Good chin-stroking piece from Steve Chapman — except for the dreadful conclusion. It’s just one line in an otherwise interesting column. Read:
The good news for Obama is that he has lost ground with the electorate mainly because of things he can’t control.
Well, um… no. Not even close.
Obama has lost most of his popularity due to the “success” of getting Porkulus passed, and those twin dreadful losers — cap & trade and health care reform. And all three of them were completely in Obama’s control, because he initiated and pushed all three.
And on health care and energy taxes, Obama’s epic fails were made extra epic, because after pushing so hard to get Congress to do things, he left the actual doing of things up to Congress. And when your congressional leadership consists of the most liberal members from the most liberal districts — representing beliefs held by maybe twenty percent of the electorate — well, Obama wasn’t exactly aiming for the bleachers. More likely, his eye was so far off the ball that he swung the bat directly into his own crotch.
Ouch.
All of which, every single bit of which, was exactly entirely in Obama’s control. Those were his decisions, his policies, his choices. His EPIC FAIL.
It’s painful to endure, almost as painful to watch… and yet I’m doing a little happy dance, anyway.
Well, I think Reagan had an advantage in that his personal philosophy was largely in agreement with the American people. It’s hard to see someone as narcissistic as Obama altering any of his views to match what the greater American public believes.
I like what you’re saying, and I don’t really want to be picky, but please–can we PLEASE stop turning verbs into nouns? Fail, as in “to fail,” is a verb. There is a perfectly good noun form available: “Failure.” People and things can fail, and when they do, it’s called a FAILURE. Not a fail. Please.
Obama’s popularity tracks almost exactly with unemployment. As millions have been laid off, his popularity has tanked, and rightly so.
Obama could do a lot about unemployment, if only it merited his attention. But he doesn’t care about employment. His focus on health care reform that nobody wants is a mistake because it takes his eye off the real ball: It’s the economy stupid!
Obama should be advocating for policies that support businesses and hiring. If he would do so, then businesses would begin hiring and his fortunes would turn around.
But instead, he has attacked businesses (he’s even taken over several of them for his union thugs to destroy) and hge has threatened to punish businesses for hiring new people by forcing them, for example, to buy health care for their employees instead of allowing companies to give the money directly to people and letting them decide who their insurer will be.
Companies have naturally responded to Obama’s threats by folding up their tents and refusing to hire new employees – since they’ll be punished for doing so and possibly taken over by government fiat.
And all those millions of unemployed voters are going to fire his ass for it.
As always with the Obama crowd – it’s someone elses fault. That’s way past tired.
Well, I kind of disagree. Obama is losing because he can’t control the fact, much as he would like to, that we oppose with all his goals. The Bolsheviks were never more than 5% of the Russian people in 1917.
Obama’s problem is that he is a hollow man.
Obama described himself as a blank canvas that people project their dreams upon. Talk about vacuous. But he’s right: he is a blank.
America is coming to realize that nobody’s home. Jetting around to receive Nobel Prizes for doing nothing. White House parties every three days.
Even Clinton knew what he had to do to survive.
Obama is so doctrinaire that he doesn’t have enough sense to come out of the rain.
He’s operating on his Communist mentors’ failed socialist theories.
“Comrade, according to theory, we should be rich and full. Why are we broke and starving?”
“Spend your way out of debt.”
Let’s hope he continues to fail.
One musn’t make too much of Steve Chapman columns these days.
As the Tribune’s token-but-faux libertarian (in an institution that has no idea what “libertarian” even means), Chapman’s doing his bit to save the paper by giving forth with bizarre, sort-of-contrarian pieces intended more to arouse, if not aggravate, just for the purpose of getting a rise out the disappearing clientele.
Chapman was part of the vaunted Tribune Editorial Board that smiled dreamily as Senator Obama lied to their faces again and again on his way to capturing not just their endorsement for election but unending worship.
You can safely ignore Chapman as he and his paper slides into irrelevant obscurity.
When a liberal tries and he fails
He then lets out most piteous wails
So this faux Robin Hood
Says ’twas for your own good
As his wacky plans run off the rails
….uuuu..’o^o’..nn!n….algie
Illegitimi nOn carborundum
One more reason that he’s turned many Americans against him: public apologies and even groveling to the leaders of governments far worse than our own, combined with gratuitous insults and snubs of our nation’s friends and allies. (Consider Venezuela, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia; the United Kingdom, Honduras, and the Dalai Lama.)
More likely, his eye was so far off the ball that he swung the bat directly into his own crotch.
We’ve seen how he throws. I shudder to think how he might look swinging a bat.
Mike_K: Though the Bolshies might have been only 5 % of the Russian people, they had the Cheka to maintain discipline within the ranks, and in the society at large. Thankfully, we haven’t reached that point yet.
More likely, his eye was so far off the ball that he swung the bat directly into his own crotch.
Most likely, into ours.