March 23rd, 2009

Another puzzling bout of Obama administration cluelessness—or something else?

It’s hard to know exactly what to think of this:

…[T]he private-sector worries about the plans being cooked up by Geithner and Summers extend into countless corporate suites, start-ups, and small businesses far beyond Wall Street—and that until recently, the administration was comically clueless about it. When I was at the White House recently, I jokingly asked a senior Obama official if the team was having fun turning the country into a socialist state. “What are you talking about?” this official replied. “Business loves what we’re doing!”

Back in New York the following day, I related that story to a CEO pal of mine who is a big Obama backer. “What are they, smoking crack down there?” he replied. “Find me one CEO who likes what they’re doing. Seriously, find me one!”

The story by John Heilemann appeared in the Obama-friendly New York Magazine. It goes on to describe the power and policy struggles within Obama’s ecomonic “brain trust.”

My take the entire matter is this: Larry Summers and Tim Geithner may not have known what they were signing onto when they accepted their positions in this administration. Summers (at least according to the article) was the main person behind the stimulus bill. Geithner, of course, has been (sloooowly and not at all surely) attempting to deal with the financial world and the mess it got into: banks, credit, mortgages, bad paper, and all of that.

Those issues and their proposals have been controversial enough. But the real firestorm about the Obama plan came with the budget: it was shocking to almost everyone except the far Left.

The article agrees:

If the stimulus provokes concern in the private sector, the budget causes nothing short of a total freak-out. The size of it ($3.6 trillion in fiscal year 2010) and the oceans of red ink it threatens to unleash give deficit hawks the heebie-jeebies. The redistributionist tilt it brings to the tax code wigs out the wealthy, the modestly wealthy, and the wannabe wealthy. The oxen it gores (e.g., agricultural subsidies) offend entrenched industrial wards of the state.

Beyond those particulars, the sheer ambition and audacity of the thing—health-care reform, cap-and-trade, and much more—raises suspicions that the Obamans are attempting to capitalize on the crisis instead of solving it.

My guess—and it is only a guess—is that Summers and Geithner, and perhaps other economic advisers as well, spoke to Obama privately in opposition to his going full steam ahead on his budget plans without having first dealt effectively with the more pressing and immediate problems of the economy itself. And that he listened politely, as is his habit (makes everyone feel heard, don’t you know?) and then did exactly and precisely what he wanted.

Leaving Geithner and Summers to twist slowly, slowly in the wind. They may come to learn the character of the man with whom they signed on.

Judd Gregg figured it out a lot earlier, and quit before he even started. Now he’s free to say what he thinks—and there’s not a whole lotta Obamalove in it, although he defends Geithner and Summers:

The money quote:

The practical implications of [Obama’s budget] is bankruptcy for the United States. There’s no other way around it. If we maintain the proposals that are in this budget over the ten-year period that this budget covers, this country will go bankrupt. People will not buy our debt; our dollar will become devalued…And I find it almost unconscionable that this administration is essentially saying “Well, we’re just gonna blithely go along on this course of action” after they’re getting these numbers which show that they’re not, they’re not sustainable. And they know that they’re not sustainable.

42 Responses to “Another puzzling bout of Obama administration cluelessness—or something else?”

  1. Scottie Says:

    And now it’s time for the biggest “throw em under the bus” casualty thus far of the Obama presidency – the entire US nation!

  2. Baklava Says:

    I feel like I’m being thrown under the bus.

    What will the people with “responsibility” have later in life.

    The same as those with little personal responsibility.

    Very little.

  3. Baklava Says:

    That’s the end result of socialism.

  4. huxley Says:

    We can only hope that Obama is overreaching — too much, too fast — and will be pushed back hard.

  5. Scottie Says:

    In reading US history, it seems to me that the Founding Fathers envisioned the US House of Representatives part of Congress as being a more powerful branch of government than it’s seen as today, and Congress being the most powerful branch of government in general.

    They likewise seemed to have intended the Executive Branch to be a comparitively weaker branch of government.

    For instance, the President spends money – but only what Congress gives him as an allowance, and only for purposes they appropriate the funds for.

    The President is Commander and Chief, but only Congress has the power to actually declare war.

    It may be that we see the Executive Branch diminished over the next 4 years into something far more in line with what those old dead white guys intended over 200 years ago – basically due to a president who’s a lame duck in his first term, with Congress directing the nation.

    Of course, I think the Founding Fathers had more illustrious types in mind for leading the nation, rather than the Dodds and Franks we are stuck with today….

    At the rate Obama is going, he is going to be irrelevant even before the 2010 elections – except as a weight around the necks of incumbent democrats.

  6. soupcon Says:

    Summers is a leftist and NOT a centrist on policy matters.He’s done of a fine job of bamboozling plenty of commentators that he’s a reasonable Democrat and not an ideologue who pushes statist policies.

  7. neo-neocon Says:

    Scottie: the Founding Fathers also had it in mind that Senators would be elected not by popular vote but by their state legislatures. What’s more, the voting public was intended to consist only of white male property holders. Quite a few changes since then.

  8. D. B. Light Says:

    Scottie is right in that the Constitution, as it emerged from the 1787 Convention, made the House of Representatives the active element of government. The Senate and President were to serve as checks on the House. There was no defined role for the Supreme Court. But, not all Founders liked that arrangement. Hamilton, for instance, wanted a very strong and active executive.

    And that 1787 Constitution was a very imperfect document. People forget that the Constitution that emerged from the Philadelphia convention was not the expression of timeless principles, but rather a compromise among many contending principles and ideas and that many of the most important questions were not addressed or resolved. Rather they were left to succeeding generations to work out.

    Many historians and legal scholars would also point out that the 1787 Constitution was a failure. Not only did it have to be extensively revised by the Bill of Rights [which grew out of voter dissatisfaction with the original document] but in 1861 the whole republican system collapsed into civil war. The precedent of strong executives [Jackson, Polk, Lincoln, etc. who ignored Constitutional limits on their powers]; innovative judges like John Marshall]; the Reconstruction Amendments [13, 14, 15] and most importantly the force of arms essentially rewrote the original constitution, greatly strengthening the power of the executive, creating the principle of judicial review, and making the federal government the sovereign power in the land.

    The “Founders” seem to us to be godlike figures only because it has been useful to portray them as such. If they thought more seriously about constitutional matters than we do it is because they were involved in creating a framework for a union of States that had waged war with Britain over constitutional principles. Those were the dominant issues of the day. Today most of those issues have been essentially resolved or are left to the courts to decide while Congress and the executive think seriously about other things.

    The “Founders” were like us — mere humans, subject to all human foibles. There has been no subsequent decline in talent, only in status. There is no reason to believe, for instance, that Lincoln was inferior to Washington; that George Marshall was inferior to John Marshall; that Ronald Reagan was inferior to Thomas Jefferson, etc.

  9. D. B. Light Says:

    Neo is absolutely right. The founders has no interest in popular democracy. For the most part they subscribed to the idea that the country should be ruled by what we today would call a “meritocracy” [I believe Jefferson’s expression was “men of conspicuous talent and education”] to whom all other elements of the population would naturally defer.

    This does not mean, however, that the sense of the people in general would be ignored. Most of the founders held to the old Whig principle that in matters of great import the public should be consulted because they, and they alone, were the best protectors of their own liberties. Let us not forget that the Preamble to the Constitution began, “We the People….” That’s why the House, which was closest to the people they represented, was supposed to be the active element of government.

  10. huxley Says:

    There is no reason to believe, for instance, that Lincoln was inferior to Washington; that George Marshall was inferior to John Marshall; that Ronald Reagan was inferior to Thomas Jefferson, etc.

    Leaving Lincoln aside, I think the Founders were something above and beyond the mere humans we see today in American politics.

    Not because humanity has shrunk since then, but the type of people who rise to the top in our current political system are not the same people who stepped up in the late 1700s to lead a successful rebellion, create a new political framework, and build a nation.

    Plus, I really do think we got dealt a very lucky hand with our Founders.

    But that’s a longer discussion for another time.

  11. huxley Says:

    I’d like to hear more from CEO-types about Obama’s plans. I can’t imagine they are happy at all.

    The New York Magazine piece is only gently skeptical of Obama. On one hand we read how risk-averse Obama is and on the other hand, how committed he is to the huge gamble of rescuing the banking system while remaking most of the US economy. It doesn’t add up, but Obama is, as ever, portrayed as the serene, deep thinker.

  12. D. B. Light Says:

    Huxley’s right — we are getting a bit off subject. I would point out, though, that we may be stuck with people like Frank and Dodd, but they had Aaron Burr and Gouvernor Morris, and the like.

  13. gcotharn Says:

    Our shifting of the choices of Senators away from State Legislatures seems to me to have been a bad move.

    And, since women usually vote Democratic: I’m also not too happy about women’s suffrage! Seems to have caused some suffering…

  14. Hogarth Says:

    Are people finally starting to see why the Jeremiah Wright relationship mattered? Are they finally starting to see that it was not a case of guilt by association? Are they finally starting to see that Obama wholeheartedly agreed and still agrees to the “God Damn America!” sentiment?

    I can only hope.

  15. Hogarth Says:

    “On one hand we read how risk-averse Obama is and on the other hand, how committed he is to the huge gamble of rescuing the banking system while remaking most of the US economy. It doesn’t add up.”

    Yes, it does. Obama is averse to personal political risk. In fact, he is a political coward.

    He’s just fine with risking our economy – he already has his millions.

  16. Don Janousek Says:

    IMHO, three things have practically, but not quite, destroyed the federalist and representative republic envisioned by the Founding Fathers (yeah, yeah, I know. “Founders” is more P.C., but the historical truth is that they were all men, so live with it!) – the 14th Amendment imposed by the Radical Republicans after the Civil War, the 17th Amendment providing for the popular election of Senators and the late New Deal swing by the federal courts into using the “Interstate Commerce claue” to justify any actions the federal government chose to undertake. The “equal protection” aspect of the 14th Amendment could easily have been obtained by and amendment requiring each state constitution to contain an equivalent of the federal Bill of Rights, the direct election of Senators destroyed the balance of power state governments had against the federal government and altered the “federal” republic originally conceived, and the expanded use of the Interstate Commerce Clause solidified the supremacy of almost anything the federal government did contrary to state laws. The only thing now still standing between the federal republic the Founding Fathers intended and the eventual “mobocracy” foretold by both Plato and Aristotle is the Electoral College. However, a “perfect storm” seems to have been created between the advent of a far left President and an equally far left majority in the Congress, something that could have been avoided had Senators still been selected by state legislatures with Red State legislatures. One other obvious factor is that the Founding Fathers never envisioned a “legislative” Supreme Court nor was there provision made in the Constitution for a monstrosity like the Federal Reserve with unlimited monetary power. Pretending that we still live by “constitutional” privileges is a fun intellectual exercise, but our present form of government is not what what set up in the aftermath of the Revolution. Hence, Obama and his urgency is using the present “perfect storm” configuration to push through his socialist program. Curing the economic mess is obviously secondary to his very leftist ideological goals. And that’s a fact, Jack!

  17. Don Janousek Says:

    Sorry, but just noticed several “typo’s” in my post, but it seems to still be fairly coherent if you mentally substitute the correct word where needed. And that’s, also, a fact, Jack!

  18. kcom Says:

    I’m hoping and praying that 2010 will be a lot like 1994, when the American people reached out and smacked the sh** out of President Clinton and said, “Hey, wait a minute.” They elected the first House Republican majority in 40 years, as a result of Bill Clinton trying to bite off more than he could chew.

    While that was nice, we need it even more this time. I hope we can make it through the next two years with minimal damage (as minimal as possible, at least) and then elect a Republican majority in both houses or, at the bare minimum, dial the Democratic majorities way back so we can re-create a truly effective system of checks and balances. It was a bad idea to give that much power to the Dems and I hope the oversight is corrected in 2010. Perhaps then, Obama will have to deal with reality instead of the far Left fantasy world he’s currently trying to inhabit.

    Two years is not so long. Four years is an eternity.

  19. FredHjr Says:

    I think in 2010 the Democrat majorities will be dialed back to very thin majorities, and then by 2012 they will lose the majority and the White House. However, the Republicans may not get a filibuster proof Senate. And we must keep this in mind: if the economic scenario will be what I think it is going to be at that time, we will be seeing the Fed having to push up interest rates to hold back inflation. That can have only one result: a slowing economy in order to wring inflationary expectations out of the economy. We had a painful episode of that from 1980-83. That means the mob might have it in for Republicans and blame them for their pain.

    Right now we do not have durability in a sense of what our system of government should be and what liberty meant to our forebears. Maybe most of the population thinks that government is supposed to help them. That’s a bad habit of mind to be in. So, the way back from where we are now entails a profound change in the culture. And cultures do not change quickly.

  20. expat Says:

    When we compare today’s political situation with that f 1776, we must also factor in demographics. Philadelphia had a population of 30 thousand in 1776. The bubbles that surround our elite today could not have existed then. The fortunes of Washington, Jefferson, and Adams were as connected to the weather as much as those of the poorest farmer. There was a different quality of representation because the Founders knew who they represented and at least to some extant shared their fate.

  21. FredHjr Says:

    I think what is most necessary for our nation is that we begin the long, slow evolution to being a people who know how to be independent, yet able to help each other out, skilled, and risk-taking.

    In the 20th century we found ourselves in a society in which the traditional bonds which tied people to family, community, church/synagogue, and even the land were breaking down. At the same time we became a people even more dependent upon large corporations for employment. When the vicissitudes of large companies and the overall company displaced people, the normal supports were just not there for a lot of people. Hence, the appeal of socialist ideology to many. Without family, community, and church to help them land on their feet and find new employment or a new career, it came down to the State to be the support system.

    As we’ve been tearing down the traditional networks and supports from earlier America, the sense of displacement is more acute. Thence, the appeal of FDR during the thirties, LBJ during the Sixties, and now Obonga in the new millenium.

    The only way back is to rebuild our sense of self-reliance and our commitment to each other. Plus, more people need to see large corporations as mainly bloated bureaucracies that are ever ripe for downsizing in a globally competitive environment.

    Our education system is now almost completely dysfunctional. It cannot impart any semblance of what we got many years ago, in terms of both humanities and the sciences and math. An entrepreneurial society that is inventive and independent requires a people who are literate and skilled. And right now that’s just not happening.

  22. Gray Says:

    Where have all his leftist defenders gone from this site? Or other sites?

    I want to hear some dirty lefty come out and defend him, Reid and Pelosi.

    Bueller?

  23. FredHjr Says:

    I wish we could edit our posts, since I found a mistake of mine in my above post.

    “When the vicissitudes of large companies and the overall company displaced people”

    I meant to write “overall economic cycle displaced people”

    This is what happens when I’m thinking of too many things at the same time and I’m on the medication neurontin for neuropathic pain. No excuses, just explanation…

  24. D. B. Light Says:

    Expat makes an interesting point when he notes that representatives to the Second Continental Congress in 1776, some of whom also participated in the Constitutional Convention of 1789, derived their primary income from agriculture, as did most Americans of the late eighteenth century. This fact, however, did not ensure a commonality of interests and perspectives between them and ordinary Americans.

    Washington and Jefferson were members of the planter elite, which monopolized political power throughout the south. Their interests, education, and perspectives were class-bound and often quite different from those of yeoman farmers or agricultural laborers or slaves etc. Adams, a working farmer, was also a successful lawyer whose interests and perspectives were tied to those of Boston’s merchant elite. In a very real sense these men and others of their class lived their lives in bubbles that insulated them from the experiences of common men and women.

    I think that the far more important point to be made is that these men were not professional politicians. They were representatives of local and regional leadership classes who had extensive experience in government long before they came to Philadelphia. They did not have constituents in the modern sense. They were, and considered themselves to be, the natural leaders of their communities and States.

    Those who served in the Continental Congress or in the Continental forces also had developed a broader “Continental” perspective than those that originated in the local or regional cultures in which they had first achieved distinction. Not only class, but experiential perspectives thus isolated them from their supposed constituents.

    It can be argued that it was not until the 1830’s with the rise of a professional political class, many of whom were of common origin, that America enjoyed a situation in which political leadership lay with men who shared substantial common interests and perspectives with their constituents.

    It is quite arguable that today’s political class is far more representative of the public at large than was that of the late eighteenth century and some [not me] would argue that this accounts for a perceived decline in the quality of leadership.

  25. renminbi Says:

    Look,this R sole is completely clueless and is wrecking things,but one way not to become depressed is to laugh and spread the word about this man. Do not link to this while eating or drinking lest stuff end up in your keyboard.

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/03/023149.php

  26. strcpy Says:

    The main thing that separates our founding fathers from our current crop is that they cared more for the people of the US than they really did for themselves.

    There was a MUCH larger gap back then between the so called haves and have nots – and make no mistake our founding fathers were the haves. They were the elite, intelligentsia, rich, or whatever term you want to use to an even greater extent than now. Saying they were agriculture based is true in the same sense that the CEO of General Mills is agriculture based – they were managers.

    However they did a few things that are *really* rare. I will not say it never happened before simply because “never” is too strong a word – however I bet you could count the number of times on one hand and have fingers left over.

    The did first one thing that is really rare – the elite revolted. Of the things that few argue with Marxist thought is the cycle wherin the poor over throw the rich, become the rich, and then are later overthrown again by the poor. In this case the rich overthrew the rich, in fact in the way they did it there was no turning back – do or die (note this is *civil war*, not just conquest).

    Next, while the above is not common it isn’t totally unheard of either – England’s the War of the Roses comes to mind. What really separates them is that after overthrowing a monarchy instead of setting themselves to take it’s place they did everything in their power to ensure that a nobility class did not form here. That is, the elite fought the elite, won, and then relinquished power to the non-elite.

    Case in point – two terms as president wasn’t broken until wwII – that is a *long* time for that to happen. Any one think any of our current leaders would do that unless mandated by the constitution? Heck, even many (if not most) of the congress critters had self imposed term limits.

    At some point we shifted our politicians to the “Me First” thinkers and, once that occurred, I do not know how to fix it as they will not allow it to be done. It will take a revolution, if we are lucky then we will rise up and vote all the crap out at some point, if not then it will end up with some form of a fight (collapse and rebuilding of society or true civil war). Though that could be anywhere from a few months to a few decades. Someone mentioned 1994 – the “vote ’em out” thing was tried and didn’t work out well, I hope the next one does.

  27. Don Janousek Says:

    Another difference is that the current political “elite” has managed to completely insulate itself from the consequences of its actions. Expensive carbon regulations dramatically raise fuel prices? So what? Pelosi flies back and forth across the continent on military jets. Dumping trillions in debt on our grandchildren to re-vamp health care? So what? Try to find a health care system like that of Congress at any price. Not going to be any money left for the social security payments? So what? If Barney Frank gets run out of town, his federal pension will make what others receive on social security look like pocket change – and it vests after only five years in Congress. Try to buy a 5-year payment annuity. Short on cash? So what? “I got 2 million left over from the last campaign. Where’s that money bag?” Meanwhile, if you’re on unemployment due to crazy government policies and the kids are hungry, you’re gonna need a gun to get the kind of cash your congressperson has access to all the time. On the other hand, the “elite” who rebelled and founded this republic not only sought freedom, but were willing to possibly pay the price for rebellion against the Crown if they failed. One of them, I’m not sure which, said “we wil all hang together or we will all hang separately,” and John Hancock signed his name to the Declaration of Independence in very large script so that George III would get his name correct if he ended up being hanged. Does anyone really think Nancy or Barney or Chris Dodd or any of the current “elite” can even understand such people as the founding “elite?” When little piggies grow butterfly wings, I guess.

  28. D. B. Light Says:

    Actually, elite revolts are fairly common and Marxist theory posits that the early stages of revolution involve a “crisis of the elites” in which they are divided and fighting amongst themselves. This creates the opportunity for the revolt to move to a more radical stage wherein the proletariat is mobilized. The classic case is the French Revolution where the early stages of revolt were led by young aristocrats.

    Regarding the American Revolution there is a school of thought that holds that the cause of revolt was the attempt of the British government to exert control over the colonial elites that had previously ruled with little interference from the home country. This, of course is controversial. Others point out that the elites were divided — one group [Loyalists] derived their incomes and power through connection with British authorities, another group [revolutionaries] found their economic interests and political status threatened by British policies. Another school of historians has argued that the revolutionary movement drew its strongest support from the urban working classes. This, too, is controversial, as is nearly everything in the historical record. There are, of course, many other interpretations.

  29. br549 Says:

    I am more concerned at this moment with China dumping the dollar and pushing for another world currency. Just like Putin and his agenda.

    We are divided, and so, conquered. All from within, all by ourselves. Bye-bye USA, as we know it. That is what millions in this nation want and I cannot, for the life of me, understand why. That is probably part of the problem. I have to ask myself what the hell have I been thinking. Our ability to manufacture at a level to enable us to protect ourselves and stand on our own, is gone. Our own military has equipment filled with circuit boards made in China, Malaysia, and Taiwan.

    The extreme left is done talking. They are acting, moving, changing our nation into what they want. They are fooled for sure, but they are in control none the less. Over the years, our government bureaucrats have all become heavily left. A little at a time, but always in that direction. Perhaps the lefty screamers have gone silent for the most part because of one of two things: They don’t have to talk anymore because they know they have won, or they have realized “oh my God, what have I done.”

    But I never venture to left wing blogs to read, to see what they are on about. That may well be one of the biggest mistakes I have made in my 56 years. “Hold your enemies closer.” I admit, I have not been doing that.

    Ayers and White have got to be gloating.

  30. br549 Says:

    Above, I see conversation where there are people now questioning our founding fathers – who they “really” were, what they “really” wanted. Who “really” knows now? What piece of written history has been left unchanged?

    Hold off on that. Stick with the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. I mean what – now comes the infighting?

    The people in government today believe they are securing their own futures, that the changes they are making will only affect them in a manner that makes them more powerful, more wealthy, more in control of their own destiny by controlling everyone elses. Couple that to the fact there are millions who believe these people are the answer, and here we sit. But none of them can get outside their own heads. They don’t seem to see how the rest of the world views this. The rest of the world sees something different happening. And they, too, are making plans.

  31. sergey Says:

    Another symptom of growing disillusionment about Obama administration competence and integrity. Last issue of Science magazine printed an article about Yucca Mountain depositary for storing nuclear waste, and how Obama did exactly what they accused Bush of: neglecting scientific data to satisfy ideological prejustice:
    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/323/5921/1557

  32. armchair pessimist Says:

    Somewhere along the line we ceased to be citizens of a Republic and became kept livestock. Some are kept by the Government; others are kept by “the company”. Two huge neighboring plantations. And for so many of us, that arrangement is just fine. In either place, we were taken care of.

    But now Massuh Private Sector is fallen on hard times, and maybe Massuh Obama will acquire us all. How many people will mind? How many even remember what it once meant to be an American?

    I’ll end on a more hopeful note. As br549 has hinted, other powers in the world won’t let us alone to peacefully and slowly degenerate into stupid ruminants. This will greatly disappoint the victors last november.

  33. Assistant Village Idiot Says:

    There is uncomfortable commitment on the left to the idea that we can just make things as we want by declaration. We want to change health care, we just get a bunch of smart people together, make a plan, and do it – of course it will mostly work, and we’ll just fix the details as we go along. Because it’s a Good Thing, y’know, and all those naysayers are just pessimists who can’t see the New Era, or else they’re special interests.

    The possibility that they might be creating a catastrophe – that their critics might have substantive reasons for their objections – does not seem to even occur to them.

    I recall that George Bush took 18 months of negotiations and popular debate before going into Iraq, yet was still accused of being precipitous (whatever complaints one might have about OIF, “precipitous” wasn’t one of them). Now we blithely rush in where angels fear to tread in the economy.

    It reminds me of an old song (cue orchestra) Fools rush in, where wise men never go. But wise men never fall in love… They are behaving like people in love.

  34. Michael Says:

    What will the people with “responsibility” have later in life.

    Same thing as “people of responsibility” have now.

    Nothing.

  35. Paul Gordon Says:

    This just in…

    House Passes Hitler Youth Bill

    He told us he was going to do this.
    It’s hardly HIS fault if no one listened.

  36. br549 Says:

    Paul Gordon:

    Pretty soon, they will have the guns. Then it will be through the bullet.

    Every now and then one reads about kids turning in their own parents for smoking dope. So it’s already working. It’s not the dope you see, that’s just the carrier wave; it’s the fact the government already has kids turning against their parents.

    How long, I wonder, before something goes kaboom in the minds of those who do not ascribe to the direction we are heading? If I did not have kids and a grand son I would not be as concerned – no, angry about and for – the future.

    I mean, one has to admit, there has been nothing like what we are seeing ever before in this nation. Is there anyone who does not see that, left or right?

  37. physics geek Says:

    I keep hoping that this country will wake up, but I remain somewhat cynical. The true believers of The One are not fazed by anything that he does. Apparently they do believe, as John Scalzi once opined (and he’s a died in the wool lefty), that Obama does fart cinnamon scented rainbows. Arguing with such people is a waste of time. Facts? Evidence? They have no need of such things. Blind adoration sustains them.

    And despite the hit the Democrats are taking for the nonsense, the GOP continues to be the party of the stupid. Apparently no real leadership exists within that party; no one from the Republicans seems to want to take advantage of Gaffe factory that DC is today. This, while disappointing, does not surprise me.

  38. Occam's Beard Says:

    We want to change health care, we just get a bunch of smart people together, make a plan, and do it – of course it will mostly work, and we’ll just fix the details as we go along.

    This touches on something that I find increasingly annoying: the leftist tendency to prepend “smart” to such nouns as diplomacy, policies, and warfare. (A while ago the catchall adjective was “robust,” but it now seems out of favor.) It’s gratuitous (who proposes pursuing “stupid” policies?), judgment-laden, condescending, and smug, because it invites the conclusion that those advocating “smart” options must themselves have great intelligence. Ironically, people who assert most vociferously that they are smart…aren’t. Call it the “Fredo effect.”

  39. Artfldgr Says:

    “When you rely on evidence, it’s twisted … We rely on the cognitive science framing theory, to frame things the way you want the reader to understand them to be true.” Cambourne

    Cambourne is the leader in the whole word reading programs in australia… his memos got leaked, and its a peak into their ‘ways’.

    that they do know what they are doing, what the outcomes will be, and that they are using other means to move any real discussion off plate (you can see it here in neo’s place too as those who are receptive adopt techniques that they think are valid to a process, but destroy it), and to win the points through manipulaiting peoples thinking procesess…

    if you have read as much as i have, you would literally know thousands of such slips, that people refuse to realize give you a peek into a heinious situation that is forever treated as a incompetent one, or good intentions gone bad.

    its intentional, its designed to do what it does, you can read about it, i can tell you how to join and move up fast, its formalized, and we have been watching it happen in front of us denynig its the same mostly because we dont speak german, arent educated, and for some reason refuse to adjust our theories to fit the situation as long as a conclusion of stupid is available.

    in times like these i wish i was stupid enough to be president of the US… shows you how dumb that concept is…

    we are moving, if it gets to complete things to the point where the current politicians have a good future vested in this stuff, we are then done for… with the rate ot change only being aligned with our inability to react… if we react, then they will pull back, but they are working on 40 fronts at once, and more… so one pull back for afew months means nothing… and wholesale house cleaning is what we wont do the way the new regime will when they get tthe final power.

    will to power

    go to the letter that started teh cold war ad read why we would never have peace… i know in all the times i have recomended this, not one person has gone and read it… (which is why my posts get large). if they did, they would have rad the part about how they have only the will to power, and figure good governance and such comes naturally later, its not a problem. so all the misery and such they are causing, they think is the pain from any redecorating, and NOT the pain of dying.

    all pain to them is just complainers against them.

    its like a doctor who thinks teh more pain they cause the better the work they do.

    now they are moving to use psyuchology again… and otehr things… after all, what bumper stickers and such you have can get you into trouble, and there are more stories in the papers of citizens being visited by the services for saying innocuous things. or having a bumper sticker.

    its going to get weird… and the people that will do well are those who lived this before.. like my family… soon it will be time to start going through all your personal belongings to insure that some sign, some sticker, button, or smoething will not get you in trouble.

  40. br549 Says:

    artfldgr:

    This is America. That kind of stuff can’t happen here.

    That belief above is part of the biggest problem I see. People do not, or will not see just what I feel, anyway, is actually going on. It is much easier to dismiss someone who sees this as happening, as a paranoid idiot or some sort of fringe loon. People sleep better at night.

    My daughter was telling me about the frog in the pot on the stove. I guess most of you have heard this. I had not at the time. But then, she’s the one getting the PhD in bio chemistry / bio engineering, not me.

    Throw a frog into a boiling pot of water, and he immediately jumps out. However, put a frog in a pot of room temperature water and turn on the heat, and he will sit there as the heat slowly rises, until fully cooked.

    Can I get a ribbit!?

  41. Artfldgr Says:

    i guess writing to the president of france jaques chirac and telling how you will work with him when he was two years out of office… not to bright.

    and how about the secret meeting between gorbachev, biden and obama? where the excuse for it being secret is obama wanders aroudn the white house? of course, this urgine Persistroika (restructuring, which in the past i gave the german word for it).

    http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE52M2RG20090323

    if it werent for Konstantin Petrenko, the people of the US would not know that our president and people are having secret meetings with ex soviet leaders… (in the past leaders werent allowed to meet behind closed doors, this prevented collusion against thie own people).

    “The president tends to roam around the larger (White) House and sometimes walks into meetings that weren’t previously on his schedule.” – Gibbs

    I have no knowlege of tom fife so its not vetted
    http://www.americantownmeeting.com/Essays.php
    press on the obama essay / i have yet to read pandora..

    Well, I think you are going to be surprised when you get a black president very soon. What if I told you that you will have a black president very soon and he will be a Communist?

    Well, you will; and he will be a Communist. Yes, it is true. This is not some idle talk. He is already born and he is educated and being groomed to be president right now. You will be impressed to know that he has gone to the best schools of Presidents. He is what you call “Ivy League”. You don’t believe me, but he is real and I even know his name. His name is Barack. His mother is white and American and his father is black from Africa. That’s right, a chocolate baby! And he’s going to be your President.

    It’s all been thought out. His father is not an American black so he won’t have that social slave stigma. He is intelligent and he is half white and has been raised from the cradle to be an atheist and a Communist. He’s gone to the finest schools. He is being guided every step of the way and he will be irresistible to America.

    “She was full of little details about him,” Fife continues, “that she was eager to relate. I thought that maybe she was trying to show off that this truly was a real person and not just hot air. She rattled off a complete litany. He was from Hawaii. He went to school in California. He lived in Chicago. He was soon to be elected to the legislature.”

    “Have no doubt,” T.M. gushed, “he is one of us, a Soviet. . . . he will be a blessing for world Communism. We will regain our strength and become the number one power in the world.” ”So, what does this conversation from 1992 prove? Well, it’s definitely anecdotal,” Fife admits, adding:

    It doesn’t prove that Obama has had Soviet Communist training nor that he was groomed to be the first black American president, but it does show one thing that I think is very important. It shows that Soviet Russian Communists knew of Barack from a very early date. It also shows that they truly believed among themselves that he was raised and groomed Communist to pave the way for their future. This report on Barack came personally to me from one of them long before America knew he existed. Although I had never before heard of him, at the time of this conversation Obama was 30+ years old and was obviously tested enough that he was their anticipated rising star.

    a speech transcript posted on the CFR website where U.S. National Security Adviser Jones declared the following:
    Thank you for that wonderful tribute to Henry Kissinger yesterday. Congratulations. As the most recent National Security Advisor of the United States, I take my daily orders from Dr. Kissinger, filtered down through General Brent Scowcroft and Sandy Berger, who is also here. We have a chain of command in the National Security Council that exists today. James L Jones / en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_L._Jones the 45th Munich Conference on Security Policy at the Hotel Bayerischer Hof on February 8, 2009

  42. Artfldgr Says:

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/03/fall_out_from_massive_spending.html

    Fall out from massive spending: China wants new reserve currency

    [and we are printing like crazy… they drop it, and everythin will be worthless, and you can guarantee that a new world war where the US loses will occur since we have no factories nor will we be able to build any with our own people against themselves]

    Analysts said the proposal was an indication of Beijing’s fears that actions being taken to save the domestic US economy would have a negative impact on China.

    “This is a clear sign that China, as the largest holder of US dollar financial assets, is concerned about the potential inflationary risk of the US Federal Reserve printing money,” said Qu Hongbin, chief China economist for HSBC.

    Although Mr Zhou did not mention the US dollar, the essay gave a pointed critique of the current dollar-dominated monetary system.

    “The outbreak of the [current] crisis and its spillover to the entire world reflected the inherent vulnerabilities and systemic risks in the existing international monetary system,” Mr Zhou wrote.

    China has little choice but to hold the bulk of its $2,000bn of foreign exchange reserves in US dollars, and this is unlikely to change in the near future.

    To replace the current system, Mr Zhou suggested expanding the role of special drawing rights, which were introduced by the IMF in 1969 to support the Bretton Woods fixed exchange rate regime but became less relevant once that collapsed in the 1970s.

    Today, the value of SDRs is based on a basket of four currencies – the US dollar, yen, euro and sterling – and they are used largely as a unit of account by the IMF and some other international organisations.

    the weimar republic lost, a new man has been elected, and he is driving the whole thing purposefully into a wall for one world communist government…

    a romanian friend is so scared she is contemplating suicide, and she is a park ave doctor. but she grew up there and remembers first hand, unlike me, who only remembers a whole family who acted like her.

About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.
Read More >>






Monthly Archives



Blogroll

Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge