32 thoughts on “The Inflexible Ideologue

  1. Bilwick

    “The ironic thing, of course, is that Leftists are always pretending that they have no ideology — they’re just ‘pragmatists,’ doing ‘what works.’” Actually, sorta true–if you remember that what “works” to them is what best expands the coercive powers of the State and diminishes the liberty of the individual.

  2. Godzilla

    We are like two months away from the election and Romney is still tied with Obama in the polls. In any elections the usual scenario is that the closer you get to the election date the more votes are attributed to the incumbent.

    The article is disingenuous as Obama had to struggle with a Republican congress for most of his mandate which is not even interested in what makes sense only in undermining and contradicting anything and everything he wants to do. At least when Clinton was president the Republican delegates actually sticked to their own principles and voted in favor for proposals if they thought it was according to their political platform. That started changing in his second term when they did everything they could to complicate his work and dismiss him from office. The Republican party is no longer interested in what is good for the country only in getting itself back into power again. I have seen plenty of that here in Europe and the result is always disaster.

    1. McGehee

      In any elections the usual scenario is that the closer you get to the election date the more votes are attributed to the incumbent.

      Not in this country. Here, the undecideds tend to skew to the challenger. Incumbents only get re-elected if they already have at least half of the vote in their column before the undecideds decide.

    2. Al

      “Obama had to struggle with a Republican congress”

      This translates as:
      “Was too stupid to realize he could have pushed through complete reorganization in Energy, granted amnesty, card check and -then- Obamacare when he had a complete lock on -both- houses. If he hadn’t handed the writing and wrangling of Obamacare off to Reid and Pelosi.”

      When he entered office, the Republicans were dead ducks. His personal popularity and political clout -was- enough to push major planks of the progressive plank through. If it was done -quickly-.

    3. M Puckett

      We are like two months away from the election and Romney is still tied with Obama in the polls. In any elections the usual scenario is that the closer you get to the election date the more votes are attributed to the incumbent.

      Nope, you have it backwards. Challenger tends to pick up the overwhelming bulk of the undecideds. The incumbent is well-known and if he can’t nail them down by now, he is unlikely to ever do so. Historically speaking, Obama is likely to recieve the same vote total as his approval rating, which is right now around 45%-46% on average.

    4. Larry J

      The article is disingenuous as Obama had to struggle with a Republican congress for most of his mandate which is not even interested in what makes sense only in undermining and contradicting anything and everything he wants to do.

      That simply isn’t true. Democrats had solid majorities of both houses of Congress for the first two years of Obama’s presidency. When Republicans tried to meet with him, his attitude was “I won”, in other words, “Shut up and color.” He had no interest in any form of compromise with Republicans. His idea of reaching out was Republicans caving to his every wish.

      Screw him and the donkeys he rode in on.

    5. Dick Eagleson

      Obama had large majorities in both houses of Congress for his first two years in office. He got most everything he wanted those first two years. The American electorate took the House decisively away from the Democrats in 2010 and greatly narrowed the Democrat edge in the Senate. Since then, the Republicans have vigorously opposed further Obamian power grabs and wastrelisms – as they were elected to do.

      The Republicans wish to return to power so that U.S. finances can be rationalized to avoid national insolvency – a state now “enjoyed” by most of the nations of Europe. The Democrats have spent three dollars for every two dollars of revenue for four straight years, now, and show no inclination to cease doing so at any reasonable future date. Lacking all sense, they must be removed. Simple and straightforward, really.

      I have no idea what your comment about what you have seen in Europe means. There are no European parties comparable to American Republicans and, thus, no circumstances under which comparable policies have been implemented by a ruling government anywhere on that benighted continent.

  3. Chris L

    First, the undecideds usually break for the challenger, which is why an incumbent who goes into an election with less than 50% is considered quite vulnerable.

    Second, the first 2 years

    1. Chris L

      Second, the first 2 years of the Obama presidency (that’s 2 out of 3 1/2 years in office), he had overwhelming majorities in both houses of congress. He didn’t struggle with the Republicans, he ignored them.

      1. Jim

        he ignored them

        That’s not accurate. He started with 58 votes in the Senate, and had to modify the stimulus bill to get 3 GOP votes to break the filibuster. He only had a filibuster-proof 60 votes for the six months between Al Franken being sworn in (July 2009) and the election of Scott Brown (January 2010).

        1. Leland

          He wanted Republicans to own the stimulus too. Otherwise, he ignored Republicans then and now.

          Now that we got the aside over and done with; what’s the next 4 years? Should we go see a movie to find out what Obama wants to do?

    2. Godzilla

      Obama tried to play the great compromiser and was surprised when it failed. For whatever reason he thought that whenever he talked to other people they would want to listen just because he was POTUS. Like I said here once, I would have ramrod every reform I wanted using the majority in those 2 years, waste not want not. It is indeed to his own fault he did not use those 2 years properly. However this does not dismiss the disservice to the country the other side of the aisle has been doing.

      The fact is Obama has done no major mistakes so far and he has at least partly achieved the things he proposed to do before he was elected. He can easily win this one. It is easy to talk about the economy doing poorly at the moment but the fact is the rest of the world is not fairing particularly well either. I lay most of the blame on the Fed’s actions for the past decades rather than any government in the timeframe. The only things which can be pinpoited directly to the governments which contributed to the deficits are the inflated defense spending for fighting technologically backwards enemies on the other side of the world and some additional social expenses which curiously mostly happened or started when W was president.

      Obama wastes money on solar power and wind power, W wasted money on hydrogen fuel cells and clean coal. Romney wants to waste money doing offshore drilling to maintain the status quo in an energy sector where oil and natural gas are dominant but I question the very idea even if I agree that drilling should be expanded. IMO electric cars make sense for several reasons including reduced energy use per mile traveled, reduced pollution and noise, and added flexibility in the energy supply. The issue with trying to slavishly follow the old economic model is that you miss on out out of the box solutions. One of the reasons the US did so well after WWII was all the investments to improve self-reliance by reducing the need for strategic materials such as rubber, silk, etc. The replacements were cheaper and improved the balance of trade further. As a result the world’s population got richer as they could now afford products they previously could not.

      1. Al

        Yeah, “I won” is a tremendously diplomatic statement after a my-way-or-nothing budget discussion. An empty chair -would- be more useful.

        This will be the first Presidency -ever- to proceed entirely without a budget. Four-to-six notoriously squishy Republican Senators -and- 60 caucus-with-Democrats and they -STILL- can’t “compromise” to a freaking BUDGET.

      2. Karl Hallowell

        Obama tried to play the great compromiser and was surprised when it failed.

        So what? It’s pretty clear that a lot of what Obama tries, fails hard and he and his administration seem surprised by what would to us be fairly mundane observations about human nature. One such observation is that words aren’t the same as actions. Perhaps we all are fortunate that he hasn’t figured that out yet.

      3. Chris L

        The fact that Europe might be doing worse is cold comfort to those who are currently without a job here. Obama was hired to do a specific job. He decided to use the first 2 years of his administration to something besides that job. Then (when his party lost the House), he decided not to do any job at all. In the real world, when you fail to do your job, you get fired.

      4. Bilwick1

        Chris Gerrib, Jim–look to your laurels. You two may have been supplanted by Godzilla as this blog’s two biggest lockstep party-line regurgitating State-fellators. Get out there, fellas, and reclaim your title!

  4. DaveP.

    “Obama tried to play the great compromiser…”

    With who? When? Are you sure you’re on the right timeline?
    Or are you using the Leftist definition of the word, where ‘compromise’ means “YOU do everything MY way, and I’ll let you” ?

    Remind me:
    Who responded to the opposition party with the words, “I won” ?

    1. wodun

      I like the way they tied everything together using Obama’s own words and the intellectual philosophy of the modern Democrat party. We now know that Paul Ryan didn’t run a sub three hour marathon but nothing about the political philosophies that shaped and motivate Obama.

  5. Dick Eagleson

    The fact is Obama has done no major mistakes so far

    If that is your departure benchmark, no wonder you seem lost in some alternate universe wilderness. Your ignorance of American political realities is almost beside the point by comparison.

    1. Chris L

      Oh you mean Obama didn’t mean to make the economy worse with the stimulus than he predicted it would be without the stimulus? That was actually part of the plan? Yeah, alternate reality is the phrase that best fits that logic.

  6. Raoul Ortega

    I dunno. The Community-Organizer-in-Chief has shown exactly one area of expertise, or at least competence– talking about Himself. Four more years of “Me, Me, ME!!!” sounds about right. (Is He any good at golf? His scores are never seem to get mentioned…)

    Or are you using the Leftist definition of the word, where ‘compromise’ means “YOU do everything MY way, and I’ll let you” ?

    You left out the part where “you also get to take all the blame when it fails.”

    That’s why the Progressive Left is always so desperate for “bipartisanship”. Kinda hard to shift the blame when you pass it all on your own.

    And then you can also claim that “it failed because of the compromises” and push for more instead of less.

  7. Curt Thomson

    He would like to tackle issues such as climate change, immigration, education and filibuster reform.

    Wonderbar. Those things will certainly cause unemployment to come down [dry heave]. Sara Hoyt’s comment over there is excellent.

    It seems Obama has been informed that he won’t win reelection without the youth vote, so he’s now created http://www.gottaregister.com. Maybe his spelling issues explain why he never authored a Harvard Law Review article despite being its president.

  8. MfK

    Falsani: Do you believe in sin?

    Obama: Yes.

    Falsani: What is sin?

    Obama: Being out of alignment with my values.

    Those who are without sin (Jim, Gerrib, et al) may cast the first stone at all of us sinners, in the name of your Lord, Savior, and Master…

    1. Bob-1

      I hope you’re making a sort of joke, because otherwise, that’s quite unfair. Your quote is taken out of context. In the conversation, mere seconds before your quote, Obama had referred to”My faith and my values,” and mere seconds afterward, he expands on his faith. To say “my values” in the middle of that is merely conversational shorthand.

      To refer to sin by referring to values but without referring to God or faith is rather Buddhist or Hindu way of looking at sin, and not a Christian or Jewish or Muslim way of looking at it. I wouldn’t have been shocked if Obama had discussed sin from a Buddhist perspective, and your quote led me to think that maybe he had. But then I looked for the actual interview, and in fact, Obama embraces a Christian point of view.

      I had never read the interview before. I found it interesting. I’m quite sure Obama critics will find the interview a rich field of damming nuggets, but everyone should try to be fairminded, I think the excerpt MfK picked out is quite misleading and thus unfair. Although, again, perhaps MfK was making a joke, in which case, it *was* funny, but it also made me curious enough to look into it.

      Here is the full interview – readers can judge for themselves:
      http://cathleenfalsani.com/obama-on-faith-the-exclusive-interview/

      1. MfK

        You’re not implying that you’re out of alignment with His values, are you Bob-1? Tsk tsk tsk…

        They’re crucifying people like you over in Egypt right now. Sure you don’t want to take that back?

    1. Titus

      I beg your pardon — the tacitly approved epithets for people like Dr. Sowell and myself are “Oreo”, “house negro” or my personal favorite, “boot-licking Uncle Tom.”

      Really, every time some troll whips-out one of those, I twirl the key to my Maserati.

Comments are closed.