« Does This Guy Even KNOW How To Stop And Think? | Main | What eye on which ball? »

Thin Skin, Thick Head

My wife thinks President Obama is working for Al-Qaida. I kid you not. She brought up this contention while we were watching the news Saturday night. To Mikki, the combined effect of President Obama's policies, being clearly anti-business (on any business level) anti-entrepreneur, and anti-consumer mean that he is working to destroy the infrastructure of the United States. Bear in mind that my wife is from Hong Kong, and tends to see things from a different perspective than most people. The thing is, Mikki is no Republican, in fact she does not vote much except when she really likes someone, like Mayor Bill White of Houston, or is furious with someone, like Barack Obama. And Obama has really set her off. So far as she is concerned, Obama is directly responsible for just about every problem in America right now, if for no reason beyond the fact that as President, Obama should be setting the example and building optimism and confidence. I do not agree that Obama is trying to undermine America, though. I think the man just has the interests of the United States of America far lower on his list of priorities than his own personal agenda.

The reason I mention that point of view, is that I am hearing it more and more, and from black Americans as often as from white Americans. Obama seems to have exhausted his mojo, and the canned promises sound, well, like canned promises that aren't worth spit. This happens a lot with politicians, though, so the real question is the way an individual politicossack handles the turbulence. Some, like Harry Truman, tough out the flack, explain their reasoning and push ahead. Some, like Jimmy Carter, go into hiding and let things fall apart. Some, like Bill Clinton, recognize the battles they can't win, cut their losses and regroup for the next proposal. And some, Like FDR, pull back from a sure loss, embrace the other side's solution, and build credibility and support from that action in advancing his broader agenda. I mentioned Democrats who were President, because it reminds us that Barack Obama is in no way the first or last President who has had to face an angry public for a misstep, either in the way he delivers his decisions or who just plain gets the call wrong. But in every successful President's administration, the solution begins with recognizing what is wrong, and why. Barack Obama has been stubborn in holding on to the pretense that his plans are perfect from the go, and if he pushes hard enough he will inevitably win. Given his record in getting to the White House, but the guy is no student of history.

Admitting you are wrong is hard for many people, and flat out impossible for some folks. I personally know some very fine people who have been completely wrong, yet won't admit their error in the least, much less make necessary changes. It's not about intellect, but ego. Certainly we've seen many debates in politics where the truth came out in an obvious way, but the party in the wrong refused to budge from its position, no matter the cost. This obstinacity is relatively harmless and can even be amusing at the low level debates we see on the blogs, but it's a bit more serious when the President of the United States, in effect, puts his fingers in his ears and yells "I can't hear you! I can't hear you!". Not smart, just plain dumb.

The problem comes down to sensitivity. Barack Obama is about as tetchy a POTUS as we've had since Richard "They're all out to get me" Nixon. Any criticism of the man's policies and politics is immediately tagged as "racism", which would just be a crude spin tactic if it were not so obvious that our Narcissist-in-Chief buys into that conspiracy theory himself. Or that President Orwell engages in so much NewSpeak, like telling us that taxing people if they don't have health insurance would not really be a tax, and certainly not a tax on the poor, even though the people who do not have insurance now and who would be most likely not to have insurance in the future, are the poor. Like telling us that he has personally "created or saved" millions of jobs, in spite of a national unemployment average rising above 10 percent at times, with some urban minorities seeing local unemployment above thirty percent. Like telling us that there is no risk in "investigating" CIA agents through political committees on the assumption that the 'civil rights' of foreign terrorists may have been violated by men doing their jobs. The man imagines himself spotless, but that's only because his moral vision is so poor.

That's not to demean President Obama. Every President makes mistakes and has areas of weakness. Most of them are aware of their deficiencies and work to improve them and to avoid the worst mistakes. Almost all have to face situations which result from such mistakes. Sooner or later, President Obama is going to have to face the consequences of his mistakes and errors. The delay only means the consequences may be much more serous than he imagines.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/36822.

Comments (67)

"Admitting you are wrong is... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"Admitting you are wrong is hard for many people, and flat out impossible for some folks."

Chalk up Barry as "impossible". HE is the Obamassiah. HE does no wrong. HE knows all. Only others FAIL. Obama never fails.

Zero's always been the smar... (Below threshold)
apb:

Zero's always been the smartest guy in the room - just ask him!

"Sooner or later, President Obama is going to have to face the consequences of his mistakes and errors."

I don't think ol' Jug Ears would ever consider any of his decision-making at fault - any negative consequences would obviously be the fault of those racists that didn't cheerily accept his brilliant restructuring of our society.

Obama's only hope, a Republ... (Below threshold)
kathie:

Obama's only hope, a Republican Congress.

He attained office with his... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

He attained office with his words only. No experience or record of leadership. What did america think they were getting? ww

A nice illustration of the ... (Below threshold)
Victory is Ours:

A nice illustration of the paranoid musings that permeate the right wing. More on the past and present craziness here.

Vic

You are married to a very s... (Below threshold)
Lisa:

You are married to a very smart woman.

"Admitting you are wrong is... (Below threshold)
Bob:

"Admitting you are wrong is hard for many people, and flat out impossible for some folks."

DJ, I know it's hard for a lot of us, but why not just admit that your wife is right?

It's wrong to say Obama pla... (Below threshold)

It's wrong to say Obama places his interests ahead of the country. He is doing what he thinks right for the country and doesn't care that you and I and millions others prefer he pursue different policies. Disagree with what he is trying to do - the end result and/or the process - but don't go into the gutter and impugn his motives.

He cant even admit to sitti... (Below threshold)
914:

He cant even admit to sittin in Jeremiahs bigotted pews or acknowledge his discipleship to Ayer-ite or to being a Alinski-vite so like GarandFan says. For Barry, its impossible.

Oh, & Ayers and Alinsky are interchangeable.

He's not working for al qae... (Below threshold)
Pat:

He's not working for al qaeda. He's working for communist billionaires and simpatico with leftits tyrants.

You wife is more right than you know, though, about him out to destroy America. He is. He's doesn't care about Americans...or if we're reduced to a smoking pile of rubble. Just so he's in charge of that rubble.

Steve please SHUT UP!... (Below threshold)
Michael:

Steve please SHUT UP!

"...but don't go into the g... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"...but don't go into the gutter and impugn his motives."

Okay Stevie. WHAT'S HIS MOTIVE?

Signs a Stimulus Bill full of pork, when he says he won't sign pork-laden legislation. Won't have lobbyists in his administration, and then hire lobbyists. Says he's bipartisan, yet entrusts all legislative initiatives to two of the most partisan people on Capitol Hill. Claims to be bipartisian, yet voted the straight Democratic line while spending two years in the US Senate. Says he can wring BILLIONS in saving out of Medicare by attacking waste and fraud. How many BILLIONS has he 'saved' in the first 8 months he's been in office? Says he's for "vigorous debate" on health care reform, yet screamed and yelled for HR3200 to be passed before the August recess. Say's he's for no "secret deals" in health care reform, then makes a "secret agreement" with the drug companies.

So you tell us Stevie, WHAT'S HIS MOTIVE?

FASCISM is his motive.... (Below threshold)
Michael:

FASCISM is his motive.

Ah, it's been so long since... (Below threshold)

Ah, it's been so long since someone called me Stevie...

Ok, playing amateur psychologist, I would say his motives are the same as ours, he wants an America that is safe from its enemies, likee around the world, with a strong economy, people making a nice living, a clean environment, the best health care possible, kids that learn what they need to learn in school and so on.

Where we disagree is in how we define those objectives and the policies used to achieve those objectives. For example, Obama and I have different views on what kids should learn in school and we have different views on how kids should be taught.

It is beyond silly to argue that Obama wants a country that has to cower in bomb shelters or a country where kids grow up to be stupid and unable to hold down a good job. But it isn't stupid to argue that his policies will result in just that.

steve:One could ma... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

steve:

One could make the same argument about just about country's leader - Castro, Chavez, Stalin, etc - they're out to do what they believe is best for the people they think that they should be helping.

"It is beyond silly to argu... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"It is beyond silly to argue that Obama wants a country that has to cower in bomb shelters or a country where kids grow up to be stupid and unable to hold down a good job. But it isn't stupid to argue that his policies will result in just that."

Freudian slip. You're last sentence says it all.

I agree with your wife DJ. ... (Below threshold)
TexBob:

I agree with your wife DJ. I have traveled the globe for work for years, but now have enjoyed Obama's funemployment since January.

I view Comrade Obama through different eyes too.

WildWillie - "What did ame... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

WildWillie - "What did america think they were getting?"

Don't know about anyone else, but some people apparently thought he was political perfection incarnate.

I thought he was the political equivalent of a used-car saleman. Really glad to see you, your best friend in the whole world, promise you all sorts of support for that sweet ride you were buying - until you drive that clunker he sold you back onto the lot expecting something to be fixed.

All you had to do was look at his PUBLISHED record, and you saw someone who NEVER stuck around to deal with the aftermath of his work.

Annenburg challenge? Several hundred million dollars spent on education that didn't raise the grades a single point.

State senator? Sweetheart deals for 'developers', not so much for the people he actually represented - google up "Grove Parc" and take a look at his idea of a success.

Even as a community organizer he was a SELF-CONFESSED failure - he quit because he wasn't making a difference!

And what did he accomplish as a US Senator - aide from run for office?

Let's see... nope, drawing a blank here also...

I will confess I think the man's absolutely brilliant. He's conned the entire NATION into buying his snake oil - and whether or not we voted for him, we're ALL going to be stuck with the bill.

Garandfan: no freudian slip... (Below threshold)

Garandfan: no freudian slip, definitely intentional.

Mike: sadly, yes, you can. And that is why it is important to realize that they don't think like we do so we must deal with them as they are and not as we would like them to be.

She could be right after al... (Below threshold)
Flu-Bird:

She could be right after all look at the two names OBAMA and OSAMMA is this pure councedence?

A 10yr. old told me the sam... (Below threshold)
7thswan:

A 10yr. old told me the same thing couple of months back. He said "I think BO is a terroist".

Stevie, better read that la... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Stevie, better read that last sentence real slow.

"But it isn't stupid to argue that his policies will result in just that."

Steve, what actual evidence... (Below threshold)
davidt:

Steve, what actual evidence can you present to show that Obama's motives are good? Other than Obama's claims, which often turn out to be untrue.

Michelle told us he would m... (Below threshold)
Plumpplumber(balding):

Michelle told us he would make us change-we wuzn't countin' on all this-buyers remorse for some folks-Cold hard fact is that all we needed to do was google his positions, but most folks believed him. Obama practices mendacity as an art form, what a bummer for us. Now the problem is how to stop him. The Constitution forsaw someone like him, and we were given the legal right to remove him as we needed- to remove a tyrant hat would enslave us.

DavidT: no more real eviden... (Below threshold)

DavidT: no more real evidence than you can provide for the position that his motives are wrong. And in the absence of proof that his motives are wrong, I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt.

and garandfan, you're just going to have to spell it out for me, what am I missing when I write that it is okay (smart, even) to argue that the policies Obama is pursuing will result in bad things.

You are confusing Stevie. ... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

You are confusing Stevie. You argue to 'give the benefit of the doubt', but at the same time say "...it is okay (smart, even) to argue that the policies Obama is pursuing will result in bad things." According to THE ONE'S acolytes , if you question his motives you are ... take your pick of dismissive names.

Have you been hanging around Obama so long that straddling an issue is the best thing to do?

I just couldn't believe tha... (Below threshold)
BluesHarper:

I just couldn't believe that only several years after 9/11 we have a president with a Muslim name and very close spelling to Osama (bin Laden) & the name of the president of Iraq that was killing his own people. I would have lost that bet if asked on 9/11 if I thought we would have a president who's name was Barrack Hussein Obama. Too surreal.

Steve -What benefi... (Below threshold)
apb:

Steve -

What benefit will there be for our kids and grandkids to be $100K's in the hole at birth? What benefit is there to keeping a criminal, racist enterprise like ACORN in the green (courtesy the Stimulus)? What benefit is there in not providing protection to Poland, and announcing it on the 70th anniversary of it being sliced n' diced by Russia and Germany? What benefit is there in bowing to the king of Saudi Arabia, or allowing a nuclear Iran?

Maybe you're having problems with motive - maybe the problem isn't motive! Maybe the problem is Zero's dumber than a sack of hammers, and the chumps that bought him aren't anxious to admit they were taken for a SERIOUS ride.

I would say his mo... (Below threshold)
I would say his motives are the same as ours, he wants an America that is safe from its enemies, likee around the world, with a strong economy, people making a nice living, a clean environment, the best health care possible, kids that learn what they need to learn in school and so on.

No, he doesn't. That's where you're so completely clueless about the left-wing mentality. Obama doesn't care about any of those things. That's what you care about, and that's what I care about, but that's not what a power-crazed left-wing progressive activist cares about. All he wants to do is wield power. Whatever else happens is secondary. It doesn't matter to Obama if we have 25% unemployment, 1000% inflation, and Al-Qaeda attacking us with impunity on a regular basis, just so long as it's him and his cronies who are the ones who get to pull the levers, that's the most important thing.

Obama has never given any evidence that he cares about anything other than himself in his entire life.

steve sturm wrote:... (Below threshold)
iwogisdead:

steve sturm wrote:

. . . he wants an America that is safe from its enemies . . .

That explains why he's dismantling our missile defense, reducing our nuclear stockpile, and ignoring Gen. McChrystal's Afghanistan assessment.

Apb wrote: "... <i... (Below threshold)

Apb wrote:

"... maybe the problem isn't motive! Maybe the problem is Zero's dumber than a sack of hammers..."

ah, finally, somebody who gets my point! Only someone who is really clueless can think that doing those things is in America's best interests. it isn't that Obama is evil, he is simply unable to understand that his policies would leave America worse off.

And knowing that this is going to go over most of your heads, you aren't doing yourselves or your side any good by impugning his motives or his background, all you're doing is convincing everybody who isn't rabidly right that you guys just aren't to be taken seriously. Obama isn't going to be stopped because someone like Oregonmuse claims Obama is in it only to wield power, he'll be stopped when the majority of people realize his policies aren't going to be good... and the more you go on with your silly chants and calling Obama as anti-American, the easier it is for Obama's side to discredit all opposition. You guys crack racist garbage, Obama's supporters pull that out to impugn all opposition as racist. You think that helps anything? It doesn't.

Put another way, the best thing you can do to help stop Obama is to shut up.

"I will confess I think the... (Below threshold)
Gmac:

"I will confess I think the man's absolutely brilliant. He's conned the entire NATION into buying his snake oil - and whether or not we voted for him, we're ALL going to be stuck with the bill." 18. Posted by JLawson

Small correction...He fooled 53% of the populace that voted *for* him...

I've never much cared for him or his policies.

"...impugning his motives o... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"...impugning his motives or his background, all you're doing is convincing everybody who isn't rabidly right that you guys just aren't to be taken seriously...."

"...the more you go on with your silly chants and calling Obama as anti-American, the easier it is for Obama's side to discredit all opposition."

Evidently that 'discrediting' isn't working, judging by the recent polls - the same polls that gave him a big leg up only 8 short months ago.

"YOU LIE" - got enforcement FORCED into pending legislation

"DEATH PANELS" - got 'government review panels' removed from pending legislation

"COMMUNIST TRUTHER" - got someone removed from a post responsible for disbursement of BILLIONS of tax dollars.

Stevie, that argument ain't working in the "real world".

his polls are dropping beca... (Below threshold)

his polls are dropping because people don't like the substance of what he is trying to do - they don't like the stimulus, taking over GM, his health care plans... and not because you and your fellow rabid righters are screaming that he was born in Kenya or that he's just in it to for his own glory or that he is a communist.

but go ahead and take credit for things you had absolutely nothing to do with.

I'll have to (partially) ag... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

I'll have to (partially) agree with steve.

It's hard, if not impossible, to know what specifically motivates people to do what they do - motive and actions can be contradictory. What's significantly easier to prove is what the effects of their actions are.

If the point of presenting an argument is to convince others that your position is correct, you're more likely to have better results if you argue effect rather than motive.

Someone who's apt to give Obama 'the benefit of the doubt', won't likely be swayed by an argument that he's out to destroy the U.S. - it'll come across much like the 'Bush wants endless war' (motive) nonsense.

Gmac -It was more ... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Gmac -

It was more like a "We're stuck with him, whether we voted for him or not" phrasing. I know the entire electorate didn't vote for him - we had about 30-35% who didn't even bother to vote - but we, as a nation, are stuck with him.

Oh, lucky us...

The left hammered Bush with... (Below threshold)
Jeff Blogworthy:

The left hammered Bush with the same accusation vis-a-vis the Iraq war. "He never admits his mistakes" they said. I personally don't think he ever made any in regards to the war, excepting the normal benefit of hindsight. Missteps in domestic spending policies yes, but not the war. "The surge" was more of a General's call than a presidents anyway. He did the best he could. Bush's real gift to us was his utter commitment to victory. The leftists' goal was to get Bush to apologize for the war. Doing so would have displayed terrible weakness and indecision.

Now it is Obama's turn to face the music. The eternal wisdom of the left is now on display. Everything Bush did was wrong and only liberals knew the path to success. Well. Let's see it people. Chop chop.

_Mike_, Steve -I w... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

_Mike_, Steve -

I was willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt at first.

I'm not willing to give him quite so much latitude with my faith at this point - any more than you'd give a mechanic who tries to fix a flat by putting the leaky tire on another wheel to see if it stays flat. There's something very wrong with the mechanic's ideas and training if that's what he does. There comes a point where you can't convince yourself any longer that he either has a clue or has the best interests of the country in mind - and that was around the time the unions got GM.

And Steve - "You guys crack racist garbage, Obama's supporters pull that out to impugn all opposition as racist. You think that helps anything? It doesn't."

So just STFU because YOU think we should? I don't see people cracking racist garbage here - instead I see them discussing policies and ideas, and the only people who start tossing out racist garbage seem to be the folks on the left.

Why is that?

"Put another way, the best thing you can do to help stop Obama is to shut up."

I'm sure that'd be appreciated - but I don't think it's going to happen.

I agree with Steve. <... (Below threshold)
Weegie:

I agree with Steve.

Trying to bash Obama by imagining what you think are his evil motives, rather than concentrating on his incompetent policies, is counter-productive and unconvincing.

It the same thing when the Democrats say that Republicans oppose Obama because they're racist.

Ad hominem attacks like that reflect more negatively on the accuser than the target, IMO.

Since the Shadow is a fictional character, and Jesus isn't saying anything on the subject, that leaves exactly nobody on Earth who knows what is in the heart of another.

And, as the wise Hanlon said, Never ascribe to malevolence that which can be explained by stupidity, ignorance or incompetence (ie, the Democrat trifecta!).

Stevie: "but go ahead and t... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Stevie: "but go ahead and take credit for things you had absolutely nothing to do with."

"YOU LIE" - got enforcement FORCED into pending legislation

"DEATH PANELS" - got 'government review panels' removed from pending legislation

"COMMUNIST TRUTHER" - got someone removed from a post responsible for disbursement of BILLIONS of tax dollars.

So these were flukes? They were going to happen anyway? And just how, pray tell?

I don't think Obama is a te... (Below threshold)
braininahat:

I don't think Obama is a terrorist, but he might as well be as far as I'm concerned, because his policies are destroying what makes and made this nation great.

If you're keeping a minority poll: I'm Hispanic male (and, yes, this is my bike).

GarandFan et al:St... (Below threshold)
JustRuss:

GarandFan et al:

Steve Sturm (not to be conused with steve, just steve) is purposely annoying. We went back and forth abit a few threads ago if you remember. As far as I can tell he is independant leaning toward conservative at least in regard to Obama and his policies / decision making / administration.

He makes a very good point in a very annoying way, by sounding almost but not quite like a progressive, just enough to get you going if you don't read between the lines. He enjoys pissing us off just to teach us a lesson but I think his heart lies on our side.

By attacking Obama's motives instead of his actions and the results of those actions we do indeed lower ourselves and make it easier to discredit our ideas.

I agree that Obama is looking less and less stupid and more and more like he WANTS to drive our country into the ground and rebuild it from the ashes. But in his own head its entirely possible he feels that this is the only way to make the country better. Destroy it and rebuild it properly this time.

I disagree vehemently with that, but I can only speculate if it is true or not. In the meantime I will stick to facts and if I need to speculate I will make certain it is known I am not claiming it as fact, just conjecture.

Steve Sturm, you are annoying, but you are making your point. Maybe you could try not to be quite so annoying next time?

Those who attack Steve... Please stop, you are making the posters at DK and DU look tame sometimes by spouting vitriol. I respect you too much to let you sink to their level even on a conservative blog.

If you want to go scream at them on those blogs though I will enjoy the fireworks!

Russ

He makes a very go... (Below threshold)
He makes a very good point in a very annoying way, by sounding almost but not quite like a progressive, just enough to get you going if you don't read between the lines. He enjoys pissing us off just to teach us a lesson but I think his heart lies on our side.

Personally, I don't give a flying fart about what stevie may or may not be, but he sounds like one of those Republican idiots who kept the GOP in the minority for years, back before Reagan, who never fought and whose main concern was whether we broke any "rules", not whether we actually won anything.

Several years ago, I grew fed up with listening to "advice" from the stevie sturms of this world. They've had their chance, and all they've given us is failure. We all should be thorough-going Alinksyites now.

Wizbang's premier moby Stev... (Below threshold)

Wizbang's premier moby Stevie Sturm moves the goalposts. First he whines about us questioning Obama's motives, then when that doesn't work, he morphs into a concern-troll who frets about how we present our case:

And knowing that this is going to go over most of your heads, you aren't doing yourselves or your side any good by impugning his motives or his background,

You're conveniently ignoring the fact that the left wing did exactly this with Bush for eight years and for the most part, it worked. Case in point: shortly after the 2004 election, he tried to implement some social security reforms. The Democrats' response was that he hated old people. There was no substantive policy discussion, just a barrage of insults. And guess what? Bush got completely derailed, and he just gave up. Thanks to the relentless drumbeat of negative attacks orchestrated by the left.

...he'll be stopped when the majority of people realize his policies aren't going to be good

And how will they "realize" this, pray tell? By having us writing long, boring policy papers for obscure think tanks that no one's going to read? Or by us figuring us how to encapsulate everything that's wrong with Obama's agenda (as Sarah Palin's comment about "death panels" did) and hammering it home relentlessly?

By the way, are you still claiming that the ACORN scandal is "insignificant"? How about the latest brouhaha with the NEA? Is that "insignificant", too?

"Several years ago, I grew ... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"Several years ago, I grew fed up with listening to "advice" from the stevie sturms of this world."

Agree. That's why we are where we are today. "Don't be offensive". "Let's be reasonable, you conservatives up some of your points, and we'll accept them." Yeah, that worked out real well.

With the MSM kissing Barry's ass on a daily basis, it appears the only way to get attention is TO YELL! Van Jones? No big deal, no story there. ACORN? No big story there, MoveOn. NEA budding scandal? Nah, nothing there. Are there wingnuts out there? YES, on both the right and the left (hell, just look at DK and Huffpo). But when they purposely stonewall or avoid the question, GIVEN THIS ADMINISTRATIONS TRACK RECORD, you have to wonder.

AS FOR STEVIE - ANSWER POST #40, PLEASE.

Ooops! Maybe I spoke to so... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Ooops! Maybe I spoke to soon. Or did Jon Stewart's dart hit the MSM?

FACT CHECK: Coverage requirement enforced with tax

By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press Writer - 33 mins ago

WASHINGTON - Memo to President Barack Obama: It's a tax. Obama insisted this weekend on national television that requiring people to carry health insurance -- and fining them if they don't -- isn't the same thing as a tax increase. But the language of Democratic bills to revamp the nation's health care system doesn't quibble. Both the House bill and the Senate Finance Committee proposal clearly state that the fines would be a tax.

... It wouldn't be the first asterisk added to Obama's campaign pledge on taxes. Earlier this year, he signed a tobacco tax increase to pay for children's health insurance. Even that can be read as a violation of his expansive campaign promise.

"I can make a firm pledge," he said in Dover, N.H., on Sept. 12, 2008. "Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."

He repeatedly promised "you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime."

This is the second AP article that did not flatter THE ONE in the last two days. Either the editors are asleep, or the two reporters are now enjoying FUNEMPLOYMENT.

Be interesting to see if this continues.

Once again little Stevie ha... (Below threshold)
Michael:

Once again little Stevie has cut and run. Typical gutless lib.

Any reasonable person could... (Below threshold)
RicardoVerde:

Any reasonable person could see that the man had no discernable qualifications to be president. Who would buy a mutual fund where the fund manager could show no results for the past X years? Past performance may not guarantee future results, but don't you think they have some bearing on projected outcome? Just what was he ever in charge of that did anything? I know he taught and lectured and filed nuisance law suits (the ones where they are pretty darn sure will never go to court) but was he ever in charge of a budget or held accountable to a board or panel of voters?

Can we balance it out a bit... (Below threshold)
JustRuss:

Can we balance it out a bit then? I agree with you that being *ahem* conservative in our speech and attitude did not help at all for the last 12 years or so. Glenn Beck, by being a bit "out there" does more to draw attention to the issues (i love that guy by the way) than a few years of the dysfunctional media.

I think we can go Alynski on them without resorting to attacking peoples imagination. There was substance and fact behind Van Jones, ACORN, and NEA scandals. But we go too far by claiming he is a monster intent on bringing down the US (even if it is true, we have no proof).

So I am done for now, you both bring good points but in the end we should double check our words to make sure we don't sound like nutjobs (would a crazy person know they are crazy?) but not give in to "conservative conversation" again.

We are done being door mats but we don't need to sling mud to keep from being walked on.

Sturm, Your statemen... (Below threshold)

Sturm,
Your statement of impugning Obamas' background
was gobsmacking incredible. And telling others
the best thing to do is shut up, that is what
got this country into this terrible mess.
Shutting up, going along to get along, and
abetting the crazies by not getting vocal to
stop them and their destructive ideas, and
agendas.
Wow sturm, just wow.

I basically agree with your... (Below threshold)
exceller:

I basically agree with your wife. I don't know whether it's al-qaida, or some other group, but there is zero chance that his motives are meant to enhance and improve the strength of the US. You cannot script a better plot to undermine the US. His actions all result in the same outcome, to divide, weaken, demoralize, and confuse the US, while supporting and uplifting US enemies abroad and sticking a finger in the eye of traditional allies.

To me it's not surprising either. He has been surrounded his whole life by people who hate the US.

Does Obama LIE or is he "mi... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Does Obama LIE or is he "misinformed"?

FACT CHECK: Coverage requirement enforced with tax

By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press Writer - 33 mins ago

WASHINGTON - Memo to President Barack Obama: It's a tax. Obama insisted this weekend on national television that requiring people to carry health insurance -- and fining them if they don't -- isn't the same thing as a tax increase. But the language of Democratic bills to revamp the nation's health care system doesn't quibble. Both the House bill and the Senate Finance Committee proposal clearly state that the fines would be a tax.

... It wouldn't be the first asterisk added to Obama's campaign pledge on taxes. Earlier this year, he signed a tobacco tax increase to pay for children's health insurance. Even that can be read as a violation of his expansive campaign promise.

"I can make a firm pledge," he said in Dover, N.H., on Sept. 12, 2008. "Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."

He repeatedly promised "you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime."

Seems Barry is going to have a lot of asterisks added in the future.

You're up VIC.

52 - Ooops! Wrong Thread.<... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

52 - Ooops! Wrong Thread.

"But we go too far by claim... (Below threshold)
914:

"But we go too far by claiming he is a monster intent on bringing down the US (even if it is true, we have no proof"

We go too far? The proof is in the pudding. Look at the economy and foreign affairs, dropping missile shields and phasing out nukes.

Either He is the dumbest f r ever or he's a man made disaster.

> But in every successfu... (Below threshold)
Arthur:

> But in every successful President's administration, the solution begins with recognizing what is wrong, and why. Barack Obama has been stubborn in holding on to the pretense that his plans are perfect from the go, and if he pushes hard enough he will inevitably win. Given his record in getting to the White House, but the guy is no student of history.

He still thinks he'll win. Laws? The Constitution? Such trifles don't bother him any more than they did Woodrow Wilson.

OUCH! This is going to SMA... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:
Serves you right for marryi... (Below threshold)
Jane:

Serves you right for marrying someone without a brain.

There are soooooo many turd... (Below threshold)
ib42:

There are soooooo many turd-for-brains posters here, excepting me. There, I've said it all!

Oh, how I long for the days... (Below threshold)
ib42:

Oh, how I long for the days when bush was president! He was so cool, sending our brave young soldiers into iraq and killing all those nast women and children, as well as culling the ranks of our military personell by his, oh so brave and cowboy courage in making sure Osama knew how tough we are!
And, I miss cheney's sincere, affectionate smile, and admire his wise business sense in making a few bucks as a contractor for the US government! AAAHHH, the good old days!

I dunno. I got this party l... (Below threshold)
bobdog:

I dunno. I got this party late, but Steve Sturm actually makes some sense with his arguments, at least on this thread. A little tactless, perhaps, but probably valid.

There was a link here to Media Matters over the weekend, and I was fascinated at the vitriolic comments the lefties posted. I don't usually waste my time on leftie sites, so it was like visiting an insane asylum. (We apparently want Obama assassinated, doncha know? As if we would feel better about Biden succeeding him.)

The comments over there were absolutely nuts. Vic, SAUD are right at home over there. IB4's post above just scratches the surface. I mean, crazy talk.

It occurred to me that we must sound the same to them. Not that my views of Obama's inept policies have changed one bit, and I don't plan on buying into Obama's bullshit "social justice" agenda which seems to underlie everything he does.

The political landscape has to be changed next fall, if for no other reason than to restore some of the political balance in America and to reengage the other half of the country in the political discussion in Congress. It seems to me that the fundamental problem we're dealing with is a complete exclusion of Republican views in the legislative landscape, which is harmful to the country. By intentional design, Congress works best when it constipates itself into gridlock, so that only worthy legislation survives, and the wild ideas from either extreme die an early death. Starting with the Stimulus Bill, the liberals have unloaded every pie-eyed legislative wet dream they've cooked up since the 1960's, and it's not healthy.

But I'm an optimist by nature. I'm hopeful that the Democrats get their asses kicked next election and we return to some sort of snarling balance in Congress while we still have a country left worth living in.

This national nervous breakdown shit can't go on. And it won't be solved by the likes of Obama, Biden, Jimmy Carter, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Rahm Immanuel, either. Ultimately, that means we have to reject the mean-spirited, vicious Chicago-style politics that allowed them to take over this country and throw their butts out into the street.

Spend a half hour over at Media Matters and you might see what I saw.

"There are soooooo many tur... (Below threshold)
914:

"There are soooooo many turd-for-brains posters here, excepting me. There, I've said it all!"

You're just as narcissistic as the Jughead in chief!

#57,I bet this write... (Below threshold)
mag:

#57,
I bet this writer's wife is a hell of lot smater with more insight that you could even imagine. You are the one without the brains.

Your wife is an astute judg... (Below threshold)
gary gulrud:

Your wife is an astute judge of pony flesh.

I am reminded of Carlos Castenada and the squinty peering at the subject by the Sonoran Indians assessing the aura.

!Bam is a congenital fraud, in the mein of a Joseph Smith.

ib42 why not drag your stup... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

ib42 why not drag your stupid fucking ass over to DK or Huffpo. They'll really enjoy your insightful wit and humor. Who knows, in a couple of years, AFTER YOU GROW UP, you might say or write something intelligent.

Please note, I said "might".

DJ Drummond = Obama Derange... (Below threshold)
jim:

DJ Drummond = Obama Derangement Syndrome

Apparently your wife has caught it from you also.

Oh, how I long for... (Below threshold)
Stan25:
Oh, how I long for the days when bush was president! He was so cool, sending our brave young soldiers into iraq and killing all those nast women and children, as well as culling the ranks of our military personell by his, oh so brave and cowboy courage in making sure Osama knew how tough we are! And, I miss cheney's sincere, affectionate smile, and admire his wise business sense in making a few bucks as a contractor for the US government! AAAHHH, the good old days!

I hope that is sarcasm on your part, ib42. If it is not, you are dead wrong.

1. Saddam Hussein killed more women and children than we did, in the time that he was the ruler of Iraq. Hell he gassed whole villages, just because they were a different race/religion than he was. What was the population composition of these villages mostly? Women and children.

2. Tell me a company, besides Haliburton, that has the wherewithal to do what they do? Not many. Your former fearless leader also used them in the Balkans, the same way that they were used in Iraq. The only difference is, the person that used them in that capacity, had a D behind his name and title.

3. The people that served and are currently serving in Iraq and Afghanistan are there, because they want to be. Not like the draftees, that were forced to go Vietnam. Oh yes, who started that little ruckus? Sure the hell wasn't a Republican president, but then anything that a Dem does is okay. That includes the idiot that currently resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave

I want to say - thank you f... (Below threshold)

I want to say - thank you for this!,




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy