Fantasies, Present and Future

The Obama administration has offered a number of recent fantasies. Here are a few examples.

a) Despite owning the presidency, the House, and a filibuster-proof Senate between 2009-10, the president could not introduce an immigration bill, in the manner he rammed through health care? What nefarious force stopped him, and why does he blame “them” in a recent speech in El Paso? Who are “they,” who so illiberally sidetracked his immigration visions during his first two years, and instead preferred “alligators and moats” to reform? Democrats in the House, Senate, or administration between 2009 and 2010?

b) How in the El Paso speech can one pontificate about and deplore partisan politics and “ugly rhetoric” on immigration when at the same time asking the audience to log on to a White House website to lobby for the president’s political agenda — a few months after asking “Latinos” to “punish” their Republican “enemies”? Is the latter “ugly rhetoric”? If not, why? And was it not more ugly rhetoric, when his whipped-up audience interrupted his own cheerleading with “they’re racists!”?

c) Obama also swore that 650 miles of border fencing of all sorts along a 1,900 mile-plus Mexico-U.S. border means that the border fence “is basically completed.” How does less than one third of a task constitute “basically completed?” What does “basically” mean?

d) In his speech on the debt a month ago, Obama seemed confused over the sudden additional $5 trillion in debt. But who ran that up between 2009-2011? A Republican House, Senate, or President Bush? A Republican-controlled Congress? And what happened to his own debt commission?

e) If not raising income tax rates was smart in December 2010, why is raising them suddenly smart in April 2011?

f) Why was voting against raising the debt ceiling in 2006 considered principled when we owed $8 trillion, but it is not when we owe $14 trillion?

g) We are to believe that future additional drilling in the U.S. will not help lower world oil or gas prices, but calling on the Middle East to pump more, or praising Brazil’s proposed commitment to offshore exploration, will?

h) What role does inviting a rap “poet” to the White House who has praised a cop-killer and invoked violent imagery about the former president play in the promised new age of civility?

i) How can increasing five-fold Predator targeted assassination missions against suspected terrorists, dropping precision bombs to take out the person and family of Muammar Gaddafi, and ordering a hit on Bin Laden be considered OK, but waterboarding three admitted terrorists who claimed responsibility for 9/11 and gave information that led to the demise of bin Laden be considered both amoral and illegal?

j) How can we praise the authority of the UN and our newfound compliance with its authorizations, when we cite a UN resolution to offer humanitarian aid and to enforce a no-fly-zone over Libya — but then deliberately subvert them by trying to bomb and kill Gaddafi, whose destruction is and is not the object of our campaign, but most certainly not in the praised UN resolution?

As before, I will let readers decide the answers to the above questions from the usual alternatives previously discussed: