Obama isn’t what they thought he was:
…the heavy hitters who thought that Barack Obama would end up being the second coming of Bill Clinton should have known better. First, due to large, unaccountable flows of money and an ideological determination not seen 16 years ago, the formal and informal organizations Obama and his handlers (not necessarily in that order) have built and maintained are far more sophisticated than anything Clinton, James Carville, and his other advisers ever assembled. More important, Obama’s core radicalism far exceeds that of even Clinton’s wife Hillary on her worst day. The fact that the media mostly covered up Obama’s extreme positions and associations to dumpster-dive in Alaska may excuse the ignorance of the masses; but it doesn’t excuse that of the elites.
Idiots. Useful ones.
[Mid-morning update]
Rules for a radical president:
After Obama took office, the pundit class found itself debating the ideology and sensibility of the new president — an indication of how scarcely the media had bothered to examine him beforehand. But after 100 days, few observers can say that Obama hasn’t surprised them with at least one call. Gays wonder why Obama won’t take a stand on gay marriage when state legislatures will. Union bosses wonder what happened to the man who sounded more protectionist than Hillary Clinton in the primary. Some liberals have been stunned by the serial about-faces on extraordinary rendition, indefinite detention without trial, military-tribunal trials, the state-secrets doctrine, and other policies they associate with the Bush administration. Former supporters of Obama, including David Brooks, Christopher Buckley, Jim Cramer, and Warren Buffett, have expressed varying degrees of criticism of his early moves, surprised that he is more hostile to the free market than they had thought.
Obama’s defenders would no doubt insist this is a reflection of his pragmatism, his willingness to eschew ideology to focus on what solutions work best. This view assumes that nominating Bill Richardson as commerce secretary, running up a $1.8 trillion deficit, approving the AIG bonuses, signing 9,000 earmarks into law, adopting Senator McCain’s idea of taxing health benefits, and giving U.K. Prime Minister Gordon Brown 25 DVDs that don’t work in Britain constitute “what works best.” Obama is a pragmatist, but a pragmatist as understood by Alinsky: One who applies pragmatism to achieving and keeping power.
I fear that’s one thing that he’ll be competent at.
Have you looked at Andrew Sullivan’s blog lately? He’s been arguing that Obama isn’t radical enough (with regard to other issues), and I suppose the voters were duped into voting for a president who supports Bush’s policies.
Since Sullivan is talking about different policies, he and Blumer (the above commentator) could both be right.
I bet neither of them is right, but the possibility that both are right is kind of funny. Well, at least, it is funny if you’re willing to be detached about it, which I suppose you aren’t.
Just to clarify: I’m talking about Sullivan’s coverage of Obama on torture, the torture photos, gay rights, and maybe the environment. Look for titles like “The Fierce Urgency Of Whenever”, and “Obama’s newest friend: Jonah Goldberg” (Ha!!!)
I haven’t read Andrew Sullivan in years, since I took him off my blogroll after he came down with a severe case of Bush-Derangement Syndrome, from which he apparently never recovered.
I don’t think it is solely BDS from which Mr. Sullivan suffers. I suspect his ailment (neurosis? borderline personality?) is more broadly applicable.
But I don’t read his stuff, either, so I have no idea.
Any indication that His Oneness will allow an election in three years? That he will not keep going on this destruction of America? He said that the Constitution is “fundamentally flawed” and needs to change, so in two years will The One have grabbed enough power to cancel elections, and will the lap-dog MSM howl in favor? One wonders…
He said that the Constitution is “fundamentally flawed” and needs to change, so in two years will The One have grabbed enough power to cancel elections, and will the lap-dog MSM howl in favor?
That partly depends on the outcome of next year’s elections. If they don’t go well for his party, he may decide that he doesn’t like elections any more.
As I noted yesterday, we never found out what would have happened with our previous fascist dictators, Wilson and Roosevelt, had they been in danger of losing an election, because they both died or were incapacitated in office.
Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that Barry tries to suspend elections. Do you think the Army would stand by and let that happen? I don’t like the idea of TUSK’ed Abrams getting tested in Washington, DC – but I don’t see the military standing by as voting is suspended either.
Do you think the Army would stand by and let that happen?
Probably not. He may put in his own JCS head, and perhaps the whole JCS, but I think there would be rebellion down the ranks.
He’ll just arm the SEIU and the UAW.
Paranoid delusions, much? If there’s any country where a political coup would just never, ever work – it’s America. Frankly I don’t even want to think about how it would happen, or how people would clearly indicate where they stand, but in the end I know who would win. The Right has the guns.
I beg to differ, Brock. I think we are seeing a political coup. Right now. It’s without people standing on either side of a line and firing guns at each other, for the moment, because no one can do anything about the thuggery and thievery and lawlessness of this administration and congress. The protests are shrugged off by the One and His MSM lapdogs because at the moment they are not a threat. I will not be shocked when we start seeing protesters jailed, not for protesting but for “hate crimes.” Bloggers, you can’t hide at all. You’re actually probably already noted down, and will be first on the hit list.