Steve McCann has an excellent piece at American Thinker this morning, arguing compellingly that the Obama presidency is “failed” and effectively “over” because he has “abdicated” leadership to Congress. It’s good stuff, big chunks of red meat for a Monday morning.
But there might be a simpler reason.
President Obama has had a good two-plus years, handing out deficit-busting goodies to all the favorite Democrat constituencies. The EPA has become the monster it always threatened to be, the unions are stuffed full of automakers and have the mighty Boeing trembling at their power. The insurance companies are wards of the state, the medical profession has been saddled and broken. The symbiosis of Washington and Wall Street is complete, each too big to fail and utterly, sickeningly and dangerously co-dependent.
But yesterday’s debt deal showed that Obama’s goodie bag is empty. There’s nothing more to hand out. Santa Claus has left the building, and the Grinch has taken his place.
“Honestly,” the Democrats must be wondering, “what good is he to us now?”
Bernie Sanders saw the writing on the wall a week ago, which is why he called for a primary challenger — and Obama might yet get one. Oh, no one to make the few surviving Obamanoids sweat their simple little brows; incumbent Obama almost certainly can’t be beaten in a Democratic primary race. And I doubt he has the magnanimity to pull an LBJ and refuse to seek reelection. In fact, on the off chance the President reads this, I bet he’d have to look up the word “magnanimity.”
And then he’d probably chuckle at it. Anyway.
Today, President Obama is a shrunken executive, unable to do anything to influence the debt negotiations other than to scold the grownups doing the negotiating. And a nation mired in debt and out of work and with little remaining hope for the future, is tired of being scolded.
The progressives and the unions and the nanny-staters and all the rest — they’re tired, too. Come the election, they’ll get out there and plant the yard signs and raise the money and push the doorbells and twit the tweets. But their hearts won’t be in it. Because they’ll know that, come 2013, this shrunken, ineffective President will face an House and a Senate fully controlled by the “Taliban wing” of the GOP. If Obama couldn’t stand up to a Congress half-controlled by the GOP, how will he fare against the next one, after the GOP takes the Senate, too?
“Not well at all,” is the inescapable conclusion. And if you were asked how Obama has done in office overall, “not well at all,” is the most generous thing you could say in response — other than “it’s over,” for an Administration not even three years old.
Don’t get me wrong. If the GOP nominates one of its Unwinnables, Obama could very well take the election next year — but to what purpose?
Aside from the chance to seat a Supreme Court Justice(s), theres not much left for him to do.
That’s not funny. That’s the most damage he could do in one fell swoop depending on who the retiree was. 4 more years of Obama will heap plenty of misery on the nation until someone else grabs the wheel, but another lifetime appointee like Sotomayor or Kegan will be misery wrapped in a robe for decades.
Not to mention that, upon reelection, what incentive does he have to not grant amnesty to the illegals now living here? He’ll have nothing to lose and it’ll make a nice legacy to the left wing.
His power of the pardon doesn’t extend to that; it only applies to those already in federal custody. He’d need congressional approval, and if a GOP-controlled Congress — or even a GOP-controlled lame-duck House — gave him that, there would be a wave of lamppost-redecoration in congressional districts across America.
I don’t think that’s true. Carter gave an amnesty to all the draft-dodgers…
Snake Plisskin?
I heard you were dead.
I thought he’d be taller.
Unless the Tea Partiers stay home and there is once again a Dem Congress.
Richard:
Yeah, you’re right…the PRACTICAL stupidity of the Tea Party Fanatics has me gasping for air.
Like Obama, they don’t have the goal of practical compromise, they want Unconditional Surrender.
Both of these factions deserve one another…
I agree with you, Charlie. I have pretty much given up on some of the websites I would at one time never miss. However, they are increasingly being taken over by people who have no understanding of the need of compromise when you do not have control. They label anyone who doesn’t repeal Obamacare NOW and reduce ALL of the deficit in the next couple of days a RINO. It concerns me that we are increasingly being driven to situations like NV, MD and AK in 2010 when someone who could not win gets the nomination. Sometimes, you can cut off your nose to spite your face.
Yeah. Like that McCain guy. No more unwinnables this time please.
So tell me what is the difference between electing Olympia Snow or a democrat? The only difference is Snow will occasionally on an insignificant piece of legislation, but never on important issues, vote with Republicans. Look at the wonderful deal McConnell got us in the debt deal.
Gverdi,
“So tell me what is the difference between electing Olympia Snow or a democrat?”
While I dislike Rinos like her, the difference could be in committee leadership, legislative priorities, and a host of other things (like an independent prosecutor for Gun Runner?) IF you take control away from the Dems.
True, she is as crazy left as the rest of the dems, a disgraceful, pathetic insult to patriots everywhere, but her presence “counts” as red, not blue…
If we can get a majority, we MIGHT be able marginalize the libs and Rinos, and get something done,
but if the dems hold, we’re totally screwed.
Politics makes for strange bedfellows.
With Snowe you have to wait until you’re up by one vote and then she switches before you realize you don’t quite have the majority for leadership.
Without Snowe and with a Democrat you know that vote doesn’t count. With Snowe you think you have her on your side; right up until you’ve got enough votes to win and she realizes she can swap sides and in doing so gain a lot of power (being the one to switch power gives you a lot of pull).
So either way, if you’re that close you lose; but you have a morale loss of thinking you had won until she pulled it away from you.
Think Charlie Brown, Lucy, and the football if you will… this time The Root ’83 thinks the ball will hold steady and we’ll get to kick it; which for liberals will make his AAAURGH! all the more satisfying.
It’s like we had to defend Arlen Specter to keep that seat red so we’d have 41 seats and the filibuster in 2009 after the 2008 elections. How’d that work out again?
Since we’re still making the same claims it must have worked great; why didn’t we filibuster ObamaCare? Was Arlen worth defending? And what makes you think Olympia is better?
“It concerns me that we are increasingly being driven to situations like NV, MD and AK in 2010 when someone who could not win gets the nomination.”
I live in Maryland aka “MD” and for the life of me I can’t think of who you meant when you said the Tea Party nominated someone in MD in 2010 who could not win? Care to enlighten me who the Tea Party nominated who couldn’t win in Maryland and in what race?
Beat me to it. I was wondering the same thing. Unless he’s referring to Andy Harris, who, during freshman orientation, whined about his government paid insurance not kicking in immediately.
Brainiac probably meant Delaware.. but I can’t be sure all those little Northern states look alike to this Southern girl.
‘Practical compromise’ is what got us in this mess. It’s the reason the Department of Agriculture has a team of rabbit nazis to harass families in Missouri. It’s the reason we’re being told what kind of lightbulb to buy and what kind of toilet we can install in our house. It’s the reason the Department of Education has it’s own SWAT team (Yes, the Department of Education has a SWAT team) that breaks down doors in the middle of the night looking for student loan fraud. It’s the reason Boeing can’t build a factory in North Carolina.
The time for compromise is over. The Liberals view us as the enemy, to be herded onto metaphorical trains bound for metaphorical camps and metaphorically gassed to death. If you want to call us terrorists because we won’t go quietly that’s fine.
Right on Dave. When there is no common ground, what is to be gained by compromise? Especially when the left see bi-patisan and compromise as agreeing with them?
The slogan for 2012 and going forward…. “enough already”. we’ve had it. Line drawn, time for honest and heart-felt debate about who we are as what we stand for, but the time for dysfunctional Washington get-along-go-along is over.
Thanks, Dave.
True enough. Compromise suggests both sides come out with something worthy. In this case, there was no compromise, except of the principles of the Constitution.
Compromise for the sake of compromise is weakness. If you just can’t stand to listen to Mom and Dad fight, then go cry yourself to sleep in your bedroom. The adults are trying to figure this out.
You don’t remove a Debt Cap (debt ceiling) so you can get a Spending Cap.
Promising you won’t spend more money in the future is not the same as spending less today.
You cannot legislate responsibility. Progressives can’t figure that out, and Republicans are being co-opted by Progressive ideology. Only and informed and engaged populace can keep spending in check. Make all the laws you want, and you won’t control spending.
49 of 50 states have Balanced Budget Amendments. Most states are swimming in debt. If it’s possible to fix debt with legislation, how can the states be in debt right now?
WAKE UP America. TEA!
You’re welcome.
The problem isn’t the extremes on each end,it’s the wimps who think they can continue to refuse making the necessary choice.
“Practical compromise” is what gave Republicans that mind-boggling congressional win in 2006!
Oh, wait…
That practical compromise just gave the Dems another couple TRILLION…
We can win anything we want now, cut everything in sight,
and STILL never get back to the spending levels of YESTERDAY.
Not even any Vaseline this time.
Thats the trouble of “compromising” with thieves.
Everyone says to just be happy they didnt kill you.
I say fight.
The other option aint worth living with.
“practical compromise” greases the skids at the top of slippery slopes. Niven, I think, said that some conflicts, by their very nature, prevent neutrality. Choices must be made. Compromising lands one in “no mans land”. For example, pro-lifers who believe that life begins at conception, so how can they compromise on abortion which then ends that life?
We spend too much, and we regulate too much. The TEA Partiers agree with limited government. There’s your compromise. Now we are fighting over the size of government. Are we any smarter now, after billions of dollars spent on the Department of Education? Why keep it? Heck, Head Start can show effectiveness in just 1 of 42 categories at the end of one year of school after students are out of Head Start. In other words, next to nearly no positive effect. Why keep it?
Keep half of Head Start. According to Good Ole Charlie that would be a good compromise. The fact that it doesn’t work wouldn’t even enter his head, as long as we compromise.
Well, this was certainly a wonderful example of what you think solves problems– compromise. Oh, it is a complete fake of a bill, but it is that wonderful compromise that brings out its wonderful wonderfulness to you.
There are no spending cuts in this bill, just as there are no programs that are identified for spending cuts.
The compromisers have agreed to cut only the rate of increase in spending– not actual spending. Actual spending is going way up due to this “compromise.” Way up.
Also, there will be “recommendatioms” to cut this and that over the years, but there is absolutely no reason to believe those recommendations will amount to anything.
All in all, the debt deal is just another increase in spending.
Yes, you sure have to love that “reaching across the aisle” to “put the country first” with “compromise”. It’s great.
Henry,
“…there are no programs that are identified for spending cuts”
The first and foremost cuts needs to be in the salary of government employees.
Before any programs are cut, before any taxes are raised, everyone on any form of a Government Payroll, Local, State and Federal, earning 100k or more needs an immediate 5% pay cut
(that would be every teacher in my school district!)
10% for those over 125k
15% for those over 200k
Do this immediately,
Today, by executive order…
As the Congressional Black Caucus likened the Presidents ability to “declare”, as a sort of “Emancipation Proclamation” power, whatever necessary spending he deems appropriate in this “emergency”, he should likewise have the same power to “declare” a salary cut for these same people, no?
Seriously, if we’re in such national financial dire straights that SOME people have to have less money in their pockets(via tax increases or benefit cuts)to make up the shortfall, why is it never allowed to among the people that are DRIVING this financial shortfall?
Imagine the billions saved instantly…overnight…without a single penny taken from a single SSI check, medicare re-inbursement, military paycheck, or school lunch menu.
Cut the salary first.
I agree totally. I meant, of course, that the fraudulent debt deal does not specifically identify any spending cuts. It is a lot of nothing, and every politician who voted for it should be replaced at the first opportunity.
A government “hiring freeze” is needed immediately. The size of this government could be reduced by attrition, with no hiring of replacements when an employee leaves. Real wage freezes– even cuts– need to be put in place, and every government agency and program should be “zeroed out” at some time certain, staggerred over the next 5 years. Those agencies would have to defend their budget and even their very existance, and have a vote of both houses of Congress in order to survive.
That is just for starters. There should also be a ban on the use of taxpayer money to make any sign heralding a construction or repair projects. A small item, to be sure, but that nonsense is a real waste, as if taxpayers don’t know who pays for those things (Hint: It is not the politician whose name is on the sign.)
We are now, after this fraud on America, even deeper in debt. And we have “compromise” to thank for it.
Another modest proposal? For every time some government agency or department says, “Gee, we can’t account for x billion dollars that you gave us last year,” we take away whatever percentage of their budget that x amount represents. So let’s say they can’t account for $10 billion. We take away $10 billion from their next budget.
Because if the money just vanished, then, clearly, they don’t NEED it. They can make do without it.
Let them try turning off the office lights every evening before the last employee leaves rather than leave them all burning, like they do now.
We’re sick of the politicians going after the money they dole to us before cutting their own pay or their own staffs.
On top of that, all government departments automatically get 7% to 8% budget increases every year, way above inflation allowances. Logically, that should also stop, also.
As C.S. Lewis pointed out, if a man is obviously on the wrong path, the only thing that he can do is to go back to where he made a wrong turn and go in the right direction. A compromise in that situation still leaves him on the wrong path. In the current situation there is no possible compromise! We either reduce spending significantly, or we go bankrupt. Increasing taxation will not increase revenue (as has been pointed out many times elsewhere gross revenue maxes out at around 19% GNP) and current government policies are only ensuring that businesses will not even attempt to expand and employ more people. We must reduce government spending and reform the entitlement programs; otherwise we will enter the situation where the interest on the debt cannot be met by tax revenue (much less have anything left to spend on anything else).
What the TEA party is trying to do is to force the issue. We will not default on the debt at this time, no matter what the pundits say – the interest on the debt must be paid first by law, and there is sufficient revenue to pay that, the obligations of Soc. Sec, Medicare, and Medicaid, and to pay military salaries. However spending 40% more than we bring in cannot be sustained for very much longer. If we start taking drastic measures now, we can recover. If we allow Congress to pile on more debt for even another four years, we will not be able to do so.
So speaks a RINO through and through. When the republicans compromise the nation loses. When do the democrats ever follow the constitution?
It all goes back to the old saying “you cannot compromise with the devil” and yes… They are the devil as far as I’m concerned. Everything the democrats have done reduces liberty and freedom for everyone even the people they claim to be helping.
Fanatics? We are the American people. Something is happening here and you don’t know what it is, do you, Mr. Charlie?
With respects, GOC-
Does one allow gangrene to fester or cut off the infected limb?
‘Compromise’ is what has led this country to our current dilemma. The question now is whether we, as citizens of this greatest of nations, would rather die slowly or quickly. Personally, I’d rather go quickly as the slow way will only include vast amounts of pain and suffering. And, who knows, we might be able to cut off the infected limbs of this ‘multi-octopus’ of a government and survive.
The ‘practical compromise’ of this legislation you treasure so highly removes none of the infection. I hope you enjoy pain and suffering because it’s only going to get worse until 2012 – the last chance election to begin needed surgery.
Hmmmm. The frothing, raging, I’m Soros, so Soros… wing of the “Redistributionists” may not like the slow cooking method of the ACORN in Chief, …but make no mistake. This isn’t over.
Not by a long shot.
The Confiscatories are just getting started. Bill Ayers, (guilty as hell, free to rape, pillage and plunder) once plotted on how to kill off 25 million stubborn, white, Republican-voting, aging, middle Americans. They ARE the enemy.
And attrition is the weapon.
Obamacare and death panels are but one way. Making them statistically irrelevant by sieve-like borders is another. Wiping them out through intimidation at polling places, making the DOJ enforce color-coded polling infractions, confiscating their wealth…slow cooking.
The ACORN in chief sat on the sidelines and let others do the dirty work. He always has. Take credit, never blame. That’s his mantra. Blame others, take no responsibility, do no heavy lifting.
Leave no paper trail. Think about it, his resume’ is filled with mystery…his whole life is unpapered. Forget his birth certificate, his passport, his social security card, his transcripts, his state Senate record, his Board affiliation with Woods/Midwest Academy, his dinner for Said with Khalidi, his Harvard Law Review…AS PRESIDENT…he is paperless.
The Ghost with the Most has had a ghoulish effect on our economy. And, this isn’t over. Not by a long shot.
the moronic republicans are giving obama 2.5 trillion more to spend ..and he will and the USA will not recover.
it is over and the marxists won.
yes, it’s all well choreographed. the radical/libs play the game well. two steps forward, maybe one step backward. but, here’s the but, they don’t quit. it is a career – the fight. and so it must be with us. never give up. look at obama’s legacy: worst parts are obamacare and the regulations that have expanded. slowly, but steadily, they are cementing in place the strengthening of their regulatory powers.
Nice post-mortem Stephen but Obama’s presidency has been over ever since the battle over Obamacare. He showed himself as an ineffective leader and a tyrant to boot, cementing his own doom. At that point, he became America’s first one-year president.
first one year president?
w. h. harrison one month
james garfield 6 month 16 days
zachary taylor 1 year 4 months 6 days.
obama ineffective? depends on what you think he wants. obamacare, two leftist supreme court judges, auto industry given to the unions, boeing under attack for building new in a right to work state, allies insulted, enemies praised. just to mention a few items.
i think he has been very effective if you are a leftist as he is.
hardly ineffective. he has managed to destroy the US economy. (and since that was his primary goal) that makes him very effective.
those who think the US isn’t completely screwed haven’t figured out that this was the plan.
obama got an unprecedented gift of trillions to spend ..buying those votes that he didn’t get by flagrant ballot stuffing.
Obama – effective? In a way, yes. He is the primary reason there’s a Tea Party today. Nothing else he’s done can’t be undone, even the judicial choices he’s made. Obamacare can and will be repealed. The Boeing fiasco can only last as long as Obama does. The UAW is still its own worst enemy, and will destroy GM, Ford, and Chrysler – sooner, if not later. The SEIU under any other president would be under investigation for RICO violations. ACORN is no longer even half as effective as it was during the last presidential election. Even the MSM, believe it or not, is beginning to see the handwriting on the wall, and are gradually letting out some of the squalor surrounding our lead-from-behind present-ident. The TEA Party hasn’t gone away, it’s just burrowed in even deeper, beginning to control things at the local level. Soon they’ll graduate to greater control in state and federal elections. Whether they continue to infiltrate the Republican Party, or go their own way, only time will tell. The “science” behind the EPA power grab is looking more and more phoney, and they, too will soon see the trash bin. Yes, Obama has been VERY effective – in uniting the opposition against him and his party. Thank you, BO.
This is exactly the way to think of the Obama presidency.
This battle between socialism and capitalism has been raging for decades, and sooner or later it had to come to a head, a tipping point, where socialist philosophy hardened into actual policy and action so that the American people could see for themselves the scorched-earth level of damage of which it is not only capable, but is the natural and singular result.
I thank God it is happening now, so that we can get through it, be done with it, and fix things so my children do not have to deal with it as we have.
And as for compromise, yeah, ahh, while inherently laudable to some degree, at some point it becomes self defeating. I believe the trenchant screaming you hear from the Tea Parties, of which I am a member, is more of a passionate, though not well articulated, continuous call to not forget this. To move the default point of view from that of compromise first – draw a line second to the reverse. Recognize first and foremost that they will never willingly give up anything, it has to be taken from them. They didn’t spend decades infiltrating all of the MSM, Hollywood and academia to just roll over. There was and is a grand plan. Granted, we can’t get everything we want having only the House, but how can we possibly look in the mirror and respect the reflection if we don’t leave everything we have on the battlefield in every single engagement.
I agree. My position is that when the senate failed to pass the CCB bill, the house should have made MORE cuts and sent it back again. Keep doing that until the democrats pass one of them. As it is, we don’t get a balanced budget amendment, we get a “maybe” instead. If Boehner had stood his ground instead of negotiating with himself (that just sounds so wrong)we would have had a de facto balanced budget. Boehner caved. Some of the T.E.A. supported reps caved too. Specifically Col. West. What a blunder… Not keeping your word is what they teach in the congress apparently.
Obama=(Ayers+time)
Exactly.
The perfect equation for the perfect storm.
This column would be interesting if the internationalist subversives were thinking “politics”. They don’t, they think war.
And their goal is to destroy America’s power.
They are moving now the economic steps to do that.
They don’t care about elections.
They care about destroying our economic and military power, destroying the middle class and have an army of proletarians and lumpenproletariat to move in the streets, and to riot.
“…if the internationalist subversives were thinking “politics”. They don’t, they think war.”
This can’t be said enough.
exactly and obama and clowns are winning the war.
And they will take their lumps in the next election, but the pendulum will evetually swing back their way, and all of the garbage they dumped on the country will still be there, including at least two whacko liberal SCOTUS justices.
They are in a war– a war to destroy this country. Truth be told, they are winning.
Obama is hoping for the Nobel Prize in Economics, to go with his Nobel Peace Prize. Physics Prize to follow?
Don’t underestimate Obama. Obama has only one interest: Himself. He has no interest in America, in Americans, in the economy. He has only one interest: Himself.
Obama and the Democrats could have dealt with the debt ceiling ONE YEAR ago; they didn’t, worried that it would spook the electorate of 2010. He lost the House anyway.
He could have dealt with it in the lame duck Nov-Dec 2010 session. He didn’t.
Instead, Obama and his Gang left it..purposely..to create an apocalyptic crisis, so that he could blame it all on the GOP and in particular and above all: on the Tea Party.
Obama has only one interest: Himself. Obstruct his Power…and he’ll do anything to destroy you. With the rise of the Tea Party and the 2010 election, Obama’s agenda was clear: Destroy the Tea Party.
Did he put through a budget? Nope – his offering was so vague and ridiculous the Senate refused it 97/0.
Then, Obama sneered at Paul Ryan’s budget – insulting him to his face.
And when the GOP House put through their Cut, Cap and Balance, Obama instantly threatened to veto it, leaving Reid in the Senate, no option but to refuse to put it to a vote;
Obama did the same thing with Boehner’s offer..same result. Tabled in the Senate and no vote.
WHY? WHY? And why didn’t Obama/Democrats offer any strategy to deal with the debt ceiling?
Because Obama wanted a crisis and even, a default. Then, he could blame the default, the crisis – indeed, the WHOLE economic mess that he has created – on the GOP and in particular, on the Tea Party.
This whole crisis – is a political campaign tactic. It’s all about Obama’s re-election.
Now, this deal – what does it do? Well, it gives a LOT to Obama.
- he gets no debt ceiling problems until after his re-election; that was a key item for him;
- tax increase? Well on the surface he doesn’t get any but that Commission could easily and probably will – recommend them. And the Bush tax cuts run out next year….so…
What did the GOP get?
- well..that surface ‘no tax increases’.
- and talk, just talk, of a balanced budget…just talk..Washington talk.
So..on the surface, they got very little.
But, what they did get, was to block Obama’s major campaign strategy of Killing the Tea Party. Remember, this whole debt crisis was about ONE THING only: Obama’s strategy to destroy the Tea Party and blame the entire economic situation, everything from no jobs to higher costs…on them.
This deal saved the Tea Party from this attempt of Obama. But make no mistake, Obama will, tomorrow, renew his attacks. He has only one interest: Himself. And his own power. He’s going to mount yet another campaign to destroy the Tea Party and blame all his economic failures..on them.
Don’t underestimate Obama. He’s pathological and putting someone that ‘mental’ into a powerful role only increases the pathology. Obama will attempt to destroy any and all who are in His Way. So – any talk that his power and presidency is over – be careful, don’t relax and continue the fight against him.
There won’t be any tax increases in 2011 for the reason you state. His sole intrest is in getting re-elected.
He was free to demand it in 2010 because there was no chance it would happen. His nutjob supporters are placated now, at no risk to himself. The 20% informed conservatives will remember, but nobody else. The make believe media will never mention his 2010 tax demand in 2011.
More likely, as you have said often, is that there will be new goodies to disburse and promise in 2011: more tax credits, more $250 SS credits, more subsidies for the UAW, more money for his acolytes in the schools. $2.4T will go a long way. Since he will know that the Republicans will control both houses next time, there will be no limits on the promises. The sky’s the limit.
The next debt ceiling crisis will be in Dec 2012, after the election. The funny money ceiling will be timed to run out EXACTLY then, on the off chance that he loses. nothing like gifting your enemy with a stinking heap of dung if he should get lucky and somehow manage to suppress dead people from voting.
you are both missing the point ..the debt being increased is the same as a tax hike …it has to be paid back. AND IT IS A LOT OF MONEY.
all the money the president gets to spend is governed by the congress. you the taxpayer has been shut out of the process. good luck America. I think it is over. …the only ones worse off are the egyptians and their “democracy”
ETAB,
Great post, I agree 100%
His particular moves are not exactly the same as the Clinton Shutdown, but the meme is the same. Extremist on the other are pushing us to disaster, and the official narrative writers were all nodding their heads in agreement last week.
Crazy tea baggers resisting more unsustainable debt…those racists.
The bigger disaster this agreement brings will be twisted into “see, it didnt go exactly my way, told you so” and the phony cuts will never occur because “thats whats causing the problem”. More intentional crisis that will require drastic new executive powers to address.
This cat is no fool.
He is still very dangerous, and I dont see any charismatic Republicans that are “electable” yet.
Not that I feel we dont have a bunch worthy and capable…I do…but the press will destroy them for reasons I wont tie up another 40 lines of text right now.
You know what’s ironic, when Obama really IS a lame-duck (Nov 2012-Jan 2013) is when he’ll put his putter and basketball in storage and get into 60-hour work weeks. Pardons, EOs, appointments, firings, slimy deals, document shredding, intel “exchanges” with our worst enemies, military secrets handed to the Chicoms — it’ll be the most energetic and creative three months of his term.
No champagne corks yet please! The Dems are absolutely feral when it comes to holding on to power and I have every confidence that Mr. Obama will raise the one billion dollars in campaign funds that he is aiming at or close to it. Don’t forget he starts a couple of million votes ahead from just his base with federal and state employees. The public unions know that they are finally looking at their version of the Apocalypse and will be throwing everything they’ve got into Mr. Obama’s re-election.
Also, we all know how adept Republicans are at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory even when they have a winning issue and a thoroughly discredited opponent. They are going to fall into the trap of nominating what they see as the most “electable” candidate rather than the one most capable of governing. (Here’s hoping that Rick Perry enters the race.) The “debt ceiling” debate was laughable on many levels but it did (finally) put the issue of the government’s appalling financial mismanagement front-and-center in the public mind. Finally the party of “smaller government” has a realistic chance to win on that issue but it won’t be easy. I know I’m preaching to the choir but the next fifteen months will be long, nasty and not for the faint-of-heart.
I fully agree with your comments.
And I’m hoping for Perry as well; I think he’ll be able to stand up to the machinations of the Obama Gang.
I hope the GOP aren’t as moronic as they were last time – and nominate Romney this time etc. However, quite frankly, last time, the key criterion was ‘Not Washington’…and McCain, Clinton etc..were all Washington. And, it was also, not GOP.
I think that this time, it will be strongly ‘not Washington’. But, Obama is mendacious, malicious, manipulative and corrupt; he’ll do and say anything for Himself.
It’s over. If you think Perry is the answer, and Republican lemmings are on board with that, then it’s over. Absolutely, positively over.
Very true Chambers – excellent points all and needed reminder.
Obama sees himself as something far more than President of the United States. Obama believes himself very special – with possible delusions of divinity.
These fools who elected Obama didn’t sell their souls to watch their “religion” and influence evaporate in one term. With hordes of thieves, sponges, rubes, union goons, new Black Panthers, mindless hacks marching to MSNBC talking points, and pathological liars with millions to contribute, this is going to get far nastier than anything we have witnessed in our lifetimes. And there’s always the trump card of ballot stuffing and millions of dead rising to vote.
Narcissists with a billion to spend and the backing of wicked empires like George Soros don’t go quiet or easy.
Yeah, it put their appalling fiscal management front and center, but with extra trillions to play with now.
A Republican “hat trick” sweep of both houses and the oval office in 2012, coupled with the he most drastic cuts imaginable, wont even get us back to YESTERDAY MORNING in terms of spending.
They stole the whole friggin armored car, and we’ll whoop it, cheering as we up scoop up some change they left on the floor….maybe even grab a ten-spot floating in their wake.
Hooray for us, we did it!
I’m going to puke
Perry does seem to be the strongest, in my opinion, though I’d much rather prefer a brave-ass woman like Palin. But as far as what will fly in America today it seems that Perry, who’s state is apparently credited with creating 50 percent of the jobs in the recession, would be very appealing to minorities, blacks, and sure, white people that normally vote for D who also are jobless, in a secret ballot booth.
A little research will show that Texas has prospered in spite of Rick Perry. He is a big government crony capitalist. He was rebuffed by the legislature in a giant eminent domain scheme that would have created thousands of miles of toll roads for the benefit of his cronies. He tried to force medication on school girls, again foe a crony’s profit. He will be vetted and he will fade away.
Having lived in Texas for the last 35+ years I agree with you wholeheartedly. Perry has been carefully groomed to be where he is today. He is much, much worse than the Texan who SHOULD get the nomination, especially in light of the lethal debt we have amassed as a nation, Ron Paul. He understands the economics and consequences of the situation in America today. He is a man of integrity. Perry is but a puppet dancing on the string of George HW Bush. Guv is as far as he needs to go.
Where on Earth do folks get the idea that just because someone works for the federal government that they will automatically vote for a democrat??? I worked for the feds for years and NEVER voted for one. Many of my friends and acquaintances there are of like mind. We see, perhaps better than most, the idiocies of the democrat rule. Regulations to buy something for the government that fill binders a full 4 feet thick come to mind since that is what I did. Stupid regulations that I had to make contractors follow and most put in place to grant favors to various groups. The federal employees see what the democrats do and many if not most are principled people. Ad hominem attacks on them are no better than those same attacks against non fed employees of companies by liberals.
DO NOT STEREOTYPE OTHERS!!! STOP IT!
Chris;
Your agency was an anomaly. I worked for several agencies, and many did not hide their dislike for Republicans/Conservatives. Something to do with tighter budgets and austerity they didn’t like.
I think we can depend on the GOP snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. They will probably nominate someone who has absolutely no chance of winning and the Tea Party will further muddy the waters. While the deficit-reducing aims of the fiscal conservatives are great, they should have been better prepared for the onslaught of negative publicity regarding medicare and social security. Suddenly depriving elderly people of their income and health care is not the way to go and they offered no real proof that this wouldn’t happen.
As a rule, the Republicans and now the Republicans AND the Tea Party are lousy campaigners when it comes to sensing what the voters really want. Whoever does their campaign organization seems to have absolutely no idea that a large percentage of voters listens to ads in the media and that they have no idea of what it is like to run a company. Both groups have allowed one issue partisans to gain control and, often those single issue people believe that theirs is the only way to go. Most of their campaign organizers should get out and fraternise with the average person…including various minorities.
I hope by unelectable you are talking about someone without TEA Party support, like Romney. Think Perot taking 19% of the vote in 92, and 8% in 96, and getting Clinton elected, TWICE. Spliting the Right should be the Greatest Fear on the Right, and Obama’s only hope of a second term.
No matter what the talking heads say, we won’t really know who’s electable and who isn’t until the primaries are underway. Primaries don’t just determine the candidate, they make the candidate. So all this talk about “he can’t win in November” or “she can’t win in November” is all just talk.
I’ve posed the following question in several places and never got an answer.
How can the only Republican candidate who can’t use Obamacare as an issue be electable?
Stephen,
I want to believe you, but my gut tells me the MSM has obituaries already in the can for any but the blandest of Rinos.
Look how they constantly savage Bachmann for her “gaffs” and being a “flake”, when Obama is a full-on “Erkle Nerd” who’s literally incoherent without a teleprompter.
57 states? Crickets chirping.
But they still get mileage on republicans for “potatoe” for crissake.
The combined power of their hatred and their magawatts (we used to say “barrels of ink” in the old days) still scares the crap out of me.
Sad but true, IMHO, quite a few solid capable conservatives are already non-contenders just because the MSM says so.
And “corpse-man” instead of corpsman. But, I don’t suppose the word “corpsman” came up very often in the faculty lounge, so how would he know?
Pray tell what deal you would have gotten, and exactly what step you would have taken to get it.
Until then, I’ve had enough hot air for one long summer.
Good one…
I was in the Marine “Corpse” myself,
What an ass that man is.
I need a thesaurus….
what the word for so much contempt for the free ride he gets from the media,
it makes me puke?
Obsessing over intentional gaffes by the Prevaricator in Chief to lead your gaze away from the goal is a sure recipe for defeat. We conservatives should, imho, have a laser like focus on using concrete examples of destructive legislation initiated by this Manchurian candidate to unseat him. To be drawn off our goal of his utter and complete defeat is playing into his masters hands. Do you really think something that was a nonissue 4 years ago is going to be relevant in 2012? Stimulus, Obamacare, Dodd-Frank financial ‘reform’ should be our talking points, not irrelevancies that don’t even belong in a JHS debate. Be the grownup in the room and help America hand this despicable politician his walking papers.
“Don’t get me wrong. If the GOP nominates one of its Unwinnables, Obama could very well take the election next year — but to what purpose?”
I don’t see how the Republicans can lose in 2012. Right now, I think a can of soup could beat Obama. Especially now, with the country about to enter another recession. This whole debt fiasco has taken over the news, but last Friday we got some really horrible financial reports about our GDP. Even the White House Press Corps isn’t swallowing the line anymore that it’s “Bush’s fault.” And when that happens, you know things are bad. If the Republicans nominate a reasonable person that doesn’t sound insane, he or she will destroy Obama in 2012, just like Jimmy Carter was destroyed in 1980 by Reagan.
Actually, the GOP can easily lose in 2012. All they have to do is keep fighting their own version of the Castellammarese War;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castellammarese_War
That time, it was the “Moustache Petes” of the old Neapolitan mob, immigrants from the Old Country, trying to thwart the aspirations to power of the “Young Turks” in the Families, mainly wiseguys from the Sicilian contingent, who were born and raised over here.
This time around, it’s the “Old Guard” of the GOP leadership, mainly “Rockefeller Republicans” (i.e., RINOs) of the Gingrich generation who are trying to hold on to power inside the Party, against an onslaught of young “radicals” from the Tea Parties and similar groups.
Incidentally, Sunday I listened to a couple of actual Tea Party leaders from here in Ohio on a Columbus radio station. They stated that the Tea Party was mainly about; individual rights, respecting the Constitution, keeping taxes as low as practical without damaging necessary government functions (including Social Security, Medicare, a reasonable national defense, etc.), balancing the budget, and getting more people out to vote. Far from “fanatics”, “terrorists”, or “Taliban”, they sounded to me rather like… old time Truman/JFK type Democrats, or Eisenhower Republicans. It is interesting that this is considered a “dangerous, radical” POV today.
The old boy network of the GOP wants to keep power inside the party at all costs. They are perfectly willing to see Obama re-elected, if it means they can break the “young upstarts” and retain control of their own party. After all, from their standpoint, things in Washington run just fine “as is”, no matter who is in control of what- as long as whoever it is is part of the “club”.
A sure sign that the old guard is willing to throw the election for this is if the frontrunner turns out to be a member thereof. The GOP leadership tends to back Presidential candidates from inside the Beltway, largely on grounds of seniority. Put simply, if you’ve been in Washington long enough, the old boys think you deserve a turn on stage. This is how Robert Dole and John McCain ended up as losing candidates; regardless of their qualifications or records (including their military service), they were essentially “legacy candidates”, tapped purely for the purpose of maintaining the status quo. Both lost to come-from-nowhere radicals on the other side who got the Democrat nomination over the heads of the party’s favored standard bearers, with heavy support from the Democrats’ most radical elements on the left. (See “A National Party No More” by Zell Miller.)
The most visible candidate who fits this profile right now is… Mitt Romney.
As for Ronald Reagan, the GOP leadership was at least as scared of him as the Democrats were. He had just too many radical ideas- like not viewing the Cold War as an “unwinnable” conflict that must continue until the heat death of the Universe.
The “old guard” had similar views of George Bush the Younger, who wasn’t an “insider” like his dad. His policies proved it- especially his foreign policy post-9/11. No “insider” would ever say “You’re either for us, or against us” to a foreign power. (They reserve statements like that for use in back rooms, to younger members of the Party.)
Today, I suspect they view the likes of Perry, Bachmann, etc., in very similar terms.
I’ll believe the GOP leadership is more interested in winning, and governing, than they are in “getting along and going along” and maintaining their internal power structure, when a dark horse outsider runs away with their nominating process- and the party actually gets behind them.
I don’t expect to see it this year. Or any time soon.
clear ether
eon
“You no like soup? No soup for you. Get out.”
I agree with your points, eon, on the old guard GOP being cocooned within themselves. And a basic example of that is indeed, Romney. Any of the Old Guard are, in my view, disastrous for a 2012 nominee: Romney, Huckabee, Guiliano…and even, Palin.
I opt for Perry with a VP of possibly Rubio. The key is, the nominee has to be an outsider and a tough confronter..and experienced in governing.
I think that the GOP is not as hidebound, eon, as you suggest. Unlike the Democrats, the GOP have allowed a host of new open ‘young blood’ to develop – people like Ryan, Cantor, West, Rubio, Cain etc. The Democrats, sycophants all to Obama, Pelosi and Reid, have smothered any dissent in their ranks and prevented new blood.
Obama is pathological; he can’t handle anyone new, with ideas, not subservient to him…he and this pack will prevent any new Democratic blood. That’s going to be their downfall. They have taken ONE road, the Keynesian economic road; and one type of political structure – the authoritarian elitism; and one type of leadership – the messiah type; and one type of following: the sheep sycophants…and this is a dead end road.
They have bred themselves into extinction; they haven’t allowed dissent, questions, new solutions, young blood.
We must remember, however, that Obama is malicious, mendacious and manipulative; the 3-M’s. He will do anything, say anything, malign anyone, ..to get his way. And he wants only one thing. One. Power. For Himself. He has no interest in America or Americans.
Eon,
When when exactly DID Newt become such a horses ass?
I remember him on C-span back in the day as a piss and vinegar conservative.
I enjoyed his, effective, factual rebuttals to all things liberal.
I thought he was an ally.
I thought I was an admirer.
Admittedly, I was out of the country for a decade just after he took the speaker-ship….
took a hiatus from caring about politics for quite some time.
Now I hardly recognize him when he speaks.
Rather like running into an old high school crush,
and seeing that she’s become a hideous cow.
Very disturbing.
Once he led the GOP to a majority, he became enamored of the power, and decided that the best way to keep it was to act like the rest of the old boys who made all the decisions over dry martinis at Bullfeathers. Thereby forgetting how and why he led the GOP to a majority to begin with.
There is something pernicious about the culture inside the Beltway, that tends to make anyone who becomes part of it just another self-absorbed apparatchik. Who views everybody outside the Sacred Circle as at best an annoyance, and more probably an enemy who must be destroyed.
As for actual foreign enemies, the CW is that they are simply “misunderstood” by all those (dumb/stupid/ignorant/bigoted/racist) hicks beyond the sacred ground of Foggy Bottom. The principle being that the foreigners in question must really be wise and good- simply because they don’t like us. This is how you end up with a VP who calls people who disagree with his boss’ profligate spending addiction “terrorists”- while said boss prohibits anyone from using that term to describe the likes of the late (and unlamented) UBL.
I blame the invention of air conditioning and central heating, to a certain extent. Our Fearless Leaders have always had authoritarian tendencies (not to mention dumb ones), but they were muted back when they froze their a$$es off in Washington from October to April, and had to get out of town altogether to avoid heatstroke from late June to early September. With only three to four months of effective working time per year, their ability to make mischief was greatly reduced.
In service to the President’s “Green Agenda”, I am in favor of turning all thermostats in the Capitol and White House down to 50 degrees in winter, and turning the AC off in high summer. If they want to actually vote on something, let them do it in the spring and fall, and otherwise go back to their home districts and actually live with their constituents for two-thirds of every year.
I suspect the legislation that resulted would be very different than what we are accustomed to today. Who knows, it might even make sense.
cheers
eon
I’m far more optimistic. The GOP leadership didn’t aim very high in their fight with the Loser in Chief. Yet they say they got 98% of what they wanted. Thanks to Us Hobbits, I mean, Terrorists. But we and much of the electorate are amazed at how divorced from our fiscal and cultural reality these dinosaurs are. A lot more primaries are going to be contested by good people who get it, and a lot fewer Dem’s seats are safe next year. Then there is that typhoon building in the North Pacific, the one the GOP fear and yet to whom they owe much of last Nov.’s victory. She nearly dragged the Arizona Orc over the finish line last time. The corrupt media have lost any ability to hurt her–she is rising, their credibility is dropping faster than Obama’s. Millions of voters who get it, won’t give a dime to the corrupt Beltway GOP, but they will pull out their Visas and click SarahPac as soon as the Wasilla Warrior jumps into the race. Stock up on popcorn. It’ll be Pundits Gone Wild, and it will separate the wheat from the chaff among “conservative” ranks, just like in this debt raising fiasco. After the howling we’ll see the bandwagon form. And thousands of smart women will be inspired to ponder if they should join the fray and challenge their very own RINO or Dem Orc. Onward, Hobbits of America and kick out the jams!
..what kind of soup? lol
LOL
There are many, many ways the GOP could lose in 2012. It’s hard to unseat an incumbent, although bringing back the slogan “It’s the economy, stupid” would go a long way toward accomplishing that. Obama will get a lot of votes again this time around from die-hards for the same reasons he got a lot the last time. Some on the left or center-left will sit home in disgust, but I don’t count on that being a lot. The real question is whether the demoralization of his supporters combined and energizing of the Republican base can amount to enough.
And I’m not sure it can. The GOP is very, very fond of nominating its Unwinnables. McCain got so far last time around because he was a press darling, and the early primary votes hit his better challengers hard while briefly elevating losers like Huckabee. No clear leaders have emerged on the right, and by now they should be showing a stronger field than they are; it’s not too late but it’s not an encouraging sign. The very best outcome (for many reasons) would be if the GOP leadership recognized the Tea Party’s importance to their voting base and worked with fiscal conservatives to bolster a candidate that would truly pitch a big tent. If they get a candidate who fires up the Tea Party with fiscal discipline and is palatable to the political center, such a person could challenge Obama. But I am convinced anyone else faces extremely long odds; even though Obama is his own worst enemy, the same can be said about the establishment of the Republican party.
I like to use the interactive map on http:www.270towin.com
I now keep coming up with a tie. NH, OH, FL, MO, VA plus all the usual Red States make 269. The Dems get NM, CO, NV, IA plus all the usual Blue States. That also makes 269.
Thus, the current House chooses the President and the current Senate chooses the VP. President Palin (for example) and VP Biden with a Republican Senate and House. The Leftist heads would just explode! You thought they were bad after losing to Bush in ’00, wait until they lose an electoral tie to Palin AND lose the Senate, too. There would not be enough popcorn in the world! Bwahahahaha!
No, the new Congress is sworn in on January 3, but the electoral votes aren’t counted until January 6, so the new 113th Congress gets to break such a tie. Furthermore, since each state only gets one vote for President in an election thrown to the House, there is no danger whatsoever of the House re-electing Obama. As for the Senate, it will be extremely difficult for the Democrats to hold the Senate under any circumstances, since they must defend 23 seats and the Republicans only need to take four seats to obtain a 51-49 advantage.
Still, the Vice President is chosen by state delegations, like the President. Currently, the Democrats have an 18-15 advantage in Senate delegations, with 17 states split and 26 being necessary to elect a Vice President (Vice President Biden would have no power to break a tie).
You’re right. I thought they counted them on 12/16, not 1/6, so I had to go look it up again. Thanks for the correction.
So, no split Prez/VP. Still, they would gnash their teeth if they lost an electoral tie.
“Obama presidency is “failed” and effectively “over” because he has “abdicated” leadership to Congress”…O.K. Don’t misunderstand, I hope obama is run out of the White House in a landslide defeat. But, please, let’s stop feeding the ignorance monster. None of these people in Washington are our “leaders”. They work for us. Furthermore, obama has absolutely no role, leadership or otherwise, in the business of Congress. He is merely the head of a CO-EQUAL, but separate, branch of government. If Congress would actually discharge it’s responsibilities, we would not have many of the problems with which we are faced with today. Sorry, but I cannot stand the ignorance about our system of government any longer…I went to school a long time ago.
Oh, the agony…
of how it is supposed to be, verses the way it is…
I hear you my friend!
And both the president and the legislature are supposed to follow the constitution too. Haven’t seen much of that lately from either branch.
These past few weeks have in my opinion been about the boy who cried wolf again and again. And most of the idiots in the Republican and Democratic parties believed him. The result: A future with trillions in debt farther than the eye can see. Not just a weakened America. But an America headed for the emergency room. If Obama wins in 2012, it’s time to hang up your spikes. It’s game over. Set and match. 1776 – 2012. The tombstone will read. The fat lady will sing. We saved the world from the Nazis. Defeated the Japanese. Fought a civil war. All for nothing. Obama, who was out to kill this nation, just may succeed.
Alright, I’m irate about the debt ceiling, but now we have to focus on the 2012 Appropriations Bills. The CR runs out in two months, which means that is our next weapon. Our objective should be to do away with the notion of “mandatory spending.” All spending should be subject to annual appropriations, and if the programs don’t get enough money, then they have to come back to Congress before the year is over and justify why they should receive a supplemental appropriation. We’ll never balance the budget if we’re only allowed to tinker with discretionary spending.
Over? Not with the “Raise and Spend” program, it isn’t over. Even if he doesn’t get re-elected, Obama has put powerful forces in motion against this country. They won’t stop, even when he is gone. We’re like a house which finally gets a new coat of paint, and then we find out that termites are eating away at the floor and walls.
Obama can still come back — remember, Bill Clinton was able to rally in 1996 from behind to win re-election. But to come back, Obama’s going to have to take the same attitude as Clinton that he doesn’t give a damn if the left side of his party hates him or not, and that’s where the other side of Obama’s thin skin hurts him.
Clinton was willing to listen to Dick Morris in the summer of ’96 and sign the Republican Congress’ welfare reform bill, even though it drove the left batshirt and even led to a couple of mid-level resignations in protest by Clinton political appointees. Obama angered the left on the debt ceiling battle but it was more because of his pacivity than anything else — he still has yet to face down the True Believers on his side of the aisle and tell them to pound sand; the promise tihs tine was yea, this thing’s a crap sandwich for progressives, but just you wait until next year, when this kills off the Bush tax cuts.
Obama just kicked the can down the road towards Election Day, 2012 because as angry as it makes him to be criticized by Republicans, the same attacks by the left make him feel hurt and isolated. He can’t break the bond with the people who helped him get elected under the idea that it would turn America into liberalism’s Valhalla, but he can’t get re-elected if he’s seen as pandering to the tax-and-spend faction of his party next year. Clinton was willing to finally kick the left to the curb four months before election day with the welfare reform bill and won the moderates back against Bob Dole; Obama’s going to have to do the same thing within the next 8-10 months, but the odds are he’s going to try and dodge the issue all the way into October unless the poll numbers are trending towards hopeless before then.
If Obama was remotely capable of a Clintonian move, I would agree he could hang onto his job in a heartbeat. In fact it would probably do more than save his job, it would stop terrifying a lot of folks in the financial sector and probably inject a boost of life into the economy–which would further save his job. The problem is, although he campaigned as a centrist enigma, he was the most liberal Senator on record at the time and anyone who paid the least bit of attention to his policies knew that his ideology was hard left. Clinton wasn’t a hard-liner; the cynical view is to say he had no interest in putting his principles before himself, but practically speaking I think he realized he could accomplish more by playing the long game than burning all his political capital fighting an entrenched opponent.
Obama as no long game. Any time he has faced the choice between a short-term strategy favoring his party or ideology at greater long-term expense, or giving a little for the sake of showing leadership or even just mollifying the opposition (or saving our credit rating), he has unswervingly opted for the short-term gain. Some might say he at least is planning for his reelection campaign, but wouldn’t he have been much stronger facing centrist voters by taking a leadership role in the debt ceiling debate, by coming out with a firm plan of his own and leading the negotiations from there? He’ll never face a serious primary challenger unless HRC throws in her hat, and the real danger then isn’t that she’d come at him from the left, but that she’d be coming from a position of leadership and effectiveness and could make the left genuinely afraid that renominating Obama would lead to a loss in the general election. So Obama, by trying to avoid troubles during an election year, also feeds into the perception of weakness that will ultimately play into the GOP’s hands during that same campaign. At every turn he has squandered his future strength by marshaling all his forces in the present, which not coincidentally happens to look a whole lot like his management of the economy.
Obama has no Dick Morris in his office to push him to do the Right thing.
“If the GOP nominates one of its Unwinnables”, we should suspect the party elites of taking a dive, again.
It is demoralizing to have a President that lies so much and who disrespects the Constitution and we the people as much as Obama does.
Patrick,
Yeah. You’re right.
The GOP RINOs don’t want to let the socons take over. The socons have the gumption and the strength and the intellectual flexibility to preside over the rebirth of the R Party. Or we can do to the R’s what our ancestors did to the Whigs.
Either way, someone is getting a new backbone. The question for the RINOs is ‘would you like your backbone replacement surgery with or without anasthesia?’
The GOP can try to take that dive to foil the socons, but it might well be the last mistake they make.
And well said, Eon.
Lies accumulate, geometrically. At some point, the fact that you hear a lie, and at last you know it for what it is, makes it easier for you to remember you that you heard one last week, or yesterday, or just a second ago on the evening news. And all the old lies that the left has littering the historic landscape will become more visible, and more visible, and ever more visible until the public begins to see the heaping piles of rotting lies in broken trash bags at the margins of every road we travel. And they will get fed up with the rising stench. And they will go to the polls… and try to choose between The Blame Machine, and a watered down version of the Corporate Olympics. And if you could count the shrugs in voting booths…
You are missing something, Stephen Green: THE REPUBLICAN CONGRESS JUST RESCINDED BUSH’S TAX CUTS.
How you can call that anything other than a huge victory for the former senator from Illinois is beyond me.
They rescinded the expiring tax cuts? I’m not sure Houdini could have pulled off that one.
Until now, they could have been extended.
Good to know, though, that you think doing away with the one major accomplishment of the Republicans in the last fifteen years is just a big joke.
Smirk, smirk, smirk. Now the economy will go into a depression. How funny life is. Hyuk, hyuk, hyuk.
I find it hard to find humor in anything when the gulags are already within sight.
Actually, Bush’s tac cuts were, overall, one giant-ass mistake. Dropping millions of people off the tax rolls — so that fewer than half of working Americans pay an income tax — plays right into the Democrats’ class warfare.
Flatten taxes. Broaden the base. Eliminate loopholes.
That’s the lesson Reagan taught in ’86. And Bush fucked that up, real good.
It isn’t the tax cuts for lower incomes that will get repealed. It will be the tax cuts for investors. Of course you know this, smirkboy.
And you have ignored — willfully or stupidly, I do not know — the central premise that Bush narrowed the base while gleefully filling the tax code with loopholes.
You have to go back to Nixon to find a worse Republican president since Bush. And if you disqualify Nixon for not completing both his terms, you have to go back to Hoover to find a Republican more profligate and spendthrift and downright progressive.
Don’t get me wrong. I voted for Bush — twice. Because the Democrats each time were even worse. But I washed my hands afterwards.
Unlike some, I still have my pride. And my principles.
Almost forgot to add two things.
1. The GOP will love to refight the tax battle next summer, as Obama needs to hit the campaign trial. The shallows of ignorance displayed by complaining about that bit could be plumbed with the wide end of a thumbtack.
2. Your account here at VP is banned for two weeks, for name-calling your otherwise quite-tolerant host.
This agreement sets us back to the Clinton rates. If you recall, it was Clinton’s triumph on his tax hike that set the stage for even more vile laws, such as the gun bans. Those bans initiated the Nazi-like persecution of gun owners.
Operation Fast and Furious will set the stage for the civilian disarmament of America. You’re probably cool with that, too, aren’t you? Most people who drink martinis and go around in suits and ties are.
OweBama won. Money to get him through the inconvenience of re-negotiating the next debt ceiling increase until after he’s re-elected. The ONLY thing that mattered to him was no short-term. So—another rushed through ill-understood bill with all kinds of nasty Damn Dem surprises in it. We’ll have to read it to find out what’s in it. We just made his re-election easier.
We were just gutted.
What on earth are you talking about?
Pull your head out.
$2,400,000,000,000/300,000,000 people in the US (citizens) = $8,000 per every person. we need $8k per person more than we take in because??? and since only 1/2 of us pay any taxe$, its $16,000 per working person, + interest on that $$ too,+ the debt we already had + that interest. that is more $$ than anybody has ever seen. EVER. and this is victory?
we have been royally screwed, again. this much debt is unsustainable for anybody. not lowering our credit rating? who’s paying those guys, and what are they smoking? this is like letting thieves come in and rob you, and commenting to police how glad you are their friends didn’t kill you. good analogy.
chicago jesus doesn’t need a war chest. he has $4.2 trillion of our tax $$$ to again bribe and handout to his friends (voters, dead people, union thugs working on voting machines). and still nobody nobody knows for sure this cat isn’t from Mars. he!! of a way to run a RR. now i know why 2012 holds such significance as a target date of destruction to come, throughout history.
Will the dems dare throw Obama overboard? If they do it will be the greatest risk they have ever taken in their collective political lives. But if they do not challenge him the perception of intellectual dishonesty will be obvious to even those who have failed to see it all these years.
Answer to your last question: To play goff, take family trips and generally milk this country for four more years.
Every post war (WWII) president believed that they were elevated when they assumed the office except Obama. He believed that his election elevated the office. His being awareded the Nobel Prize during hi first month did not bring out any humility from him or his administration.
Based upon his past job history, he is about due for a job change. He has never held a full time job for 4 years, much less 8 years.
If his job approval rating fall below 35 per cent, he will not seek re-election.
He’s not a fighter willing to do anything to keep his job, he’s too good for that level of dedication.
Obama not run? Just because his approval rating was below 35% ? I would have to see that to believe it.
I am more inclined to believe Obama would deliberately place this nation at serious peril in order to win an election. He knows Americans will rally around the President in a time of great crisis. He will dust off that old American flag lapel pin from the 2008 election and we will not be able to get him off of our TV sets.
I am more inclined to believe that he would have his ACORN and union goons pretend they are Tea Partiers and create widespread civil unrest.
We have elected a man who has, as his first interest, the dismantling of this country, to be replaced by whatever nightmare “utopia” He and Valerie Jarrett and Van Jones and Soros can conjure up from the depths of hell.
I pray you are right, but humility and Obama are strangers.
“I am more inclined to believe Obama would deliberately place this nation at serious peril in order to win an election.”
He already has.
It started in Sept 2008 when his handlers deliberately caused an economic crisis that plunged the entire world into a depression. The attack on Lehman Bros happened the very day that McLame took his first and only lead in the Gallup poll. That was the signal that unleashed the beasts.
Since then, his efforts to destroy this country are legion: the StickItToUs, takeover of the best health care system on the planet, $5T in nuclear debt, deliberate destruction of our energy capabilities, deliberate non-enforcement of the borders, Cap and Tax via the EPA, and on and on.
The civil unrest will come without the help of Acorn and the Unions additional push.
This last bit of slight of hand by Washington will send this country into a depression quicker than they wish us to know.
Martial law and a proclamation ala Chavez, another 4 years (maybe more) for obama.
Remind all that voted for obama, this is their doing. Maybe, they will think next time. By then it could be to late.
“Obama could very well take the election next year — but to what purpose?”
To keep power.
What else?
And these are our smartest and brightest? I think it’s disturbing Joe Biden will call the American people terrorists but the brightest and smartest will not call the maniacs that hang little boys, acid wash and rape their women who they force to where potato sacks, teach their children to hate Jews and the USA and then force them into marriage and sex when they’re under 10 and strap bombs on their little bodies to commit mass murder, chop off heads, slaughter Christians, slaughter their own people while protesting for a better life, hang gays, use airplanes to murder 3,000 of our citizens and traumatize a whole city, execute their own police, blow up planes with hundreds of Americans on board, attack our military bases on our own soil, murder their own daughters because they date an American boy and they live in America, the smartest and brightest won’t call the “religion of peace” what it is but they will call the American people terrorists because we want Washington to stop spending our money, balance our budget and lower our taxes? Let me tell our “smartest and brightest” something….there will be a wave coming at you and hit you so hard you will never get up, you are going to wish it was the “religion of peace” after we are finished with you. We have had enough and it’s over, you are over, you are going to experience something you have never experienced before. But don’t worry we will make sure you are written about in the history books, we will make sure your names are there, front and center, as the ones that united and progressed this great country.
Obama has failed? Are you kidding me? Obama just keeps on winning. He has grown the size and scope of government like no other president, has pushed America to the brink of bankruptcy, has put more people on government crack handouts (there are now 70+ million on food stamps), and has crippled business. And he is just getting started.
When Obamacare kicks in in 2013, he will continue to win. Obamacare was a masterstroke, simultaneously increasing the size and scope of government, spending, and nanny state dependents while destroying the health care and insurance industries.
Obama has transformed America. The debt ceiling negotiations were just potential icing – a chance to hasten the imminent collapse. But he has won. This is why liberals now openly chant “Raise taxes! Death to business!” They know America has passed the point of no return.
The headline and first sentence belie the fact the agreement use current spending as a baseline,includes further inceases in expenditure.
Quick question for you Stephen… your last sentence states “If the GOP nominates one of its Unwinnables, Obama could very well take the election next year”…
Who do you think is “Unwinnable”?
We won’t know until the primary race is really underway.
Any RINO that is in Washington, anyone that has had more than 3 terms in Washington, and anyone, in Washington that has not stood up to the Dems or the Prez.
Hostage takers, Terrorists, Extremists, have replace the old names of Nazi, Racist, and Homophobes. What are they going to call us in the 2012 election cycle?
The Borg?
cheers
eon
They blew it when they called us Hobbits. Everyone but my brother read the books in the Sixties, and many more cheered on the Oscar winning Hobbits as they proved to be the truest of the true blue, as brave as the most valiant knight, and the best of good sports. And nothing suits the Marxists and their fellow travelers like the title of Orc. Hobbit? You Betcha!
While I believe that Obama is a crappy President, I also know that 15 months is an eternity in politics. It is too early for the reports of his impending demise.
It hit me the other day, when Laura Ingram was trashing the Tea Party over the debt issue in Congress – Most people think Tea Partiers are Republicans.
That’s the big problem, guys. It’s why Democrats say things like “Where were you when George Bush…” and it’s why Republicans say things like “Compromise…”.
We aren’t Republicans. We often vote with that particular party, but only because the other party’s offerings are worse. Many of us vote Libertarian or Constitution Party if we have the choice.
The Republican Party is simply the instrument through which we’re exercising our political will right now. So, you can throw all the invectives at us you like. You can trash Republicans till you’re hoarse. It doesn’t bother us, and it won’t suck us into your circular arguments, because we don’t care.
We’re Tea Partiers. We’re Americans. The only team we want to win is AMERICA. Freedom is our default setting, so your BS arguments meant to distract and distort mean nothing to us.
This is why they can’t peg us down. This is why they can’t create a narrative that sticks to us. We’ve had it with your garbage, and we’re taking our country back, and there’s not a darned thing you can do about it.
Even if the GOP takes control of the senate, a reelected Obama can still do a lot of damage. True he can’t pass any sweeping new bills that nobody has read, or spend money in huge lots. But he can still continue to cripple the economy as he is presently doing with crazy regulatory decisions, like gunrunner, the NLRB decision to kill the Boeing plant, Obamacare regs, the EPA decisions to cripple drilling and impliment climate change regs that are not legislated, and kill power generation in TX. And he can still obstruct vital changes like spending cuts or repeal of Obamacare.
We dont really need a tranformative president now, since if we get a repub congress and senate with many new Tea Party members, they will take care of that. We just need a president that wont oppose this transformation, and wont screw things up anymore with idiotic regulations and executive actions. For that much, Romney might be OK. at least he appears competent, and wont oppose neccessary change, even if he isn’t driving it. In any event, Obama has to go. He is not capable of moderating like Clinton was. If, after 2010, Obama had taken on a conciliator type, like Dick Morris, who could work with repubs, and look for moderate compromise, there might have been hope for Obama, but he did not. His administration continues to be dominated by the same anti business radicals and incompetent or corrupt leftist cronies it always had. He will continue screwing things up until he is gone.
Perhaps the GOP should really understand what Reagan got right, in his context, and apply some similar logic and understanding to the situation now.
Probably being simply truthful, factual and realistic, and drop the posturing.
I thought Palin looked good.
Hooray for us Hobbits! Sauron must be feeling vulnerable.