democratic Party in general) kills off those policies then America will just need a little time to recover (given a proper downsizing of government at all levels which this economy may yet cause) and unleashing the ingenuity of the American entrepreneur.
We have surely been in worse spots and wound up thriving, but the first rule of finding yourself in a hole is to stop digging. The only question is if the American people are ready to take back the Democratic Party shovel yet.
Increasingly it looks like the answer is yes. But it's a long way from here to the next election....
john - BDS affliction is only among the left-wing base
That is who I was talking about. and the usual leftwing base trolls on here really have little to say. I think the reality of how badly Obama is messing up and how wildly unpopular he is going to make the Democratic party is starting to sink in.
We will have to beg other countries to buy our debt and price the coupon through the roof to get them to take the risk..
Isn't that a good thing, DBQ? Won't that put a stop to the borrowing like nothing else can?
Hillary would be doing, IMHO, the same as Obama about Honduras unless she felt it was advantageous to stand up for democratic principles. And, in her crowd that's doubtful.
Remember, Hillary's first and only concern is about her power, real or perceived.
Meanwhile, Honduran democracy probably will be lost to Chavez, Ortega, and Raul's pal Mel unless the Honduran people are helped in some way.
Thank goodness for our 2nd and 1st amendments; and cobblestone streets.
BTW, lost in all this is Hillary's cackling and a bunch of "I told you so" to anyone who will listen. She is so feeling vindicated right now.
Hillary told Zero - "Look I tried the single-payer thing in 1993-1994 and it blew up in our face, DON'T TRY THIS!!!!". But Zero isn't that smart.
DBQ:
Even if the stock market recovers, the positive effects will be felt by far fewer Americans because the average Joe has gotten out of the market due to rampant but rational fear.
My point is Obama won't get much of boost in the polls if the DOW goes up. But I could be wrong.
I'm looking forward to a more cogent and detailed post from Althouse on this seachange. Otherwise it becomes the sort of post a blogger hordes in the archives to point to when they say, "Hey, I admitted I was wrong. It's right here.".
Yeah, it has that feeling to me, too.
"Ortega told thousands of supporters here that he would seek a referendum to let “the people say if they want to reward or punish” their leaders with reelection.
His close leftist allies who have had rules changed enabling them to remain in power include presidents Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, Evo Morales in Bolivia and Rafael Correa in Ecuador.
In the last month President Manuel Zelaya in neighboring Honduras was ousted in a coup by his own military after seeking similar action."
http://www.qando.net/ has the link.
We've got a "liberal" President who does not see or even seem to comprehend the necessities of protecting freedom, of the ultimate dangers of rule-by-personalities, or the the foundation of anything resembling civil rights that is laid in constitutional term limits.
What *principle* is it that leads "liberals" to support central American despots who suppress political disagreement including a free press?
Do they simply feel that the cause is important enough to dispense with those protections? Or is it that they never actually *thought* about government beyond "democracy - majority rule solves all problems" to the realization that oppression only *ever* is the will of the majority?
Is it a religious belief in unfettered direct democracy?
Or is it cynical promotion of a leftist agenda?
alex -
Let's not forget the "I told you so"'s rightfully earned by Sarah Palin. They all laughed at her and called her stupid when she said Obama was a socialist.
Who turned out to be dead wrong, and who turned out to have hit the nail on the head?
So much for all the "intellectuals" who were so sure that they were all so much smarter than that snowbilly.
Seriously... is Obama such a *child* that he never actually thought about it?
"Synova - I'm pining for the Bill Clinton "glory days" of the 90s. What a paradise on earth that was!"
Bill's good economy was primarily due to his inaction on the kind of things Obama can't resist. I give Clinton props for keeping his hands mostly off the economy. I never thought I'd say this, but I miss his brand of Democrat. He now seems like a conservative compared to this guy.
"We will have to beg other countries to buy our debt and price the coupon through the roof to get them to take the risk.."
Isn't that a good thing, DBQ? Won't that put a stop to the borrowing like nothing else can?
Not really, since much of the new debt is just to refinance old debt instruments that are retiring (bonds maturing)and a lot of it is now to fund the idiocy that Obama and the Dems have shoved upon us. The old debt is still with us and about always will be.
The old debt,5 15 20 30 year bonds issued at various rates/coupons (some higher like those in the oldest debt but much of it lower) will be replaced with ever higher interest rates/coupons. This will result in higher consumer borrowing costs and and even further slow down of the business economy.
We need to eliminate redundant programs and scale back the entitlement gravy train pig trough. NO MORE EARMARKS and READ and REVIEW EVERY BILL that comes to vote. Start examining from top to bottom programs and entitlements that are fraught with corruption and embezzlement and inefficiencies. Be ruthless and cut cut cut even if it means that some people will have to get off of the gravy train and/or cut back on perks and luxuries (like retiring at age 55 at 90% of salary with full benefits). Of course the criminals and clowns that we have in Congress are too indebted to special interest groups and in hock to make any decisions that would go against their own self interest.
Don't forget Clinton rode the economic wave of the Dotcom bubble.
We need another bubble to help us get out of this quagmire.
It's really hard not to see O's Honduras reaction in one of two ways:
1) mollify his pal Chavez ("socialists are always right"), or
2) "gee, wouldn't that be sweet - just one more election and you're dictator for life - I'd like some of that"! (pro-authoritarian rule)
He lets the Iranian pro-democracy protesters swing in the breeze for a week, but in less than 24 hours, he backs the ex-President of Honduras, ex- only because he violated his own Constitution (and O's a constitutional professor and all).
That's gotta leave a mark, don't you think?
DBQ - You should consider a run for Congress (DBQ (Tea Party - CA)).
I'm looking forward to a more cogent and detailed post from Althouse on this seachange..
Perhaps she's still waiting for that birth certificate and finally got fed up with it all. It's been what, 6 months?
The real question is how he ever had you in the first place? Could it have been your artistic background and heightened sense of fashion? Have your learned anything as a result?
Rethink the poker, machos, I've still got plenty of ammo.
Excellent post on Honduras, Synova. Couldn't have been said better.
Alex - just like your neighbor who will not scratch off the Obama bumper sticker, I do not beleive that BDS is restricted to Obama's lefty base. Nope, I kicked the tires and there is still 2 years BDS tread left.
Now, if the repubs could find a few good candidates for 2010, and actually support them instead of sabotaging their efforts, maybe some of the so-called dem swing voters will actually swing. I don't see this happening. (I would vote for Synova if I could.)
Hey, it's nice to have Jim Treacher stop by!
And thanks for the reply, Synova. I get that.
And belatedly...thanks, knox. Hee.
[blockquote]The next person to ask how did you get there in the first place gets a white-hot fire poker in the eye.[/blockquote]
[blockquote]It's the natural question. Aren't you curious?[/blockquote].
Not much. Frankly, I can remember being || this close to voting for Obama against McCain. And then along came Palin.
So, I can remember the disgust with the Republican Party establishment and its power brokers. And I can remember thinking that surely Obama was a centrist in leftist clothing and that he would in office swing from both sides of the plate.
Of course now we know that all those who voted for Obama gave our country a big Bronx FU.
And, I'm still deeply unhappy with the Republican Party and our options in 2010.
Why do we always have to vote for morons in order to defend ourselves from other morons?
Darcy said...
Oh, please...McCain had a record. He would not have been anywhere near the socialist Obama has been exposed as already. And yes, it makes a difference. Something we will all have to live with now. McCain was a lousy campaigner, but he isn't Obama. Not by a longshot.
McCain's record, unfortunately, was to demand his biography trump his actions.
The guy was treacherous and backstabbing to fellow Republicans, appeasing to Democrats, and on his knees to suck his way to media approval.
Sometimes, after a disaster like Bush II and the corrupt and reckless Rep House Leadership led to voter rebellion...the best thing to do is let the other Party OWN IT!
McCain's career was about providing cover to Democrats.
That made him their favorite Republican....and any treachery on his part was cast as this Noble, Patriotic Man who SUFFERED SO MUCH...wants to gut the Patriot Act, Close Down GITMO, supports illegal alien Amnesty, McCain-Feingold. SO how can what Democrats want be bad if the Great McCain wants it?
How many times did McCain go behind closed doors with Pat Leahy, Daschle, Clinton, Schumer, Reid, etc... and emerge proclaiming a wonderful bipartisan consensus was reached that (1)jettisoned Rep judicial nominees being filibustered, but DEms agreed to remove 50 million in earmarks McCain objected to. (2) The McCain endorsement of Clinton's latest initiative, like full "free trade" with China. (3)Bipartisanship on Global Warming Legislation between McCain and Democrats, with the NY Times lauding McCain's leadership??
No, sometimes it is best that the Dems own it. NO cover from the likes of the treacherous McCain, masking their responsibility.
We already know what McCain would have done:
Illegal alien amnesty.
Carbon Cap n' Trade.
Convened a Big Commission to figure out the economy.
The McCain program to give 380 billion to homeowners who qualified by buying "more house than they could afford".
Close Gitmo.
His own team had concluded Palin was unfit for VP office, and the plan was to shunt her off to wherever Bush I kept Quayle. And LBJ placed Humphrey.
Move closer to war with Iran, because McCain's "Special Friend" nation has had him on the hook for decades. War with Iran was a commitment.
Judicial nominations as McCain promised - after meeting behind closed doors - McCain would have emerged with Dem Leaders announcing bipartisan support of the nomination of "strict constructionist" Sonia Sotomayor, who McCain teared up describing her "inspiring biography" - nearly as great as his own...
No, sometimes it is best to see Democrats working in the clear, without the benefit a smokescreen like McCain would give them. Let them explain their far left socialist programs without McCain rising and saying "My friends! My friends! This is the best consensus we Republicans and my dear Democrat friends could forge, given the 2006 and 2008 Elections!
In the short term it may be worse, but a President McCain would have perhaps made the long-term worse - legitimizing every thing he assented to from "old colleagues" Pelosi, Feingold, Schumer, and "dear special friend Joe Lieberman".
paul a'barge - Not much. Frankly, I can remember being || this close to voting for Obama against McCain. And then along came Palin.
Frankly, you have discovered the great unknown secret of Presidential Elections. People actually vote for the VPs, not the Presidents.
Better yet if they are inexperienced unknowns that either never showed up for Presidential primaries or are charismatic speakers or sloganeers that are all sizzle, no steak.
The 1988 Election was carried by the good-looking Dan Quayle and his flock of "potatoe-liking happy campers". THe Charismatic VP Edwards with his silky hair and "down home mill worker son common sense wisdom" almost won 2004. The Goddess Palin, with her "down home hockey mom common sense wisdom" and memorized right wing slogans and sassy outfits alomost won the 2008 Election....
As current Palin Cult "common sense" goes.
It is in a way a shame that Joe The Plumber is not putting out feelers. That would really torment the Palin fans. How could they choose between the red meat slogans of "down home plumber wisdom" and "moose-gutting momma wisdom"....would it be who gets the best wink in??
How could they choose between the red meat slogans of "down home plumber wisdom" and "moose-gutting momma wisdom"....would it be who gets the best wink in??
That you can't see the difference between Palin and the Plumber is disappointing Cedarford.
I'll say again what I said to you then about your embrace of Obama:
"He's all yours now."
1. He did not understand economics.
Who does? Seriously? He has a team that knows as much as anyone. I mean, did Bush's team know better?
2. He [never had] the ability to make the experience argument.
Who cares? Everyone who voted knew that. But again it's about who you surround yourself with. The President does not make the decisions alone.
3. He never defined himself as a principled [liberal].
Who is actually principled? It is impossible to win the White House if you say 'I am a liberal and will not find common ground.' Same for Conservatives. Americans do not like politicians who say they are hard right or hard left. You have to play the middle. But anyway I would say he is pretty Liberal.
4. Erratic and incoherent, he lack[s] sufficient [courage].
Have no idea what this means? Seriously, what does this mean? Lacks courage for what? Give an example.
BTW we are only 7 months into his term. If he lost you then you will have to actually blame yourself on that one. It is way too early.
Obama said today when he spoke about health care reform at the Childrens National Medical Center in Washington.
"The reforms we seek would bring greater competition, choice, savings and inefficiencies to our health care system," Obama said in remarks after a health care roundtable with physicians, nurses and health care providers.
And, it's getting worse. Hope and change, baby.
Matt - only 7 months? By that criteria Hitler deserved 7 years. If someone is pouring gasoline on the fire, you don't let him keep pouring just because he's been at it for a minute.
"red meat slogans of "down home plumber wisdom" and "moose-gutting momma wisdom""
Yea, we wouldn't want people asking "how you gonna pay for that?" Just a stupid conservative question from trailer trash.
We only eat the arugula and steak tartar red meat stuff like "Hope and Change". You know, the smart sophisticated slogans that only "elegant" people can understand.
I'm sure 90% of doctors/nurses are for single-payer, it makes their life easier. But it certainly is not good for the patients.
Matt,
It sounds like you are recommending just choosing the president from the phone book at random since nothing matters or they all lie. In your case, maybe just close your eyes when you vote. At least you would have a 50% chance of getting it right. That would be an improvement.
Alex
Is it possible for you to not include the use of Hitler in an argument against Obama - or at least as compared to politician you don't like?
Also I am guessing that you blamed Clinton for 9/11 even though Bush had been in office for close to 9 months.
docweasel said..."Sorry, but for any intelligent, fair-minded and rational person to back Obama in any way, shape or form after the Wright revelations is a disgrace and a shame."
Yeah, should always base their choice for President on what a minister at their church says.
Duh.
Matt - You DO realize you're trying to make a logical point with Alex, right?
Here's a suggestion: Don't.
Matt - since your side was ever so quick to say ChimpyMcBushHitler, I feel free as well to invoke the Adolf card.
No, I didn't blame Clinton for 9/11. However it was under his administration that Jamie Gorelick put up the wall between FBI and CIA for info-sharing.
Jeremy - Obama has to take personal responsibility for attending a racist church for 20 years. Or are you saying personal responsibility doesn't matter anymore? As long as you can weasel out of it, that's the admirable trait right?
Alex said..."Jeremy - Obama has to take personal responsibility for attending a racist church for 20 years."
Can I assume you don't get newspapers or magazines at the asylum?
Obama has addressed Wright's comments on many occasions, and to think someone would be voting for or against someone, based on what some crazy minister has to say is ludicrous.
Bush said he had a calling from God to run...did you believe him...and is that why you voted for him?
Hmmm. I'm stumped as to whether Jeremy is just dumb or a blind ideologue. He obviously can't tell the difference between believing in God(I don't subscribe to it myself) and attending a racist, anti-American church for 20 years. In addition a double-standard! If it were McCain attending a white-racist church for 20 years, he'd have been forced to quit the campaign right away! Basically the ongoing double-standard for African-American bad behavior continues. Go ahead Jeremy, call me a racist. I dare ye.
Alex
Okay so 'my side' used the Hitler card and even though you thought it was tasteless and despicible you'll use it too. Nice logic.
And, yes, I see you do blame Clinton for 9/11. Just wanted to get that straight. I forgot that the first year of Republican presidency doesn't count. But the first 7 months of a Democratic one are enough to make you invoke hyperbole and play the blame game.
Jeremy
Thanks for the warning. I know now.
bagoh20
It sounds like you are recommending just choosing the president from the phone book at random
Even though I did not say that in my comments I have to say on reflection that this is an interesting view.
I mean, how different are some of these politicians anyway?
If Obama doesn't get this Universal healthcare bill it will be as if McCain won - because McCain sure as hell would do nothing about health care costs or about the health care issues.
But if Obama gets the health care bill then there will be a difference. A big difference. And Democrats could lead for the next generation because Universal healthcare will be huge like Social Security was in its day. Once you have it it is hard to take it away and equally hard to forget who set it up.
The only one of the 4 that really hits home is that he lacks courage. Economics isn't even understood by economists--note two Nobel Prize winners and their disparate views: Krugman and Hayek. Principled Liberals are doomed to fail in our current system (conservatives have a much easier time since getting nothing done is no shame to a conservative). Experience means nothing after the election--it is a heuristic for picking good leaders and not an end in itself. Courage on the other hand matters and Obama seems a bit lacking. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
I hope you're right, Cedarford.
Alex @ 6:07
I'm sure 90% of doctors/nurses are for single-payer, it makes their life easier. But it certainly is not good for the patients.
I visited our primary care doctor last week and he plans to retire if Obamacare passes.
Obama doesn't seem to realize that doctors are really small businesses with fixed overheads, mortgages, payrolls, employee benefit costs, taxes and insurance costs, none of which will decline.
Ironically, a shortage of doctors and/or rationing will be felt sooner and more deeply in blue states already laden with tax and regulatory mandates such as California.
Jeremy: "Obama has addressed Wright's comments on many occasions, and to think someone would be voting for or against someone, based on what some crazy minister has to say is ludicrous."
You're right, Obama has addressed Wright.
Wright was a father-figure to Obama per the "The Trumpet".
Obama stated that Wright was his mentor and praised him publicly on multiple occasions.
He used a term from one of Wright's sermons as the name for one of his books.
Obama had Wright baptize his family into Wright's church.
Obama not only trusted Wright and listened to Wright, he allowed his children to grow up listening to Wright's hate.
Obama infamously stated that Wright wasn't the man he knew, yet his book makes it clear that Wright was the same man when Obama met him.
Universal healthcare will be huge like Social Security was in its day. Once you have it it is hard to take it away and equally hard to forget who set it up.
And if the Obama healthcare plan is as bad as it appears to thoughtful people, Matt, you might come to regret that last sentence.
If Obama really cared about dealing with healthcare issues, there are numerous things he could do that would improve healthcare without placing my future health and the health of my family at considerable risk.
Things Obama could have done: (1) reduced the overhead associated with Medicare, (2) looked critically at Massachusetts (not to mention Canada) to determine the lessons that could be learned, and (3) capped malpractice, including instituting "loser pays."
But that wouldn't make much of a splash, would it?
Matt @6:57
Democrats could lead for the next generation because Universal health care will be huge like Social Security was in its day. Once you have it it is hard to take it away and equally hard to forget who set it up.
Not exactly true, seniors know who is cutting Medicare Part A by 30% and they will pay at the ballot box unless constituency blow back frightens Congressional Dems into shelving Obamacare as they did with Cap & Trade.
It's not by accident that the public option doesn't begin until 2013. Congressional Dems don't seem to get that they too will be Obama bus kill by 2014.
Those of you with parents or disabled family members covered under Medicare best think about the ramifications of a 30% cut.
Who will bear the costs when they are refused treatment by government protocols? Will you be forced into bankruptcy to pay for Mom's heart surgery? Of course that assumes a for-fee health care system survives.
Ultimately, I don't care who Althouse supports or doesn't support, but just in cast I can be number 400 in this thread, I want to echo Chris, at 7:04.
Getting back to the original topic, I have a theory why Ann supported Obama during the election. The issue was religion. For many the big religious issue during the campaign was Jeremiah Wright and Obama’s 20 years of attending his church of racial and anti-Semitic hate. For many that was THE big religious issue. For others, and I put a lot of law professors in that camp, the issue was the evangelical Christians that make up the Republican base. And that – of course –was underlined and highlighted by the choice of Sarah Palin who is not shy about the fact that she’s a Christian. For an example of what Liberalism thinks of evangelical Christians, I invite you to read this essay and follow the links to the Volokh website, sponsored by some top law professors.
Obama managed to persuade a lot of people –even Chris Buckley – that he had the “right temperament” to be a good President. He gave good speech, few better. And when it came to choosing between “those people” who invoke Jesus (not as part of a curse) who cling to guns and religion, the knuckle draggers who live in trailer parks and handle snakes on Sunday, the cultural attraction of “cool hand Luke” Obama was just too great.
Don’t blame Anne, it’s a cultural thing.
How is Obama lacking courage? He seems to be going full bore on his socialist agenda. Foolishness yes, fear no.
moneyrunner - I don't care for the snake-handling freaks either, but I don't believe Sarah Palin hangs with that crowd. If she does, she's got serious problems.
God told me to tell you guys to leave him out of this thread or he's going to kick your Dorito-eating, monitor-gazing, fat lazy asses.
* looks upward * Did I get that right?
God says, close enough.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন