A ridiculous amount of time is being wasted on talking about whether or not certain individuals want Obama to fail.
It's an idiotic exercise.
Who cares? What difference does it make?
Much of the discussion has centered around Rush Limbaugh's statements. 
Limbaugh is Newsweek's cover boy for the March 16 issue.
David Frum gets to spew on "Why Rush is Wrong." Newsweek has given Frum a forum to attack Mark Levin for coming to the aid of Limbaugh. Useful idiot Frum offers "a conservative's lament."
Here's the duel that Obama and Limbaugh are jointly arranging:
On the one side, the president of the United States: soft-spoken and conciliatory, never angry, always invoking the recession and its victims. This president invokes the language of "responsibility," and in his own life seems to epitomize that ideal: He is physically honed and disciplined, his worst vice an occasional cigarette. He is at the same time an apparently devoted husband and father. Unsurprisingly, women voters trust and admire him.
And for the leader of the Republicans? A man who is aggressive and bombastic, cutting and sarcastic, who dismisses the concerned citizens in network news focus groups as "losers." With his private plane and his cigars, his history of drug dependency and his personal bulk, not to mention his tangled marital history, Rush is a walking stereotype of self-indulgence—exactly the image that Barack Obama most wants to affix to our philosophy and our party. And we're cooperating! Those images of crowds of CPACers cheering Rush's every rancorous word—we'll be seeing them rebroadcast for a long time.
Rush knows what he is doing. The worse conservatives do, the more important Rush becomes as leader of the ardent remnant. The better conservatives succeed, the more we become a broad national governing coalition, the more Rush will be sidelined.
But do the rest of us understand what we are doing to ourselves by accepting this leadership?
Blah, blah, blah.
The economy continues to tank and the lib media and Obama administration hacks want to keep Republicans engaged in goofy navel-gazing. And from the Left, we get the weird litmus test on wanting Obama to fail.
It's crazy.
Politico reports:
After a losing presidential campaign in 2000, John McCain came back to the Senate and established himself as a force no White House could ignore. Eight years later, he’s home from defeat again, facing a very different landscape dominated by President Barack Obama and the collapsing American economy.
From Afghanistan and Iraq to military procurement reform, McCain tells POLITICO he is already working with Obama. Last week alone, he had breakfast with Defense Secretary Robert Gates, appeared with the president at a White House press event and took a phone call from Vice President Joe Biden soliciting McCain’s input on how to crack down on pork barrel spending.
“These are terrible, perilous times, so I will seek ways to work with the president of the United States,” McCain says in an interview. “I don’t want him to fail in his mission of restoring our economy.”
But there’s the rub: On the central issue of the economy, the two men are so far apart it is difficult to see them collaborating effectively.
...“Loyal opposition in my mind means loyal, but it also means opposition where you have fundamental philosophical disagreements,” [McCain] says.
So McCain says he doesn't want Obama to fail, but that's not good enough. Politico's David Rogers argues that he can't imagine McCain wanting Obama to succeed on economic policy since their differences are so great. Even when a Republican says he wants Obama to succeed it's inadequate.
I think it's beyond weird that Democrats and their mouthpieces in the media are pushing the notion that the measure of one's patriotism is support for Obama's policies.
To be blunt, that's crap.
What's next? Will the Dems hold hearings, demanding that people appear before them and answer under oath if they want Obama to fail? Will there be a House Committee on Un-Obama Activities?
A 2006 FOX News poll shows that 51 percent of Democrats did not want Bush to succeed.
It was acceptable to want Bush to fail but it's bordering on treason to want Obama to fail.
Typical lib double standard.
I don't care if Limbaugh wants Obama to fail. I don't care if McCain doesn't want him to fail.
It doesn't matter to me.
The fact is I'm not pleased at all with what Obama has done since he was inaugurated.
If I hear Obama or one of his hacks use the term "inherited" one more time to qualify the war or the economy, I will go nuts. Obama is the president and he's passing the buck. He should man up and stop whining about his "inheritance," quit engaging in CYA.
Obama has lied and broken a slew of campaign promises already. He's pushing a socialist agenda.
Of course, the Leftists are thrilled that Obama is taking the country down a path toward socialism. They, naturally, want him to succeed.
I'm not a socialist. I don't want the United States to fall to socialism. I guess that means I want Obama to fail.
I want what's best for the country. I don't think that's socialism.
I want Obama to realize the error of his ways and reject socialism. Once he does that, then I may no longer want him to fail.
But as long as Obama continues attacking the private sector and punishing success, as long as he continues his assault on the unborn, then of course I want him to fail.
Why would I want him to succeed at chipping away at my freedoms, destroying the free market, and destroying innocent human life?
17 comments:
Mary, I think you should take a chill pill. He's been the president for 52 days. He can't possibly be the liar and socialist you are accusing him of. I think you are parroting the official line when it comes to Obama, and for that alone, you should take a deep breath followed by a long look in the mirror.
We have just witnessed over the past 8 years, the greatest re-distribution of wealth this nation has ever known. The gap between the rich and poor has widened by more than 100%. Real wages have gone down, and worse of all, inflation has finally done what it always does... It blew up in the housing market where it was at least 2 years overdue.
The Patriot Act took away a big chunk of personal freedoms, to the point that we may have to let folks look up our butts in order to board a commercial airplane. There are cameras EVERYWHERE! And, people (far more than was initially admitted to) have been imprisoned with neither legal representation, nor warrant nor trial. HERE IN THE USA!
Now that we have a real American as president... (one who really believes in liberty and justice FOR ALL instead of the limited few) you start with the name calling and statements of mistrust. I think you need to let things unfold instead of trying to predict outcomes. The pundits you are parroting were wrong more than 80% of the time in their predictions. They are wrong now. Take notice, and think for yourself, and before long the outcomes you dread will be long forgotten in your own mind.
Obama believes in free markets. Not manipulated ones, and certainly not markets that will be self-regulated by greed and avarice. Bernie Madoff, for example, steals $50 billion, uses some of it to bail himself out of jail, then applies to the court to be allowed to KEEP some of it. Need I say any more about unregulated moneyed interests? You want more of this???
Powerful moneyed interests ALWAYS need more regulation, because left to their own designs, they will have it ALL, and the rest of us will have none! Do I have to mention CEO and executive compenastion???
Most Americans will agree. That's why Obama is president, an if you people would devote as much time and energy to being quiet as you do to the negative lying predictions you make almost hourly, you would find your life improving almost immediately.
Lastly, do us all a favor and take stock of the America we had before the onset of Goldwater conservatism. We were first in almost every category. Now, after 40 years of John Birch Society influence over the government, we are down in the pack in every category. You certainly can't blame THAT on Obama, although in sure you'll find a way to do that, too!
Peace and God bless you.
I'll be darned if I can find any fact to dissuade me from believing that Obama is exactly what he is - a socialist community organizer.
I have to agree with Mary and Anonymous above regarding tru2u. The amount of liberal pap in one reading nearly caused me to stroke out, especially the part about Obama being a "real" American as president. Hell, we don't even know yet if he is a legitimate president or a supplanter of the presidency, considering he has a team of lawyers that have sealed his past so no one can peruse it. One can only guess as to the reasons for this, and no altruistic or innocent reasons come to mind.
I'm no fan of Bush or the Patriot Act, however what Obamatards fail to understand is that the US was founded on certain freedoms. Socialism/Marxism and other isms were not part of this founding. True Americans want the true America to continue and not a variant of failed ideologies from Europe or the former Soviet Union. There was a reason those ideologies failed.
If i'm not mistaken its you conservatives who are spouting crap about the government and the President. Funny how tight the shoe is when its on the other foot.
If Obama was a Muslim when he was 5, does that disqualify him for the presidency? When he had a choice he chose Christianity, which says more than a little about him.
Why do you call him a liar? I somehow fail to make the connection you so willingly make... Can you tell me (briefly) what he is supposed to be lying about?
And, the socialist crap... spare me, please. We have had socialism for the rich for the past 8 years, and you weren't bitching about it then...
But, frankly, I think time will tell you how wrong you are about the socialism thing. Calling for regulation of business, and a national health care system is hardly socialism.
And, before you spout McCain's quote of Karl Marx, be sure that it's not YOU who is being propped up! My guess is that you are more propped up than you care or dare to admit!
Whether you publish this post or not, I think it speaks volumes of your real intent. The following "quote" from Joe Biden is the mark of a propagandist. While every word in the quote is what the man said, the KEY SENTENCE that establishes the context of the comment is deliberately omitted in order to convey a different message than the one intended.
If you are deliberately engaging in true lies, why? And if you don't know that the quote is a true lie do some research. This is the propagandist quote:
"Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy. And he's gonna have to make some really tough - I don't know what the decision's gonna be, but I promise you it will occur. As a student of history and having served with seven presidents, I guarantee you it's gonna happen. I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate. And he's gonna need help. And the kind of help he's gonna need is, he's gonna need you, not financially to help him, we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him."
--JOE BIDEN
The KEY PHRASE that is omitted is Mr Biden's reference to Obama having steel in his spine. Meaning he will DEFINITELY PASS that test!
Check here and see for yourself: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/Obama_Steel_in_His_Spine.html
Then stand corrected, and re-evaluate why you are so willing to call a man who has your best interests at heart a liar. (Something tells me this post will never appear here in its totality)
Agreed with Mary, Mr. Obama definitely did not accomplish almost anything he promised during his campaign. The mere fact that he wants to push the socialist agenda through is just wrong. We've seen how socialism works in Eastern Europe and who really does want that in the US? He just promised too much and now he found out that it's too hard to make it all happen so he's finding new alternative solutions, unfortunately not very good ones.
Take care, Elli
tru2u,
You're accusing me of something sinister, deliberately omitting the "KEY SENTENCE."
First, in posts on this blog, I link to Biden's full quote as reported by CNN. That's my source. If you have a problem, take it up with CNN.
Second, you entirely miss the point of the quote's purpose on the Wall of Shame.
It has nothing to do with Obama per se. It has everything to do with Biden, a candidate at the time, promising an international crisis.
(Something tells me this post will never appear here in its totality)
And what tells you that?
I DO NOT edit any comments on substance.
There have been a handful of occasions when I've removed profanity or personal information, such as home phone numbers and addresses. In those cases, I state that I edited the comment and explain the reason. By "handful," I mean two or three comments in over four years of maintaining this blog.
I do reject comments in their "totality" when it's clear to me that they've been left by trolls I've banned.
I reject comments that are completely off topic and/or threatening and/or harassing and/or laced with profanity.
Understand?
tru2u,
If you are going to question the legitimacy of historical accounts on slavery (which by the way including all skin colors, not just blacks) then we can question history in whole. I have yet come across an account of the Europeans coming onto African soils, pillaged their villages and kidnap their people. The fact is rich people in every country on earth had/have taken the poor as their slaves. I just read one account of a African slave who was sold to the English and he himself confirmed that he family owned slaves who were the poorest of his people. His claim that these slaves were only treated different by the location of their dining area is questionable but I understand people's need to defend their flawed system to appear more noble than others.
What did the Europeans paid the Africans? Whatever the rich Africans wanted at the time. There are still kings, nobles and rich blue blood in Africa like every where else. Why don't you go ask them how they have maintained their lineage and wealth? Please don't come back at me with "then how come Africa is poor now" because I will tell you to go ask the people there. And please spare me from the-white-rob-them-poor attitude of yours too. White have colonized other continents too, yet none is as poor as the blacks, is there?
The question "how do you define Obama as real American" wasn't addressed by you. Instead you went on rambling excuses for your attack on Mary's point of view and mine. Please respond.
I am not conservative. Why? Because I don't label myself in any way. I will not claim to be expert in politic. Rather I am commenting as a citizen of this country.
I grew up in communist system and therefore have better understanding of how well the idea of the rich must share their wealth with the poor (and lazy, yes, I said it--the poor are mostly poor because of some form of laziness most often in the brain) work. IT DOES NOT WORK. No one, not even you, wants to share wealth working hard for with lazy people.
As for you saying we weren't bitching about socialism for the rich, dear Lord, how old are you? No one, absolutely no one who is getting rich will every bitch about it. Always those who can't go with the flow who complain. Have you heard Putin complain about communistic system? America may be the only country in which those who benefit from its system (getting into private Harvard, Princeton for example) bitch about and bit the hand that feeds them. You must be one of those and mistakenly consider yourself compassionate citizens concerning about the disadvantaged. And where is your share in the mess that we have? Don't tell me you have none. Even if you got welfare, you contributed, honey.
Obama has so far shown himself to be incapable of taking responsibility. He said when announced that he will sign the 410billions IMPERFECT budget that "this old way of doing business will stop with this". This is very much in line with his whining "I inherit this economy/mess/blah blah blah" every time he is criticized. If he truly wants to stop "this old way of doing business" he can refuse to sign it. If he doesn't want this mess he can relinquish his throne and walk away. He gets paid kingly to "clean" this mess as he arrogantly claimed he was ready and could. So tell him to start taking responsibility, start reading what lands on his desk and try to understand it before deciding, start studying the issues and quit relying on teleprompter, quit partying with Stevie Wonder, Oprah and the likes, quit going to Camp David so often. But most of all when having no teleprompter, refrain from alluding to his terrorist brothers that we are cowards afraid of not winning them.
To answer your question regarding Muslim? I say Yes. Because the majority of Muslims spew hatred for us Americans every day, planning and vowing to destroy us, no Muslim should be elected into high offices here. I wouldn't want to invite someone who hates me into my house and run my family. Yes, a country is like a family, lest you aren't aware.
As for Obama choosing Christianity, please spare me. Obama will choose what benefits him. He distanced himself from his 20-year Christian mentor rather quick when he was told the thug might affect his chance of becoming King, didn't he? He has proven himself to be an untrustworthy character and a poor politician. He is FANTASTIC as a teleprompter's reader though.
Anonymous, fortunately, or unfortunately, the presidency is a four year arrangement, not 53 days. Time will tell. I'd rather live it once than die 1000 daily deaths from all the prognostication that's going on around me. In the end you, too, will believe. Why? Because then you will KNOW! Obama will be great for the U.S. and the world. He can't afford to be anything else.
Realtor In Toronto.... let's revisit Obama's accomplishments in 18 months. His first 53 days are filled with more accomplishment than any of his predecessors. It's funny that y'all can sit idly by for 8 years while things get screwed up by one guy, then DEMAND the next guy fixes it ALL in under 2 months.
I'd hate to have you weighing my meat on a balance scale...
Well tru2u,
One should always dream, so do dream on. I won't ask you to support your opinion of your Messiah but I will ask you to refrain from speaking for the world. The arrogant mentality of the US President is leader of the world has gotten the US much hatred, some of which was unloaded on 9/11/2001. We Americans do not want another tragedy of the kind.
To think that one man could help the world...Thank, really appreciate the joke!
tru2u,
I did not see your two other posts due to Mary's moderation so pardon my silence.
Let's talk about your opinion that Obama has accomplished more in 53 days than other presidents first.
I don't know what you consider accomplishments but mine isn't coincide with yours for sure. If by signing the stimulus which is the work of Pelosi and Reid, by overturn Bush's decisions here and there, by appointing successfully one tax cheater, by provoking China to raise concern over their credit to the US, by sending Hilary to China to beg for more of the corruption money to finance "his" stimulus, by spending 410 billions in addition, by having stock market plummeting and unemployment rising to double digits, by talking big every day--touting the unproven success his economic model today for example (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090313/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_economy), you consider that he has many accomplishments, then I say we definitely don't concur.
Why?
Most significantly because you yourself yesterday was asking me to give him time, saying he has only been in office 53 days out of his four-year term. You are now changing your tune because he is touting his success and the media who had helped putting him on the throne dares not to truly question his claim lest exposing themselves, I shall only say, unfavorably. They have carried an air of intellectual for so long they are not going to make themselves the laughing stock, are they? I do hope you know what I mean.
As for your insistence that some of us Obama's critics sat idle for eight years and did nothing. I can't speak for the other person but I saw nothing to do because it wasn't Bush who made the mess. He did not force people to overbid for houses, take on mortgages they can't afford, refinance their paid or low mortgaged homes to buy fancy cars, take dream vacations, so on and so on. No all the decisions were made by us, the people, and us alone. Bush did not put a gun to us and said "do these or I'll throw you in jail". If you are going to give the argument I have heard countless times--he made the policies, you need to relinquish claims that Obama has already accomplished many. Last I heard Democrats still control both houses. And even if Democrats did not, Bush wasn't a King in absolute sense or a dictator therefore could not have made decision alone.
So there you have them--the choices. Was Bush completely to blame for the mess millions of supposedly educated, well informed adults made for themselves or Obama is to be credited completely for his accomplishment? If you are intelligent enough you know that you can't say yes to the latter and no to the previous in one breath.
Regarding African slavery:
History is never 100% true. There are always at least two views of the same event. None of us can asseverate that this is what had happened 100 years ago unless we were there living it and with mind still clear enough to recount the event. So you can argue until the cows come home and will not win.
My country was split by a civil until less than three decades ago and I can tell you my version of the war isn't exactly a carbon copy of others in my country. My children's version of the war is even more diluted, and I am sure some of the children will write historical books about their parents' experience and the books will be questioned by their great grand children 150 years from now, just as I question my some details of grandparents', my parents'.
I have said the Africans slave merchants were paid whatever they wanted. I don't have a way to confirm this and neither do you. How can you believe that the astronauts did land on the Moon? Couldn't they doctor their proofs? Some archeologists claim a mummy is five thousands year old. Did you ask them to prove their claim? Do you somehow have access to slaves who were sold in 18th century?
I am quite amused and interested in your thought on your argument regarding the African's duplicity. Are you saying that they were so pure in the mind and so innocent that they had not one unscrupulous bone in their bodies?
Let's examine your reasons for their gullibility.
1) Yours: They didn't start shooting each other until 19th century.
Mine: Same could be said about the Chinese, the Indians, the Vietnameses--all Asia, the Native Indians here, the Muslims. These people however weren't gullible however.
2) Yours: Citing a "quote" from a dead, kidnapped, slave is hardly proof. And, Stockholm Syndrome-affected Negroes don't qualify as spokesmen either.
Mine: Show your spokesmen then. Name, place of residence, age and I will go find them and ask them myself.
3) Yours: Until you come up with a valid and plausible form of payment, that "sold" crap is just that!
Mine: I can say the same about your believing that there was not a plausible form of payment in Africa before all that is known as currencies today came into existence in Africa is crap too. What made up the wealth of the African then? Were they all digging up whatever from earth and wrestling the wild boards with their bare hands then tore the body off for meat to survive?
4) Yours: African slavery and Euro-American slavery are as different as day and night,
Mine: Be that as it may, you still can't dismiss that Euro/American slaves were not bought and sold and therefore were more fortunate or suffered less. Let me remind you that there billions of people in this world, Africans included, ridicule American's idea of economic suffering. Why do you think many rather come here to live in poverty?
5) Yours: so even the theory that African slaves were traded for woven goods or other trinkets is absurd.
Mine: This is entirely your conclusion from the word "sold by Africans" in my post. No where did I state the type of payments. But anything you have yet seen may always be absurd.
Your insinuation that the Africans were tricked into "giving away" their people into slavery by the Europeans and Americans (whites essentially) can be absurd too, not only to me, but also to the Africans. Why? Because you essentially are saying that they are a stupid race which I have no doubt Nelson Mandela and his rank would disagree.
But this thinking of yours is typical of the I'm-not-responsible-for-the-troubles-I'm-in population of which Obama is one, and fascinates as well as repulses me. Glories are your accomplishments but failures are others' doing. Even if the economy recover--which it will, but mind you not because of Obama but of our, the responsible folks', desire and determination to fix it, for our sakes--people like you, if not pretending to serve the public like the Obamas so they could connect and make fast bucks through politic, will still whine of not getting ahead
Anonymous, you win.
You made the claim of the sale, however. I simply ask you, the claimant to prove your assertion. We both know you can't, so all the rest is just the rest.
If Africans and American Indians were gullible enough to welcome the Europeans onto their shores, and share their knowledge and resources with them (at first), i guess, as you say, it was their loss. After all, might does make right, right?
And, might from violence is the mightiest there is, so no contest.
You win hands down!
By the way Mary,
Did you read about Obama's new tack on Washington Post?
Here's the link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/13/AR2009031303486.html
I puked. We are going to hear this whine for four years and that is too long a sufferance one should be made to take in a life time.
Good grief.
Commenting on another post, I said that Obama needs to man up and stop complaining. Instead of making up excuses and constantly talking about his "inheritance," he should act like a leader rather than a candidate.
Look at what Reagan "inherited" from Carter!
Enough with the "inheritance" crap.
Mary,
Obama and his minions seem to forget that had it not been for this so-called "Bush's mess", he wouldn't get the job. He is like the social workers complaining about "the lazy welfare recipients" not realizing once the irony that is if those aren't lazy they wouldn't get welfare. Silly me, he knows those recipients well! :) And he wasn't happy that their lazy behinds got paid and full, best covered health insurance for not working.
He might have hoped (audaciously indeed if so) or dreamed (his father's dream) while campaigning that once elected he will be Washington, the only President not inheriting any President's mess or glory. Silly me again, he promised change, so he must have known he will inherit something. Comical eh!
True. Obama couldn't have sold himself as a change agent without accepting his "inheritance."
Post a Comment