What's new

Democrats' Rough Re-entry Into Reality

Wehrwolfen

Senior Member
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
2,750
Reaction score
340
Points
48
The Democrats' Rough Re-entry Into Reality​


By Ron Ross
The American Spectator : The Democrats' Rough Re-entry Into Reality

If Obama loses, will they resist blaming him for their own demise?

Is there a limit to self-delusion? And if there is, what happens when the limit is exceeded?

New York Times columnist Gail Collins began her column last week as follows, "When Democrats run into each other on elevators, they exchange glances and sigh. Or make little whimpering sounds." She went on to observe that "Democrats are going bipolar. Democrats spend all their waking hours thinking about the swing states. If Wisconsin starts looking wobbly, their day is ruined." It makes you wonder what their days are going to be like if Obama loses the actual election.

Liberals are angry and frustrated with Obama. He, however, is not the real object of their anger. Someone once observed, "Our strongest anger is reserved for ourselves." (If you doubt that, just ask any golfer.) Liberals are angry and frustrated with themselves because they bought into the fantasy of Barack Obama.

For the past four years conservatives have been asking themselves, "Why can't more people see what a fraud this guy is?" That may be an impossible question to answer, but the population of those who see him for who and what he is seems to be growing.

One of the things that makes Hans Christian Andersen's "The Emperor's New Clothes" such an enduring parable is how it is both absurd and painfully true. The emperor was naked, but no one wanted to be the first to admit it. A kind of mass hysteria affected the citizens. Once a child spoke the obvious truth, the delusion was shattered. If there were not a lot of truth about human nature reflected in the story, it wouldn't be such a classic.

Obama's nakedness is not physical but rather intellectual. Time magazine's Joe Klein said recently, "Anyone who says Barack Obama is not intelligent is either crazy or bigoted." What makes Klein so certain that Obama is intelligent? The evidence is all in the opposite direction. Forrest Gump famously said, "Stupid is as stupid does." The corollary is also true. Smart is as smart does. Was choosing Joe Biden as someone to be a heartbeat away from the presidency a smart decision? If you think so, you need to watch the video of last week's vice-presidential debate.

Another reality that may be penetrating the liberals' self-delusion shield is the Benghazi debacle. It's been said that a liberal is someone who will not take his own side in a fight. A perfect example of that perverse attitude is how Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Susan Rice were all so eager to take the terrorists' side in the attacks on our embassies. They used the strongest possible words in condemning the obscure video and its creator. Ms. Clinton said the video was "disgusting and reprehensible" and "truly abhorrent." By blaming the video so vehemently they effectively implied the attackers were justified. They took the terrorists' side in the fight. They basically said, "We totally understand why you wanted to kill our ambassador. You don't like America; neither do we."

Democrats ridiculed Clint Eastwood for his empty chair speech at the Republican National Convention. In retrospect his metaphor appears to have been spot-on. Eastwood later observed that "Obama is the biggest hoax ever committed on the American people."

Even if some Democrats are seeing the hollow reality of Barack Obama for the first time, it's unlikely to affect their overall mind-set. When a liberal has a choice between fantasy and reality, he will choose fantasy every time. There's no reason to think that will change anytime soon.

[excerpt]
 

OohPooPahDoo

Gold Member
Joined
May 11, 2011
Messages
15,347
Reaction score
985
Points
175
Location
N'Awlins Mid-City
Even if some Democrats are seeing the hollow reality of Barack Obama for the first time, it's unlikely to affect their overall mind-set. When a liberal has a choice between fantasy and reality, he will choose fantasy every time. There's no reason to think that will change anytime soon.

[excerpt]

Fantasy? Like Iraq having massive stockpiles of WMD's? Or like raising military spending by trillions and lowering taxes by trillions will actually balance the budget? Those kinda fantasies? You're voting for a guy whose only proposed spending cuts so far are to women's health services and public broadcasting, and you think he'll be able to balance the budget based on that? Who's fantasizing?
 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,825
Points
1,790
Hmmm, the 'choice' to divide was Obama's:

Political Diary: Polarizer-in-Chief - WSJ.com

* October 19, 2012, 1:57 p.m. ET

Polarizer-in-Chief By STEPHEN MOORE

Back in 2008 Barack Obama promised to crack through the partisan gridlock in Washington, to unify a divided electorate and reach across the aisle to get things done. In his election-night victory speech, he said that we must "resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long."

Four years later, that political well is as poisoned as ever. A Gallup poll released last week found that "an average of 90% of Democrats, and 8% of Republicans, approve of the job Barack Obama is doing as president. That 82-percentage-point gap in approval ratings by party is on pace to be the largest Gallup has measured for a recent incumbent president in the final month before Americans vote on his re-election." Even George W. Bush, whom Mr. Obama attacked for his severe partisanship, only had a gap on the eve of his re-election effort of 80 percentage points (92% Republican approval and 12% Democratic approval).

Gallup then examined the approval rating of a candidate by voters of the opposite party during the fourth year in office and found that Mr. Obama has the lowest approval rating (10%) of voters from the party out of power of any incumbent president since Eisenhower. At this point in his presidency, Mr. Bush's approval rating with Democrats was five points higher than what Mr. Obama has now with Republicans. The average incumbent president since the 1950s had the approval of more than one-third of voters from the opposite party. Even Richard Nixon had a 41% approval rating from Democrats in 1972.

What went wrong for Mr. Obama? The Democrats' campaign talking point here is that Republicans plotted from the start to undermine Mr. Obama's presidency. But this was a president who came into office with a 68% approval rating—the highest since John F. Kennedy. Republican voters were not rooting against him, but for his success. The tone for a super-charged partisan presidency was established right out of the gate when Mr. Obama rammed through Congress both his $830 billion fiscal stimulus bill and ObamaCare. Both passed without a single Republican vote. Mr. Obama's justification for these polarizing laws when meeting with Republicans was: "I won." And after his voter repudiation in the 2010 midterm elections, Mr. Obama moved even further to the left. After Bill Clinton suffered midterm congressional losses two years into his presidency, he moved to the political center. Mr. Clinton had a 24% approval rating among Republicans on the eve of his re-election.

Mr. Obama hasn't healed "the divides that have held back our progress," as he pledged four years ago. His presidency has been polarizing because his redistributionist ideas are polarizing, and it is hard to see how things would be any different over the next four years.
 

OohPooPahDoo

Gold Member
Joined
May 11, 2011
Messages
15,347
Reaction score
985
Points
175
Location
N'Awlins Mid-City
Hmmm, the 'choice' to divide was Obama's:

Political Diary: Polarizer-in-Chief - WSJ.com

* October 19, 2012, 1:57 p.m. ET

Polarizer-in-Chief By STEPHEN MOORE

Back in 2008 Barack Obama promised to crack through the partisan gridlock in Washington, to unify a divided electorate and reach across the aisle to get things done. In his election-night victory speech, he said that we must "resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long."

Four years later, that political well is as poisoned as ever. A Gallup poll released last week found that "an average of 90% of Democrats, and 8% of Republicans, approve of the job Barack Obama is doing as president. That 82-percentage-point gap in approval ratings by party is on pace to be the largest Gallup has measured for a recent incumbent president in the final month before Americans vote on his re-election." Even George W. Bush, whom Mr. Obama attacked for his severe partisanship, only had a gap on the eve of his re-election effort of 80 percentage points (92% Republican approval and 12% Democratic approval).

Gallup then examined the approval rating of a candidate by voters of the opposite party during the fourth year in office and found that Mr. Obama has the lowest approval rating (10%) of voters from the party out of power of any incumbent president since Eisenhower. At this point in his presidency, Mr. Bush's approval rating with Democrats was five points higher than what Mr. Obama has now with Republicans. The average incumbent president since the 1950s had the approval of more than one-third of voters from the opposite party. Even Richard Nixon had a 41% approval rating from Democrats in 1972.

What went wrong for Mr. Obama? The Democrats' campaign talking point here is that Republicans plotted from the start to undermine Mr. Obama's presidency. But this was a president who came into office with a 68% approval rating—the highest since John F. Kennedy. Republican voters were not rooting against him, but for his success. The tone for a super-charged partisan presidency was established right out of the gate when Mr. Obama rammed through Congress both his $830 billion fiscal stimulus bill and ObamaCare. Both passed without a single Republican vote. Mr. Obama's justification for these polarizing laws when meeting with Republicans was: "I won." And after his voter repudiation in the 2010 midterm elections, Mr. Obama moved even further to the left. After Bill Clinton suffered midterm congressional losses two years into his presidency, he moved to the political center. Mr. Clinton had a 24% approval rating among Republicans on the eve of his re-election.

Mr. Obama hasn't healed "the divides that have held back our progress," as he pledged four years ago. His presidency has been polarizing because his redistributionist ideas are polarizing, and it is hard to see how things would be any different over the next four years.

Right out the gate? Obamacare wasn't passed until March 2010, over a year after he took office. How is that "right out the gate?" Does the author know what that expression means or is he just some idiot trying to sound like he knows what he's talking about?
 

OohPooPahDoo

Gold Member
Joined
May 11, 2011
Messages
15,347
Reaction score
985
Points
175
Location
N'Awlins Mid-City
Hmmm, the 'choice' to divide was Obama's:

Political Diary: Polarizer-in-Chief - WSJ.com

* October 19, 2012, 1:57 p.m. ET

Polarizer-in-Chief By STEPHEN MOORE

Back in 2008 Barack Obama promised to crack through the partisan gridlock in Washington, to unify a divided electorate and reach across the aisle to get things done. In his election-night victory speech, he said that we must "resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long."

Four years later, that political well is as poisoned as ever. A Gallup poll released last week found that "an average of 90% of Democrats, and 8% of Republicans, approve of the job Barack Obama is doing as president. That 82-percentage-point gap in approval ratings by party is on pace to be the largest Gallup has measured for a recent incumbent president in the final month before Americans vote on his re-election." Even George W. Bush, whom Mr. Obama attacked for his severe partisanship, only had a gap on the eve of his re-election effort of 80 percentage points (92% Republican approval and 12% Democratic approval).

Gallup then examined the approval rating of a candidate by voters of the opposite party during the fourth year in office and found that Mr. Obama has the lowest approval rating (10%) of voters from the party out of power of any incumbent president since Eisenhower. At this point in his presidency, Mr. Bush's approval rating with Democrats was five points higher than what Mr. Obama has now with Republicans. The average incumbent president since the 1950s had the approval of more than one-third of voters from the opposite party. Even Richard Nixon had a 41% approval rating from Democrats in 1972.

What went wrong for Mr. Obama? The Democrats' campaign talking point here is that Republicans plotted from the start to undermine Mr. Obama's presidency. But this was a president who came into office with a 68% approval rating—the highest since John F. Kennedy. Republican voters were not rooting against him, but for his success. The tone for a super-charged partisan presidency was established right out of the gate when Mr. Obama rammed through Congress both his $830 billion fiscal stimulus bill and ObamaCare. Both passed without a single Republican vote. Mr. Obama's justification for these polarizing laws when meeting with Republicans was: "I won." And after his voter repudiation in the 2010 midterm elections, Mr. Obama moved even further to the left. After Bill Clinton suffered midterm congressional losses two years into his presidency, he moved to the political center. Mr. Clinton had a 24% approval rating among Republicans on the eve of his re-election.

Mr. Obama hasn't healed "the divides that have held back our progress," as he pledged four years ago. His presidency has been polarizing because his redistributionist ideas are polarizing, and it is hard to see how things would be any different over the next four years.
The tone for a super-charged partisan presidency was established right out of the gate when Mr. Obama rammed through Congress both his $830 billion fiscal stimulus bill and ObamaCare.

Right out the gate? Obamacare wasn't passed until March 2010, over a year after he took office. How is that "right out the gate?" Does the author know what that expression means or is he just some idiot trying to sound like he knows what he's talking about?


Both passed without a single Republican vote.
Actually three Republicans in the Senate voted for the final stimulus bill.


The writer of this article is fucking lazy and failed to do basic research.

 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,825
Points
1,790
He spent the first year focused mostly in passing that law. So he started out of the gate.
Actually he delegated to Pelosi and Reid to come up with a plan. Pelosi honestly said, 'You'll have to read it to know what's in it.'

Nearly everyone hated it, from proposal to push through. They still do. Now the Democrats wonder why they are on the ropes?

Why Obama hasn't coat tails but Romney does?
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Top