Obama, one-termer?
Roger Simon (not the one at Pajamas; the political reporter one) says it’s very possible that Obama will be a one-termer, because he doesn’t “get” that to be re-elected he’s got to play to the polls.
But there’s a lot that Roger Simon doesn’t seem to “get,” either.
The first thing he doesn’t appear to get is that Obama didn’t choose his overbearing, rushed course because he’s tone-deaf to the wishes of the people. He chose it because he’s a statist with tyrannical desires. He did it, in other words, because he yes, he could. As Obama boasted at a big-bucks Hollywood fundraiser last night, when he was among friends and could speak freely:
We have been able to deliver the most progressive legislative agenda ”” one that helps working families ”” not just in one generation, maybe two, maybe three…This is exactly when you want to be president. This is why I ran, because we have the opportunity to shape history for the better…
I hope you understand why we’re here tonight. It’s not to take a picture with the president. We’re here to make sure those who took the tough votes are rewarded.
Does that sound like a man who doesn’t get it? Not at all. The idea was to lie about who he was, get into power, and then ram a progressive agenda through as quickly as possible before any consequences could be exercised by voters at the ballot box. The results were to be transformative in terms of the way government works—even though some of the other consequences might be a single term for him, and the end of the political careers of those who took what he calls “the tough votes” in order to push it all through despite the will of the people.
If you read the entire piece, you’ll see that Simon seems to approve of what Obama and the Democrats have done; he just wishes they would have done it a bit more slowly and not riled so many people in the process. And he makes the excellent (and quite correct) point that just because a position is popular it doesn’t make it right.
He then adds sarcastically:
Maybe Obama is disconnected. After all, as a former professor of constitutional law, he actually knows what the Constitution says.
His opponents have no such fetters. They know what they want the Constitution to say: yes to guns, no to gay marriage and never to mosques close to hallowed ground, though churches and synagogues are OK.
What’s so wrong with that? I’ll bet they poll great.
Earth to Roger Simon:
Obama was not a professor of constitutional law, he was a lecturer. And many legal scholars—and actual professors of constitutional law—say that the second amendment does indeed say “yes” to guns. In fact, the Supreme Court reaffirmed just that in a recent landmark case called District of Columbia v. Heller (you can look it up).
Oh, and the issue of gay marriage has yet to be put to that definitive test. You should see the back-and-forth arguments on the issue at the legal blogs and periodicals! No consensus whatsoever among legal scholars and con law experts—although there’s a somewhat prevelant idea even among liberals that Judge Walker may have overstepped in quite a few of the details of his Perry ruling.
Let’s see—that leaves us with the 9/11 mosque. Simon seems not to “get” (or is he being disingenuous?) that the vast majority of those criticizing the promoters of the mosque are saying that, although they have the constitutional right to build, they should decide not to, if they want to be sensitive to the feelings of the people. And that sort of freedom of speech—to criticize someone’s actions, and request that they do differently, and even demonstrate against them—is also an exercise of one’s constitutional rights, when last I checked.
But hey, I’m not a law professor. Or even a journalist writing at Politico. So maybe I don’t get it.
Or maybe I do.
John Lott’s observations of interactions with Obama during his ‘lectureship’ at Chicago are telling. Lott enjoyed his interactions with other faculty that disagreed with him (and they usually did as well). But he noted that Obama could not work with (or conduct casual conversations with) people who disagreed with him. Lott also noted that the word was out the Obama had to be brought on-board for a short time for political reasons as he was not considered qualified by most of the faculty.
This is entirely consistent with the views that BHO both does not ‘get it’ and has a stealth agenda. Since he basically disagrees with most of the American public, he cannot stand to deal honestly with them. His agenda cannot be done it he open for these reasons.
I really don’t think one has to be law professor to understand what the constitution says. It was, after all, “of/by/for the people”. Where being a law professor comes in handy is one needs to assert that it say something it doesn’t.
“The right to bear arms” minus any bull###t = yes.
Very well put Neo.
Lie his way into office is exactly correct.
“Obama, one-termer? ”
We can Hope for Change!
But if the Republicans can win the house & senate and THEN legislate like real conservatives it could help his chances with the anticipated economic turn around. BUT the Republicans would have to step up and do things right and NOT spend like a bunch of drunk lib dems.
“”The idea was to lie about who he was, get into power, and then ram a progressive agenda through as quickly as possible before any consequences could be exercised by voters at the ballot box.””
Sums it up well. And for all time, we now know it wasn’t the Jerry Falwells or the Ronald Reagans that wanted to enslave all Americans into a life they never intended. It was the “tolerant” liberals like Mr Simon who happily participated in such a devious attempt. And did it with a wink and a nod as American suffering escalates to this day.
God Damn every last one of these sleezebag bastards.
Has anyone here actually considered the option of guessing what Obonga is going to do based upon an assumption that he is a closet muslim?
Please note that I’m not actually SAYING he is a muslim, just suggesting it would be interesting to start trying to predict what he would do IF he were a muslim.
Try it – it’s an interesting exercise.
I keep thinking about that old saying about something walking like a duck, quacking like a duck, looking like a duck….
But hey, he DID sit in Jeremiah Wright’s church for many years – ah, ok that’s not exactly a ringing endorsement either.
Regarding the 2nd Amendment issue, I’ve already noticed the leftists are in full blown denial and continue elsewhere to keep repeating the arguments that have already been shot down in Heller.
Oh well, foolish consistencies, simple minds….
Gay marriage – I have a feeling the 9th Circuit may actually surprise the hell out of all of us and this time next year it may be a non-issue that never made it to the Supreme Court.
Let’s see, this leaves the 9-11 mosque. Well, I refer you to my first couple of paragraphs….
Obonga is not much of a scholar/lecturer/professor of constitutional law/etc.
If he were, he’d allow the release of his academic records.
I’m not holding my breath until that happens.
I have never voted in a mid-term election before – this November will be the first time, I suspect this may be true for alot of people.
When I heard Obama saying “there will be no going back” concerning health care, that is the first time I realized that he very well could be a tyrant in the form of Hugo Chavez.
At first, I was a little frightened of a President saying something like this, then I became furious.
There is no way the majority of Americans will allow a Marxist to turn this country into another Mexico or Venezuela.
What was Obama thinking? – that he would institute martial law, suspend elections?
I don’t think so, mr. radical President.
His whole presidency has become a bad science fiction movie.
Mr. Obama and his cheerleaders think his condescension is a lot more appealing than it really is.
LOL…just had a thought.
I bet Marie Antoinette didn’t worry too much either about what the majority of her countrymen thought about the policies of the ruling class.
Fortunately for Obonga, we will be content to neuter him politically, then kick his a$$ out of office in 2012 rather than build a guillotine!
Unfortunately – he’ll be around a long, long, loooooong time after 2012 and probably be referred to as some sort of great statesman, speaking words of wisdom, by the Lamestream Media every damn time they need a lib quote on what passes for their idea of *news*.
Then again, it will certainly be a constant reminder to the rest of the country for at least a decade of just how bad it can be when you vote for leftists!
> say that the second amendment does indeed say “yes” to guns.
Duh. If there had been any question in the least, Madison’s comments in Federalist #46 in support of the notion is literally indisputable, as is the purpose of the idea defined therein, which is even more relevant today than ever in the past.
In that article, Mr. Simon compares Obama to Lincoln, saying Lincoln took a principled stand against slavery while the Democrats wanted to perserve slavery. (Of course, he forgot to mention it was the Democrats who were the pro-slavery party and the Republican Party was formed specifically to oppose slavery).
Has Mr. Simon forgotten that when Lincoln denied the will of the people, it didn’t have a very happy ending for him?
Politico is a nauseating waste of my time.
There’s enough real stuff going on that’s pissing me off. I do not need to seek out more on Politico.
What really depressing is that it will be difficult, if not impossible to roll back much of what he has rammed through (such as the bulk of the health care bill).
He knows that, which is why he went for broke and doesn’t care whether he’s reelected or not (although we can count on the fact that he’ll pull every legal and illegal maneuver to make it happen).
Either way, he’ll be laughing all the way to that presidential library in Hawaii. The joke’s on the rest of us.
Of course, he’s seen to it that there are fewer working families than there used to be, but eggs/omelets and all that.
Thank you, neo. This particular meme runs my blood pressure up into nosebleed territory. Prince Hussein gave a few lectures — doubtless at the behest of some leftist operative who was ordered to help burnish The One’s resume, and exactly like the Harvard Law Review fiasco — and now he’s a professor? With zero publications, zero scholarly work, zero experience, no tenure decision, nothing? It’s an insult to all real professors, who work hard to get to that point.
It’d be like saying Obama was a major league pitcher because he (girly) threw out the ceremonial first pitch at the All-Star game. “Hey, he threw off a major league mound — that makes him a pitcher in the major leagues!” Uh, no it doesn’t. Not even close.
Sorry, now reading the comments are ranting about the “professor” rubbish.
Knock me over with a feather. But who was pulling the strings, or do I know the answer to that already?
Bullseye. Now consider the magna business. How is it possible to graduate magna cum laude and yet be touchy about releasing transcripts? How, exactly? To graduate magna he’d have had to do pretty well. If he did pretty well, then there’s nothing to be coy about. Yet he is coy. Conclusion: the magna business was probably of a piece with the Harvard Law Review and the lectureship at the University of Chicago: a put-up job to make Buraq look like the the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being any of us has ever known in his life.
I think Obama knew that a lot of what he was doing would be unpopular, he just wanted to shove down our throats anyway. The idea being that once it was done, it could not be undone. However, I do think he managed to make so many people so angry that this agenda of his might not stand. Not all of it anyway.
I think the bastard has done about as much damage as he could get away with, and that from January 20 on–if the newly elected members of Congress and Republicans are doing any kind of a decent job–it will get progressively harder for Obama and the Democrats to push more radical legislation and appointments through, and for the Czars to to have the completely free rein that they have had so far–for so far we don’t even have an accounting of who they all are, much less what they are doing, and no one in Congress has done anything to try to curb them, or to force administration officials to appear before Congress and to testify when they are requested to.
Obama is basically a malignant narcissist and, thus, a con artist, and a dilettante, and lazy to boot, and he is obviously bored with the detail and daily grind of being President (but he sure as hell likes the glitzy parties, and the vacations, and the golf), so I expect that he is counting on being just a one term President, and already planning his future career in some “world-level’ position like UN Secretary General, and thinking about all the money he can make from speeches and peddling his “influence” as an ex-President, and planning how his Presidential Library will glorify him for future generations.
Occam’s Beard:
I keep saying that he should have won the Cy Young Award last year. Why not? It makes as much sense as the Nobel Peace Prize.
Well obviously you don`t get it. Haven`t you heard that he is “The One” we have been waiting for?He is the only one that can lead through the valley of death and abandon us there. He is the only one who can take us to the moon and throw us out half way there. He is the only one that can give us health care that will cost us our lives. He is the only one who can give us peace with the islamic jihadies by killing us all.
What I am saying is He Is The One We Have Been Waiting For That Will Save Us By Killing Us. Now what is so hard to understand about that.
Rickl, I’ve joked about that too. He should also receive a Medal of Honor. After all, he did fearlessly kill that housefly.
Actually, He said, “WE are the ones we’ve been waiting for.” A detailed exegesis of the logic underlying that statement could cause irreversible brain damage, but on its face He appeared to be saying He belonged to a group that was waiting for themselves. Maybe Godot was waiting for himself too.
Dr Sanity is back – sort of. Her first post in months is a link to a Youtube video that juxtaposes a series of nauseating examples of Obama and company running amok with an eloquent Reagan speech against statism from the early 1960s. Very apropos to this neo-neocon post.
Here’s to wishing Dr Sanity’s hiatus is nearing an end and that some candidate can muster a fraction of Ronald Reagan’s principles in 2012.
http://drsanity.blogspot.com/
“WE are the ones we’ve been waiting for.”
A reference to the destructive coalition of immoral actors that had finally attained so much power in American politics.
So this guy takes advantage of an immature electorate at the right time to get elected in spite of overwhelming professional and character flaws with the goal of undermining the last best hope for mankind….this would not even make a third rate political thriller.
At the very least he deserves some respect as the greatest con artist in history, conversely the electorate of 2008 deserves utter contempt..
Disgracefully, he still has over 40% popular support. Lincoln was right you can fool some of the people all the time, I’m surprised the number is over 40% though.
Is our country so fragile to be so harmed in so many ways by one man in so short a time?
Narcissists are always “waiting for themselves” and always certain that they are the perfect answer to everyones prayers.
Obama’s flown too close to the sun, the ‘wax’ that binds his wing’s feathers together has almost completely melted. Soon the gliding down to earth he’s been doing will turn into a political free fall. Like Oscar Wilde, who felt compelled to engineer his own self-destruction by flouting, in a time of utter intolerance, his embracing of “the love that dare not speak its name”… Obama can’t help himself, he’s truly a figure fit for a Greek tragedy and no one shall keep him from his destiny.
All that Obama and the Democrats have done can be reversed and the greater the pendulum swings toward socialism, the easier it will be to reverse. The very things he has done shall ensure it, just as experiencing Carter enabled Reagan’s election.
The difference this time is a far more intellectually robust conservative movement, the greatly facilitated means for communication that the Internet provides with its inherent check upon the MSM and the ‘reality check’ that the threat of Islamic terrorism, which we are not done with by any means, will provide.
The ‘wild card’ is the economy and whether we can avoid or even ameliorate the coming financial Armageddon.
We’re in for a very bumpy ride, “interesting times indeed” with truly historic times ahead.
Well, it’s pretty clear that the “knave v. fool” debate is over (if not entirely settled). It seems to me that the question now ripe for consideration (although maybe, in true life, just as unsettle-able) is whether he is like the Congressional Democrats in thinking that Leftism is really the better course, or whether he knows Leftism is tantamount to death for this (as for any) country, espouses it for that reason, and makes mere tools of the fully persuaded Leftists in the Congress. I don’t think the Democrats want to kill the country–maybe I give them too much credit, but I think they at least believe Left is best. I go back and forth (as I used to over the knave v. fool conundrum, and the related one of whether he is really his own man or just a Soros, or other mastermind’s, tool) about the question, and while I tend more towards the conclusion that he wants to destroy our country, I’m not entirely sure of it. I, along with ghost707 and I think some others, think he’s an incipient tyrant who will not be content with mere legislative victory. He doesn’t just want his policies to prevail. He wants to run the show, and a show it will be. He may have decided to be content with one term, having run his policy table, and accept 2012 defeat as the price of the victories. But I don’t think so. It’s more likely that, having won, he will use winning in the legislature as a lever towards retaining, and augmenting, the power he already has.
He doesn’t like being President. He doesn’t care for the job, it’s not the job he wants–he shamelessly takes breaks from it as often as he can, just for starters. But it’s the job that is the essential step on the way to getting him the job he does want.
I’ve sometimes considered the fact that socialism/communism has failed everywhere it’s been tried. Why, then, do they insist on continuing to try? Heretofore, they’ve nearly always tried with poor countries. The greatest exception to this rule is the effort they’ve mounted in post-WWII Europe, when they tried from an essentially null point–Europe was effectively destroyed, and they had a clean slate upon which to write. It’s coming apart, and I believe they knew some time since that it was going to do so. The one thing they’ve not tried yet (and recall that they will always say that their program has failed because it hasn’t really been tried yet) is to start with a rich country. The US provides them with the one starting condition they have not yet had, and may think is the one they absolutely need: wealth. Does this make Obama an ultimate destroyer, or a phoenix-seeker?
If all of this doesn’t piss the American people off, well, then, I don’t know what will. I will say that I no longer fear that we will simply fold like a cheap suit. The natives are rather more than restless.
Geoffrey Britain,
Yes, a very bumpy ride indeed. You’ve reminded me (as all this sometimes reminds me) of one of my favorite lines from The Prisoner of Azkaban, when the shrunken head in the front of Stan Shunpike’s Knight Bus intones, “Hang on! It’s goon to be a boompy ride!”
One-termer? Heck, I’m hoping he’ll be a life-termer. Just so it’s in a different federal institution than he presently occupies.
Maybe he was addressing his remarks to the Politburo, his board of directors. In that case, He made perfect sense.
Geoffrey, I don’t think that that’s wax.
C.S Lewis had it right:
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences.”
@ Steve H 3:52 p.m. God Damn every last one of these sleezebag bastards. Amen.
betsybounds,
It’s a bit of both I think, in that he’s a committed leftist who believes that the only way to effect the ‘fundamental transformation’ he desires is to economically destroy the country as we know it.
In chaos lies opportunity, especially for a President prepared to betray his oath in a manner than allows for ‘plausible deniability’, so as to avoid personal accountability.
We’re headed toward a collapse of the economic system, potentially much larger and more impactful than the ‘great depression’ and if that eventuality comes to pass before 2012, the implementation of martial law is certain and that is when he would make whatever moves he may have planned.
Maintaining a proper perspective however requires that we keep in mind Obama’s demonstrated incompetence and his flawed character traits that have and will cause him to continue to stumble.
We’re not dealing with Nietzsche’s superman here, or a Machiavellian genius that appears once each millennium.
He’s a narcissistic, border-line sociopath, a congenital liar, thin-skinned and dull enough to have bought into the left’s blatantly obvious illogic. He constantly makes bad moves that Clinton, the consummate politician, never would have even countenanced, not even for a moment.
He’s human and thus beatable and constrained by a constitutional framework that greatly limits what he can do, he faces checks and balances, along with a military who have sworn allegiance to that Constitutional framework and one who shall never support the left seizing power by Obama or anyone else.
This nation shall endure, despite all her enemies may do.
He should win the Heisman.
Second that.
That, and Miss America (Miss Indonesia? Kenya?), and best in show at Cruft’s.
Excellent observations as always Geoffrey.
Our economic system is indeed in dire straits, however, Obama’s problem going forward is that China and Germany are recovering faster than the U.S. and any one looking at world economies will know this.
It will become obvious to many that if our economy collapses, Obama will have much of the blame for it.
A coup to remove him will almost be a certainty, with the aforementioned information of other economies
used as prima facie evidence to facilitate saving the Republic.
Julia,
He should win the Heisman? Why? Because he knows how to toss a pass?
LOL!
betsybounds:
It depends on what you mean by “failure”.
If you’re a member of the nomenklatura, socialism isn’t a failure at all. It can make you wealthy and powerful beyond your wildest dreams.
“He should win the Heisman? Why? Because he knows how to toss a pass?”
Well, to be fair it has been awarded more based on the color of ones skin and on who you are not for some time now. He is VERY good at both of those jobs and already has a number of achievements in those fields.
Plus if he starts now I’m sure he can also have the greatest effect of any person on the game – it’s not like his political group is above debating and passing laws about the major sports governing rules. He could be the first Black President winner that affected every single play in NCAA football for the next 50 years or more! Who else could say *that*!
*First* *black* *President* and *not George Bush* – what else could one want for *any* award? Though I guess Not George Bush is getting a bit long in the tooth now, it still has some power in the right groups.
A Heisman on the left of the mantle, Nobel peace prize on the right, and the Seal of the President of the United States in the middle.
You know the saddest thing there is that this joke *can* be made. Joke have to have some kernel of truth in there but generally taken to the extreme – in this case the only “extreme” part is the Heisman.
On a related note I would *really* like to see an interview of the people who awarded him the Peace Prize now. I do not so much think most would have changed that much (I doubt they ever would) but I would like to see how they rationalized the decision.
strcpy ,
No rationalization needed. Obama wasn’t awarded the Noble Peace prize for his accomplishments. He got it for his intentions.
Intentions are all that counts, didn’t you know?
That way reality, consequences and results are divorced from accountability and responsibility.
“I’ve sometimes considered the fact that socialism/communism has failed everywhere it’s been tried. Why, then, do they insist on continuing to try?”
So this time to give a serious answer. Like many answers we can argue the merits of it (and I do not like it), but it is the reason why.
Namely how do you define success? This is *truly* important and even subtle differences can end up with radical differences in systems that “work”.
So we can take a number of the highly socialistic Nordic countries in Europe – most lefties hold them up as successes. From their point of view they *are* so. They, mostly, remain solvent and have and idea of “social justice”. They are safe from invasion, few actively hate them, and most of their citizenry is healthy, wealthy, and wise (they have good educational systems).
Now, even for most of us we can’t call them failures – they *are* healthy, wealthy, and wise. The problem is they are like a pyramid scheme – it only works for those few, not when everyone is on it. No one argues that the people at the top of a Ponzi Scheme are not wealthy and wise.
They are protected? Sure, because a number of other countries surrounding them are hell holes fighting for their very existence. They are insulated because the battle front isn’t within their borders and many other countries are doing everything they can to keep them out. No body “hates” them because they are mostly ice and tundra and they can happily be aloof from those battles – at least as long as the front doesn’t move into their territory.
They are Healthy – very much. Their medical system is geared VERY much towards treating the common to medium issues which are the majority of maladies. If they have something truly serious they can fly to the US (or one of the other few countries that can) to get specialized treatment. They will usually have one thing they truly specialize in as they have enough individuals willing to do so, but outside of that you have to have external treatment. Those other countries (or rather the US) allows them to pay for it and get it, if you were restricted to their own country and those with a similar system you are SOL.
They are wealthy – certainly. Poor are taken care of, insane are housed, criminals are kept from society but are in nice facilities, they even have a decent number of rich despite the tax rates. Unless you are one of the truly ultra rich you will be getting more from the system than you put in and you can afford to go to the US for what your govt can’t provide (for if the govt can’t you have to go elsewhere). The Ultra Rich go elsewhere and find all those nice services that they can now afford to go get too.
Since you aren’t fighting those wars, aren’t doing the risky research, aren’t treating the worlds horribly ill, and basically aren’t doing anything that would cost much money yet are having a 60% tax rate you can survive.
So in the world of social justice you are an unmitigated success. In the world of “I’m Selfish” you get to take all the best and put your shit on someone else. If you live in that world then you can’t figure out why everyone else doesn’t too – after all it *is* a nice place to live and that “someone” who is taking all your shit is a nebulous concept that only exists in the newspaper from time to time.
In the Real World your shit has to go someplace, if it doesn’t you get to handle it no matter if you want to or not. If the places that are handling your problems go belly up or refuse to handle them then – whoops, your screwed.
Most of Europe’s ruling class understand this – it is why our large shift towards their model is scaring them so much. Their model is to have us brunt all the dirty work and them reap the majority of the rewards and feel morally superior in the process. We do not have anywhere else to push the dirty work too and when we also instantiate that model the Ponzi scheme is going to collapse.
Best Poodle at the Westminster dog show! For being George Soro’s favorite lap dog…
“Obama wasn’t awarded the Noble Peace prize for his accomplishments. He got it for his intentions. ”
Not really – his intentions in the election rhetoric was to start a war with Pakistan – which thankfully has not happened. We may need too later – I will not put any place off that list (including ourselves) – but over all I highly highly highly doubt it (they are more at risk than we are over Islamic Fundamentalist).
He got it for having a genetically predisposed higher amount of melanin in his skin than the median in the US/Most of the Western World and not being George Bush. The rest they simply hoped that that would be enough to make it a worthy recipient.
If he got it for his intentions than I do not think it would be the laughing joke it is – still a joke but not as much. Frankly I’m not sure which was more important – being a “black man” or being “Not George Bush”. Both assuaged so much guilt that it was almost palpable.
As is – does *anyone* care at all about the peace prize past the personal rewards anymore? I do not think they could have chosen a better “We are irrelevant” choice if they had went out and tried.
Ponce, I am not a student of Reagan’s poll numbers, but I know there was never any doubt about Reagan’s principles. His poll numbers were bad because almost entirely due to the economy. With Obama there are serious questions about his sanity and dedication to freedom (actually I have no questions about either one but others may).
I do not know how much anti-Obama sentiment can be attributed just to the economy, but he has definitely placed himself in opposition to the majority opinion on healthcare, the KSM trial, the Arizona law, the GZ Mosque, support for the Iranian liberals and Israel. His Cairo speech was genuinely nutty, his effort in Honduras disgraceful, his decisions on east European missile shield moronic, his management of the Gulf spill incompetent and possibly corrupt. And I am leaving out a lot. His lackey’s in the MSM media are no doubt spinning all his failures as successes due to superior insight but to many people have effected. He cannot undo Honduras, east Europe or the Gulf. He has earned the moral distrust of at least a large segment of the public in a way Reagan never could.
Could he be re-elected in 2012; I do not see how, then again I can’t see how anyone with his obvious flaws could get elected to anything. This is clear though, if he is re-elected, it will be the end of the US sponsored era of democracy and security and probably the beginning a new darker era of history.
Obama may understand the Constitution perfectly, but he doesn’t talk or act like it. He is trying to subvert it piece by piece. The 2nd amendment is definitely on the menu. Taking out the 2nd amendment must be done at the proper time. It’s the one thingt that could wipe the whole progressive plan out, big time.
Too late to fix things, too early to begin the hangings…
But we’re getting REAL CLOSE to that latter part…
“”I’ve sometimes considered the fact that socialism/communism has failed everywhere it’s been tried. Why, then, do they insist on continuing to try?””
Betsybounds
I think they simply can’t resist the idea of a dumbed down and subserviant populace. Where all the labor, though drastically diminished, is focused solely on keeping leftist in power.
They essentially are setting up slavery of the citizenry to promote their cause. Had the negro been enslaved only 6 months out of every year to promote an industry he felt disgusted by, would the insidiousness of it had been diminished?
Staying with one’s principals in spite of poll numbers or common sense has a Darwinian component. People like Roger Simon always think of Lincoln or Reagan. They never mention TD Lysenko or any of the zillion other anoymous failures who put on the tin foil hat and led their followers to oblivion, or in Lysenko’s case, to starvation.
JohnOh,
I’d point out Lincoln had a hand in the deaths of thousands as well….
Bob From Virginia,
Here’s a place you can review and compare presidential polling numbers:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/presidential-approval-center.aspx
However – keep in mind that Reagan was continuously represented in polling as being far less popular than he actually was, which in turn led to certain liberal leaders developing ulcers as they found they couldn’t simply undermine him as they thought they could.
Even during the 1980’s (or perhaps especially during the 1980’s) pollsters were not above shenanigans.
He also had that “malaise” problem from the Carter administration to deal with, and had to do so with a hostile democrat controlled congress, a military that was seen as having been defeated and was a paper tiger, and inflation that was a total bitch.
So he probably did have low polling numbers early in his presidency, but he took positive steps to correct the problems the country faced and in the long run people rallied around his administration as they saw the positive results of his efforts.
I’d feel comfortable bumping Reagan’s numbers above what they are represented as having been at the time, but alas, I’m no statistician so would have no tangible proof to base such a revision upon.
For similar reasons, I can’t help but think that Obonga’s poll numbers are being…ah, fluffed…a bit.
I can’t for the life of me see why a percentage of the population anywhere near 40% still agree with this dunce.
So, in comparisons between Reagan and Obambi, my gut feeling is that Reagan’s numbers are low-balled and Obambi’s numbers are high-balled.
At any rate, the link does provide at least some basis of comparison, and leaves me wondering just how much lower in reality Obongo’s true polling numbers are.
strcpy, you’re on a roll. Well done.
Re European free-riding, I draw the analogy to children. They don’t work, or deal with a lot of unpleasantness, and they do just fine. Are children showing us the way? Europeans and liberals must think so.
Europe’s enthusiasm for Obama is proof positive that the continent is infested with idiots. If they had any brains at all, they’d want a George Bush-type “cowboy” as President. Then they can strike poses about their tolerance and understanding, knowing they won’t have to actually do anything.
As it is, they plumped for Pee Wee Herman as their bodyguard. Think Obama will step up for Europe, should another Balkans-type crisis erupt? Think again. He’ll read some oleaginous words of the teleprompter. For a model, see his reaction to the Falklands problem, and expect more of the same.
Now would leftists do that? /sarc
I would bet my life that they have/have had their thumbs on the scale all along.
Occam, thanks for helping my vocabulary, useful word “oleaginous”. as in “These french fries and Obama’s last speech were oleaginous.”
Adj. 1. oleaginous – unpleasantly and excessively suave or ingratiating in manner or speech; “buttery praise”; “gave him a fulsome introduction”; “an oily sycophantic press agent”; “oleaginous hypocrisy”; “smarmy self-importance”; ; “soapy compliments”
buttery, fulsome, smarmy, unctuous, soapy, oily
insincere – lacking sincerity; “a charming but thoroughly insincere woman”; “their praise was extravagant and insincere”
2. oleaginous – containing an unusual amount of grease or oil; “greasy hamburgers”;
fatty, fat – containing or composed of fat; “fatty food”; “fat tissue”
Reference Occam on Europe, notice that the further away one is from death and destruction and needing to take responsibility for avoiding those unpleasantries the greater one’s opinions can become superficial.
Europe would benefit from an appointment with a hangman, without a US presence.
Actually we confuse Europe with west Europe. I suspect those closest to Russia have a deeper appreciation of the US and O’s character.
Scottie, thanks for the link, it is extremely interesting.
Scottie, fluffed poll numbers? Could the ABC, CBS, NYT, WaPost and NBC polls be disingenuous?
Odd isn’t it, that now all the polls are more or less showing what Rasmussen showed months ago, while Rasmussen has been consistent. see Real Clear Politics-polls.
I suspect the MSM just polled people around their office water coolers in upper west side Manhattan, or weighed them heavier the flyover country results.
LOL…Occam, do you remember how apoplectic Peter Jennings was on election night, 1994?
Priceless! Spoiled children, indeed!!!!
If you had only listened to that canadian dropout, and no other source of information, you too would have been flabbergasted at just how bad a trouncing the democrats took that evening.
Another good example would be Dan Rather:
—–
Dan’s Distorted Poll Reporting: “The President calls the tax cut necessary. Democrats call it a campaign for the wealthy. So far, it’s a problematic sell for the President. In a CBS News/New York Times poll out tonight, less than half the respondents thought the Bush tax cut would actually help the economy.”
– May 13, 2003 CBS Evening News. Rather failed to report that the poll he cited showed twice as many said tax cuts would help the economy (41 percent) than said new tax cuts would hurt (19 percent).
http://www.mediaresearch.org/projects/rather20th/welcome.asp
—-
As a result of such obvious bias over the decades, I’ve been figuring in a personal correction factor for years whenever the MSM rolls out a new “poll” on anything….
Bob From Virginia,
You DO realize, of course, that a reference to fluffing is something of a double-entendre in this context…lol.
Actually, it may be quite accurate considering how the MSM has whored itself out so desperately for Obonga!
If there’s one thing I can be sure about Barry (and there aren’t many), it’s that he knows almost nothing about the Constitution. In a radio interview, he said that the Framers had a “blind spot” about slavery. Anyone who knows anything about the Constitution knows that slavery was THE decisive issue of the Constitutional Convention, and that had not a compromise between the South and North on that one issue, there would not have been a Constitution.
Someone who says, “I tremble when I remember that God is just” does not have a “blind spot” about slavery.
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/obama-constitution/2008/10/27/id/326165