1) Refuse to negotiate with the Republicans on taxes and spending. If the economy recovers he will take credit for blocking the Republican attempt to destroy the middle class and benefit the rich. If the economy tanks he will blame the Republicans.
2) Use the Connecticut murders to rationalize more govt spending on Democratic constituencies in govt social service bureaucracies.
3) Use the Connecticut murders to bully Republicans, whom he humiliated in the budget negotiations and who therefore will go out of their way to cut bad deals to make themselves seem relevant, into going along with some kind of anti-gun legislation (perhaps a national licensing scheme or sales ban on semiautomatic rifles).
…
Obama may not succeed in these efforts, but it seems to me that they form his short-term political road map. Never let a crisis go to waste and all that, and so much the better if you can work another crisis into the mix.
What do you think it looks like Obama will do? Feel free to contribute your ideas in the comments.
(Note: Comments mentioning Benghazi, Syria, Fast & Furious or the word “debt” may be subjected to extreme mockery.)
“What do you think it looks like Obama will do?”
Continue to be a jackhole.
Continue to be fluffed by the mainstream media.
Fail to get anything done. It is probably for the best.
1) Continue to negotiate as he has been. As the economy continues to recover, goosed up by the agreement and its resulting diminution of uncertainty, he will take his appropriate measure of credit, and extend some to the more moderate Republicans as a way of making the larger case that the economy, and the country succeeds when legislators do their job and forge compromises with their political opponents.
2) Respond to the widespread public sentiment that certain restrictions on highly lethal, non-sporting firearms be tightened.
It is going be bad.
Two years minimum: Bad.
2014.
2014 with a snake in the zero.
Start getting ready now.
Obama will tell lies and try to take credit for what he considers the inevitable recovery. The trouble is that it isn’t inevitable.
Both men (Obama and Gorbachev) have been praised for their wonderful temperaments, and their ability to remain unperturbed by approaching catastrophe. But again, the substance is different, for Gorbachev’s temperament was that of a survivor of many previous catastrophes.
Yet they do have one major thing in common, and that is the belief that, regardless of what the ruler does, the polity he rules must necessarily continue. This is perhaps the most essential, if seldom acknowledged, insight of the post-modern “liberal” mind: that if you take the pillars away, the roof will continue to hover in the air.
Gorbachev seemed to assume, right up to the fall of the Berlin Wall and then beyond it, that his Communist Party would recover from any temporary setbacks, and that the long-term effects of his glasnost and perestroika could only be to make it bigger and stronger.
There is a corollary of this largely unspoken assumption: that no matter what you do to one part of a machine, the rest of the machine will continue to function normally.
A variant of this is the frequently expressed denial of the law of unintended consequences: the belief that, if the effect you intend is good, the actual effect must be similarly happy.
This is the essence of leftist economics. Things always come out right.
Contra Joe Cit, I wonder what would happen if the ‘phants decided they did believe because Obama’s policies cannot work, they won’t work. What if they began to repeat that meme, and give O and the Donks opportunity to prove them wrong. No compromise, no cooperation, just hand it over.
I predict that won’t happen. (It won’t because most politicos don’t actually believe gov’t cannot create. Instead, they believe some slight adjustment in O will make things other than disaster.)
I am as anti-Obama asa person can be, but what in his behavior since the shootings in CT could possibly lead to the conclude that he will …
“Use the Connecticut murders to rationalize more govt spending on Democratic constituencies in govt social service bureaucracies.”
and …
“Use the Connecticut murders to bully Republicans, whom he humiliated in the budget negotiations and who therefore will go out of their way to cut bad deals to make themselves seem relevant, into going along with some kind of anti-gun legislation (perhaps a national licensing scheme or sales ban on semiautomatic rifles).”
He may well do those things but all he has done so far is to deliver an beautiful eulogy at an inter-faith session. Please read what he said and provide a scintilla of evidence to support these assertions
Bill,
I’m looking at his actions. He should have issued a brief statement of condolence, and perhaps an executive order to fly flags on federal buildings at half mast for a period. Instead, as is typical of him, he inserted himself into the center of events and gave a speech in which he opined about gun ownership, a controversial subject. His behavior is political and exploitative. Why would anyone who has paid attention to him expect otherwise?
I agree with Lex overall.
How does a shooting in Connecticut become a national crisis?
Oh, who is John Galt?
The fascists have won; what’s the point of whining? Carry on, abandon this old “ship” for better shores. I am.
If this shooting had happened in Montana, would it be big news? There is a lot of “there but for the grace of God go I” in relation to the reporters. Shootings happen in Chicago every day greater in number, but we don’t want to talk about that.
Now we talk about mental health issues, but no one approaches the media issue – bad reporting, over reporting, outright lies, misstatements, opinions based on errors given weight and national attention – gosh, it’s almost like Jornolist has be resurrected…
“I am as anti-Obama asa person can be…”
No Bill, you are not. Not by a long shot. You don’t even get to first base in the great anti-Obama ballgame. Why on earth would you aspire to such a status anyway?
If you want to get in the game, the first thing you would need to do is accept anti-Obamaism as the central guiding principle of your socio-political worldview. Then you need to inspire that intellectual structure with a burning passion that bypasses the rational faculties. If you do that, then everything starts to take on a certain focus – any word, action, or event can be instantly viewed in a manner which is first, and primarily, defined by its anti-Obamaism. You do those things and you can start to get in the game. Even then, you are a long way from the major leagues of Obama hatred. There be real professionals out there who have been honing this approach for years, you got a lot of catching up to do.
Go back and read your own comment. Ask yourself – when was the last time you saw anyone else write a comment like that in a right-wing blog? When do you ever see anyone define limits to the madness? You ask for evidence to back up a nutso charge against Obama? What the heck are you talking about, evidence? What do you think is going on here?
What, you have intellectual standards or something? A complex view of the world and some integrity? You want the conversation to make at least some passing nod to the truth? You have some inherent sense of fairness and decency? You sound like an innocent little lamb amongst the wolves here. You think Jonathan’s question was serious? That this thread is supposed to be some intellectual exploration of the possible directions the political dynamic will take?
Its a bashing session by people who have driven themselves into the dead-end of real anti-Obamaism. Just listen to them….
JC has achieved his comment quota for this discussion.
(Other commenters who wish to discuss JC and his ideas should perhaps do so in this thread or this one.)
The Rebumblekins are useless, and finished as the conservatives are not voting. Why should they?
If you follow the Gadsen Flag, we have no representation.
We need a Lincoln.
I kind of like Boehner but he is a politician and what politicians do, besides talk, is make deals. Obama knows this and has convinced himself that he has no obligation to avoid the “fiscal cliff.” He is certain he can turn it to his advantage and, in the short run, he may well be right. In the long run, he and the Democrats care nothing about the military. They have no idea of how long it tales to build a military like the one we have. I work doing physicals for recruits part time. We were told last week that the services are planning massive RIFs in the field grade officers, major and LTC. They will replace these people with new recruits which cost less.
If Iran gets and uses nuclear weapons we will be unable to respond. I am all for a leaner military and think we should leave Afghanistan tomorrow, but we are about to assume huge risks and the administration believes in magic.
Jonathon,
As far as opining about gun ownership goes, what he actually said was,
“We will be told that the causes of such violence are complex, and that is true. No single law — no set of laws can eliminate evil from the world, or prevent every senseless act of violence in our society.”
No mention of gun ownership in the entire speech.
You can read the transcript here: http://www.npr.org/2012/12/16/167412995/transcript-president-obama-at-sandy-hook-prayer-vigil
Asfaras Obama going to Connecticut goes, you can watch Bush give his very similar remarks at Blacksburg, Virginia following the Virginia Tech shuutings here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_TPbzq_M3Q
In fact, going to the scene of such events is a very presidential thing to do, and we would criticize any president who failed to do so quite severely.
Again, I don’t doubt that he will call for gun laws and building up government bureaucracies – that is his M.O. – but I don’t think it is fair to pre-judge him or anyone else.
Very sad. It’s even sadder that people immediately use this awful event to advance their own agenda. It is a snake pit down there in the USA these days.
PG – it is disgusting how anti self defense advocates have used the tragedy to further their agenda – I agree with you. The only ones who have been respectfully silent so far are the NRA so you will join me in a tip of the hat to that organization I am sure.
” It is a snake pit down there in the USA these days.”
Yes, you should pay no attention to us and leave us alone.
We’re not worth it for a virtuous man like you.
Your belly button needs attention. Study it.
I joined the NRA today.
I do not know the shooter’s name, and I plan to keep it that way.
}}} I do not know the shooter’s name, and I plan to keep it that way.
I pretty much do, but plan to never use it, despite the media’s efforts to make sure everyone knows it by endless repetition, but not the names of any of the self-sacrificing teachers…
This is one of many times NOT having a TV is a blessing.
“Lexington Green Says:
December 18th, 2012 at 8:57 pm
I joined the NRA today.”
Welcome. I’m a life endowed member. Never shot anyone yet but I have sewed up lots of gunshot wounds.
Lexington Green:
This is one of many times NOT having a TV is a blessing.
Agree with you. An elderly neighbor who has the TV on all day told me that there was unending coverage of the shooting.
The shooting was an event, which is over.
The media is trying to turn it into an ongoing crisis for its own political reasons.
Just turn off the TV.
It’s easy.
“I joined the NRA today.”
Why?
“I do not know the shooter’s name, and I plan to keep it that way.”
Again why?
Congrats Lex on joining the NRA. Your mailbox will fill up with all sorts of trash and some of the stuff they put out will remind you of that crazy uncle you used to have, but in the end, they are a good advocate for gun owners rights.
I don’t want to thread hijack but I agree with you on TV. I just went off of facebook, which was an immense time suck for me and I am happy. This is a first step for me to start eliminating things that I am not getting enriched by. I need TV for sports but am happy that I don’t really follow much TV news so I didn’t see the endless coverage of the tragedy.
I let my NRA membership lapse a while ago, because the pro-rights side was winning and I got tired of the junk mail and frequent overwrought appeals, but it may be time to sign up again.
The NRA is a bit like the Republican Party. Both organizations tend to be tactically inept and not entirely on top of cultural trends, but they are also the main advocates for important legal and political principles that are under attack.
I left the NRA for the same reasons – every week a phone call or appeal in the mail – but like you it may be time to rejoin.
PenGun, to support an organization, imperfect as it is, defending our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, at a time when it is being attacked; to NOT reward the murderer with the fame he wanted.
I am sure the flood of RKBA junk mail will be annoying.
Dan, I am currently deactivated on FB.
I will reactivate solely to retain contact with family and friends AND to promote the book.
The economy will probably improve over Obama’s next term due to the nascent rebound in housing and reductions in energy cost due to shale technology. The real risk is the collapse of confidence in the credit markets for US government securities due to our inability to deal with long term structural deficits.
The Connecticut massacre will recede, especially when it is overshadowed by a dive off the cliff, a collapse in credit, a nuclear test near Tehran or…
Very hard to take seriously the talk about “doing something” from a guy who has been running guns (and God only knows what else) into Mexico and is widely suspected of arming “the rebels” in Syria. He’ll continue to wreak as much havoc as possible, here and abroad. Now I understand why Boehner was having having all those crying jags early on, he knew he was working for the Chicago Machine.
I just joined the NRA
“Very hard to take seriously the talk about “doing something” from a guy who has been running guns (and God only knows what else) into Mexico and is widely suspected of arming “the rebels” in Syria.”
Will, are you saying that increasing the number of guns in a society makes them more available to the criminals who will proactively use them?
Are you saying that making guns available to those who might need to rebel against a tyrannical regime…is a wrong-headed policy?