Saturday, November 08, 2008

Around the World Wide Web 81

1. Obama made an ungracious joke about Nancy Reagan today in his press conference, for which he has since apologized. He has an odd juvenile streak, as when he scratches his face with his middle finger. I don't want to psychologize, but I have to wonder if these moments of inappropriate humor are expressions of a frightened little man, way in over his head, who does not want to be taken completely seriously.

2. How nice that Maya Angelou does not have to apologize for America any more. Unfortunately, the rest of us still must apologize for bad American poetry.

3. Imagine if the MSM had supported the Bush presidency. Imagine them not opposing everything Bush did, not searching for scandals in everything from Enron to Halliburton to torture to the Patriot Act. How different would the last eight years have been? We're about to see in the Obama presidency. Chris Matthews said his job is to help make the Obama presidency work -- not to judge it fairly or to examine it with an eye to keeping it honest, but to help make it work. I have never in my life heard a member of the media say something like this.

The danger here: an administration that knows the MSM will look the other way will have less fear of being caught in corruption.

4. Nancy Pelosi, in her first press conference after the election, warned of diminishing options.

Nancy Pelosi gave her first post-election press conference Wednesday, offering a sober analysis of the Democratic agenda in the near term.

“Many of our options have been diminished because of the downturn in the economy over the last couple months,” Pelosi said.

Pelosi said the economy is “the top item” on the agenda moving forward and said she plans to continue to push for a second economic stimulus package. She also mentioned a children’s health care bill and stem cell research legislation as key priorities in the short-term.

The speaker acknowledged the enormous expectations facing Obama after Democrats increased their majorities in both chambers, but warned that Democrats will face some tough decisions in the coming months.

“We have to choose our priorities very carefully according to what is achievable,” she said.

She also said Obama should govern from the middle. Why the caution? Democrats are in control of the Presidency, Senate and House; why don't they go all out?

The Speaker of the House counsels caution because things could go wrong and politicians are terrified of getting the blame for anything. They remember Clinton's first two years, which led to Newt Gingrich and the Republicans winning the House in 1994 with the Contract for America. (The Republicans collapsed like a cheap lawn chair during the budget battle of 1995, and have been a me-too big government party since, but that's a different story.)

Imagine if laissez-faire capitalists were in the Democrats' position. Would they fear going all out? Would they fear being blamed for failure? No, they would not, because they would know their policies are both moral and practical. They would know that dismantling the welfare state would generate tremendous wealth and increase every American's standard of living. They would know that repealing laws and regulations that violate individual rights is the moral thing to do. Just as a man cannot have too much health, a nation cannot have too much liberty.

The Democrats must proceed with moderation because they are dispensing poison. If they give America too much poison, it will die; they must temper their poison so that the state can ride the private sector as a parasite.

5. Don't be fooled by Obama's changing the wording of his national service plan from "require" to "setting a goal." Can you imagine how much intimidation an individualist student who refused to participate in the program would get from the thugs of the left? Service to the collective will be as voluntary as our tax system supposedly is.

6. There is a lot of talk that Republicans need another Great Communicator like Reagan.

Two related points: First, the Great Communicator was a smear created by leftists who thought Reagan fooled the American people into accepting what was bad for them -- you know, all that nonsense about the free market. The left painted Reagan as all style and no substance.

Second, GHW Bush, Dole, George W. Bush and McCain have all been lousy communicators because they had nothing to communicate. Pragmatism is not a banner to rally around. "I'm not as bad as a Democrat" does not give voters a positive value for which to vote.

Reagan was the last Republican presidential candidate who had something to say. He was indeed terribly flawed, but compared to his successors he had principles.

And remember, when Reagan developed an interest in politics he studied Austrian economics and was familiar with the Foundation for Economic Education. Although he was smeared as an "amiable dunce," he was actually the intellectual superior to most politicians these days. His effectiveness was tragically undercut by pragmatism and religious values, but he knew that government was not the solution, it was the problem.


Richard said...

"She also said Obama should govern from the middle. Why the caution? Democrats are in control of the Presidency, Senate and House; why don't they go all out?"

Yes, I agree with your conclusion. It reminds me very much of the Bailout bill. They could have passed it all along, but still did all they could to feign cooperation with Republicans. When something goes wrong they desperately want to be able to at least point and say "nuh-uh, see they did it too! It's not just us!"

Charles T. said...

I thought Obama's little off-the-cuff remark about his being a "mutt" was potentially revealing as to his self-perception and how he relates to reality.

Ultimately, at some point in the family tree, I imagine we're all "mutts" in terms of our ethnic origins, but I would never use that term to refer to a human being, let alone myself. And coming from the POTUS, it's uncomfortably strange.

Dismuke said...

"The Speaker of the House counsels caution because things could go wrong and politicians are terrified of getting the blame for anything."

Possibly. But my first take when I read the Pelosi quote was that it was her way of sending a message to Obama that Congress controls the purse strings and that if he wants something he must first go through her in order to get it.

Pelosi, however, could be in for a very rude awakening. The Constitution may grant Congress certain powers - but how long has it been since the Constitution counted for squat among elected Democrats unless they could find some way to use it against Bush? Obama has contacts with and email address of an entire army of George Soros financed ultra Left wing kooks that helped him get elected and who are in a position to put enormous pressure on and even to destroy elected Democrats who stand in the way of their wishes. If, with the help of that army, he could walk over Bill and Hillary Clinton and their deeply entrenched Establishment/mafia - well, somehow I don't think he will have that much trouble walking over Pelosi and Reid.

Assuming that Pelosi does have an ounce of rationality and sanity hidden somewhere behind that Comprachico botched face of hers, exactly on what grounds is she in a position to stand up to the ultra Left? In the Republican Party, moderates can and sometimes do go against the Religious Right and still survive and keep their positions. That is simply not possible in the Democratic Party - if a prominent politician goes against the George Soros/Daily Kos/ Left they find themselves in the same position as Joe Lieberman. Lieberman, for all of his many flaws, does have some principles and a genuine love for his country. Pelosi does not. She is in it for the power - and if that means playing along with somebody else's game in order to stay in the game and play another day, she will do it no matter what it does to her country or her even her Party in the long run.

Besides, I don't think the Democrats are going to be worrying about elections for a very long time to come. Now that they are in power, they are going to simply rig things so that a peasant uprising such as the one that occurred in 1994 NEVER is allowed to happen again. Does what I say sound extreme and bizarre? Well - is it? Consider the massive amount of voter fraud that has ALREADY taken place in this past election in battle ground states led by organization such as ACORN. Look at the enormous legal efforts that they went through in order to attempt to reverse the outcome of the 2000 election. Remember the army of lawyers they had in place in 2004 ready to muddy the waters had the outcome of that election been a bit more close. Look at the apparent efforts going on right now to steal a Senate seat in Minnesota. If this is how these people behave when they are NOT in power - well, how else can we expect them to behave now that they have as close to absolute power as anyone has had in this country since FDR?

The reality is that WE ARE DEALING WITH STALINISTS. To steal the "what would Jesus do" or "what would Regan do" lines from the Right, to predict how these people are likely to behave, all one needs to do is ask "what would the thugs in We The Living do?" and "what would Vladimir Putin do?" Same sort of people, same sort of motivation - just in a different country. The real question is not what they will try to do - it is: what will people try to do in order to thwart and stop them? And above all: WHO out there is even capable of stepping in and trying to stop them? That's what is even scarier.

I was just thinking about it earlier this evening: I am actually more frightened right now both for our economy and for our national security than I was in the days immediately following 9-11.

If you recall, Osama bin Ladin was seen on video hoping that the planned 9-11 would prove America to be a paper tiger and that the attacks would throw the country into chaos resulting in its decline on the world stage and as an economic power. It is looking to me that that that is exactly what is about to start happening, though it took the better part of a decade for everything to go into motion. Obama and the Stalinist, Fifth Column Left is far more dangerous to this country than bin Ladin could ever be

Regarding national security, Dick Morris actually made an interesting prediction on the radio the other day: he is expecting Obama's election to prompt Israel to take out Iran's nuclear facilities themselves knowing that Obama will NEVER stand for such a thing - and, Morris is expecting that, once the war in the mid-east that will immediately follow breaks out, Obama will sell Israel down the river, which, unfortunately, the USA is uniquely in a position to do. I have no doubt that when it comes to Israel, Obama's views are probably not very much different than Jimmy Carter's. Like I said, I am downright frightened.

And when I post this, I have never hoped so much that I am proved to be UTTERLY and COMPLETELY wrong.

Mike N said...

I agree with Dismuke that Obama did dispatch the Clintons with some ease. But I think a fickle and intoxicated media had a lot to do with that. Obama's youthfulness and charismatic style is all the honey the press has ever needed to get high. Now, punch drunk over the idea that they can make American history by getting the first black man elected president, they saw a chance at moral redemption, a chance to atone for the sins of the past and above all to wash away once and for all the stain of white guilt. But it isn't going to work. Hanging around guys like Reverend Wright for 20 years has probably convinced Obama not to take white pennance too seriously.

Like Dismuke, I would love to be wrong. We'll see.

Dismuke said...

"but I have to wonder if these moments of inappropriate humor are expressions of a frightened little man, way in over his head, who does not want to be taken completely seriously.

I have given this some thought and am inclined to think that it might just be an expression of typical hippie/Leftist style nihilism/"rebellion"/pouting.

My thought is that what Obama REALLY wanted to do was use the F-Word to Hillary and realized that it would not have been appropriate. As a hippie/Leftist, not being able to indulge in his emotional whims of the moment is, in his mind, an example of an evil injustice dished out by that tyrant "The Man" who has unfairly rigged things so that he has no alternative but to feign decorum, manners and a civilized demeanor. Using the middle finger was his way of sticking it not just to Hillary but also "The Man" and, in that twisted state of consciousness that passes for his mind, he regards it as a form of integrity as a subversive way of proclaiming "The Man be damned - I will STILL do what I want!"

As for the Nancy Reagan joke - well, you kind of have to admit that it WAS funny. And it would have been completely okay in a private conversation or even in public in the form of a blog comment or a barb on a comedy program. But in that context, it was VERY inappropriate and without class.

My take is that it, too, is a revelation of his nihilism. I suspect he by now views himself as being on a nihilistic mission to destroy anything and everything that is associated with Reagan's successful legacy which he regards as the work of "The Man". I think he is chomping at the bit to get started and get even and feels a hippie's frustration that he has to show restraint and patience and cannot act on his whims all at once.

Obama wants BLOOD - the blood of "The Man" and all those who he perceives to be agents and manifestations of "The Man." He has lusted after such blood since before he started out as a street thug/"Organizer" in Chicago. Now that Bush is soon out of the picture, Reagan and his legacy will once again most likely become the Leftists' convenient symbol and embodiment of "The Man." I think the joke was merely a subconscious slip of a hippie who is EXTREMELY eager to start wielding his new-found power and guns and is beginning to build up a bit of frustration at having to put on a mask of restraint and civilized behavior so that he does not jeopardize it. For Obama, this period probably feels somewhat like a child who is looking at a big huge pile of expensive Christmas presents that he cannot unwrap or play with until the family goes to and comes back from church. Or to put it another way, it feels like a spoiled rich college brat who has access to a big pile of drugs, an ipod full of loud rock music and an attractive, submissive, drugged-out slut who is eager to put out for him and knows that he must not touch them until after his big exam next week.

THAT is what we have for a president, a hippie. The smooth, calm and collected guy you see on television is nothing more than the same sort of mask that all hippies wear whenever they are forced to put on grown-up's clothes and go through the motions of pretending to be civilized adults. He certainly isn't our first hippie president - Clinton was one too. I think the difference with this hippie is that the behind-the-scenes Tooheys who are pulling his strings are FAR more evil and Stalinistic than the ones that put Clinton in office.