James Taranto hits it out of the park
Even if you do nothing else today, read James Taranto’s “Explaining Obama’s Ressentiment” in The Wall Street Journal today. On one level, it is just another comment on Obama’s suicidal anti-entrepreneurial statement that “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.” The airwaves, cyberspace, and the print media have been full of astonished responses to that specimen piece of socialist rhetoric. The Romney campaign aired “These Hands,” a terrific video, and Romney himself has weighed in with one of his most effective speeches to date on the subject. But Taranto adds something new. First, in response to an Obama ad claims that Obama’s takeover of GM “saved” the bankrupt motor company, he notes that the claim is “fraudulent.”
What he did was use political muscle to intervene in a bankruptcy process in order to ensure a settlement on terms favorable to his supporters, the United Auto Workers union, at the expense of taxpayers (or “freeloaders,” in the president’s parlance) and bondholders. It would be more accurately characterized as an act of larceny than salvation.
Exactly. Taranto then looks behind the philosophy of Obama’s attack on success to its psychology. “Obama’s generalities about success being undeserved,” Taranto observes, “are absolutely true in one particular case: that of Barack Obama. Unearned success is the central theme of his life story.”
He then proceeds to take a trip through Obama’s extraordinary career, from his elevation to president of the Harvard Law Review, his astoundingly rapid political rise, and his winning the Nobel Peace Prize, showing how at every step of the way Obama’s achievement was not, in fact, his own. He didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. It’s an extraordinary, and damning, recitation. Read the whole thing.
For a similar roundup of BHO’s mysterious success, check out Bill Whittle’s video: It’s a Miracle!
I can’t stress it enough that everyone should read Taranto’s column; the man has rare talent.
Sure it saved GM. The tragedy is that it didn’t save the horse-breeders, livery stables, carriage-makers, harness manufacturers and farriers. I blame the voters of those dark, unenlightened times. The government would have had the means if only the rabble had allowed it to do what needed to be done.
Sure it saved GM.
There was plenty of private capital lined up to move GM out of bankruptcy. GM and Chrysler both were fielding inquiries from many investment funds before Prez Barack Hussin moved in on the action.
Being forced out of legal bankruptcy was a major blow to GM, and its executives were extremely bummed when it happened. Lost was the legal basis to renegotiate its contracts with UAW, in other words take that giant heavy metal canon ball clamped to its ankle.
The public now accepts as fact that the gubmint saved GM (and Chrysler) from themselves and a bad economy. Thus, the leftists not only saved their UAW voting bloc, they also got credit for averting the crisis.
This is how fictive reality works. Turnspeak is one of its key operating elements.
An Obaman-American explained it to me:
“Sure it ain’t real. All I wanta know is, how do I get some of that?”
(Reminds me of the old Canadian joke:
They say Americans are ignorant and apathetic.
Well I don’t know, and I don’t care.)
I must agree with my best brother’s explanation (he likes and admires Obama, a gangsta like hisself):
“When Obama was 11 years old, he was looking in the mirror.
And you know what he said?
He said, ‘F&#! this sh&!, I’m gonna be President some day!!’”