text:
"Jimmy Carter Is the best-case scenario."
The Carter comparisons to President Obama are coming fast and furious now, even coming from at least one Senate Democrat. Nobody who wanted to go on the record with his name, of course — but just wait. It won't be too much longer now before somebody slips, whether on accident or on purpose.
For a while now, Glenn Reynolds has argued that "Jimmy Carter is the best-case scenario" for Obama — because it's been pretty obvious for a while now. But it's only this morning that I figured out the why.
Carter, for all his silly notions, learned on the job and came up with some decent policies — eventually.
Jimmuh was dealt an extremely weak hand on national defense, probably the weakest in the post-war era. The armed forces — especially the Army — were making the slow and painful transition to an all-volunteer force. Drugs were still a problem, and a sense of defeat still hung in the air after Vietnam. Public trust in the armed forces was at an all-time low. Carter couldn't have engaged in any successful saber-rattling with the Soviets, even had he been inclined to. Instead, Carter made human rights the cornerstone of America's foreign policy, setting the stage for Reagan's "evil empire" speech. It was a weak policy, yes — but the best he could do given a weak hand. And when the invasion of Afghanistan made Soviet expansionism became too much to bear, Carter changed course. The defense buildup under Reagan really began under Carter.
Faced with inflation, Carter appointed inflation hawk Paul Volcker to head the Fed. Reagan kept him on for a second term. Faced with a weak economy, Carter undid New Deal transportation cartels. The man could and did learn on the job.
Was he perfect? Ha! Carter remained hostile to Israel under every circumstance, he never gained a clue on energy policy, and Iran's newly-empowered mullahs embarrassed him (and all of us) on the world stage again and again.
Carter's biggest failure wasn't bad policy prescriptions. Some of his were terrible, but many he was willing and able to correct midcourse. Carter's main failure was a failure of leadership. When we needed reassurance, he proved feckless. When we needed inspiration, he told us to lower our expectations. Carter could have been policy perfect from the beginning to the end of his administration — but he still would have lasted only one term.
Jimmy Carter could not lead this nation. He couldn't lead the way out of a wet paper bag. He couldn't lead a dog to kibble. Jimmy Carter is a bad leader.
Which brings us to President Barack Obama.
186 Comments, 80 Threads
1. Social Justice Crusader
Obviously, Mr. Green, you just can't stand having a black man in office.
Using code words to cater to stereotypes of blacks as drug users (Harvard pot sessions?) and barnyard animals (pig in a poke?) and of limited intellectual ability (dumbass? can't recognize mistakes?) doesn't mean that you're not, at heart, a vile and unrepentant racist.
You say "pig in a poke", but what we all hear out here in the reality-based community is what's *really* being said: "that boy's a little uppity, ain't he?"
So why don't you take your… (cough)
Nah. I'm sorry. I can't say those things with a straight face. You're no more a racist than me I just wanted to try to beat your critics to the punch.
August 10, 2011 - 9:33 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
Funny stuff, but I was already rolling on the floor from reading about Obama "soaking" people who make "as little as" $200,000 a year.
The top 400 taxpayers in the nation, making an average of almost $350,000,000 per year had an average tax rate of 16.6%.
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/04/top-400-taxpayers/If you're making under $106,000 or so you're paying 15.3% in payroll tax before you even start filling out your 1040. (The top 400, if they had wage income, paid that also, adding up to 0.0026% to their overall tax rate.)
I've had good years where the AMT pushed my tax rate up to more than double the tax rate of the top 400. I've also had good years where I made 200,000 or more, almost entirely capital gains, and paid a rate comparable to the top 400. The highest total percentage I've paid in taxes was from when I was making less than 200,000 and working hard for a living.
Add up what the federal government took out of YOUR pocket for income tax and payroll tax, and compare that number to the percentage the government took out of the pockets of taxpayers making a few thousand times as much per year.
Then you can laugh along with me when someone complains that the rich are being "soaked".
August 10, 2011 - 5:11 pm Link to this Comment | Reply-
My calculator says that 16.6% of $350,000,000 is a tax bill of $58,100,000. Now of course none of those folks would have paid that much b/c they didn't pay 16% of every dollar and they have better accountants.
But for you to complain that someone whose tax bill is in the millions of dollars pays a better rate than you when said tax bill is more than you and I an 99.9% of PJM's readership earn in a year (decade? lifetime?) is plain class warfare.
The "rich" pay plenty…is it as much as you or others might like it to be? Apparently not but that is another story.
August 10, 2011 - 5:31 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
The issue isn't whether or not the Top 400 wealthiest Americans could or should pay more in taxes. The truth is that there aren't enough 'rich' people out there to pay for everything the gov't wants to do. So, they have to define 'rich' as someone who makes $200k a year. It's about pitting folks agaist one another.
If you want to raise taxes, let's talk about raising them on the people who make more than $1m a year. But wait, there aren't enough of them to make a differce.
Just give me a flatter tax:
1% of first $10k of income (everyone pays something)
12% up to $75k per year
20% of everything over thatGet rid of EVERY other deduection. All of them. Stop using the tax code as a tool for social engineering. Just get the gov't out of the way!
August 10, 2011 - 5:33 pm Link to this Comment | Reply-
If you took 100% of the earnings of the top 5% of the population – people earning $157,176 or above (well above Obama's millionaires and billionaires) – you will find that they earned $895,117,000,000 – an amount well less than Obama's deficit. Let me restate that. If everybody in the US who earned more than 157,176 or above paid 100% of everything they earned to the federal government (and that includes not paying their state and local taxes because they gave every dime they earned to the feds) AND assuming people could continue to work just as hard and earn just as much even though they earned nothing – it still could not pay for Obama's deficits. Of course in the real world, people subjected to massive taxation shift their investing activities into non-taxable munis, retire, or just work less. Taxation is not the solution. Reducing spending is the solution.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_StatesAugust 11, 2011 - 1:16 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
But pitting one group against another is just what a "community organizer" does! Mr. Obama can no more lead than he can be a "uniter," because at heart, what he does is attempt to divide people against one another, so he can achieve his goal, no matter how detrimental it is to the country. You're asking him to change his spots…and he can't do it any more than a leopard can.
Rich Vail
Pikesville, Maryland
The Vail Spot dot Blogspot dot ComAugust 11, 2011 - 10:17 pm Link to this Comment | Reply
Junk Science Skeptic
WKE – There is so much wrong with your analysis that it's hard to pick a spot to start. The quick version is that apples =/= oranges. The slightly less quick version is that you're comparing average/aggregate rates paid by the rich with withholding rates for a W2 wage earner.
Do you know what the gov't can buy with tax rates? Nothing, nada, diddly squat. So STHU about rates, because what we pay, what the gov't collects, and what the gov't spends are DOLLARS, not rates.
The "rich" pay far more DOLLARS in taxes than you're likely to see in your entire lifetime.
You and your class warfare ilk have been fooled into illiterate envy of tax rates by demagogues who spout dogma they know to be false to an audience they know to be ignorant.
August 10, 2011 - 5:57 pm Link to this Comment | Reply-
There are even more important things in play here, something that has got little to do with money. It is called productivity. Most rich people (not all but hopefully enough of them) got rich by way of initiative, vision, their new ideas, creativity, drive and their God give talent. And more importantly they (again not all, but hopefully enough of them) probably got rich by enabling the production of goods and services, new technologies and *JOBS*. They also certainly contribute even more intangibles to society, say for instance, inspiration for the next generation or through their philanthropy and so on and so forth. I work as an engineer at a privately owned (mostly by *one* guy) medical device manufacturing company founded by one guy out of his garage 40 years ago. It now employs 4000 people with annual sales of almost a billion dollars. The company is a market leader and tech pioneer and sets the standards in the industry. The company offers good benefits and stable employment and is *HIRING* like crazy in this economy. This guy is a hero not someone you would want to "soak". It does not make sense to me.
August 10, 2011 - 11:02 pm Link to this Comment | Reply-
Thomas Paine
Well, a lot of people did get rich the Old Fashioned Way: They INHERITED it. But so what? Not even Barry Hood (aka Dennis Moore http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLkhx0eqK5w) wants to tax WEALTH — ok he does want to steal half from the dead — but other than that, it's all taxes on INCOME.
If you want less of something, TAX IT.
So I would say:
1. Repeal the 16th Amendment, just like the 18th. Bury it, pave over it and put up a Wal-Mart.
2. Institute a VAT, or FAIR, to 18% of GDP (easy with a VAT)
3. Cap Federal Spending at 18%
4. Done with Federal bloat … sorry, denizens of DC, oh brave bureaucratsNow just one … little … hitch. The clever folks in the Capitol would SUDDENLY REALIZE most of their spending is on STATES' RESPONSIBLITIES anyway! Like magic!
In fact, it could be argued the main reason for Federal Bloat Syndrome is … BECAUSE they can run a deficit. So they can steal from the future, while States can only pickpocket with bonds, and are forced to leave something for them ($400 million high schools in LA, for example). But the gist is clear.
Do you REALLY want to see some CHANGE (I HOPE)…? Let's discuss this at a CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. We need 34 States fo call for one — AND NOT ONE CONGRESSMAN. These things need to worked out BY THE STATES, FOR THE PEOPLE'S BEST INTEREST.
Radical? Yes, the Founders were considered so in England. And it's time to scare the dirt out of all Ivy League Law School alumni — you've made a terrible hash of things and we're voting a new Board … and Bylaws….
August 12, 2011 - 10:04 am Link to this Comment
"by demagogues who spout dogma they know to be false to an audience they know to be ignorant."
Dude – that's good stuff – I'm stealing it.August 11, 2011 - 2:11 pm Link to this Comment | Reply
Buck O'Fama
Let's turn the question around as Walter Williams asked: "How about you keep what you earn, I keep what I earn, so now you tell me how much of *mine* belongs to you and *why*?"
August 10, 2011 - 6:42 pm Link to this Comment | Reply-
Love it gotta steal that one…. will use it on my flaky brainless sister in law.. (I didn't get to pic the dumb…b…..)
August 11, 2011 - 11:19 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
I hope the sex was worth it for your dumbass brother.
August 11, 2011 - 1:56 pm Link to this Comment
Forgotten Man
The bottom 47% of the population that filed income tax returns paid 0% taxes and most of that 47% got money back( meaning earned income tax credit, READ WELFARE). Don't forget there are others that file no income tax return and a lot of them get 100% of their income from the 53% of the people that paid taxes. You want to be FAIR? What ever fair is should have everyone pay something.
August 10, 2011 - 6:45 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
can't we just execute those damn rich people and get like half their money?
and if it's not enough, rinse, repeat with heirs, and so on, and so on, and so on until we live in a land of equality, freedom and pot and sex on demand?F'in tea baggers, harshin' the vibe.
August 10, 2011 - 10:30 pm Link to this Comment | Reply-
Negative – if you took all (not half) of the income of the top 1% of Americans, it would be enough to run this country for 30 days.
The rich have a lot of money, but the fluidity is in the middle class, which make up for lower income with a higher population.
August 11, 2011 - 1:40 pm Link to this Comment | Reply
I can't vouch for this factoid myself, but per Rush Limbaugh (and I assume he can afford a crack research staff and would not want to say something that can be factually disproven and give his many critics something to crow over), if you confiscated 100% of the taxable income of everyone who earned over $10M last year, you would cover only a fraction of the current year's deficit. (Which reminds me of an old Muppet Show in which Gonzo pitches Kermmit on his concept for a new act in which he blows himself up in a spectacular grand finale. Then he sadly caveats the pitch with "the only problem is I can only do it once".)
If Rush's factoid is true, I am sure that top Democrats are aware of this which makes it absolutely clear that their insistence on increasing taxes is political class warfare, and is not at all about closing the deficit.
August 11, 2011 - 7:05 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
It's worse than that. To pay for Obama's 2009 budget (I think this one), you would have to sieze (Yes, take at 100%) the entire income of all those making 65k or more a year. So much for soaking the rich.
August 11, 2011 - 1:15 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
Mary Wilbur
I've heard that if you tax the rich, i.e. $200,000 and above, at 100%, it wouldn't be enough to put a dent in the deficit.
August 11, 2011 - 2:23 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
Enough already
Rush likely originated his stats from a WSJ oped piece that ran the numbers based on 2006 data. It noted that you could dip a lot lower than just people making $10mm/year (the open cites $500k/year and even lower) and it would not come close to meeting the deficit. Here's the link: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123561551065378405.html
Note that the article is somewhat old, but was very, very prescient. As a result, the takeaway is just as valid, if not more valid, than it was in 2009.
August 11, 2011 - 2:32 pm Link to this Comment | Reply
You can run statistics all day long if you want.
But the 2009 tax return data is now available from the IRS, and it clearly shows that the number of households claiming a 7 figure or greater income only comprises 0.17% of all tax returns filed.
You can raise the tax rate to 100% on this 0.17% of tax payers, and not even begin to TOUCH the financial mess caused by the SPENDING problem, which is what we really have.
August 11, 2011 - 9:27 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
Exactly correct. If you took 100% of the earnings of the top 5% of the population – people earning $157,176 or above (well above Obama's millionaires and billionaires) – you will find that they earned $895,117,000,000 – an amount well less than Obama's deficit. Let me restate that. If everybody in the US who earned more than 157,176 or above paid 100% of everything they earned to the federal government (and that includes not paying their state and local taxes because they gave every dime they earned to the feds) AND assuming people could continue to work just as hard and earn just as much even though they earned nothing – it still could not pay for Obama's deficits. Of course in the real world, people subjected to massive taxation shift their investing activities into non-taxable munis, retire, or just work less. Taxation is not the solution. Reducing spending is the solution.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_StatesAugust 11, 2011 - 1:21 pm Link to this Comment | Reply
This whole discussion would make more sense if you could distinguish rich people from people who are currently high income earners. Wealth and income are not the same thing. We are talking about income taxes, not wealth taxes. Some single person working 7 days a week 12 hours a day, creating valuable products, and possibly jobs is not a billinaire despite the willingness of Obama to categorize them a as a billionaire.
Likewise you should understand that when marginal tax rates were as high as 70%, high income earners paid a smaller proportion of tax revenues. That's because high incomes melt away when you punish the people who earn them. This is more true than ever in today's world, with China, India, and a host of third world countries trying to attract investment and jobs. All your high taxes are going to get is less investment and fewer jobs, and quite likely less tax revenue. Punishing success and rewarding failure hurts everyone.August 11, 2011 - 1:49 pm Link to this Comment | Reply-
Alan Greenspan said on Meet the Press this week that 2000 corporations bear 70% of the tax load. That out to scare the bejeebers out of anyone watching the class warfare going on. Imagine if the Dummies chase those 2000 corps overseas? You think we have a budget crises now…
August 11, 2011 - 2:17 pm Link to this Comment | Reply
WrkN Hard
So ….lets say we raise the effective tax rate on these 400 robber barons to 40%. Get the rich..yeah! That raises their rate by 23.4% and will produce another $81.9MM in revenue each for a grand total for all 400 of an additional $32.8BB. Wahoo!
However, the current budget deficit is over a $1TRILLIOM per year….or $1,000BB…..your wahoo of $32.8 is only a drop in Barack's O'bucket. We are still in deep kaka and punitive taxation cannot fix it.
Seethe with rage all you want but your ideas are as bankrupt as this country. Gotta Plan B?
August 11, 2011 - 2:20 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
Fabio Escobar
All of this can be used to support an argument to reduce income tax rates, not merely to support one that raises the cap. gains rate. The facts themselves are value-neutral.
August 11, 2011 - 4:16 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
Mr Mike
And all this time you have been telling people that the payroll "taxes" are simply contributions under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA), amounts you will pay in and get back some day (which for low earners is very true)? Are you now admitting that these are nothing more than taxes and that Social Security and Medicare are transfers from one generation to the next (welfare??)… Can't have it both ways my friend…
August 11, 2011 - 4:24 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
Your numbers are meaningless. What the h&ll does an average tax rate of 16.6% really mean? Does this include the charitable contributions that only Republicans make?
August 11, 2011 - 5:32 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
The tax rate WKE claims the rich pay is false. The rich also pay other taxes, including capital gains and more. Their effective tax rate is 32%.
August 11, 2011 - 7:20 pm Link to this Comment | Reply
for a second I thought you were another nut case.you can bet there will be plenty of nut case's defending the greatorator in cheif,
August 11, 2011 - 4:00 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
Racist????? It is exactly this type of race baiting that has led blacks across the country to become so violent. obama and his minions are blaming his failure on whites and polarizing this nation in a way we haven't seen since 1860. It is pathetic and dangerous! The left has lost the ability to think.
August 11, 2011 - 1:07 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
huh ?
everything is about race ?
" blacks as drug users (Harvard pot sessions?) and barnyard animals (pig in a poke?) and of limited intellectual ability (dumbass? can't recognize mistakes?)"
harvard pot sessions: intended as a populist, anti-elitist, anti-eastern establishment. many critisisms of obama relate to his 'ivory tower' experience base. this is consistent with that point.
barnyard animals: "pig in a poke" Are you denying thst Obama was a classic 'stealth candidate', a candidate we 'bought' without examining ? is that not the plain-language meaning of 'pig-in-a-poke'? are you allergic with plain-speaking and calling a spade a spade ? (Yes I am baiting you.)
limited intellectual ability: considering that IQ was obama's only qualification for the white house attacking him for not livng up to his limikted resume is fair game. he has performed as a 'dumbass' and is doubling down on failed policies.
would you like to claim that (a) obama is not an ivory-tower-orchid, (b) obama was properly examined and presented by the media in his election campaign, and (c) that his policies make sense in the real world ?
I did not think you would try. Blackening (more baiting)the reputation of people with whom you disagree rather than attempting to debate them honestly is not a new tactic.
August 11, 2011 - 1:11 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
When you cannot answer a single fact or a single line of logic from the commentator – CALL THEM NAMES! Even better, CALL THEM A RACIST. Exactly the sort of behavior one would expect from a leftist. Since the left has neither facts nor logic on their side, since the reality of Obama's performance is right there in the numbers and the experience of all around us, name-calling is all you poor people have left.
The reality is that massively raising the regulatory burden, hiking taxes, creating a massive unaffordable entitlement like Obamacare that we all know will require huge future taxes to pay for, debauching the currency while piling up huge debts we will pay for through taxes or inflation – ALL reduce return on investment and consequently reduce investment and growth thereby raising unemployment. This is nothing new. Obama is re-running an experiment tried in Venezuela, Zimbabwae, Greece, Italy, and Argentina recently. At the best the damage is just that of a Jimmy Carter that can be reversed in a decade. At worst he creates the new Weimar Republic.
August 11, 2011 - 1:14 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
Fred Burr
I once saw this riposte on The Guardian to an offensive comment – your comment is the most bilious pile of reeking vomit I have ever seen (or words to that effect). Somehow, that doesn't do your comment justice. Once again, the left, leaping to defend their man, calls anyone who criticizes Obama's policies as an unrepentant racist. Nothing more than progressive humbug. In fact, the comparisons to Jimmy Carter were appearing shortly after inauguration.
August 11, 2011 - 1:23 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
Hey, that was really funny. I really did LOL. Thanks.
August 11, 2011 - 5:17 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
New Yawker
Well, if we didn't have a liberal pull the race card then this wouldn't be a party now would it?
August 11, 2011 - 11:00 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
New Yawker
Well, if we didn't have a liberal pull the race card then this wouldn't be a party now would it? good stuff
August 11, 2011 - 11:12 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
I guess if one is deluded enough they can see racism everywhere. How Social Justice Crusader came up with their conclusion is beyond ration or reason. It doesn't bother me that Obama is of African descent. What bothers me is he is a Marxist bent on the destruction of the United States of America. That his willful assault on the U.S. economy has crossed the line of treason. For someone who is supposed to be brilliant, lately he can't even read the words off his teleprompter correctly. His disdain for the U.S. Military yet his willingness to use fallen soldiers as props for photo ops is distasteful. His absolute ignorance how a free market system works coupled with his insistence on picking winners and losers in the economy would be laughable if the consequences were not so destructive. For a man who flies around on the largest corporate jet in the world at MY expense to turn around and blast corporate jet use by people paying their own way is the height of hypocrisy. It's time to send this man off to the dustbin of history where he can vote "present".
August 12, 2011 - 5:59 am Link to this Comment | Reply
2. Chris Bolts
Will they buy the lie of person who has never amounted to anything as President? Of course they will. When 29% of the American people believe that the tea party are terrorists and quite a few independents don't agree with the tea party on curbing spending, then these few can certainly scrummage together and help elect a President who is even more eloquent and destructive than Obama. Remember, it's a 50/50 chance that Obama will be reelected. Great odds, huh?
August 10, 2011 - 9:46 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
Next you will tell me there is no Santa Claus. Or Social Security Trust Fund.
Sarcasm aside, there are a lot of people, maybe even a majority of voters – and the Democrats are banking on this, who will not face unpleasant facts. This guy couldn't run a Boy Scout Troop or a Bake Sale.
August 10, 2011 - 1:00 pm Link to this Comment | Reply-
Agoraphobic Plumber
Well, to be fair, running a boy scout troop involves taking a group of 10-30 boys ages 12-17 to a camp in the woods for a week in the summer, where you give them matches and knives and axes to play with, have them shoot rifles, shotguns and bows, keep them from throwing cans of OFF in the fire, help them all pitch their tents, torture them until they agree to clean the latrine, force them all out of bed at 6 in the morning, get them to settle down for flag and other ceremonies, and on and on and on.
I spent many summers working on a boy scout camp staff, and I'd put being a scoutmaster on an equal footing with being president some days, stress-wise.
Of course, there IS a big difference between burning down a tent and burning down the US economy….
August 10, 2011 - 8:23 pm Link to this Comment | Reply
Victor Erimita
Right. The American people "were sold a bill of goods," alright. But they allowed themselves to be hoodwinked. They bought the media-constructed narrative, ignored the fact they knew nothing about him, and got misty eyed watching the Grant Park theater on election night. I too have no interest in why Obama is doing what he's doing. I'm only interested in whether the American voter has learned a damn thing, or whether they will once again allow others in the opinion-making institutions to define the candidates, the issues and the battlefield. We do have some indications they are awakening from their shameful slumber. But I will believe it when I see it in 2012.
August 10, 2011 - 4:01 pm Link to this Comment | Reply-
I understand your blaming the American People. Its a fair cop.
But, I think its clear by now that the given a choice between an Establishment Luzer like Bush Sr., Dole, or McCain vs. the Anointed Democrat of the Year, that the American People will vote for the ADY.
THIS is why we need a no holds barred, full-on, make the liberals scream of the dark night of Christofascism, Social Conservative (which includes fiscal conservatism for the clueless) Happy Warrior.
No more Libertarian or RINO types.
We could do quite well with Palin/Bachmann 2012, and John Bolton as SecState, and Dave Ramsay as SecTreas, and Judge Roy Moore as Attorney General. Feed it down the liberals throat with a pitchfork with a hissing dynamite stick wired to it.
They're going to smear us anyways. As the country song says….Let's give them something to talk about.
August 10, 2011 - 4:42 pm Link to this Comment | Reply-
tom swift
"Social Conservative (which includes fiscal conservatism for the clueless)"
Absurd. Social conservatism doesn't subsume fiscal conservatism. The two concepts are totally unrelated. Recognition of this obvious fact has been the most important development in American politics of the past half-decade.
There are two groups trying to push the fantasy that the two philosophies are intrinsically related (in a more fundamental way than a partial similarity of names). First, social conservatives themselves, presumably because they don't want to be left behind by the surging popularity of fiscal conservatism. And second, our Leftoids, who hope to confuse the electorate into thinking that fiscal conservatives suffer from the same glaring faults as do the social conservatives. But it's a load of rubbish.
August 10, 2011 - 5:18 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
Kudos, Mr. Swift.
As a pretty classical libertarian (with the exception of the Libertarian [note case of "L"] views on foreign policy, and joining with the about 50% of us that are pro-life), I, too, draw a clear and bright line between fiscal issues and "social" issues in the sense of the intrusion of the gov't into one's private life. I've never been able to find any rational reconciliation between a view that wants the government completely out of your financial affairs and out of your wallet, yet thinks it's perfectly OK for the gov't to be sitting in your living room or bedroom dictating those activities you and any other consenting adults in the area can or can't engage.
Since at this stage of my life there's a lot more going on in my wallet than my bedroom, I generally vote Republican, and will probably continue to do so until (or if) there's a viable party that more consistently represents my views.
However, having said that, there is a pretty strong libertarian and fiscal conservative strain in the R party that I applaud; I would suggest to you, sir, that you accept your allies where you find them. I have.
August 12, 2011 - 10:30 am Link to this Comment
Doug Dever
"THIS is why we need a no holds barred, full-on, make the liberals scream of the dark night of Christofascism, Social Conservative (which includes fiscal conservatism for the clueless) Happy Warrior… No more Libertarian or RINO types."
I'm calling shenanigans. Eight years of "Compassionate Conservatism" taught all of us "small l" libertarians that voting for the social conservative in no way, shape, or form promises any sort of fiscal restraint. It's pure smoke and mirrors. It's the equivalent of what the Democratic party tells black voters: "Vote for us. You know deep down we're really not on your side, and if you actually stopped and thought about it you'd see we've repeatedly passed legislation that ultimately screws you, but common knowledge says we're more on your side than the other guy. Imagine what a nightmare THAT would be."
August 10, 2011 - 8:16 pm Link to this Comment | Reply-
Fear the Same
Not all Social Conservatives are Gersonites. W's brand of "Compassionate Conservative" politics proved expensive in the long run, and Huckabee would be a bad choice. But in general if you look at the most hardcore Social Conservatives, you find a better fiscal record, than their opposite number. Compare Arlen Specter who ran in 1996 as a Pro-Choice Reaganite to Rick Santorum.
August 10, 2011 - 10:36 pm Link to this Comment
Yeah, after 2004 Ann Coulter said the same thing too. How did that work out in 2006 and 2008? How about focusing on the constitution and small, limited-government before trying to pursuade us that homosexuals should be criminals and fear their own government (and other things).
You might find out a classical liberal (not anarcho-capitalist) country is to your liking. We both agree to push back on socialism and great society programs. Let's focus on that, and accomplish that task.
August 11, 2011 - 5:06 pm Link to this Comment | Reply
great odds? it scares the hell out of me,
August 11, 2011 - 4:07 am Link to this Comment | Reply
3. Sharpshooter
He got rid of the transportation cartels (actually that was Kahn), but gave us the Dept of Education and Dept of Energy.
August 10, 2011 - 9:58 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
Adobe Walls
He'll rot in Hell for creating those two agencies.
August 10, 2011 - 4:42 pm Link to this Comment | Reply
4. Bugs
I don't believe Americans were sold a pig in a poke. The pig was in plain view the whole time. The people stuck a crown on it, put it up on a pedestal, and called it the Saviour. It was just a pig, but people saw what they wanted to see.
August 10, 2011 - 9:59 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
Agreed. I am tired of conservatives letting the Obama voters off the hook. He did NOT run as a moderate. He ran on wealth redistribution, bitter clingers, energy costs skyrocketing, bankrupting the coal industry, and America apologizing. He ran as the far-leftist he is. People wanted all the "free" goodies he promised, till they found out that that "free" is actually very expensive.
I don't know why conservatives want to let voters off the hook by repeating the same old myth that "Obama ran as a moderate." He ran as a childish, Marxist wannabe and voting for him was a childish, Marxist wannabe act.
August 10, 2011 - 1:55 pm Link to this Comment | Reply-
That wasn't exactly my point. He ran as a childish Marxist what-have-you, but I don't think it mattered. He could have run as a Know-Nothing Free-Soiler Mugwump with the same result. The people saw ONLY what they wanted to see: their Saviour. It was all projection. There are some sick, desperate people out there.
August 10, 2011 - 3:00 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
Also, I don't want to tar all Obama voters with the same brush. A lot of people simply vote Democrat or Not-Republican. Hillary was damaged goods. Edwards became damaged goods. That pretty much left Obama. Some people probably voted for Anybody-But-Bush. I'm sure many people of goodwill helped put Obama in office. The ones I refer to are the starry-eyed weirdos, the ones with the thrills in their legs, the ones who cried tears of joy at his inauguration. The MSM, the intelligentsia, and Oprah.
It's simple. One man never starts out as great as they claimed Obama was. For some reason, they front-loaded Obama with superhuman abilities before he'd even done anything. Got the Nobel Prize before he'd even done anything. It's like they really, truly believed in his motto, "Hope." That's what I don't understand. Although I frequently feel "Hope" when I vote for someone, it's more like "I hope this guy doesn't f**k up the country." I can't imagine a sane American hoping for anything more.
August 10, 2011 - 3:13 pm Link to this Comment | Reply-
John Stephens
No excuses. I may someday forgive those who voted for Obama, but I will NEVER forget.
August 10, 2011 - 3:36 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
Bus I ly agree with you. I used to like and respect oprah winfry. NOT ANYMORE. I dont even allow her on my tv set anymore,
August 11, 2011 - 4:18 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
Micha Elyi
Tar 'em with a different brush then. But tar 'em.
August 12, 2011 - 5:09 am Link to this Comment | Reply
Rick C
"I don't know why conservatives want to let voters off the hook by repeating the same old myth that "Obama ran as a moderate." He ran as a childish, Marxist wannabe and voting for him was a childish, Marxist wannabe act."
The media did a LOT of covering for him, since that's who they wanted to win. A lot of voters voted for the sanitized image the media presented, not what Obama actually ran as.
August 10, 2011 - 4:16 pm Link to this Comment | Reply-
Insufficiently Sensitive
A lot of voters voted for the sanitized image the media presented, not what Obama actually ran as.
That nailed it. And further, the media did about 0.5% of what it should have done in vetting this accomplishment-free pig in its glamorous poke.
No school papers nor grades, no history of his actions in State government (other than spreading a rumor that all such records had been destroyed), no delving into his Chicago-politics past nor his ridding ballots of opponents – and no attention whatever to his ONLY previous executive experience, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, where he presided over the spending of $160,000,000 intended for the betterment of children's education, to no effect beyond enriching selected groups of political 'community activists'.
Far more media effort was made in digging up dirt on Sarah Palin after her nomination. And all that that following a six-year negative media campaign against his presidential predecessor, carried on in editorials and 'news' articles alike.
Those in charge of the MSM from 2003 to 2008 have a hell of a lot to answer for, in the matter of the decline of the United States of America.
August 10, 2011 - 5:03 pm Link to this Comment | Reply-
Didn't he also make the HUD money disappear? That's two, I'm just saying.
August 10, 2011 - 6:12 pm Link to this Comment -
America voted for Obama to prove (to themselves) they weren't racist. They ignored his background, his policies, his books, his friends, his relatives, and his total lack of experience, because they wanted to vote for a black man. The majority of the population (boomers) wanted to expiate guilt. He accomplished the only thing they wanted from him on day one, to wit, getting sworn in as America's first black president. Mission accomplished.
Now, if they voted for him to prove they aren't racist, hopefully they'll vote against him to prove they aren't idiots.
August 11, 2011 - 2:28 pm Link to this Comment -
I absolutily agree. The msm should be prosocuted for fraud the way they covered for odumbo. I blame his election on them just look at the covers ot time magazine ect. they made him into a god as apposed to the real truth of the devil he really is.
August 12, 2011 - 12:47 am Link to this Comment
Didn't matter.
Because the GOP was the incumbent party, holding the White House–and the question the voters had was: What is the GOP running on?
Was McCain running on conservative principles? No.
Other than his quirky obsession with earmarks, I could never figure out what McCain's vision for the future was. Nor did he have much idea what to do about the financial crisis that had just erupted.When the incumbent party is perceived as having screwed up and having no answers, the voters will pick the challenger even if they have doubts about him or disagree with him on some issues.
That was certainly the case in 1980, when millions of voters chose Reagan over the incumbent Carter. Reagan hadn't run as a "moderate" either.
August 10, 2011 - 4:38 pm Link to this Comment | Reply-
This is a good point. I know a lot of people who voted for Obama because "the Democrats can't screw things up worse than the Republicans have."
I would guess a lot of those people are realizing they were wrong. Things are never so bad that someone else can't screw them up worse.
August 10, 2011 - 10:00 pm Link to this Comment | Reply-
Years ago, Heinlein observed that the difference between bad and worse is much greater than the difference between good and better.
Sadly, few people are able to accept this simple fact without firsthand experience.
August 10, 2011 - 10:09 pm Link to this Comment
47% of us saw a pig in 2008. That's a lot of clear-eyed people. It's got to be much higher now.
August 10, 2011 - 3:37 pm Link to this Comment | Reply
5. rbj
Carter at least deregulated the airline and natural gas industries.
"Maybe he really believed all those stoned-out-of-his-mind late-night Harvard bull sessions."
I'm coming more to the belief that Dear Liar is a naive tool, he actually does believe those things and is willing to be used by George Soros to bring about "fundamental transformation" because he actually thinks it will bring about skittles spewing unicorns who frolic amongst lollipop trees. Whereas Soros just simply wants to control the masses.
Hillary! would have been her own master, which Soros couldn't abide, which is why he picked The Whine.
August 10, 2011 - 10:03 am Link to this Comment | Reply-
Old Soldier
That's what I was thinking. As much as I despised Carter and his depressing whimpering, he did have a genuine desire for economic recovery. Maybe as a farmer he had been on the receiving end of onerous regulations. His deregulations efforts helped set the table for the Reagan recovery.
Obama is doing the exact opposite. New regulations are coming out by the thousands. That Dodd bill looks worse than SOX and the EPA seems to have gone wild without any additional legislation. It is going to take the next Administration a long time to dig out of this mess.
August 10, 2011 - 1:24 pm Link to this Comment | Reply
6. Mark
You ask the question 'Why?' At the end of the post, and I think it bears consideration on the issues you raised. To my mind, the why is simple, he is a Zealot, a true believer. People of this mindset cannot and will not accept any other viewpoint, method, or quite simply reality, because to do so would destroy their internal universe.
The problem with zealots is, as many of us are living it, that they and their inner circle get other people hurt or killed because their way is the only way. Thus, those that are casualties are viewed by the true believers as either not good enough to be true believers, unfortunate but necessary losses in their crusade or the enemy who must be crushed.
All failure to a zealot is the fault of those who do not believe or are not zealous enough, they are not responsible.
August 10, 2011 - 10:41 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
7. Dave in VA
You can't lead if you're never willing to take a specific stand on pretty much anything, which this guy hasn't done. He says, "uh, we should like tax millionaires" but doesn't say which, or how, or how much, which are pretty critical details. When he does think up a specific recommendation, like taxing private aircraft, it's such a stupid idea that he gets slapped down immediately and doesn't come back to the party (witness his 0-97 budget proposal). So we get more of this vaporware-style recommendations like "tax rich people" and "make some modest entitlement cuts" and "spend on stuff" with no specifics. To lead you have to have the guts to back up the platitudes with specific ideas, to debate the ideas, and then to charge for their implementation. I don't think I've ever seen a president in history that was so disengaged. And IMHO, there's your leadership epic fail right there.
August 10, 2011 - 11:40 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
8. cfbleachers
Hell, at this point we might wind up with Billy Carter…deep bows to jihadists who have him in their pockets and peeing on the lawn.
August 10, 2011 - 12:11 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
9. alanstorm
One thing Carter did right: he signed a law making home-brewing beer legal. I'm sure he must have done SOMETHING else notable…
August 10, 2011 - 12:44 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
10. proreason
The difference is that Jimmy Carter did not grow up in an envirnoment filled with America haters. His loony leftist ideas are his own, not ones that have been spooned into his brain for him. And he's not a hater. He's just a seriously mis-guided man. Carter is one of the rarest of breeds..a True Believer.
August 10, 2011 - 1:13 pm Link to this Comment | Reply-
Carter is absolutely a hater. He calls Hamas a legitimate government and refuses to allow Israel to defend herself. He insists Israel allow Hamas to continue to plummet Israel with rockets because Hamas has really bad aim. You do not come up with statements like that unelss you truly hate the Jewish people. Carter is a JudenHaus, no question.
August 10, 2011 - 1:59 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
"…Jimmy Carter did not grow up in an envirnoment filled with America haters…"
Now, Yankees, that's another matter.
August 10, 2011 - 4:19 pm Link to this Comment | Reply
11. Bulgaricus
Obama is simply a stubborn fool.
August 10, 2011 - 1:43 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
12. Josh Scholar
So the right wing memes have been shifting
No longer is it:
Obama is a foreigner, Muslim, Communist who is deliberately destroying America in order to bring the fall of capitalism and Christendom.Now its:
Obama is the dumbest president in history (you know how these black people are).Beautiful.
The total lack of objective reporting on the underlying issues is striking. And you know what I'm too tired short of time to do it myself at the moment, I have work to do.
See you nuts in the funny papers.
August 10, 2011 - 2:05 pm Link to this Comment | Reply-
Who had the the Over for 4PM Eastern on "Racists?"
Anyway, Josh — you'll find my coverage of Obama has been quite consistent. With the exception of a brief period during the President-elect's transition, when he was bringing old Clinton hands on board, I thought he might just prove to be a Clinton-style pragmatic centrist.
Boy, was I wrong. But only for a week or two.
Otherwise, no, you'll find no mentions from me of Obama being a closet this or a secret that or a Cloward-Piven Commando. I haven't said those things because I don't believe them. And my unofficial policy here for comments is a simple one: Truthers will be banned, birthers will be mocked. I take no conspiracy bullshit for either side.
"Racers" like yourself, Josh, will be taken on directly. And you will lose, every time.
Because accusations of racism-without-foundation doesn't shut people up anymore, Josh. And since that's the only card you have to play, you're a loser.
Now skeddadle while the serious folks try to figure out a way to salvage the last 32 months and the next 16 along with them.
August 10, 2011 - 2:13 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
Andrew P
Obama brought on Clintonites because he is beholden to the same rich banksters that Clinton was – the Geithner, Rubin and Summers crowd. After all, those Wall Street types put a lot of dough into his campaign, and most of the super-rich are actually Democrats. Obama is actually very easy to understand. He does everything for his high-maintenance base voters. The unions, the banksters, and the enviro-wackos. He doesn't need to do much for the Blacks except simply be there as they give him unconditional love, and he does the bare minimum for the poor to keep their support.
Obama knows that to win in 2012 he must turn out the base even harder than he did last time, while demonizing the Republicans. It will be a base election like 2004. And he has a shot at it because that above-mentioned unconditional love makes states like VA and NC swing states.
August 12, 2011 - 2:16 am Link to this Comment | Reply
Scholar, dude, this ain't reporting. It's blogging. Learn the difference.
August 10, 2011 - 3:16 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
It is not racist to criticize Obama.
It is racist to not criticize Obama.
The man has been an abysmal failure. An empty suit ("Present") for the last 20 years of his life. No record of his performance as a student in college or law school. No record of any scholarship. He wore his expensive suits well and could read from a teleprompter like a lightening bolt. More money than ever thought possible poured in from his bundlers, much of it illegally generated from outside the US.
To give him a pass is to say that because he's black he should be judged by a lesser standard. Let's lower the limbo pole of history so he can scoot under it.
There are many people who are good at taking advantage of opportunities that come their way in life; in this respect, Obama is no exception. But it is only Obama who is supposed to be free of criticism because he is 'black'.
August 10, 2011 - 3:28 pm Link to this Comment | Reply-
Don't you mean "raise the limbo" stick?
August 10, 2011 - 3:37 pm Link to this Comment | Reply
Josh, why do you hate black people so much that you have to blame the President's ineffectiveness and repeated failures on his race? Mr. Green and company are just pointing out facts, completely independent of anything but the President's track record. *You're* the one trying to directly tie the facts of an abysmal record to the accident of his race.
August 10, 2011 - 4:29 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
This is not a site for objective reporting. It's a site for commentary.
And incidentally, Richard Dawkins' theory of "memes" is nothing but pseudo-scientific poppycock.
August 10, 2011 - 4:39 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
Nate Whilk
Actually, Josh, without saying if any of those things is true, he COULD be ALL of those things. As a president, he's dumb. That doesn't mean he's stupid at everything.
"The total lack of objective reporting on the underlying issues is striking"
And where would we find this objective reporting? The NY Times? The BBC? MSNBC? NPR? Don't make me laugh.
August 10, 2011 - 5:19 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
What do you care? Are you writing a book on memes or something?
August 13, 2011 - 10:53 am Link to this Comment | Reply
13. Veeshir
He's got you there Stephen, I remember when you were saying Obama was not a citizen but was Muslim, and, as the first commenter noted, you are a racist. Always with the minority bashing.
That's Mr. Scholar for clearing that up for me.
Eh, for me I don't know if Obama is smart or not.
I will say that he obviously knows far too much to learn anything.
Which is functionally the same as stupidity, but doesn't necessarily stem from stupidity.August 10, 2011 - 2:20 pm Link to this Comment | Reply-
Carter was no idiot — he was a naval nuclear engineer, few crissakes. But once in office, he did prove to be an ineffectual leader and something of a dumbass. Dumbassery has nothing to do with native intelligence. George W. Bush, not so bright as Carter or Obama, but (somewhat) less of a dumbass.
And Obama? Ditto on brains — the man was a law lecturer and an accomplished author. And ditto on the ineffectuality — and he's looking to be even more of a dumbass than Carter.
What strike me is this: A person's race (or sexual orientation for that matter) is almost always the least interesting thing about an individual. Cripes, but you'd have to be a real doorknob of a charmer for the color of your skin to be your most outstanding trait.
So why these pedantic liberals continue to focus like a laser on it, I have no idea.
No, wait — the answer I was looking for was right there in the word "pedantic."
August 10, 2011 - 2:32 pm Link to this Comment | Reply-
Locomotive Breath
Jimmy Carter was NOT a naval nuclear engineer. When he came through the US Naval Academy there was no such thing as nuclear engineering. He was in Rickover's nuclear program for less than a year. He attended nuclear power school that would have allowed him to train to be an operator. His father died before he could finish and Carter went home to run the family peanut farm. Thus his limited experience in the nuclear (he pronounced it "nucular") navy in no way made him an engineer.
August 10, 2011 - 3:39 pm Link to this Comment | Reply-
Still, he had Rickover's approval, something rather difficult to obtain.
August 10, 2011 - 3:54 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
I had Rickover's approval (not as rigorous as for an officer – he probably only looked at my paperwork) and I qualified as a rod yanker. My final qual board was a 3 1/2 hour grilling when most guys got only one. And they put twice as many on my board as was usual and the top guys. I only missed one question.
I was told I had the best qual score of any one for the past two or three years. Despite the fact that the guy questioning me on plant mechanicals gave me only a 3.2 – the top grade he ever gave to a non-Machinist Mate.
Before I found out Carter had not qualified I was impressed. After I found that out – not so much.
I was still a Democrat back then and Carter as President just depressed me.
August 12, 2011 - 12:52 am Link to this Comment -
Locomotive Breath
Never the less. While it was hard to get into Rickover's program it was even harder to finish. Carter didn't.
As someone who is an actual engineer, qualifying to operate a reactor is far less demanding than actually designing one which is what nuclear engineers do.
Jimmy Carter never was and never had the potential to become an nuclear engineer.
August 12, 2011 - 5:43 am Link to this Comment
This is kind of fun. Liberals try to throw the racist bomb and get smacked down without hesitation. Good going! Take away their one idea and what do they have?
August 10, 2011 - 5:36 pm Link to this Comment | Reply
14. Larry J
I was in the military during Carter's administration. It sucked big time. Our equipment was mostly worn out from the Vietnam war and few replacements were ordered. Ammo stockpiles in Europe were very low. If war had broken out, we would've been out of ammo within a few days. On any given day, 20+% of our military planes were down for maintenance due to a lack of spare parts. If war had broken out, the plan was to strip another 20% of the planes for parts to try and keep some planes in the air, but our planes were already outnumbered by 3:1. During FY79 and FY80 when inflation was running in the mid to high double digits, we were given pay raises a full 10% less than the inflation rate because he wanted to set an example. However, he was so weak politically that no one else followed his example, we just got an effective 20% pay cut. He was a micromanager to the nth degree and it wouldn't surprise me in the least that is part of the reason for the Desert One debacle.
Carter sucked eggs but Obama is even worse.
August 10, 2011 - 2:29 pm Link to this Comment | Reply-
Yeah. I was in the Army in Germany during the first part of Jimma's term, I ETS'd in '78. No re-up for me, I was fed up. We couldn't get parts for the vehicles, ammo for training was practically non-existent. No joke, we would have had to tow our inoperative vehicles into combat if the Russkies decided to roll across the border.
August 10, 2011 - 4:20 pm Link to this Comment | Reply
15. Neo
From Maureen Dowd …
"Obama's assumption that you can rise above ascribing villainous motives has caused him to waste huge chunks of his first term seeking bipartisanship from Republicans who were playing him for a dupe."
This line gives Obama (and the Republicans) too much credit.
It should read …
"Obama's assumption that he could rise above his personal inadequacies has caused him to waste huge chunks of his first term trying to 'will' his own predetermined outcome while the Republicans (and some Democrats) were hoping he would get a clue on how to negotiate in a bipartisan manner (or any manner for that matter). DC isn't Chicago after all."August 10, 2011 - 3:25 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
16. kwo
Regardless of his aptitude or his politics, Pres. Obama still occupies the Presidency of the United States, our most important political office. Calling him "dumbass" is cheap and coarse, and diminishes the office of President. It also undercuts your otherwise cogent argument.
August 10, 2011 - 3:27 pm Link to this Comment | Reply-
But what if President Downgrade really is a dumbass?
Barry has done more to diminish that office than anything Stephen has ever done or said.
August 10, 2011 - 3:57 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
tom swift
It's becoming more obvious by the day that Obama is a very small man sitting behind a very large desk.
Pointing that out doesn't make the desk any smaller.
August 10, 2011 - 4:49 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
If you study American history, you'll learn what they called other Presidents.
Thomas Jefferson's political surrogates called John Adams a hermaphrodite.
The national hero, Davy Crockett, publicly accused President Martin van Buren of being a transvestite.
Isolationists held rallies in which they said that President Franklin Roosevelt was "worse than Hitler."
I can't even repeat here the names that the antiwar leftists called President Lyndon Johnson.
American politics is no game for the weak.
That's why Obama is losing so badly at it.August 10, 2011 - 4:49 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
Where were you when George Bush assassination chic was sweeping the world?
Dumbass can't even take criticism and neither can his supporters stand hearing any.
August 10, 2011 - 5:27 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
Chris Mallory
The office of the president is still a government employee. He works for US. The respect flows from his office to the citizens, not from the citizens to their employee.
August 11, 2011 - 3:30 pm Link to this Comment | Reply
17. Dave
Shorter Stephan Green: "Maybe, Barack Obama is just a dumbass."
Yeah, I know it's not long enough for a blog post, but that's all you really needed to say, dude.
August 10, 2011 - 3:30 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
18. Popcorn
Check your info on Carter's nuke engineering. While it was much touted, I don't think he actually finished up.
August 10, 2011 - 3:36 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
19. wheels
I was also in the military during the Carter years. I remember the lack of ammo; it affected not only the small arms team I was a member of, but also the yearly qualifications for Shore Patrol and others – they weren't done. Once you were qualified, you never practiced, and you didn't requalify. I also remember Navy Chiefs getting out with 18 years, rather than put in the two years they had remaining until retirement. Doing more with less, rather than being a cliche, was an overwhelming weight.
Back then, the Navy's recruiting advertising slogan was, "It's not just a job, it's an adventure." The common restatement where I was stationed was, "It's not just a job, it's a f*** job."
There were a lot of dispirited military members back then, and I don't doubt that Obama is creating a similar atmosphere.
August 10, 2011 - 3:37 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
20. kev
While I yield to none in my disdain for Carter (both the past and present version), I will gladly acknowledge his one unmistakeable service to the United States: After the 1980 Democratic Primary season, no one ever again seriously considered Ted Kennedy as a Presidential candidate. And that was all Jimmeh's doing. He truly did whip the boy's ass.
August 10, 2011 - 3:37 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
21. buzz
"Carter was no idiot — he was a naval nuclear engineer". Uh….no. He graduated from the US Navel Academy with a general Bachelor of Science degree. He started his nuclear power training on March 1, 1953 in the navy. His father passed away in July of that year and he was honorably discharged from the navy in October of that same year. One does not become a nuclear engineer in 6 months (assuming he remained in school thru his fathers death and up to the date of discharge). His service record says he was assigned to the crew that would eventually man the USS Seawolf, but construction on that Sub didn't even begin until a month before he left the navy. He has represented himself as a naval nuclear engineer, and he most likely would have been one had he stayed in the navy, but that doesn't make him a naval nuclear engineer. The statement should read "Carter was no idiot, he had the potential to be a navy nuclear engineer."
August 10, 2011 - 3:42 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
22. Steve White
Mr. Green suggests that the difference between Mr. Carter and Mr. Obama is that the former tried to learn from his mistakes and make corrections as he went along.
I was around for Mr. Carter, and let me suggest an alternative explanation: Carter was surrounded by more centrists and pragmatists in the Democratic-led House and Senate.
Whereas Carter dealt with Tip O'Neil and Robert Byrd, Mr. Obama dealt (and still does) with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. O'Neil was a big-city liberal but not a progressive, and Byrd was a centrist even for the 1970s. Jimmuah couldn't get too far left before running into some firm boundaries in the Congress, whereas Bambi would have to take the Looney Express to get to the left of San Fran Nan. The 'liberal' Democrats of the 1970s Congress weren't nearly as nutty as the progressives of today, at least when it came to public speaking and voting. They had some modicum of self-control. They had some understanding of what could and couldn't be done.
Mr. Green also notes in the comments that Jimmuah was a nuclear engineer. Jimmuah had had some introduction to reality and to responsibility — he had to in order to survive in Rickover's nuclear Navy. Jimmuah had had some introduction to political compromise and negotiation — he had to in order to be a governor (and remember, he was reasonably well regarded as one).
Whereas Bambi has been an academic and community organizer, and neither of those are known for their encounters with either reality or responsibility. Bambi hadn't ever had to make and live with a tough decision before January 20, 2009. It shows.
So Jimmuah may be a feckless, irascible old coot these days. He was certainly a failed President. But Bambi is looking more and more not to be Jimmy: he's looking more and more like James Buchanan.
That should worry us all.
August 10, 2011 - 3:44 pm Link to this Comment | Reply-
John Campbell
Good points to remember.
I said in 2008 that Obama would make Jimmy Carter look like Abraham Lincoln, and he is on his way.
But no, I didn't invent the internet.
August 10, 2011 - 4:06 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
"The 'liberal' Democrats of the 1970s Congress weren't nearly as nutty as the progressives of today, at least when it came to public speaking and voting. "
Are you serious?
The Democrats elected to the House in 1974 were the Vietnam/Watergate generation. They were nearly all former antiwar protesters, strongly left-wing. It was actually the reverse of what you're describing: They revolted against Carter's budget cuts and backed Ted Kennedy in his attempt to primary Carter.
Some of their names you should recognize: Tom Downey, Henry Waxman, Tom Harkin. They all won their first seats (House) in 1974.
Tip O'Neill very much wanted national health care passed. It was Carter who decided we couldn't afford it.
The Senate wasn't as far to the left, but that's only because only one-third of the Senate gets elected every two years–and there weren't that many opportunities for leftists to pick up seats.
Carter was more centrist than the House Dems. I still remember his answer in 1977 to a female reporter who asked him whether budget cuts meant that poor women would no longer be able to afford abortions:
CARTER: "There are a lot of things that rich people can afford that poor people cannot. That is why it's better to be rich than to be poor. The question is whether government should reduce those differences, particularly when there is a moral issue involved."
No "progressive" would say something like that.
August 10, 2011 - 5:00 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
The critical point here is even more troubling. Carter was WILLING to listen to the opinions of his congressional leaders as well as of the other 'old dragons' of the party that had fought Hitler and the Soviets for half a century.
The current US president is famous for soliciting opinions, arguing with them because they do not concur with his and rebuking those opinions to move in his own predetermined direction.
None are so blind as those who will not see.
August 11, 2011 - 2:51 pm Link to this Comment | Reply
23. Statler Waldorf
"He will continue to demand that reality conform to his theories…"
Heh. Baghdad Barry
August 10, 2011 - 3:45 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
24. buzz
"Pres. Obama still occupies the Presidency of the United States, our most important political office. Calling him "dumbass" is cheap and coarse, and diminishes the office of President. It also undercuts your otherwise cogent argument."
Absolute nonsense. He occupied the office of President. Not king. One of many nice things about this country is you get to call the President a dumbass. Especially if he is a dumbass.
August 10, 2011 - 3:49 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
25. Bart Hall (Kansas, USA)
For many years I enjoyed a close friendship with one of Carter's 1946 Naval Academy classmates, now deceased. When Carter was nominated for President in 1976 my friend said, "If he's elected it will not turn out well." Of course I asked him why not. His response is still somewhat jarring.
"Back at our 25th reunion [in 1971] the man was actively avoided by nearly all his classmates, because we all knew him to be nothing but a dithering weakling, completely unfit to command even a rowboat."
August 10, 2011 - 3:52 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
26. Marty
I never bought the idea of Carter as the standard for the worst-ever President.
Buchanan. Look what he turned over to Lincoln on March 4, 1861.
My concern at this point is that in some very troubling ways, Obama is setting the US up for civil unrest, military weakness, and a failed economy that would be second only to the disaster of 1861. He is divisive. He ignores the real problems and works against those who are trying to solve or ameliorate them. The economy is a social as well as an economic catastrophe, and he owns it from the day the ARRA passed. He stands athwart any attempt at entitlement reform, after his health care law made the Medicare and Medicaid problems far worse. He repeatedly strives for policies that cripple the economy's ability to grow and employ people. His reactionary presence makes it more difficult to progress on a whole range of issues that cry our for attention, and if not addressed will grow worse and worse.
August 10, 2011 - 3:54 pm Link to this Comment | Reply-
Bart Hall (Kansas, USA)
It's even worse than that. If you're familiar with the work of demographers Strauss and Howe you'll be aware that for the first time in 150 years we have an aging "Prophet" generation divided into two halves that utterly detest each other. The primary goal of Prophet generations is "dead enemies" and once familiar with the model it isn't hard to watch the coming crisis era unfolding along those very same fault lines. It is unlikely to be pretty, or even peaceful.
August 10, 2011 - 4:20 pm Link to this Comment | Reply
27. stuart williamson
It is happening, just as the Axelrod strategy expected: as our Frontman falters, all criticism shall be called racist hatred to deny rationality a voice in debate. PJM should, absolutely, deny posting rights to those who employ racism from either side.
You touch an the true difference between Obama and Carter, Carter had lived in the workaday world and served in the Navy. His ideas were his own, and he applied some element of pragmatism to his decisions. Obama is not only lacking in management and governance skills, he is not a creative thinker and is rigidly doctrinaire. He does not "lead from behind", he is pushed from behind. As he told Cameron in london, on an open mic, his methodis to have "people who are smarter than I am" do the planning, and then he'll deliver the message.
Perception of strategy should not be confused with Conspiracy theory. The irony of today's situation is that the Chicago group of Socialist Democrats who fostered his candidacy were very much aware of his history of advancement through patronage rather than leadership ability, lack of organizational management skills, mediocre legislative record, modest intellect, dependence on others for ideas and and direction. These short-comings were trumped by a spellbinding oratorical style, exotic name, "cool" appearance and attractive persona, great fluency in articulating the socialist mantras, resolute commitment to socialist dogma, and amenability to "handling" by those he considered smarter than himself. Slso, they were aware of his huge ego, thin skin, and inclination to grandiosity and material gratification. That he was likely, in office, to become increasingly arrogant and prone to gaffes and bumbling was also a concern. Believe me – he was thoroughly vetted by his sponsors, although they probably were less than frank with the DNC. But the winning strategy, brilliantly managed by Axelrod, was to capitalize on Obama's spellbinding capabilities, move quickly and unilaterally on legislative issues to accomplish as much change as possible before serious opposition arose, depending on the disfunctionally inept GOP to "reach across the aisle" and remain non-confrontational.
It worked for over two years. Then came the non-party "tea Party" movement, which they contemptuously dismissed. They have been blind-sided, just as their manipulated -from-behind Pinochio is being revealed as an unclothed king. Which is why David Axelrod, who remained strictly off-stage during the '08 campaign, is now out loudly proclaiming it is all the evil Tea Party's fault.
This is not "Conspiracy Theory." It is a rational analysis of a self-proclaimed Audacious socialist strategy which, through hubris, deceit and miscalculation, has been brought to its knees.
August 10, 2011 - 3:55 pm Link to this Comment | Reply-
They got what they wished for and now they are sorry.
August 10, 2011 - 4:50 pm Link to this Comment | Reply-
they are only sorry their parade got rained on – but they are attempting to press on anyway.
August 10, 2011 - 5:31 pm Link to this Comment | Reply
28. Pettifogger
If the American people buy it again, they won't be buying a pig in a poke. The cat is now out of the bag (whether or not that expression is related to the pig-in-a-poke one, as legend has it). The American people will know what they are getting and will deserve to get it good and hard (apologies to H.L. Mencken).
August 10, 2011 - 3:57 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
29. Big Doc
A serious question (i.e., I don't know the answer): did Obama–a law school "lecturer"– actually teach classes at U Chicago Law School? Or did he have a position on the faculty there as something like a research fellow? The answer matters for lots of reasons. If he was something like a research fellow, did he write and publish anything related to the legal field? Or did he only write and publish memoirs? Again, I'm really just curious to see if anyone out there knows the facts on this.
August 10, 2011 - 3:57 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
30. SongDog
My theory of the provenance of Obama is a bit different from those expressed in these comments. I think we, the conservatives and the Republicans, are at fault.
We stood aside or even ran for the hills, as the left was assaulting George Bush and Dick Cheney every day they were in office. Those who knew better were silent, not wanting to stick out their own necks for the left to chop off, and all the lies, myths and name calling began to stick and had their intended effect. By the end of his second term no one, not even so-called Republicans, would say a kind word for George Bush.
Now we can debate whether he deserved any support. I personally think he did. but that's really beside the point. We simply can't abandon our own and run for cover at the first hint of ugliness. The left never does. Charlie Rangel, many times a worse rascal than Bush or Cheney or Rove or any other Republican, is still in Congress. Ditto Maxine Waters. And Turbo Tax Geithner is now in charge of, among other things, tax collections!
Barack Obama coasted into office because it was almost impossible for a Republican and a conservative to mount a credible campaign against him, so poisoned were the minds of the American electorate. And it will happen again unless we stand up for what we believe and those who are our leaders, even with their evident human faults. I am not encouraged by the treatment of Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin. We have allowed the media and the left to make open support for either of them a badge of some kind of extremism.
Now 2012 should be a referendum on the Obama administration and the actions of the Reid-Pelosi Congress. But the left knows it can't run on its record. Its only viable option is to make the opposition candidates completely unacceptable and leave the Democrats the only electable candidates. In other words, the usual Democrat campaign.
If we allow this to happen we will be asking ourselves one frosty November morning, "What happened? What did our guy do wrong?"
Maybe, just maybe, he didn't do anything wrong, he just didn't have any help.
August 10, 2011 - 3:58 pm Link to this Comment | Reply-
Not sure I agree with you here. The MSM was always going to vilify Bush. Obama is doubling down on Bush strategy, and is getting no heat for it.
Plus, Bush is not a conservative. He is a Progressive. He is a Republican because he is religious and basically patriotic. The only respect I owe Bush is for the man; he was not a liar, he stood behind his decisions regardless of politics, and he did not insult his detractors. Obama is childish by comparison.
August 10, 2011 - 4:19 pm Link to this Comment | Reply
31. CynicSquared
Maybe he's accomplishing exactly what he always wanted. If it makes him look stupid, oh well. George Soros will still love him, and so will Michelle.
August 10, 2011 - 3:58 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
32. buzz
"Back at our 25th reunion [in 1971] the man was actively avoided by nearly all his classmates, because we all knew him to be nothing but a dithering weakling, completely unfit to command even a rowboat."
I don't know about that. He successfully not only commanded a row boat, but defended it against attack by that crazed rabbit. So he's got that going for him.
August 10, 2011 - 4:04 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
33. icc
"…the Smartest Man in the Room™ has proven unable or unwilling to learn on the job."
"He, being the Smartest Man on the Planet(SMP), not just in the Room, has nothing to learn from dumbass Americans. If dumbass Americans had 1/1000th of his brilliance, they would know the problem was them, not him. As things go now, the problem is the people on the Planet, not the SMP." Sayeth the 27% of Americans who believe the country is on the right course, i.e SEIU, the MSM, and all Big Govt. types.
August 10, 2011 - 4:05 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
34. Jim
Vodka, I think you're letting Carter off a little easy.
His energy policy wasn't just terrible. It was ruinous. And who in their right mind tries to fix prices? It was beyond stupid in the 1930s, and only an irrational idiot backed by cloistered academics would try it in the much more globalized 1970s.
The guy is sort of a weirdo. And THAT is about the best Obama can do. Because right now he's just a petulant Marxist who never really did anything his whole life, and he's bringing all that 'talent' to the Presidency. He is a walking, talking example of what happens when you view the whole world through the shallow prism of socialist politics. Do we really think world history is the story of the fight between workers and money? If so, how to explain Gates or Buffet?
No, the world was always about freedom to forge one's destiny from suffocating, bankrupting, oppressive bureaucracy. Money follows any good idea and even some bad ones.
August 10, 2011 - 4:06 pm Link to this Comment | Reply-
You're right about Carter; I was too busy with school and working to get into politics at all during those years, and I remember an obvious mood of despair during his reign. Gas lines were horrendous. Then the embarrassment of the Iran mission.
Even so; Obama is beyond that, and will surpass the incompetency.
The destruction he is leaving is like after a war. It's going to take a helluva lot to clean up.August 10, 2011 - 7:00 pm Link to this Comment | Reply
35. B Dubya
Robert Mugabe is the real Obama scenario.
He wrecked Zimbabwe, just as Obama is wrecking the United States.
It is going to end badly for both of them, as well it should.
With luck and courage, we will not all be sucked down with Obama's sinking ship of hope and change when it goes. I wish that ship to sink soon.
Mr. President, take Reid and Nancy Pelosi with you when you founder, please.
August 10, 2011 - 4:07 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
36. Lee Reynolds
His signature domestic achievements — ObamaCare and the stimulus — would be considered acts of war if imposed upon our nation by a foreign power.
Actually that is true for just about everything he's done since assuming office.
August 10, 2011 - 5:09 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
37. ked5
Carter was an idiot, with socialist tendencies. that's so sweet that you want to think obithegreatIwon is just an idiot. He's not "just" an idiot. He's a marxist who is systematically decimating the economy and business so he can "rescue" them with government welfare that he and his true-believers (with the money to support him) are not subject to. Orwell had it so right. some are more equal than others. the guy is beyond idiot, he is utterly dangerous with his devotions to marx and blind determination to impose it upon the rest of us.
August 10, 2011 - 5:14 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
38. Mike
What would have happened in the 80′s if a strong leader like Reagan had not come along?
Who will be the next President?
I am sorry if I ruined your sleep tonight.
August 10, 2011 - 6:48 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
39. Cybergeezer
I, as well as many readers and commenters here, have been saying for the last 5 years, what a disaster Obama would be.
I wouldn't even have my own blog if it weren't for that dope.
From a loser that hasn't ever run a lemonade stand, to a salesman that has to make a sale of the greatest nation on earth, that he never had any hand in making; AND HE STILL FLUNKS!!Many have already said what a mess it would be after he leaves; Are you seeing THAT yet?
He goes on vacation so he can rejoice in the damage he is responsible for in the stock market.
One thing keeps popping into my head; You can't put a shine on a turd.
August 10, 2011 - 6:49 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
40. Amos
I agree, but would go further.
Obama cannot change because this is who he is. Like McCain, Obama's moral and political philosophy derives from the self, rather than from conclusions that arise when you flip that relationship.
Barack Obama was raised to do and believe certain things. He affirmed that by telling us, in actually, somewhat cloaked language, abou the dreams of his missing Marxist daddy.
Jimmeh did what he did – and continues to do – because Jimmeh is looking for salvation. He's trying to save himself, and so he thinks he's got to do certain things, things you and I might think are atrocious, but things that might make sense if you crossed a kind of Evangelism with Progressive Jewish Tikkun Olam.
Obama does what he does because he believes that he is here to save us. Jimmeh wanted to do the right things. (Though I would disagree with his definition of what is right.)
Obama does what he does in order to make us into the right people.
Jimmy Carter can change direction a little because he can say he tried and maybe failed. Barack Obama cannot, because it is us who fails him. We're the ones who aren't listening well enough, who do not love hims completely enough, who resist his awesome wisdom with our self interest, ignorance and inattention.
August 10, 2011 - 6:52 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
41. toadold
I'm with Andrew Klavin, thank God for Obama, he has shown us how a hard core leftist governs before it is too late. In poll after poll lately [insert name here] beats him by 5 to 8 percentage points.
August 10, 2011 - 7:33 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
42. Got Change?
He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named is either the dumbest President since 1900, or evil. Take your pick.
Utter stupidity and incompetence are a plausible explanation for his actions.
OTOH, the trajectory of his administration (in cahoots with Dhimmi-cratic "leaders") makes it look more and more like he is intentionally trying to destroy our nation…"fundamentally transform it" in his words.
August 10, 2011 - 7:45 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
43. david levavi
I dunno. I think President Carter had more courage than you give him credit for. Consider his singlehandedly repelling the ravening white rabbit attempting to board the presidential skiff and make dinner of the Commander in chief.
"Avast, you long eared lubber," roared the President as he beat off the marauding beast with an oar.
It is not every chief executive who can wield an oar like President Carter. So badly trounced was the ferocious cottontail, that a week's hard search by the Secret Service brought no sign of the aquatic meat eating bunny and the President had to endure malicious insinuations by right wing activists that holy-rolling and talking in tongues and witnessing visions is not especially fitting preparation for the Oval Office.
Then there was the speech about jackrabbit starts and the importance of slow and steady. The President was ever vigilant to the threat of bunnyism. Jackrabbit quick off the line was not likely to win the race against the tortoise moseying along at fifty-five.
Oh yeah. I remember President Carter. His smile flickering on and off like a light bulb with a bad connection. Certainly the smile had no connection to what the President was saying it flickered on. As if he was a lemon sucking sourpuss who had trained himself to smile intermittently because voters liked it. But he just couldn't synchronize the mechanical and somewhat ghoulish smile with what was coming out of his mouth. All things considered, it was a minor fault because nothing that came out of his mouth was even faintly amusing.
Oh Yeah. I remember President Carter. A drag. A wet blanket. A party pooper. A pious hypocrite. A bitter Jew hater. A malevolent, mean-spirited sonovabitch, long on piety and short on charity. A creep from creepsville whose dispiriting pall hung over the nation like a suffocating fog.
Oh Yeah. I remember jimmy Carter.
August 10, 2011 - 10:31 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
44. Surellin
Credit where credit is due – Jimmy legalized home-brewing of beer.
August 11, 2011 - 10:49 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
46. hamidog
Social Justice Crusader: That's it, idiot: pull out the old race card. You're just like your socialist leader, you just don't get it. People aren't falling for that crapola anymore. Everyone who disagrees with you is a racist. Here's the truth: you, and your socialist pigdog buddies are the REAL racists. But your time has passed.
But please, please, please, keep your head up your a@@ until the 2012 elections have passed! You're in for a real treat!
P.S. Ever think about moving to London?
August 11, 2011 - 1:10 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
47. Stefan Stackhouse
Carter had the misfortune to be president at a terrible time. I suspect that had he been fortunate enough to be President during a more uneventful period, he would have been judged mediocre but OK. Had Reagan been elected in 1976 (and this is conceivable, he came very close to beating Ford for the Republican nomination), I suspect that we would have a different view of him today. He might have even been only a one-term president.
Once again, it is a bad time to be president. Anyone that we had elected might be looking pretty bad by now. Tough luck for Obama, but nobody forced him to run for the office.
Obama's failures should not surprise us. He is the most inexperienced and underqualified person we have ever elected to the presidency. By contrast, Carter had been a naval officer, a small businessman, and a state governor, and entered the White House with far more experience and qualifications than was the case with Obama.
I think it could fairly be said that Carter failed in spite of his qualifications and experience. It is starting to look like Obama is failing because of his lack of qualifications and his inexperience.
There is a very real possibility that Obama will end up not just being "another Carter", but actually making Carter look much better than he has for the past 30 years.
August 11, 2011 - 1:33 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
48. An Observation
It does not diminish the Office of the Presidency to call the holder of that office a dumbass.
What diminishes the Office of the Presidency is electing a dumbass to the Office.
The only real question concerning the Obama Presidency is: "Is he malevolent?" In other words was his destruction (In the classical sense – the opposite of construction) of the U.S. intentional or not. That he is destructive to the country is no longer an issue of debate for most people.
"Never ascribe to malice that which may be explained by stupidity." If conditions in the country during the Obama administration really were the rainbows and skittles that progressives were claiming it would be in 2008 – nobody would talking about having to decide between either malice or stupidity. As it is we do have to ascribe the behavior of this administration to one of those or the other.
I suspect from his recent behavior that Obama's internal polling must look really bad.
August 11, 2011 - 1:33 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
49. Jaime Hardisty
I am going out on a limb here, "Maybe, Barack Obama is just a dumbass." seems a likely answer. You can't be wrong that consistently and not be a dumbass.
August 11, 2011 - 1:38 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
50. Dan
The One just gave a speech in Michigan. He used the same old worn out lies about why the economy is bad, the earthquake in Japan, George Bush, etc. I won't say anymore cause I am tired of hearing it. A true leader will tell the truth even if it doesn't look good for him. I have more respect for people that take responsibility for their part in a problem. As it is, the current resident of the White House has lost any and all respect I might have had for him. The only way he can get any respect from me now is to admit his part in the countries problems and then resign.
August 11, 2011 - 1:39 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
51. Joanne
I'll definitely buy "dumbass." BO is surely that. What an idiot he is.
August 11, 2011 - 1:40 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
52. JohnLeeHooker
Let's see, he's NEVER worked outside of govt/academia, met a payroll, created a product/service, balanced a budget, negotiated a contract, risked his own capital in a startup, started a business….
August 11, 2011 - 1:46 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
53. datameister
these are all without a doubt THE BEST comment postings that I have read in a long time.
Awesome! And in total agreement with all except that whacko that said Obama is just misunderstood, and will be re-elected. Uh, I don't think that is going to happen.
August 11, 2011 - 1:48 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
54. George from Charlotte
Great read, but you do an injustice to Jimmy Carter by comparing the great "O" to him! Obama is a dumbass with an ego, a really bad combination!!
August 11, 2011 - 1:52 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
55. Alan Soulo
I hear no "racism" in this article. I am prettty sure a lot of white folks do drugs too!!! LOL Now referring to someone's past drug use even when they admit to it is considered "racist" if the guy is not white. Bush always denied his drug use other than alcohol and the media still insists he is lying. Hillary Clinton is just as radical in regards to her man-hating, Mao-loving, America as a "homophobic" nation as Obama ever was or is now. He just hid it much better with the help of the media and being about twenty years younger. He is definitely not love America the way Reagan or Eishenhower did. Bush 43 loved our country like the good President he was. This economic mess we are in now is because of 50 years of the lefty activists (Hillary Clinton) harassing the whole financial community to LOWER THE CREDIT STANDARDS for everyone but in particular "minorities". People spending other people's money has caught up to us. It is that simple!!! Obama is the epitome of this self-righteous elite. These systems and the ideas that animate them are crashing down and the China factor is the final nail in the coffin. It is ironic that the downfall of the Soviet Union and the opening to China (Nixon) is what finally did in the Socialists of the West. Obama making sure that the private enterprise stays down for the next few years will finally expose all the welfare systems of America as corrupt. Even Medicare and Social Security are ridiculous Ponzi schemes that were on their way to bankruptcy when people only lived to 68 years old. Obama wants to triple down on helping corrupt unions and the leftie regulators. By the way, Obama is not black…he just ain't right!!!
August 11, 2011 - 1:56 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
56. Justin
Thanks for this blunt, cogent argument why Obama should never have been elected in 2008 and why he should not be re-elected in 2012. In fact, if I were Obama reading your article, I would do what LBJ did in 1968: "I shall not seek, and I will not accept the nomination of my party for another term as your president." Then he can go and accept an academic chair at Harvard or some other Ivy League university where he can teach law. That is where he belongs, not in the White House. Of course, if he followed LBJ's example, the Democrats would no doubt nominate another socialist, big government, big spending, tax addicted person to run for the presidency. And that is not what we need right now.
August 11, 2011 - 1:58 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
57. Curmudgeon Killjoy
Obama has failed because his has been too timid in pursuit of the progressive agenda. To really spread the wealth around, you must redistribute both income and accumulated wealth. We can't just cut CEO compensation. Movie stars must make the same as every grip, the star quarterback must make the same as his backup. Mansions, like those in Hollywood, will have to be subdivided into condos, so that stars and the formerly homeless can live together. We must take all of the wealth in society and divide it equally among every person in the country (splitting the wealth only among citizens would be discriminatory). Each would be entitled to his or her share. Due to past inequality, some may sell their share of the productive assets (factories, equipment, stocks, bonds, and other stuff you can't immediately enjoy)in order to consume what they had been deprived of, and buyers of the productive assets would continue combining those assets with hard work and entrepreneurial savvy to make the assets productive and profitable. Because income inequality would likely start to rise again and lead to unequal wealth again, we should repeat the redistribution process every moneth. This would so frustrate the entrepreneurial strivers that they would quit all that inequality causing innovation and work, and pretty soon we would all be equally poor. This is how to make the Obama project succeed.
August 11, 2011 - 2:07 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
58. 69domer
Obama and Cater both lack ANY leadership ability or skills. The big difference between the two is that while Cater is a confident person, Obama is so self-absorbed that he is incapable of accepting criticism or ever admitting that he does not know the right answer. His personality condition, I believe, is pathological. I suspect that his condition was brought on by an overly-indulgent mother and all the adolation he received in college and law school. If one seeks to find that same condition in another famous black person, one need look only to one Tiger Woods. The similarities are frightening.
August 11, 2011 - 2:42 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
59. nicky
Obama wants credit but refuses to accept the responsibility leadership. he could have done DADT by executive order as commander in chief and then gotten congress to pass the DREAM Act. Instead he let congress legislate DADT and kicked DREAM down the road; who will the Hispanic voters turn to — republicans? Obama has a 'secret' plan for the economy what about transparency in his administration? He's gonna urge congress to come back again and again? WOW!! That's gonna show them who's boss… Somebody find a copy of leadership for dummies…please
August 11, 2011 - 2:42 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
60. Rich Wareing
"Maybe he really believed all those stoned-out-of-his-mind late-night Harvard bull sessions."
On my first day at Harvard Law School the Dean said "look to your left, look to your right." Everyone was expecting the traditional "one of those two people won't be here when you graduate." What we got was "those are the future judges, senators, and leaders of our country." Needless to say, it did little for our humility levels, which were alread dangerously low.
Never underestimate the ability of smart people to convince one another they are even smarter than they are, especially when living in isolation from anything that might actually put their abilities to a practical test.
August 11, 2011 - 2:51 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
61. gcblues
firm grasp of the obvious drunk pundit. you omit a very important quality both these men share. as outlined clearly in Novak's Prince of Darkness. Carter was terminally dishonest. he lied often. out right. when he knew it would later come to light. i have a kid like that. it is an innate character flaw with no cure because it is beyond logic. even when they know they are hurting themselves they lie. Carter and Barry are both of the same trait. how many obvious lies has barry told with a straight face. even when he knew they were lies. think of all the lies he said directly about obozo care, or even the debt limit discussions. jello is just a nice word for liar.
August 11, 2011 - 3:05 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
62. Steve
The real problem is that the people who voted for BO approve of his job performance and will vote for him again. No matter what BO does or does not do his loyal sheep will follow. That is the real problem. Over 40% of this country loves BO and want more of the same. Look at Harry and Nancy, over 50% of the people in their states voted them in again! We are in serious trouble and I think it's too late, sorry. All good things must come to an end.
August 11, 2011 - 3:23 pm Link to this Comment | Reply-
Steve, gotta disagree here.
- Only the diehards who voted for BO will do so again. The independents are all breaking against him, heavily in some states.
- Obama's job approval has fallen to 40% and continues to fall.
- Harry Reid won a nail biter election in a fairly blue state against an unknown GOP contender. A top-tier or even second-tier candidate would have won.
- Nancy Pelosi won re-election in San Francisco. Nothing strange or troubling about that. The loons who live in SF are still US citizens and deserve to have a loon represent them in DC.
- We are in serious trouble, but it's not too late. Things were actually in worse shape under Carter with high unemployment AND high interest rates. But the country experienced a rebirth under Reagan. It can do so again.August 11, 2011 - 4:31 pm Link to this Comment | Reply
63. Chris Mallory
At least Carter had the skills to build houses for poor people after he left office. Probably the best use of any ex president's time. With Obama we will be subject to 30+ years of his moral pronouncements on how bad the American people are.
August 11, 2011 - 3:26 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
64. Elide
Look, President Obama is slowly sinking. And it's happening slowly because he really did have the goodwill of the Country behind him. Even a fraction of that 48% who voted against him, wished him well. Warmed to the joyful faces of his Black supporters. It was about Race. How could it not be?
I think the real trajedy -the Country's been working its way toward this point for a lot longer than 10 years**- is that he failed to understand the historical gift bestowed upon him.
He could very easily be re-elected because so many of his competitors are as big a joke as he's become, and as many of us thought he was from the beginning.
Economically we're in a very bad position but still better than most Nations. According to Roubini (sp?) we're still the best, if ugly, bet going. What works or has worked Nationally -according to my perception of our economic structure- is argued as workable for the average American, but it never was and never can be. All work looked upon as honorable, matters. Savings matter. Actually owning most of what you buy, matters. Frugality matters.
The violence in Britain irrefutably demonstrates that the vacuum left by the abandonment of core values cannot be filled by anything the Left wants and tries to advance.
Koestler said that Socialists were who they were because they suffered from a redemption neurosis: 'he tried to blind his baby brother.' He also saw the neurosis exemplified by the ugliness of their women. Orwell thought this a 'penetrating' remark. Maybe not, but the bitterness -it was there from the beginning, graceless- of Obama's fans makes the neurosis thing interesting to contemplate.
President Obama did pull of a Disraeli type win. The huge difference is that Disreali's lower-class voters were probably literate and certainly had a decency that Orwell would still mention 150 years later.
August 11, 2011 - 3:26 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
65. cosifantutti
Not to worry. When VA Senator Jim Webb wrote a piece about the absurdity of affirmative action last July, I immediately checked to see when he was up for re-election. It was not until 2012. I knew then the Dems would get creamed in November, and sat back to enjoy the show. Worst "shellacking" in 72 years.
Same principle at work here. If the "C" word is being applied with 15 months to go, by Democrats, it's too late for Obama to recover. Icarus is not only falling, he's plunging with his "we are the ones we've been waiting for" wings on fire. As prior posters pointed out, he can't really ever fall below about 40 percent "approval" due to pigmentation voters and unions and kids who don't know any better. And he has "blue wall" electoral votes of about 211. But no way is he dreaming of NC, NH, FL, OH or any other swing state he got in '08. The dinosaur media is 4 years further into decline, and their base, geriatrics, has enough life experience to have soured on the phony message months ago. Independents are gone.
He's toast. Just wait it out. Conservatives will re-take the Senate too.
August 11, 2011 - 3:47 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
66. valwayne
BINGO! I was calling Obama, Jimmy Obama, almost 2 years ago, by way of comparing him to Jimmy Carter, Carter's failure of leadership, and his failed Presidency. However, for most of the past year I've stopped doing that. It is simply unfair to Jimmy Carter. Obama, in the failure, department has sunk well below Jimmy Carter, and inflicted far more damage on the nation. And as has been pointed out Jimmy Carter did seem to learn, even if ineffectively. Obama never deviates seemingly out of sheer arrogance and/or a true commitment to his left wing ideology/agenda!
August 11, 2011 - 4:11 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
67. Mr Mike
One other big difference between these men. Jimmy Carter grew up in a south that was still reeling from the after affects of the Civil War (or War of Northern Aggression if you prefer). He observed the effects of Jim Crow personally. He also lived his entire life in the US. He was raised in a traditional family with a mother and a father and his father loved America – he didn't hate it as Barack Obama Sr did. Finally and perhaps most importantly, Jimmy was educated not at an Ivy League school which does not even allow ROTC on campus and generally has no respect for the military – he went to the United States Naval Academy where he learned to be an officer and a gentleman and later served his country as a naval officer. So about the only trait they share is their inability to lead the country. At least President Carter had some humility about himself and the office he held and did not spend his time in office traveling the world at taxpayer expense without any real reason…and we won't even begin to contrast the southern grace and of Roslyn Carter with the globe trotting silliness of MO.
August 11, 2011 - 4:46 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
68. oljw00
The truth of the matter is this article is spot on. And largely why the left is lashing out in anger in a collective fit of misdirect animosity due to the simple fact they realize this cad isn't anywhere near what they had been sold.
August 11, 2011 - 4:47 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
69. richard40
Carter's brokering of the camp david peace accords between Egypt and Israel was a solid achievement, and his appointment of Volker to the fed very good. But his rationing and price control based energy policy was a disaster, and his policy in the Iran hostage situation not much better. He did start some military buildup, and also some deregulation, and even slowed spending growth somewhat, which was also good.
All in all, I would rate Carter as one of our worste recent presidents, but Obama as much worse. Obamas only real achievement is getting Bin Laden. Otherwise his policies have been either inneffective or disastrously counterproductive.
August 11, 2011 - 5:04 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
70. Tim
Obama, like Carter is going to do one thing perfectly. With they are adept handling of the office, they are paving the way for the Republicans to take the White house, Senate and Congress. Let's hope the Republicans can keep the wallet in the safe and not spend like a Democrat.
Obama He is proud, but has not honor. He is defiant, but has no courage.
August 11, 2011 - 5:16 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
71. dick
Is Jimmy eligible for another presidential term? Couldn't be any worse than what we have now.
August 11, 2011 - 5:27 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
72. Art Woosley
Obama now seen by Democrats as Jimmy Carter.
NY Times's Maureen Dowd recently quoted a Democratic senator moaning "we are watching Obama turn into Jimmy Carter right before our eyes."
Think all the talk about obama being smart is new? Think again. Look at this:
Anthony Lewis noted how listeners come away "struck most of all by how smart Carter is," and he found the Georgian's bid for the presidency "reminiscent of John Kennedy's emergence in 1960."
Mr. Carter was hailed as the intelligent outsider who was going to clean up Washington and forever change American politics. (sound familiar?)
BTW, at least Carter earned his Nobel prize for the Camp David Accords. whereas obama did absolutely nothing to get his except being black. Pretty lame reason. The disgrace was that the arrogant fraudulent brained obama accepted the award knowing full well he was non deserving of it.
August 11, 2011 - 6:09 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
73. Frank
Wow.. You have found a way to make Carter looke like far less of a train wreck then he and his administration really was.. Yes, the current group is far worse. The only positive is that he and his party doesn't have the control that they once had so some checks and balances have been restored. It is scary because I always thought that a President really couldn't do too much damage in only 4 years based on the way the system worked… I was as wrong as 52.9% of the country was in 2008. I only hope that the spell is broken….
August 11, 2011 - 8:41 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
74. Russ Watson
Nice! It was a pleasure to read! Go get'm Tiger!
August 11, 2011 - 9:05 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
75. Randy4
Well said! "Couldn't lead a dog to kibble"………………..a perfect description of our feckless president.
August 11, 2011 - 9:19 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
76. PerryM
There is a HUGE difference between Barack Hussein Obama mmm…mmm…mmm and Jimmy Carter and we all know what it is but we are all scared to death to talk about it.
It occurred when Obama was a kid and all his adult life on every form he ever filled out – it has to do with an "X".
If you haven't figured it out then here's a hint:
Race: [X] African-American [_] Caucasian
Obama had a choice, if he had reversed his choices you all know he would be an ACORN Street Organizer in Chicago……..
August 11, 2011 - 10:13 pm Link to this Comment | Reply -
77. FeralCat
Oh Lord Obama, won't you at least buy me a Mercedes Benz ?
The uptown folks drive Porsches, they must make amends.
Worked hard watching Oprah most of my lifetime, no help from my friends,
So Lord Obama, won't you at least buy me a Mercedes Benz ?Oh Lord Obama, won't you buy me a health care plan?
Working to pay for it myself is too hard on me.
I want to get prescription drugs and a doctor for free,
So Lord Obama, won't you buy me a health care plan ?Oh Lord Obama, won't you buy me a retirement on the town ?
Prove that you'll take care of me and buy my next round.
Oh Lord Obama, won't you buy me that big house down the block that I found?
I'm counting on you, Lord Obama, please don't let me down.August 12, 2011 - 4:20 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
78. Tim
The one thing that both Obama and Carter are good at is converting Democrats to Republicans. After Carter, I never voted for another Democrat. Obama has confirmed my beliefs.
Obama – He is proud, but has no honor. He is defiant, but has no courage.
August 12, 2011 - 5:29 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
79. Andynonymous
I continue to be surprised by these statistics that talk about 400 people this and 400 people that. How could it be that 400 people are the difference between what is wrong with this country and what could be right? The focus on 400 people is simply class envy and solves none of this country's current problems. Find some answers for 14 million, 50 million; then you'll be finding some answers. What a crock of crap to carp about 400 people, no matter what they make….
August 12, 2011 - 8:32 am Link to this Comment | Reply -
80. Thucydides
Not to worry.
Canada has a much lower business tax ratefor people considering moving their corporations to a lower tax (if somewhat colder) environment, and Provinces like Alberta and Saskatchewan have pretty impressively lower personal income tax rates (compared to the rest of Canada). We also have lots of oil that few people consider not extracting, and are part of the North American Free Trade Agreement, allowing you'all to still service the entire North American market (as well as several other nations we have free trade agreements with) for only the cost of a short relocation.
You will even be able to afford to send your poor relatives in the Blue States tickets so they can visit on holidays….
August 13, 2011 - 1:37 am Link to this Comment | Reply
Comments are closed.