How many pairs…
…of gloves can Obama take off and still have more to go?
I am so, so tired of reading that Obama is finally taking the gloves off.
And amazingly enough, Obama seems to be asking people to keep hoping. It’s a bit like Lucy and the football—this time it will happen:
“If people ask you what this campaign is about, you tell them ‘it’s still about hope.’ You tell them ‘it’s still about change,'” he told a cheering mass of supporters at Ohio State University in Columbus, six months and one day before the election. “I still believe in you. And I’m asking you to keep believing in me.”…
The embattled Democratic incumbent also laid out his answer to the question Ronald Reagan posed to devastating effect in the 1980 election: “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?”
“The real question, the question that will actually make a difference in your life, in the lives of your children, is not just about how we’re doing today. It’s about how we’ll be doing tomorrow,” Obama said. “Will we be better off if more Americans get a better education? That’s the question. Will be be better off if we depend less on foreign oil and more on our own ingenuity? That’s the question. Will we be better off if we start doing some nation building right here at home? That’s the question. Will we be better off if we bring down our deficit without gutting the very things we need to grow?”
Obama must sell belief, because he can’t point to action—that is, he can’t point to action that people want. Obamacare, the pinnacle of accomplishment of his first term, has been rejected by the majority. He can only talk about killing Bin Laden so often; even Obama knows that people want to feel hopeful because there’s a reason to hope. Promises are all he’s got now, and the force of his personality. It worked well enough last time, so maybe he can keep stringing the public along till November.
It’s more like a religion or a personal cult than politics or leadership.
i dont know…
(maybe micheal jackson left him the left handed extras?)
or maybe sowel knows?
if not, at least he pegs why no one gets anywhere in analysis… (including analysing obama)
Intellectuals with Thomas Sowell: Chapter 1 of 5
http://tv.nationalreview.com/uncommonknowledge/post/?q=MjA5MmNlOGU3ZjhjNTY3NTI1M2Y3M2JlZTU0NDNhN2E=
Intellectuals with Thomas Sowell: Chapter 2 of 5
http://tv.nationalreview.com/uncommonknowledge/post/?q=MmUyMzVkNTQxMGYxZmI4ZDMyNzk3ZDYwODY1MmQ1OTM=
etc….
Yep, the cult of personality was one of the first things I noticed back in 2008. Scary, and utterly un-American.
maybe he don’t need more?
did you hear? Obama has shrunk government!! [has he made the trains run on time yet?]
The New York Times ^ | 05/04/2012 | Floyd Norris
FOR the first time in 40 years, the government sector of the American economy has shrunk during the first three years of a presidential administration.
Spending by the federal government, adjusted for inflation, has risen at a slow rate under President Obama.
But that increase has been more than offset by a fall in spending by state and local governments, which have been squeezed by weak tax receipts.
Glove rhetoric is VERY big among communists.
the Iron Fist in the Velvet Glove
remove the glove, and what do you have?
the Iron Fist seizing power
from ask:
something that you say when you are describing someone who seems to be gentle but is in fact severe and firm To enforce each new law the president uses persuasion first, and then force – the iron hand in the velvet glove.
First recorded in this form in D. W. Jerrold’s The Story of Feather (1844) though the same sentiment in different words goes back at least another two centuries.
Obama’s “real question(s)” all have to do with government providing “stuff” (education, green energy, and government infrastructure projects) for the electorate.
Then he asks an oblique question. “Will we be better off if we bring down our deficit without gutting the very things we need to grow?” That is code for more spending on social programs, raising taxes and gutting the military. My answer is: No, we will not be better off with higher taxes (giving coke to a bunch of coke-heads) more debt (adding lead weights to an already sinking boat), and less military power. (Slow motion surrender to Islamism.)
He is premising his campaign on the idea that it was conservative policies that got us where we are. He avers that we cannot go back to those policies, but must go “forward” with his policies. (Which, thus far, have failed to produce results.) This strategy is so simple that many people, who don’t understand what is really going on, may buy it. Romney must be ready to show that it was government meddling in housing, energy, education, and regulation that got us where we are. And that the Republican party veered off the conservative course of less spending and smaller government during the Bush years.
IMO it’s very simple really.
For the sake of discussion, let’s give Obama his claim that he inherited this mess.
In business when one is hired to take over a troubled company, one is judged on results. Herman Cain took charge of a struggling Godfathers’ Pizza and revived it as a profitable enterprise. Ronald Reagan inherited a troubled country and, even with an adversarial congress, he made great strides in fixing it. Obama inherited a struggling economy and not only failed to fix it with his party’s congressional majorities, but he made it worse.
The President is an elected official. He works for voters and citizens; he works for me. This November, I intend to do what I can to fire his a$$.
“Will we be better off if more Americans get a better education?
Great idea. More puppetry majors, coming up.
Our problem with education is simple: we have too many people – way too many people – going to college, the majority of whom are merely wasting their own time and money, as well as other people’s.
The vast majority of sociology, anthropology, communication (whatever that is) and grievance studies majors have no business whatever being at university. Those departments are almost always intellectual sandboxes, daycare for late adolescents (and faculty sinecures for communist agitators). All of those departments should be reduced to ca. 10% of their current size.
Alternatively, and slightly more realistically, universities should charge tuition based on courses. STEM departments bring in lots of overheads, because their work is in demand elsewhere (i.e., people are willing to pay for the work product of such departments). Tuition for students in those departments should be lower, first to reflect a credit from the overheads, and second because the intellectual hurdles are higher.
Conversely, students in mushy departments should pay the true, fully-burdened costs of courses in that department (i.e., the cost of facilities, salaries, utilities, etc. that STEM grantees have to include in research grant proposals). The tuition will therefore be higher, but the intellectual hurdles are lower.
At present, sociology courses have huge enrollments; do we really need hundreds of sociologists (or indeed, any) from a hundred universities every year? /rant
In business when one is hired to take over a troubled company, one is judged on results.
Yep, and the rule of thumb is that you have a year. After that, any remaining problems are your fault.
And if you read articles by the Dems, the Republicans have become almost a cult.
I checked to see how often Obama had actually run for re-election. Looks like he had three terms as a state legislator, but of course didn’t run for re-election as state senator. (Okay for him to drop out mid term but not for Palin to do so.) Anyway, I suspect that one of his issues here is that he doesn’t understand how to run for RE-election. You can get away with a lot of stuff the first time you run. When you run the second time, people expect you to run on your record.
Teri Pitman: see this on a related subject.
And if you read articles by the Dems, the Republicans have become almost a cult.
Cult of whom?
No Republican can match the creepier aspects of Obamitis was the adoring crowds making the “O” symbol, the little kids being taught to sing Dear Leader’s praises (the Norks must have been proud), and Evan Thomas’s infamous quote: “I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above — above the world, he’s sort of God.”
I believe we were discussing cults.
Did Obama ever have the gloves on? I can only recall that he treats anyone who challenges him or dare question his position in a rude, snide, and arrogant manner.
Taking the gloves off is not a fitting metaphor for BHO. The correct metaphor is “if the gloves don’t fit you must acquit”.
Am I better off than I was 4 years ago? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
No.
Do I think I’ll be better off in 4 years with Obama as president?
No. Way. In. Hell.
He’s got me hopping not hoping.
“How many pairs of gloves can Obama take off and still have more to go?”
One pair for each of his many top priorities.
MANLY, that’s whut he is,’Yo. Apparently Ed Rendell didn’t get the message, ya know, about the hairy chested warrior-in-chief being all manly and masculine and stuff. Rendell said publicly that our scrawny Moral Midget-In-Chief needs to, “Man up”.
Ed: NOT gonna happen. Not Ever, Ever, Ever.