PDA

View Full Version : Thanks President Obama!



Yonivore
10-10-2011, 11:26 AM
Ten Lessons from Obama (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/print/279022)


In less than three years Barack Obama has reversed all expectations.

The election of Barack Obama brought all sorts of contradictions. A man with about the least prior executive experience in presidential history was suddenly acclaimed a “god” and the smartest man ever to assume the office.

Most important, a number of critical changes were heralded that would help address the supposed disasters of the Bush administration: a new “reset” foreign policy, a Keynesian economic miracle, a commitment to “millions of green jobs,” and a promise to end politics as usual, specifically the hardball divisive rancor of the past. Obamism, in short, was not a mere change in administration, but a religion.

In less than three years, however, the Obama administration has established a far different legacy from the one it promised, and the lessons of 2009–2011 will be with us for a long time:

1. The type and nature of a presidential candidate’s prior experience will be examined as never before. Obama’s two years in the U.S. Senate are now universally seen as insufficient preparation. The result will be more emphasis on executive experience and far longer tenure. Fairly or not, the Obama legacy hangs over the possible presidential aspirations of everyone from a Chris Christie or Marco Rubio to a Sarah Palin or Herman Cain.

2. For the time being, the media have lost any credibility as nonpartisan and disinterested investigators of presidential candidates. That many journalists now admit they were “saps” or accept that Obama was unqualified only confirms prior culpability. After 2008, can anyone possibly take the media seriously if they complain that a candidate will not release his undergraduate transcripts, or that he once bragged that he attended every service (“each week”) of a racist pastor, or that he once liked “blow”? After Obama, an entire array of old gotchas are off the table.

3. Ivy League certification and prestigious awards will mean far less. The architects of the massive but ineffective borrowing — Geithner, Goolsbee, Orszag, Romer, Summers — were either esteemed academics or high-ranking bureaucrats. We are no longer impressed that Barack Obama and Eric Holder have Ivy League law degrees, or that President Obama and Steven Chu hold Nobel Prizes — not after Solyndra, Fast and Furious, and the present stagnation. Americans assume that Herman Cain learned far more of value turning around Godfather’s Pizza than Barack Obama learned as editor of Harvard Law Review. Texas A&M is about as relevant to Rick Perry’s creating millions of jobs as Harvard is to Barack Obama’s destroying millions.

4. Again, fairly or not, “green” no longer denotes a noble effort to conserve resources and achieve energy independence. A Van Jones, a Solyndra, yet another promise to emulate Spain’s windmills and solar plants, one more call to borrow hundreds of billions for high-speed rail, and more Al Gore profit-driven escapades and fiery outbursts finally add up. Note that the president simply cannot any longer repeat the mantra, “Millions of new green jobs.” You see, there are too many video clips of such boasts associated with failed ventures. The age of Obama has turned “green” into a refuge for scoundrels. The next era will be marked by unprecedented national wealth from vast new gas and oil exploration, not from thousands of acres of subsidized solar panels and windmills. How ironic that Barack Obama will eventually do more for the gas and oil industry than any other president in recent memory.

5. We are reminded that populism and the high life don’t mix. Barack Obama’s efforts to play Huey Long were sidetracked by First Family detours to Martha’s Vineyard, Costa del Sol, and Vail. One cannot both beg from and demonize Wall Street, and still play community organizer. Obama cemented the notion that liberal Democrats are the party of really big money and of very little money — and of few in between. The next populist will have to cut back on golf, stay at Camp David, and avoid the playgrounds of the rich and famous.

6. Keynesian economics are about over for a generation. The antidote to the Bush $4 trillion debt was not another $4 trillion in less than half the time. With near-zero interest rates, record numbers of Americans on food stamps and unemployment, an annual federal budget $2 trillion higher than just ten years ago, and nearly $16 trillion in aggregate debt — and all this along with a moribund economy — few will any longer believe that printing more money and growing government work. More of what has not worked won’t magically start to work.

7. Barack Obama has essentially ended the smears against the Bush-Cheney anti-terrorism protocols. Having himself smeared the prior administration relentlessly, he became de facto its greatest defender. One cannot insist past practices were immoral or illegal and then embrace or expand them all. “War criminal” will recede into the insanity of yesteryear, given that no logician could figure out how waterboarding three self-confessed mass murderers was a crime, while vaporizing two thousand suspected terrorists — including American citizens — by Hellfire missiles is not. Apparently Guantanamo is no longer a gulag, rendition no longer a crime, preventive detention no longer a shredding of the Constitution.

8. Politics simply don’t change. Obama first embraced and then rejected filibusters — the only constant was his relative political position. “Gridlock” was good in 2005, bad in 2011. The suggestion that we should cancel congressional elections for a few years comes from a Democratic governor, not a cigar-chewing, epauletted ex-general. Exasperated liberals call for circumventing the “messy” democratic process, the bothersome Electoral College, the unfairness of senatorial elections — apparently not out of long-expressed philosophical worries, but out of angst that the wonderful system that elected Obama and gave him huge congressional majorities suddenly became unworkable, say, around November 2010.

9. Fight the Smears, JournoList, and AttackWatch.com are not the work of a uniter. “Punish our enemies” and “get in their faces” don’t go well with Greek columns and rainbowed backgrounds. Again, whether rightly or wrongly, the next time a political candidate promises to change the political landscape in Washington, we will have more, not less, suspicion of his motives — and expect website hit lists to follow.

10. The antidote to Bush’s “bring ’em on” bravado was not asking the Arab League to approve no-fly zones over Libya while bombing targets “from behind.” The world of 2008 is pretty much the world of 2011 — with the caveat that an often unliked U.S. is still as unliked but now less respected and feared. Ask the Iranians, Syrians, Russians, and Chinese — or for that matter the Japanese, Israelis, South Koreans, Taiwanese, and Eastern Europeans.

A sadder but wiser electorate in 2012 simply won’t believe that any candidate — Democrat or Republican — can cool the planet or stop the seas from rising. Barack Obama taught us that — and a lot more besides.

— NRO contributor Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and the author most recently of the just-released The End of Sparta, a novel about ancient freedom.

ElNono
10-10-2011, 11:28 AM
http://sprocketink.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Obama-is-totally-cool.-Look-at-the-glasses.jpg

"You're welcome Yoni"

Yonivore
10-10-2011, 11:31 AM
More like...


http://www.nydailynews.com/img/2011/04/20/450x341-alg_sad_obama.jpg
What the fuck happened?

ElNono
10-10-2011, 11:38 AM
http://blackliberal.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/obama-looking-cool.jpg

"Sure Yoni"

Crookshanks
10-10-2011, 11:45 AM
Great piece - but it still won't change the minds of the die-hard libs. I just hope it changes enough minds that this bozo is sent packing next year.

ElNono
10-10-2011, 11:51 AM
Not a fan of this administration, but the thought that yoni or crook would vote for a Dem because of "emphasis on executive experience and far longer tenure" doesn't really add up. :lol

Yonivore
10-10-2011, 12:03 PM
Great piece - but it still won't change the minds of the die-hard libs. I just hope it changes enough minds that this bozo is sent packing next year.
Die-hard libs stand at about 20%. Not a big problem.

ElNono
10-10-2011, 12:06 PM
Die-hard libs and die-hard conservatards don't really change much. That's why they can't win elections on their own.

Yonivore
10-10-2011, 12:07 PM
Die-hard libs and die-hard conservatards don't really change much. That's why they can't win elections on their own.
Except that die-hard conservatives stand at about 40%. Democrats have much more persuading to do than do conservatives.

And, if Victor Davis Hanson is correct, the masses in the middle, that remaining 40% aren't going to be as easily duped by Democrats or the press, next time 'round. They were burned badly by Obama.

ElNono
10-10-2011, 12:12 PM
Except that die-hard conservatives stand at about 40%. Democrats have much more persuading to do than do conservatives.

Not really. die hards are die hards for a reason. Independents/people in the center end up swinging the vote. That's why I think Romney, even if somewhat less appealing to the die hard conservatives, has the better shot next year.

Cry Havoc
10-10-2011, 12:16 PM
Great piece - but it still won't change the minds of the die-hard libs. I just hope it changes enough minds that this bozo is sent packing next year.

Sponsored by Rick Perry for President.

No hypocrites here. Nothing to see. Move along.

Crookshanks
10-10-2011, 12:16 PM
This is a little blurb from an article on Investor's Business Daily:

A majority of Americans now oppose giving President Obama a second term, reflecting the country's continued weak economic performance, according to the latest IBD/TIPP survey released Monday.

By 51%-41%, respondents in October picked "someone new deserves a chance" over Obama "deserves to be re-elected." Among independents, it was 54%-36%.

======================
It would seem the independents have already rejected Obama to a large extent.

ElNono
10-10-2011, 12:21 PM
It would seem the independents have already rejected Obama to a large extent.

I wouldn't doubt that. He has continued dubya's policies to a T, and that cost the GOP the last presidential election. I'm on the record I would vote for Romney right now if he were to win the nomination. I think he would appeal to independents/centrists, even if he is a somewhat of a weak candidate.

All that said, die hards team players will vote for the color of their team.

Cry Havoc
10-10-2011, 12:23 PM
This is a little blurb from an article on Investor's Business Daily:

A majority of Americans now oppose giving President Obama a second term, reflecting the country's continued weak economic performance, according to the latest IBD/TIPP survey released Monday.

By 51%-41%, respondents in October picked "someone new deserves a chance" over Obama "deserves to be re-elected." Among independents, it was 54%-36%.

======================
It would seem the independents have already rejected Obama to a large extent.

This is hilarious.

You make a post about how people to the left of you in the ballot box blindly support Obama.

Then in the SAME THREAD you post about how a fairly high percentage of people are opposing Obama's second term after voting for him the first time.

...

Are you aware that when you openly contradict your own statements in such a fashion, it tends to make it look like you have nary a clue as to the ridiculous bile spewing from your mouth? Just wondering if you ever actually think about/read the inanity of most of the things you say in this forum.

Crookshanks
10-10-2011, 12:28 PM
This is hilarious.

You make a post about how people to the left of you in the ballot box blindly support Obama.

Then in the SAME THREAD you post about how a fairly high percentage of people are opposing Obama's second term after voting for him the first time.

...

Are you aware that when you openly contradict your own statements in such a fashion, it tends to make it look like you have nary a clue as to the ridiculous bile spewing from your mouth? Just wondering if you ever actually think about/read the inanity of most of the things you say in this forum.

You make no sense. I posted that blurb in direct response to the post El Nono made about independents being the ones to swing elections. And just how did I contradict myself? Die-hard libs will support Obama regardless - do you dispute that? And most, if not all, die-hard conservatives will oppose Obama - the independents are the ones who will make the difference - and they seem to be leaning away from Obama at this point.

ElNono
10-10-2011, 12:32 PM
You make no sense. I posted that blurb in direct response to the post El Nono made about independents being the ones to swing elections. And just how did I contradict myself? Die-hard libs will support Obama regardless - do you dispute that? And most, if not all, die-hard conservatives will oppose Obama - the independents are the ones who will make the difference - and they seem to be leaning away from Obama at this point.

I think we'll have a much more clear picture once the GOP candidate is elected. It's hard to give credence to the numbers when people don't know who is on the other side. For example, if somebody like Bachman or Cain win the nomination (unlikely at this point, IMO), I think numbers will reflect that too.

Cry Havoc
10-10-2011, 12:35 PM
You make no sense. I posted that blurb in direct response to the post El Nono made about independents being the ones to swing elections. And just how did I contradict myself? Die-hard libs will support Obama regardless - do you dispute that?

Provisionally. He's the incumbent, but there are a lot of "die-hard liberals" who want nothing to do with him.


And most, if not all, die-hard conservatives will oppose Obama - the independents are the ones who will make the difference - and they seem to be leaning away from Obama at this point.

You're missing my point. There are no independents to you unless you can use them for political gain. Everyone in this forum who disagrees with you is a die-hard liberal, and the same goes for Yoni, Xray, and WC. It's black or white. The ONLY time you ever talk about "independents" is when the voting numbers have some morsel of indication that the GOP stands to gain from it. I've been repeatedly painted as a die-hard liberal in this forum, despite my historically centrist (and sometimes even right leaning!) views. But that's not how you see things. I disagree with your political stance and so the Fox News Hype Machine tells you that I'm the enemy and I need to be opposed at every turn because I'm a crazy leftist hippie. It's absurd. There are people who actually use their brain when deciphering the riddle of politics... but I guess you wouldn't understand that, would you?

ElNono
10-10-2011, 12:37 PM
That's true. If you ask yoni, I'm a die hard lib, but I see myself much more of a centrist. I would have no problem voting for a centrist GOP candidate (ie: Romney)

Cry Havoc
10-10-2011, 12:42 PM
That's true. If you ask yoni, I'm a die hard lib, but I see myself much more of a centrist. I would have no problem voting for a centrist GOP candidate (ie: Romney)

At which point Yoni will be the first one in your ear screaming about how "THE GOP WAS RIGHT ABOUT EVERYTHING" and that you agree with him and that you're an idiot for ever voting for anyone else.

It's idiocy. The difference between posters in this forum is that the conservatives believe their party is a fucking demi-deity, and everyone else has to argue them starting from that fact. Oh, and let's not forget if you disagree, you're not "just a different viewpoint", you're the enemy.

Political discourse under such circumstances is a farce.

Crookshanks
10-10-2011, 12:44 PM
Provisionally. He's the incumbent, but there are a lot of "die-hard liberals" who want nothing to do with him.



You're missing my point. There are no independents to you unless you can use them for political gain. Everyone in this forum who disagrees with you is a die-hard liberal, and the same goes for Yoni, Xray, and WC. It's black or white. The ONLY time you ever talk about "independents" is when the voting numbers have some morsel of indication that the GOP stands to gain from it. I've been repeatedly painted as a die-hard liberal in this forum, despite my mostly centrist (and sometimes even right leaning!) views. But that's not how you see things. I disagree with your political stance and so the Fox News Hype Machine tells you that I'm the enemy and I need to be opposed at every turn because I'm a crazy leftist hippie. It's absurd. There are people who actually use their brain when deciphering the riddle of politics... but I guess you wouldn't understand that, would you?

Have I ever called you a die-hard liberal? I may have, but I really don't recall because you're not that important. Actually, I wasn't referring to anyone in this forum, I was talking about the public at large. I make no apologies for being a staunch conservative - but I oppose people based on my own standards and ideals, not because some news outlet tells me to. I'm not particularly fond of moderates, but yes, they're sometimes useful to the cause and are needed to win elections.

Cry Havoc
10-10-2011, 01:02 PM
to the cause

That encapsulates everything I hate about the current state of the GOP in one succinct phrase. Wow. Thanks for saying something so opaque.

ElNono
10-10-2011, 01:05 PM
I'm not particularly fond of moderates, but yes, they're sometimes useful to the cause and are needed to win elections.

That's exactly what moderates despise about voting for anything GOP

ChumpDumper
10-10-2011, 01:20 PM
lol the cause

It really is all about the crusade with these types.

Crookshanks
10-10-2011, 01:24 PM
You think my saying "the cause" is a bad thing? I just googled "liberal causes" and got over 47 million results! Liberals have many, many causes, and they need moderates to advance them - just as conservatives need moderates to advance their causes. Nothing new here, guys.

Cry Havoc
10-10-2011, 01:26 PM
You think my saying "the cause" is a bad thing? I just googled "liberal causes" and got over 47 million results! Liberals have many, many causes, and they need moderates to advance them - just as conservatives need moderates to advance their causes. Nothing new here, guys.

That's funny. I was unaware we had a "Liberal Party" on a major political ticket in the US. :lol

ElNono
10-10-2011, 01:40 PM
You think my saying "the cause" is a bad thing? I just googled "liberal causes" and got over 47 million results! Liberals have many, many causes, and they need moderates to advance them - just as conservatives need moderates to advance their causes. Nothing new here, guys.

It is a bad thing, IMO. I don't like/want to be associated with liberal causes either. The whole red team/blue team thing is part of the problem.