Can you imagine a man who had never run any kind of organization, large or small, taking it upon himself to fundamentally change all kinds of organizations in a huge and complex economy? Yet that is what Barack Obama did when he said, “We are going to change the United States of America!” This was not “The Audacity of Hope.” It was the audacity of hype.
22 thoughts on “Quote of the Day”
Comments are closed.
The election of Obama represents the ultimate extreme of the idea that “staff” people can do “line” jobs without any significant experience in same, as discussed in the comment thread to Madhu’s post a couple down.
Change can’t come fast enough.
Tyouth, I am not sure if change comes in the face of Romney it would be one to welcome
I’m not sure about him or any other of the Republican hopefuls except for Ron Paul. One may not agree with RP about everything or anything he says but we do know his mind. That can’t be said of the others.
And, we can’t expect anything much different (from any of the field, again excepting Paul) from what we received from Mr. Bush.
Nothing, absolutely nothing, is worse than a re-elected Obama with no need to trim his sails a bit for re-election
All I want is to see is B.O. lose. And the look on his face when it happens.
Those who are disappointed with the Republican field, and are thinking about voting for a 3rd-party candidate or staying home on election day, should think very seriously about the consequences of a second Obama term.
WIth the assaults on free speech, coupled with the buying of support via interest-group politics, not to mention outright thuggery, it is seriously likely that if Obama wins we will not get another chance.
A word to the wise.
“A Warning from Canada for the GOP: Don’t Ignore the Grassroots”
David – these people who are adamant about their candidate getting the nomination and threatening to vote 3rd party – I don’t get.
Perot gave us Clinton.
Reagan won so convincingly that Anderson’s 3rd party candidacy didn’t matter.
I think this upcoming election will be the most important since the 1860 election.
Bill and David: I already listened to alarmist and shaming spiels of “voting for lesser evil” last election. Much good it did me; McCain returned to his obscurity (where, frankly, he belongs), and worst of all – I have that disgusting taste in my mouth for not voting my conscience. No, Romney (or Newt. or Santorum. or Paul.) will not get my vote. I’d rather write in Sadie, a 2yo daughter of my friend Karol.
It will be a worse disaster in Oh’Bummer stays another term, you say? We have been living these worst times for three years now (at least I do, I can only vouch for myself). We’ll never get a chance to change the current mode of “vote for the lesser evil” if we continue do it even when civil alertness is so high as now.
Tatyana – I have this running (friendly) argument with a good friend on a regular basis. He is going to vote for “X” no matter what. Truth be told, every candidate involves a compromise in ones (voter’s) values more or less.
All politics involves compromise.
Someone thinking (here?) more Machiavellian than me suggested the defeat of McCain actually made the likelihood of a true reformist President more likely; after all; it took a Carter to get a Reagan.
The issue of course does when does the “less” become such you don’t want the candidate? That of course is an answer only you can know.
I held my nose and voted for McCain and you are right; he returned to his well-earned obscurity.
Some time a go I read an article in American Heritage over the political landscape needed for the birth of a formidable 3rd party – last time was about 1860 when the Whigs morphed into the Republicans. In the meantime all third party candidacies do is help one or the other get in office. And you know who “one or the other” is ;-)
While I forget the detail of the article the gist of it was that it is difficult to get a critical mass.
But I think we are almost there.
There is a whole class of traditional Democrats (blue collar workers) disgusted with Obama.
This is the coalition Reagan put together.
I believe that the Democratic Party should be held accountable for foisting this pissant upon us. They FAILED at their job of vetting candidates for propriety, capacity and experience.
The voters should take that fact into account, and pay a bit more attention to what the ‘elders’ deem acceptable qualifications.
By the same token, Congress has failed at the duty we entrusted to them: to govern for the benefit of us all. Instead they have ruled for their own benefit. The voters should again pay a bit more attention if they wish to avoid a reprise.
tom
And who is the new Reagan among them, Bill? Look at them.
The only candidate I was willing to compromise for (don’t like his stance on immigration, but consider the difference a back burner issue) is Gary Johnson. And where is he?
Are we really going to end up with a guy who failed for the job the last election, even in the better times?
A rhetorical question.
After all; it took a Carter to get a Reagan…
Of course, it took a Carter to turbo-charge the situation that resulted in the present Islamic Republic of Iran. That… hasn’t worked out too well.
Take the best you can get at the top of the ticket, and push for the reformers in the under-the-radar races.
@Percy – I am looking at the situation in Iran today (and his leaving Iraq and Afghanistan) and seeing a parallel with Carter in 1979
@Tatyana – One of the Republican nominees (most likely Romney) might surprise me/us.
The key is Congress though.
Yes, I can imagine someone who had never run a large organization thinking he can change the world forever. The 20th century was full of such people.
If all politcis involves compromise, then let Romney’s supporters compromise on another candidate when Romney voluntarily withdraws from the race in favor of whomever he thinks is better. Let Romney compromise. His record show’s he’s good at that. Oh, wait: he’s good at compromising with socialists; not so good at compromising with Americans who love liberty. They must be beaten down until they accept his candidacy.
Obama is FDR, but one who was successful in his version of re-writing the constituion, whereas FDR failed in his court-packing scheme. Obama is LBJ in his massive expansion of the welfare-warfare state. Obama has no goals or methods unseen in past presdients. He is the culmination of over a century of American politics and summary of establishment politics. His second term will be more of the same.
Now: show me that Romney’s first term will break this trend; that he is opposed to the establishment; that his actions as governor reversed the blight in Massachusetts, and I’ll vote for him. It’s as simple as that. Can’t be done. The best argument for Romney is that he’s the leser evil; e.g., Nixon, who imposed wage and price controls.
Obama’s “recess” appointments show the problem. Obama could declare the Senate in “recess” at any moment, make any appointment, and wait to see if anyone can successfully oppose him. He would not announce his contrition, admit he overstepped, and withdraw an appointment. No one (who counts or could be effective) will oppose him. The sole Constitutional solution to unlawful behavior by the president is impeachment. His faction will never agree to that. Winning is more important than the law. And because they recognize no limits to their authority, they will win.
The EPA could announce tomorrow it was regulating oxygen, carbon dioxide, chlorine, etc. in an arrogation of powers beyond what Congress granted it; beyond what it founders intended; beyond all reasonable interpretation of its goals, and as long as its supports scream pollution! green! the majority of Americans will agree that the EPA is acting morally. That is the purpose of screaming racist! sexist! fascist! homophobe!: to establish who is good and who is evil. And the good accept the terrible burden of using all power and all means in pursuit of their goals.
A new world is rising. It is clear what it is: anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, anti-democratic, anti-American. It favors a well-educated bureaucracy over a well-educated citizenry. It prefers poverty to affluence (the reasons change: once plutocrats, now polluters); ignorance to reason (its corruption of science as tool to affirm the bureacracy); unity to diversity (see what tolerance it offers to dissenters, who speak ‘hate’); death to life (abortion and the mocking of crippled and dying children). Having lived so long in Europe and Asia, it has come to America, labelled itself “American,” as its supporters said it would (as with the Abraham Lincoln brigade). Look at Obama’s very American logos and claims to be like the great presidents. He is their seal, the compleation of their work, and the end of America.
“A new world is rising. It is clear what it is: anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, anti-democratic, anti-American.”
OK can you think of any reasons for this? I sure can.
If it took Carter to get Reagan, perhaps we have hope in Britain. We have David Cameron, who took a fashionable PPE (Politics, Philosophy and Economics) degree, got a job as PR wallah for a failing TV company (it failed) after which the Eton-educated, very rich Cameron drifted over to the back rooms of the Conservative Party. That’s his total career experience.
Clearly an inadequate political thinker (or any other kind of thinker) he was pushed forward by some low-profile but rich and influential thinkers, to lead the Tories.
There was no appetite for him among the electorate on whom he was urged with an amazing campaign that misread the Conservative voter on every issue.
Although they feared four more years of destructive socialism, the Conservative voters failed to give Cameron a majority. In his desperation to become Prime Minister (why, no one knows as he doesn’t have any ideas about anything except getting on the Gravy Train Express to the foetid swamp of EU politics in Brussels), he cut a deal with the miniscule Liberal Democrats Party and together they spliced together enough votes to get Dave under the door jamb of No 10 Downing St.
He has lived down to expectations, and many bloggers, myself included, spell his name David Camoron.
I am hoping that he is Britain’s Jimmy Carter and scanning the horizon, admittedly without hope, for a Ronald Reagan heaving into view.
“OK can you think of any reasons for this? I sure can.”
I have no doubt you can think of many reasons to be anti-Semitic, Communist and the rest. You may even find the reasons convincing and morally compelling. Recent history agrees with you. Why people choose to side with Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, et. al. when they could choose to be free and prosperous is a mystery to me.
Obama is fighting this depression the same way FDR fought his. He is getting the same results FDR got.
Soon Obama will get us into World War 3 by cutting back our militry while China expands into SE Asia, Korea, and elsewhere to rebuild the empire of the Qin; and Russia rebuilds the Soviet Empire starting with its lost provinces (the Ukraine, Georgia, Belarus, etc) looking for an unblockable warm water port. Suddenly, he will realize we have to stop them.