Krauthammer: what a difference a year makes
Charles Krauthammer reflects on Obama’s first year. A few highlights of the article [emphasis mine]:
The health care drive is the most important reason Obama has sunk to 46 percent. But this reflects something larger. In the end, what matters is not the persona but the agenda. In a country where politics is fought between the 40-yard lines, Obama has insisted on pushing hard for the 30. And the American people — disorganized and unled but nonetheless agitated and mobilized — have put up a stout defense somewhere just left of midfield.
Ideas matter. Legislative proposals matter. Slick campaigns and dazzling speeches can work for a while, but the magic always wears off.
It’s inherently risky for any charismatic politician to legislate. To act is to choose and to choose is to disappoint the expectations of many who had poured their hopes into the empty vessel — of which candidate Obama was the greatest representative in recent American political history.
Obama did not just act, however. He acted ideologically. To his credit, Obama didn’t just come to Washington to be someone. Like Reagan, he came to Washington to do something — to introduce a powerful social democratic stream into America’s deeply and historically individualist polity.
Obama was nothing more than a myth, who had just enough veneer on the brass, to pass it off as gold.
We were told he was an intellectual and a genius, but no one howled when he sealed his transcripts.
We were told he did not know Ayers, only to have Ayers admit to writing both of Obama’s tomes, and having a relationship (personal and otherwise) that spanned 20 years.
We were told he had no ties to Blago and Rezco, when if that was the case, it would make him the only politician in the city of Chicago who never had a relationship with either.
We were told he was “above the fray… like God”, even when we heard his backhanded jabs at Bush (to end partisan bickering) in the inauguration speech, which was the excact same moment that his staff was planning message attacks against Palin, Limbaugh, and the Right in general.
It is debatable that Wright, his background, and his associations were open to scrutiny. I think it should have, but others may disagree. However, no one would disagree that we could have examined his record as state legislator. If we did, no one would be surprised at some of the things he is doing now. The ideology in his state senate record, is similar to his US Senator record, and to his actions now.
To add to Cubs_Fan’s astute observations also:
He won because so many people voted based on the color of his skin instead of the content of his character.
His opponent had no significant virtue or charisma with which to generate enthusiasm on the right.
He was funded by George Soros and the Saudis in addition to tons of free advertising willingly bestowed upon him by the complicit big media outlets.
Certainly Obamacare is a factor in Obama’s declining approval ratings. But Krauthammer’s trenchant analysis significantly ignores the greatest single factor in Obama’s decline in approval ratings. Namely, “It’s the economy, stupid”.
The fact of the matter is that most Americans, 70%+, do not believe that we can afford Obamacare and that Obama’s priorities are seriously out of order. That is by far the most significant factor.
Many people are nervous about terrorism and the competence of Obama in dealing with the threat. A subconsciously suppressed concern for many other people, it is just waiting to erupt. The administration literally ‘dodged the bullet’ with the ‘panty-bomber’. They shall not be so lucky next time and, there shall be a next time. Given the administration’s severe case of denial, as to the very nature of the terrorist threat, should a successful terrorist attack occur in 2010, a very real possibility, the ‘blowback’ will be severe and politically fatal.
In Massachusetts, the democrats have already lost 65% of the independents… yet Massachusetts is just the tip of the iceberg. We are about to witness the greatest single decline ever, in a political parties fortunes.
Obama will be judged another Carter, even his supporters will access him as, at best well meaning but inescapably incompetent. And incompetency in the President, especially in a time of War and recession/depression is politically intolerable.
Speaking of Bush (for whom I have no excessive fondness, incidentally), I would have loved to see him stiff Obama over Obama’s request to help head the Haitian earthquake relief effort. He should have refused the task and explained himself in a pointed and forthright statement that, having been so notably incompetent at everything he tried over a period of eight long years (including the Katrina relief effort), he had nothing of any value to contribute to the massive task in Haiti.
Alas.
Bush, over 8 long years of the most brutal accusations, recriminations and verbal assaults, of which only Sarah Palin can claim to know what he went through, has amply demonstrated that he shall always answer his country’s call and never put himself above his country.
That despite 50% or more of her citizens, by their own actions, having demonstrated being unworthy of his sacrifice.
Geoffrey Britain,
Agreed.
Still, it would have been nice. . . .
Just by-the-way, I think that the only reason Obama asked Bush to do this thing in the first place was to enhance himself. I hate it that Bush is allowing himself to be so used.
Nevertheless, I agree that Bush is so much the gentleman and citizen-patriot that refusing is not in his character. He is like his father in this, that they are both fine men who found themselves in the wrong job, a job that does not as a rule reward fine men.
George Bush has personal character in spades.
This is a guy who graciously helped Obama transition into the White House and his new responsibilities as president and since then has resolutely refused to criticize Obama and his policies in public (even has Obama has never tired of blaming Bush and complaining about what a terrible mess he inherited). Bush recently spent hours sitting with the families of those who were murdered in the Ft. Hood massacres.
Say what you will about the man and his policies, the one thing George Bush would never say when asked to step up and help the devastated people of Haiti is “No.” I’ll bet it would never even occur to him to use an occasion like that to treat Obama as Obama has treated him. I have not always been a supporter of Bush’s policies as president, but I have come to regard him as a genuine leader.
Obama, not so much.
Charles the Great continues to take No Prisoners on the Hard Left. I love the man !
Obamalinsky is exactly that. And, a mere midget next to Charles ‘le Grande.