The last few weeks have been a nightmare for President Obama, in a summer of discontent in the United States which has deeply unsettled the ruling liberal elites, so much so that even the Left has begun to turn against the White House. While the anti-establishment Tea Party movement has gained significant ground and is now a rising and powerful political force to be reckoned with, many of the president’s own supporters as well as independents are rapidly losing faith in Barack Obama, with open warfare breaking out between the White House and the left-wing of the Democratic Party. While conservatism in America grows stronger by the day, the forces of liberalism are growing increasingly weaker and divided.
Against this backdrop, the president’s approval ratings have been sliding dramatically all summer, with the latest Rasmussen Daily Presidential Tracking Poll of US voters dropping to minus 22 points, the lowest point so far for Barack Obama since taking office. While just 24 per cent of American voters strongly approve of the president’s job performance, almost twice that number, 46 per cent, strongly disapprove. According to Rasmussen, 65 per cent of voters believe the United States is going down the wrong track, including 70 per cent of independents.
The RealClearPolitics average of polls now has President Obama at over 50 per cent disapproval, a remarkably high figure for a president just 18 months into his first term. Strikingly, the latest USA Today/Gallup survey has the President on just 41 per cent approval, with 53 per cent disapproving.
“Who is this Sean from Florida? He takes everything that [the] Professor [says] and shreds it, piece by piece. He shouldn’t be allowed to post his comments on this blog since he seems to be winning all the debates. We progressives need to stick together and embellish our talking points without someone from the outside pointing out fallacies in our ideology.”
It’s a classic liberal douche-bag’s response to losing an argument.
A marvelous thing happened over on Paul Krugman’s blog at the New York Times last week. Krugman effectively conceded defeat on a range of economic debates. Who defeated him? People who posted comments on his New York Times blog. Mere commenters.
For those who do not know, Paul Krugman is one of the few who still claim that Keynesian progressivism is the answer to America’s (and Europe’s) problems, not their cause. He repeats that claim many times each month. Amid these repeated expressions of his “progressive” faith, he now also repeatedly expresses grim despair because his progressive policy prescriptions are being accepted less and less in the public square, even by the Obama administration.
Krugman is an academic. He has never run a company. He has never created a job. The closest contact he evidently ever had to “business” was as an adviser to Enron, where (in his own words) he was paid $50,000 to help build Enron’s “image.”
This, perhaps, explains the dozen or so points that Krugman makes over and over. Here are a few: Obama’s stimulus was too small. Debt is good. Austerity is bad. Deflation is coming. Ken Rogoff, Greg Mankiw, Alberto Alesina (all at Harvard), and other serious economic scientists do not understand economics as well as he does. Those who do not agree with him are “mass delusional.” And perhaps Krugman’s favorite line: “I was right, of course.”
- Franklin D. Roosevelt, in Roosevelt after Inauguration by William Burroughs
William Burroughs will never be an icon of the conservative movement. A proud junkie, an aggressive homosexual, a leader of both the Beat movement and the Counterculture, a man who shot his wife by “accident” while playing a party game, Burroughs was, if anything, the polar opposite of the conservative ideal.
But there was one element of Burroughs’ thought not altogether alien to conservatives: his opinion of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Relatively late in his career, Burroughs published a short piece titled Roosevelt after Inauguration, which featured FDR swaggering around Washington (this is fiction, remember), wearing a purple toga and accompanied by a gang of killer baboons whom he sends after his enemies. The story climaxes with the massacre of the Supreme Court by the baboons, whereupon FDR gazes contemplatively across the Potomac at the country now lying at his feet and utters the line quoted above.
What inspired Burroughs to embark on this exercise in nastiness remains unclear. He himself claimed that he was promised a high position in the St. Louis sewer department only to be denied it by New Deal do-gooders, but this may be only part of the legend. Whatever the case, Roosevelt after Inauguration remains one of the purest expressions of political hatred ever put into writing. If every foul attack made over the years against Nixon, Reagan, Gingrich, Bush, Cheney, and Palin were rolled into one, the result would not match a single paragraph. Roosevelt after Inauguration is a masterpiece of political scurrility.
So I guess all that hysteria about the Arizona immigration law was much ado about nothing. After months of telling us that the Nazis had seized Arizona, when the Obama administration finally got around to suing, its only objection was that the law was “pre-empted” by federalimmigration law.
With the vast majority of Americans supporting Arizona’s inoffensive little law, the fact that Obama is suing at all suggests that he consulted exclusively with the craziest people in America before filing this complaint (which is to say, Eric Holder’s Justice Department).
But apparently even they could find nothing discriminatory about Arizona’s law. It’s reassuring to know that, contrary to earlier indications, government lawyers can at least read English.
Instead, the administration argues, federal laws on immigration pre-empt Arizona’s law under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.
State laws are pre-empted by federal law in two circumstances: When there is a conflict – such as “sanctuary cities” for illegals or California’s medical marijuana law – or when Congress has so thoroughly regulated a field that there is no room for even congruent state laws.
In The New York Times’ profile on the family of Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan, her aunt was quoted as saying: “There was thinking, always thinking” at the family’s dinner table. “Nothing was sacrosanct.”
Really? Nothing was sacrosanct? Because in my experience, on a scale of 1-to-infinity, the range of acceptable opinion among New York liberals goes from 1-to-1.001.
How would the following remarks fare at a dinner table on the Upper West Side where “nothing was sacrosanct”:
Hey, maybe that Joe McCarthy was onto something. What would prayer in the schools really hurt? How do we know gays are born that way? Is it possible that union demands have gone too far? Does it make sense to have three recycling bins in these microscopic Manhattan apartments? Say, has anyone read Charles Murray’s latest book?
That is a reasonable conclusion once you’ve assessed the first nineteen months of his presidency and compared it to the definition of intelligence put together by researchers in the field. Although the mainstream media have spent the last two years proclaiming Obama “super-smart” or, as Newsweek put it, “sort of God” in stature and brilliance, the 44th president of the United States is poised to surpass our 15th president, James Buchanan. Jr., as the White House occupant who has made the dumbest moves while in office. With two years left, he is on the fast track to last.
That takes some doing, for the leadership of the hapless Buchanan prior to the Civil War “has led to his consistent ranking by historians as one of the worst Presidents.” This is the president who vetoed a college funding bill because “there were already too many educated people” in the young nation. Buchanan’s judgment was so wretched that he thought anti-slavery forces could be convinced to give up their opposition by his personal assurances that slaves were “treated with kindness and humanity” and that poverty could be ended by simply printing more money. Sound familiar?
Barack Obama is dumb. How dumb? Alfred E. Newman dumb, says columnist David Limbaugh, who labeled him “President Alfred E. Obama” because of his blithe disregard of the basics of fiscal responsibility. Alfred E. Newman is the Mad magazine mascot, whose answer to every problem is his signature statement: “What, me worry?”
How dumb? How-many-Obamas-does-it-take-to-screw-in-a-light-bulb dumb. And in the answer lies the answer, the key to his pole position in the race to last: It takes 242. One to hold the light bulb, four to turn the ladder, eighteen to assess conformity to OSHA workplace requirements, four to assess the environmental impact of the burnt-out bulb disposal, twelve to participate in a task force to evaluate green energy solutions for a replacement bulb, eight to script his actions, four to script instructions and work the teleprompter, 23 to work with the justice department to sue the light bulb manufacturer…you get the picture. And, à la Buchanan, Obama never does get that light bulb changed.
I really think that Arizona will prevail on this one. They aren’t usurping the federal government. They are merely assisting in the capture of illegal aliens that the government has failed miserably to do.
The Department of Justice will file a lawsuit this week, perhaps as early as today, against Arizona to block its new immigration-enforcement law. They plan to use the weakest argument possible, that of pre-emption, which amounts to a surrender on the grounds that the Obama administration has claimed in the previous three months of debate:
The Justice Department has decided to file suit against Arizona on the grounds that the state’s new immigration law illegally intrudes on federal prerogatives, law enforcement sources said Monday.
This is interesting. It seems that the Demon-craps will be wringing their hands come November. This is going to be the true mandate against big government.
So far, the midterms look to be a good year for Republicans in Congressional elections, which have caught most of the media attention. However, as Eric Ostermeier argues at Smart Politics, it looks as though the Republican Governors Association may have a banner year for new membership as well. The University of Minnesota scholar believes that the GOP may win more elections on this level than any time in the past 90 years:
As Democrats brace for a Republican pullback in the 2010 election cycle, the question on the minds of officeholders, party leaders, and D.C prognosticators is not whether the GOP will gain seats in the midterm elections across state and federal legislative and executive offices, but how many.
This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political, human rights, economic, democracy, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research, educational, or satirical purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Dad passed away yesterday afternoon.
Rest in peace Dad. 4 months ago
General Casey can kiss my lily white ass. He is the f@ck1ng problem. Diversity and sucking up to Isalmic assholes is what led to 13 dead. 10 months ago
Just updated my blog. Go check it out. 10 months ago
