Obama’s second term
Commenter “foxmarks” writes:
Barry can’t really be a -100. He has studiously continued many of GWB’s policies (cf: FICA tax holiday, GITMO, drone strikes). Barry’s rhetoric is a -100, but as the Progs fairly argue, he has governed as a moderate Republican. His laziness has led me to no longer fear a 2nd term. Obamacare will either lead to my desired systemic correction or be overturned by the Supremes. I have zero faith that Congress will repeal and replace with anything that honors individual liberty and market-based pricing. I don’t want mere repeal, I want a catastrophic defeat at the hands of economic reality or legal principle.
Foxmarks is not alone; I’ve noticed a growing number of people in the blogosphere saying some version of the above. I’m working on a larger article discussing the danger of the idea that it’s more desirable to strive for a catastrophic event that will lead to something revolutionary (and which its advocates think they will be able to control) rather than a gradual step-by-step redressing of the problems. But that’s not this post. Here I’m going to deal with the idea that Obama would continue to govern as a “moderate Republican” in a second term.
Obama is a politician, and although he’s no genius he’s a smart man, smart enough to have been at least somewhat strategic in his decisions during his first term. Unless you think he really is a moderate Republican in his secret heart, there is no reason to suppose he will govern moderately in his second term, when he will no longer have any need to appeal to independents in order to be re-elected.
It is logical to assume that he will see his second term as an opportunity—perhaps his last—to accomplish what he could not in his first. That can be done not only by legislative means but by executive fiat. His power to veto the legislation passed by a most-likely-Republican Congress that will almost certainly not have the numbers to override him will remain intact, and he will exercise it. He will be setting foreign policy and appointing Cabinet members and czars, and they will be setting domestic policy as well.
And, of course, he will most likely be appointing one or several liberal Supreme Court justices, who will remain in office for life.
It makes no sense to assume that Obama will be too lazy to exercise these prerogatives in a second term when the opportunity presents itself. I have little doubt that he still adheres to a left-wing ideology, and has merely been thwarted in achieving most of what he desired in his first term (although Obamacare was a fine start). A second term will present a golden opportunity.
“I’m working on a larger article discussing the danger of the idea that it’s more desirable to strive for a catastrophic event that will lead to something revolutionary…”
I agree completely. When faced with a crisis, caused by its incongruent policies, the government always takes the most extreme action.
Case in point, Obama using the financial crisis (and the past administration’s policies) as the basis to run up on average, $1.5 Trillion in deficits each year since being elected…
Which leads to an increased call to raise taxes on the millionaires (everyone making over 250K) to address the growing deficit that is caused by his Western European Socialist panache.
Unlike Bush who was held accountable for every memo that came out of a government agency, the media will give Obama a pass for bypassing Congress and using EO’s and agencies rules to accomplish his goals.
After Obama wins, (not if with the likes of Rick Santorum and Mittens surging in Iowa), we will really see the Chicago way. He will create so much regulatory mischief, it will take years for a more prudent president to rewrite all of those agency rules
…fighting the urge to comment about the “apocalypse” issue…must at least state I have no illusions about my (or anyone’s) ability to control the outcome…
On topic, I disagree about Barry’s laziness. That has shown to be a defining aspect of his personality. (sloth + narcissism makes for one weird cat) He had Congress on his side, but delegated his signature health care to them, and was unable to get it passed without extensive trickeration by Congresscritters. He’s just not much of a leader.
I propose that the government will continue to run him. The bureaucracy itself is moderate and resistant to major changes, no matter how strongly we hope for some.
I hate to lose the opportunity for a couple of constructionist Supremes, but have no faith that Newt Romney would give me what I prefer anyway. I can’t vote for a pair of Souters. A pair of Kagans at least give me a little libertine personal liberty. A few more glaring incompetents or criminals like Holder or Van Jones serves my aim for a showdown on legal principle.
Barry’s foreign policy is where the Progs have their strongest case about his governing as a moderate-R. Those in the neocon camp surely hate the way he presents the United States rhetorically, but terrorists are still being detained or blown up and sabers are still being rattled in the Persian Gulf. Bachmann or Santorum might begin to incorporate the threat of political Islam into policy as I desire, but the righty establishment keeps telling me they can’t win.
Since I am no longer afraid of Paul’s non-interventionist policy, I don’t mind Barry’s lazy neoconism. Israel *will* take care of itself.
Obama’s 2nd term will be defined by Congress. As long as the GOP doesn’t fumble so bad as to lose the fillibuster, Barry will not see any catastrophic* bills reach is desk.
*catastrophic in regard to life or liberty. They will send him approval for trillion$ in new debt, which precipitates the showdown.
I think presidents do all sorts of little things outside of the spotlight (executive signing orders, judicial appointments, appointments to heads of government agencies), and we don’t want Obama to do all these little things for 4 more years. The only hope we’d have if he is reelected is that he plays even more golf and takes more vacations.
Supreme Court appointments are splashy, but at least as important are Federal district and appelate court appointments. Relatively few cases are granted certiorari by the Supreme Court, which leaves a whole lot of lower court decisions intact. Some of the greatest outrages take place in such courts.
Food for thought for those who propose to sit out the election on conservative principle if they don’t like the Republican candidate.
This blog comment sections splits into Romney people and non Romney people. Here are areas of disagreement which cause the split:
Big area of disagreement #1:
Romney people: Obama is a huge threat to be re-elected.
Non Romney people: Disagree!
This issue comes down to: how dumb are voters(?), and how influential is MSM?
From a NonRomney perspective: you Romney people are buying into a meta narrative which is pushed by MSM, the left, and a perceived “smart” group of institutional Repubs who hold power in D.C. You are, possibly, succumbing to the self-flattery of identifying yourselves with the smart set of Repubs in D.C., i.e of identifying yourselves as smarter than we red state mouth breathers. Yet, you in the smart set are not wise enough to recognize the still strong national mood which the Tea Parties exposed.
As a side issue: being a mouth breather is more fun. We hold these fun and optimistic opinions: A] Pres. Obama is likely to be defeated, B] the American electorate has significant wisdom, C] the MSM is, at minimum, significantly less influential.
Big area of disagreement #2:
Romney is the most electable Repub.
This disagreement is about the following issue: how do you attract independent voters?
Romney people – who, once again, might be over-influenced by the narrative of MSM, the left, and the D.C. Repub “smart set” – believe you entice independents via reaching out to them with soothing, “moderate” political positions.
Romney people, seemingly, remember the Goldwater defeat and forget the Reagan victories. Why was Goldwater a lesson, yet Reagan was something to be dismissed?
Non Romney people believe you create enthusiasm among politically knowledgeable conservative voters, then those politically knowledgeable voters influence independent voters who – in reality – are political unknowledgeable.
You cannot reach out towards the political positions of independent voters, insofar as independents have no political positions: there is nothing to reach out to, there is no there there. If independents had enough knowledge to have political convictions, then those voters would be partisans for either big government or for small government: they would not be “independent voters”.
I say the above with no sense of superiority. Independent voters .. who are too busy living their lives to pay attention to politics .. are the sanest citizens in this nation.
Big area of disagreement #3:
Romney people: re-election of Obama will be a disaster from which the nation will never recover.
In fairness, various Romney people have various beliefs about the level of pain which an Obama re-election would cause. However, the point, for
Romney people: an Obama re-election would be a GIGANTIC DISASTER MOVIE!!!
Whereas, we non Romneys are saying,
First, Pres. Obama is not going to be re-elected, so the issue is moot.
Second, if Pres. Obama is re-elected: our nation is resilient.
The main thing I fear, re re-election, is the appointment of Judges and of SCOTUS Justices. I dread that. If we can hold constitutional principles together: our nation is resilient. If not, then we are endangered and brittle.
Still, from a nonRomney perspective: refer to above: Pres. Obama is not going to be re-elected. Our nation is smarter than that. See, Reagan v Carter: electoral blowout.
The election is in doubt in any case – the Dems certainly know that. I look for Ginsberg – at least – to resign at the end of this session so that O will have the chance to name another SC Justice before the election.
If you ignore the many things Obama is doing under the covers and behind the curtain you might be able to think of him as somewhat ineffective and a moderate liberal. But in fact he and his administration have made enormous changes and in the process broken laws. For reasons we all understand the press refuses to investigate anything Obama does. In fact even after all this time we have no clue what he has done in the past. Some have investigated his time in college and no one remembers him. People who took the same class as him never saw him. He visited countries that Americans are not allowed to visit, how did he do that? The only answer is he did not have an American passport. He received funding and special handling to get into prestigious colleges, from who??? Obama’s past is a mystery and most of what he has done in office is secret. He has single handedly destroyed our economy and given four more years I think he could destroy our country as well.
gcotharn: my post has nothing to do with supporting or opposing Romney to be the nominee.
My beef re Romney vs. not-Romney (although I don’t get into it in this post) is not with those who don’t support Romney and won’t vote for him in the primaries. It’s with those who consider themselves either Republicans and/or conservatives and who won’t vote for Romney if he is the nominee—and think Obama will not be destructive in a second term, or think they can control and manage the outcome if he is.
I understand that you may not have been addressing me in your comment, but I wanted to make my position clear.
I know all that, about your opinions. Today was my chance to sit and to suss that out for myself. Later, when it there might be more a appropriate post, I anticipate I will be too busy to work through a comment. So, I cheated, and used a slim pretense to put it into the comment section of this post.
May locust infest the ass of whoever even entertains the idea of Obama till 2016. This country can’t survive it.
OB: Good point about the lesser judges. Watching both Clinton and GWB, I think the Senate is really where the issue is decided.
gcotharn: Obama will be a disaster from which I hope the government will not recover. The nation outside of government I hope to preserve. The big underlying issue is where that distinction is drawn. Barry’s second term will bring it out, while a GOP establishment candidate would serve to keep the distinction fuzzy.
I guess I can’t stay away from the “apocalypse” topic.
GoneWithTheWind: Obama will certainly continue breaking laws. That’s what modern Presidents do. At this point, administrative corruption is a feature, not a bug. Incompetence and corruption give Congress levers to keep Obama from doing anything radical.
Neo: I do not know if I am conservative. Everyone I deal with who is *not* a conservative thinks I am one. I see a lot of overlap with cons and my views, but there’s no canonical definition of the term. When I ran for council, my support was mostly Republican and a little Green. I’m liking “Constitutionalist” these days, but I am fiercely conservative on social issues where the Constitution is silent.
BTW, neo, when using your handle, should it be lowercase or title case? I like “foxmarks” as all-lower, but hate sentences that do not start with capitals. There are few things I am unwilling to overthink… 🙂
“… the danger of the idea that it’s more desirable to strive for a catastrophic event that will lead to something revolutionary (and which its advocates think they will be able to control) rather than a gradual step-by-step redressing of the problems.”
It is a very dangerous idea as things ‘revolutionary’ rarely turn out for the better; the American Revolution being one of the few exceptions.
“But that’s not this post. Here I’m going to deal with the idea that Obama would continue to govern as a “moderate Republican” in a second term.”
Other than increasing the use of drones and continuing to use rendition as a tool, in what way has BHO ‘lead’ with moderation? I agree with foxmarks, BHO is not a leader. He is a demagogue.
gcotharn,
Obama is absolutely horrible on foreign policy. He seems to think getting Bin Laden was enough of an accomplishment, but the man is oblivious to all the layers of complexity involved. I am really scared that if he is re-elected their will be bigger challenges. I don’t necessarily mean we will be nuked. More likely is that our adversaries will pressure other countries to side with them, just like the Russian minister who now says that Iran is not working on nukes. You have to remember that it was Russians, French, and UN people who benefitted from the oil for food kickbacks and helped undermine Iraqi sanctions, thus encouraging Saddam to play games with weapons inspectors.
While Obama did go along with the Eastern Pacific cooperation, I suspect this was because he was not really involved and left the matter to State and the miltary. Whenever he follows his own instincts, he screws up.
foxmarks: well, there are few things I’m not willing to overthink, either. But whether to use upper or lower case for my name is one of them: use whichever you wish!
…Barry’s laziness. That has shown to be a defining aspect of his personality. (sloth + narcissism makes for one weird cat)…
True, but it’s not Obama himself that you have to fear. He is merely the instrument. (Hillary, too, and she bows to some higher master, or she would have eviscerated this idiot back when she had the chance).
Fortunately, Obama has blown it to such a degree that even his backers are afraid of the monster they created, and may be willing to cede this election in so as to restore some semblance of order.
No one realized what would happen when the activist camels were allowed to put their foot under the tent. It’s a world gone mad.
Of course, this country was founded on a discontinuity rather than a gradaul change. Any fool who thinks gradual change is possible will, like Baldwin, reveal his foooolishnes, on a plane. The plane to nowhere.
WAR. Give it me. NOW. Rather than live without honor, without principle, I prefer to die and take a couple with me. Mark my death spot with marble.
Hoping for a catastrophic event so that we can change and become the “good America” strikes me as so un-American and dangerous that the idea needs to be mocked and people who support that notion need to be shunned.
I think we need a massive course correction, but we do so through our Constitutional system and we need to do so while causing as little pain as possible. Hoping for a system failure is rooting for people’s pain. It might be considered a sociopathic position.
I’ve been predicting civil war from the very moment of Obama’s election, but I don’t dwell on it, and I’m not looking forward to it.
If we go down that road, the odds are much more likely that we will end up with a Robespierre or a Hitler rather than another Washington.
When you have half the population trying to ram Communism down the throats of the other half, it’s hard to see any other outcome.
But nobody wants to be the one to fire the first shot, so here we sit like deer in the headlights.
“the idea needs to be mocked and people who support that notion need to be shunned.”
I repeat, Alinsky lives within us. Defeat the argument, not the arguer. When words are ignored, swords are drawn.
The idea that we need to harm America to make it better is more an idea of the hard left, but apparently now popular for a few on the Right. It is not putting people first; it is putting hard ideology first at the expense of people so they can live in your ideal. It is, in short, a stupid idea and it is shocking that someone who holds any sort of elected office would promulgate it.
holmes: As you might expect, I disagree. The greater harm comes from delaying the inevitable. I look forward to arguing further when neo posts about the Americalypse.
If I had to guess, I’d guess the idea that catastrophe is the better of the two possibilities is based on the presumption that Leviathan can resist the pressure of small changes indefinitely. Thus only catastrophe will cause changes.
Getting old, knees gone, wind not so hot, and having kids and grandkids, I’m not looking forward to catastrophe. But catastrophe isn’t concerned with whether I’m looking forward to it.
This is sorta kinda on topic, if you squint your eyes read hard. I saw it at Belmont Club the other day:
Unfortunately, I can’t find any fault in that analysis.
The people who are really out to destroy the United States of America as we have known it are our ruling elites.
Real hard, not read hard.
Richard Aubrey: so, based on that reasoning, are you planning to vote for Obama in order to try to precipitate the catastrophe you think is the better alternative?
rickl: that’s an oversimplification of Romney’s position on the VAT. See this by Ed Morrisey.
Neo: I’m inclined to favor a consumption tax over an income tax. There are lots of good arguments for that. People who work, save, and invest will not be penalized; while people who live a profligate lifestyle will pay through the nose for doing so.
But does Romney advocate repealing the 16th amendment? If not, then we will very likely end up with both types of taxation.
The first half is jamming communism down the second half.
Unfortunately the second does not seem to have noticed.
An October surprise (even if it comes in February or April) is not to be discounted, but absent that I don’t see Obama winning another term. (This from a Nevada voter who was convinced Harry Reid would be defeated, so take it with a grain of salt.) But I’m as worried about the lame-duck period from November to January as it is possible to be. If he loses the election, Obama will go through the normal “make my mark” temptation, and the Senate will not obstruct appointments or executive decisions. Of course this lame-duck period would be extended to 4 years if he wins, but by then he would not have a supportive Senate.
I have no beef with people who worry about Romney because I worry about all our leaders. The ability to make themselves rich is pervasive (perhaps it does not infect Romney, but he’s got other issues) and Obama has lead from in front on this one aspect of government, bringing the Chicago way to Washington. It is, in fact, the only thing he has truly taken a leadership position on, with the help of Rahm Emanuel. I am obviously not alone in this disgust with our so-called leaders.
Salvation in November could come from widespread revulsion at the Washington mentality. I hear it more and more: “throw them all out.” Obviously that won’t happen in numbers anywhere near sufficient to impress those who are returned (I’ll probably vote for my incumbent Representative), but the attitude will swell the number of independent voters who show up to vote against Obama, and that cohort is one he has been counting on for re-election.
I worry enormously about America’s future. I agree we’re a resilient country, but the numbers of people who now depend on the federal government for their living is over 50% (federal employees plus people on the dole) and their interest is in the perpetuation of the status quo. This is unsustainable, but people will vote their self-interest ahead of the nation’s. That’s a recipe for disaster.
F, excellent analysis…
Just out of curiosity, does anybody have any good anecdotes about liberal people they have known who during the last three years have jumped ship to the conservative or libertarian side, out of horror at what what Obama and the Left have wrought? I myself have talked with two people who were politically more moderate to begin with. They voted for Obama in 2008 and now think it was a really foolish mistake. Any similar stories about friends, relatives and acquaintances? I’d love to hear them.
I am open to taxation schemes which do not distort prices. Moving tax policy away from social engineering policy would be a theoretical improvement. But all spending is a tax, sooner or later.
The core issue is not how taxes are collected, but how much gov’t spends. Obama will spend as much as Congress authorizes. He is no different than anyone other than Paul. The most ingenious and ideal tax program does nothing to promote liberty. Gov’t must leave spending decisions to the people as much as possible. It is the morally superior option.
“.. does anybody have any good anecdotes about liberal people they have known who during the last three years have jumped ship…”
I have several such neighbors and none are going to vote republican or libertarian. Instead they are likely to vote ‘green’ or else pop corn and stay home.
“”but the numbers of people who now depend on the federal government for their living is over 50% “”
F
Everyone i know who’s doing ok or thriving in this economy can be traced back to government money. It’s like the movie Six Degrees of Seperation.
And get a couple beers in me and i don’t mind reminding all of them they’re living off money my grandaughter is going to be burdened with paying back. I don’t care if you’re a food stamp recipient or a busy as a bee lawyer, there should be major shame attached to accepting money that will devastate future generations.
For decades I have voted for the cut taxes, cut spending, reduce bureaucracy candidates. Never happened. Everyone was a liar or ineffectual, if the attained office at all.
If Romney wants my vote, let him run on his record of cutting taxes, reducing spending, and eliminating bureacracy. Oh, wait. He can’t.
The American people do not wish to be free or prosperous (at least judged by their voting records). My vote, should I vote, will be wasted by either voting for a losing candidate or voting for a candidate, who three years later, I’ll wish had lost.
I see Obama as a radical socialist, going as far as he can possibly go in order to keep the game going.
It’s postmodernism, where reality is called whatever you want to call it on any particular day, where he can now be called a “moderate republican”.
That’s a campaign strategy. It’s planned. It’s been rolled out. It’s designed to get the Independents back. It’s ALice in Wonderland. It’s crazy but it’s the world we live in.
neo.
No. I don’t think it would be necessary. But I wouldn’t do it anyway.
I didn’t say that I figured that only catastrophe would work. I think a lot of folks talking that way do so because they don’t see any hope in small pressures.
As has been pointed out before, about the only revolution which worked out more or less as planned was ours.
I don’t see anything good in the future, either way.
Oh, yeah. Saw the first LOTR the other day, again.
Some have said it was an allegory about the agrarian life versus industrialization. The author said he did not do allegories, but that was probably because people saw them anyway.
Farm life in The Shire was shown as a cross between Currier & ives and The Smurfs.
In reality, local, subsistence farming a la the Midwest ca 1850 was pretty grim. Better than the alternative. Going John Galt won’t be as much fun as some people think.
I’ve seen and heard from and talked to too many liberals to believe that allowing ObamaCare to continue in order to prove we were right all along about it being a disaster will work.
I think it’s simply impossible for it to fail badly enough to convince the people who support it that it was a big mistake. Actually, that’s not wording it correctly: I think that no matter how badly it fails, it will not convince the True Believers it was a mistake.
Anyone who could possibly vote for Obama (at least as opposed to voting against his opponent) is fully incapable of real critical thinking or is so disconnected from reality as to be effectively, if not literally, insane. No amount of evidence to the contrary could possibly convince many, perhaps most, Obama supporters that he isn’t what he claimed to be, and was promoted as.
It’s that stubborn 40% of the voters who still approve of him. Of course, as Zogby so definitely demonstrated in 2008, a lot of these same people, many of whom are well-schooled, but almost certainly not educated, probably can’t name the Veep or know who is in control of Congress or that Sarah Palin did not claim she could see Russia from her house.
In a country where the most popular news shows are hosted by comedians, it is the public’s education and knowledge which is the true parody.
N-Neo: DITTO your post.
On the Supreme Court appointments alone he must be beaten in November.
On his Appeasement-Shrink the Armed Forces alone he must be beaten in November.
He is a Radical Lefty and will see himself unfettered if re-elected. Thousands more regulations, instead of the repealing-withdrawing of thousands by the Repubs if we win. Business hog tied or Business encouraged by improved liberties. A MUST.
Obamacare must be destroyed. Period. A MUST.
Just a few…
The monetary catastrophe is coming, there is no way around it now because our country is being run by people who have no idea how wealth is created, voted in by an electorate that has no idea about wealth creation.
My guess is the European financial crisis will come to a head after the election this year or some time in 2013 followed on by our own collapse. The can has been kicked to the end of the road – there is no more road now – only a cliff.
The ruling elite have been borrowing future generations’ money to purchase their expensive parachutes.
The question is – how will the country move forward?
Obama is just another Hugo Chavez without the charm – so that may give us an idea of what to look forward to.
It sounds like we are preparing ourselves for the worse, a second Obama term.
If it comes lets at least pray that the idiots who voted for him learn the second time around.
If it comes lets at least pray that the idiots who voted for him learn the second time around.
There is no education in the second kick of a mule.
What percentage of Obama voters see a catastrophe but see themselves as being part of the nomenklatura?
Insty opined that Obama voters vote his way because they see themselves as better at sucking up and rent-seeking than being productive and are thus making the rational choice.
“If it comes lets at least pray that the idiots who voted for him learn the second time around.”
The thing about idiots, once they are grown up, is that they are idiots. They don’t learn. They destroy. Period.
The people who call themselves good people (they are not) who think it will be good if everything falls down can be found on both sides. Obama and the Foxmarks of the world are the same type in that they want the same thing – to destroy in order to recreate in their own image.
Both are to bne feared above all else as the great destroyers that they are. They did not build. They cannot build. They never will build. All the good stuff they think came with the universe was actually built slowly, carefully, over ages and ages, by other good people who worked hard, had great faith, tireless energy, vision, wisdom, love…the whole nine yards.
The Obamas and Foxmarks of the world know nothing about that, and are oblivious to the harm others will be subjected to if they get what they think they want.
I say ‘think they want’ because these people have no idea what they really want because they don’t know what anything really is, where it came from and what is required to keep it. They are fantasists: They think magically that they will somehow be standing there surveying the ruins of a catastrophe, themselves still healthy, well fed, employed, with homes and families and so on.
No. It will be something like Dresden or Nagasaki they wake up to when they get their wish, symbolically of course. But smashed to pieces all the same.
They will not be in charge. Some tyrant or gang or other Leviathan will be. Not them. Not us.
Obama hasn’t “governed as a moderate Republican”. There are some examples that support that, but many more that do not.
Realistically, Obama’s agenda is over. The only POTUS I am aware of who achieved goals after his first term was FDR, who had solide leadership skills as well as complete legislative dominance by his party. However, Obama won’t pass Republican reforms, he won’t kill his own healthcare bill and he won’t reform the entitlement state. He won’t cut government spending.
Obama will possibly select the next Supreme Court judge, and even with a Republican Senate (which I think we will have) this will be a disaster.
And Obama’s foreign policy is a disaster where ever he isn’t following the Bush model, which will increasingly be the case. New Obama foreign policy moves will be more along the lines of his handling of Russia, China, Iran, Egypt and Libya. Obama has followed the Bush model in Afganistan, Iraq and the “war on terror” simply because it was obvious he had no better option. But new situations that are not in the Bush playbook will require Obama to actually work out the answer.
The ones I know have been detached from unfolding events, and typically rely upon the TV to tell them what to think. They are still saying “give the guy a chance, he inhereted a real bad problem”.
It may be similar to the way FDR maintained support despite his horrid economic performance.
Mike, baby, you’re a classic. It’s as if you’re not reading my comments, but just arguing with some demon in your mind.
My comment in neo’s post calls for a catastrophic defeat of Obamacare. We sound like we should be on the same team.
Are you so psychologically dependent on the Federal Government that you cannot conceive of its failure? Are you unable to grasp the basic math on debt and deficit spending? Help me out, show me a path that leads FedGov back to respect for law, a path that avoids multilevel financial collapse of governments, a path that reconciles the OWS entitlement factions with the TEA independence factions.
Instead of spitting about my purported combination ignorance and ego, sketch out the next decade if we proceed with the current Bi-factional Bankster Party government. Show me how President GOP will produce outcomes much different than President Obama.
Don:
I contended that the Progs make a respectable argument about Obama governing as a moderate-R. Of course he has done stuff a righty would not do. And I did give him a -100 on rhetoric. The guy is a fascist at heart; it is the Chicago way.
We seem to agree that his 2nd term will not favor him with any more transformational changes. That’s why I don’t fear him, and I can no longer sustain any hate for him. I don’t fear the dead.
I agree that Barry will make mistakes in foreign policy situations where there is no Bush model to follow. I am reading that the FedGov is talking about putting Taliban into the gov’t in Afghanistan, for example. If we’re going to have an interventionist foreign policy, the neocon version is pretty good. But it will bankrupt the FedGov. Political Islam is doing to us what Reagan did to the Soviets.
Sorry, Holmes.
I don’t agree. His major agenda item was . . . Obamacare. Cap and trade and cardcheck were two of the items up next on his list, and they didn’t happen only because he lost the ability to push them. His energy policy is horrid.
What they fail to grasp is that the POTUS is trapped to some extent, and can’t just create the reality he may want. He couldn’t push the full spectrum of leftist goals and succeed. That’s way gun control, to name one, has been hardly mentioned.
The mirror image happened with the right and Bush. But no POTUS can live up the the expectations of the base.
I don’t think he will be passing any of his legislative agenda, but he can still halt reform and he will write toxic EOs. He will also appoint awfull judges. We need another Thomas on the Court, not another Sotamayor.
I see his foreign policy as toxic. As an example, Clinton’s weak foreign policy netted us a NK with nukes and a Saddam who was convinced we were a paper tiger. Carter’s netted us radical Iran.
The option of no intervention isn’t realistic. That was clear by the time of the Barbary Pirate Wars, and has become more significant since the decline of the Royal Navy.
And, in any case, our military isn’t going to banckrupt us. Our entitlements will.
I tend to prefer less intervention, but some will be needed.
Entitlements are a larger share, for sure, but all the dollars are fungible. If I can’t say military spending is to blame, others can’t pin it on some other budget category. I also count the waste and lost opportunity represented by DHS/TSA. Al-Q is making us pay every time we travel.
Beware of arguing a strawman–not that you are–sending the Marines after pirates who threaten US-flag vessels is of a much different character than a 10-year occupation in support of UN objectives.
fox (may I call you by your first name?):
How did we manage to occupy Germany and Japan for 60 years (and we’re still there!) without bankrupting ourselves? And the situation in Afghanistan is more akin to the occupation of Haiti by the US Marines (19 years!) than to an actual war.
Richard:
Those occupations contributed to the current Federal debt. They also represent foregone domestic production.
Tell the dead that Afghanistan is just like Haiti.
Why are there Marines in Haiti? How is policing that backwater in the national interest? If it is wrong to take from one American for the purpose of charity to another American (welfare), it must be at least as wrong to take from an American to benefit a Haitian.
The Grand Old party is tearing itself apart with its lurch to the extreme right. I realized this for the first time when in this primary run, “moderation” became a dirty word. What a terrible shame that the Republicans could not find from their number a competant executive. The guys running now, with the excption of Paul, who doesn’t have a chance, are superficial, bombastic, cliche-ridden phonies. Santorum, couldn’t win more than eight states, and Romney will make a better run, but will not win. I would have liked to see a responsible Republican in this race, but that’s not going to happen. Obama will sweep the country. Listen, you don’t have to believe me. The non-partissan guys in Vegas are seldom wrong. That’s the way it is. Get used to it.