Victor Davis Hanson shows Obama is the strongest and most effective president–and the most partisan and brutal to his Republican opponents–that the Democrats have had since Lyndon Johnson pushed through the Great Society program. Why, then, the Democratic complaint that Obama is too “conservative”? Because the real reason the economy is in trouble, the real reason Obama is in trouble, the real reason the public has rejected Obama, is precisely his all-out devotion to the left-liberal cause.
That was bizarre.
The “real reason” the economy is in trouble is his all-out devotion to the left-liberal cause? Not the global economic crisis, nope. Not the decimation of two wars, nope. Not the petty pandering of the right to a much-needed minority of their voting bloc, nope. How much has Obamacare cost so far? How has it wrecked the economy? Oh. Ach, whatever.
Yes, we get it. Fox et al want everyone to think that he Jammed His Agenda Down America’s Throat. Yep. We get that. He’s a socialist, too. Gotcha. If only McCain/Palin were in control, none of the economic turmoil would have taken place.
What a silly article.
It’s so cute when kids try to use big words they don’t know. I mean, when they’re not even clear on “shows”, it’s downright adorable when they go all “partisan” and “brutal”.
Huh – a right-wing think-tank type criticizes both Obama and ‘the Left.’
Stop the presses.
Well, get used to it kiddies, because this is the line the Republican media machine is spewing and probably will spew until election day: we are in trouble because Obama the socialist wants to destroy the middle class. I hear it a lot on right wing hate radio. It’s actually a fiendishly effective line: blaming the economic issues that the Republicans have caused are actively aggravating on Obama. So the chumps see the economy failing, and they have a predigested rationale for it. It’s an obvious lie, but the Pubbies have gotten away with a lot of other obvious lies lately. Why should this one be any different?
In the first place, a lot of the “left” that claim that Obama is too conservative are actually faux left trying to convince the real left to abandon him.
“Obama wants to destroy Social Security” - not true.
“Obama wants to take away grandma’s medical care” - not true.
They call compromises that are unpalatable but necessary “selling out”.
They paint the health care bill as selling out to the insurance companies.
They show up on left wing message boards advocating either voting third party or not voting at all.
So that part of the OP is wrong.
The second part- the bogus idea that he’s responsible for the current economic problems - has already been addressed by others and is also wrong. Rhythmdvl characterized it well when he called it bizarre.
“Obama wants to destroy the middle class” is only half. He wants to do it by taxing the middle class and the job creators, and giving all that money to the drug-addled poor. The middle class can stay middle class if they throw the poor to the wolves. And it could work.
So he really is a radical left-wing socialist, but radical left-wing socialist Americans are just too dumb to recognize this and cheer him for it?
Well duh. If they weren’t so dumb, they’d be Republicans.
Of course he isn’t. And true radical left-wing socialists (a definite minority) attack him for it. But there’s a false attack from the left that accuses him of trying to destroy things that most Americans (i.e., not radical left-wing socialists) like, such as SS and Medicare. And yes, unfortunately, people will fall for this tactic if it’s repeated enough in enough places. People are busy working two or three jobs so it’s difficult for them to find the time and energy to parse and research what they hear on Fox News. “Dumb” is not a word I would apply to any of them.
Yeah, like when he fought for single-payer universal health care. Or card check. Or an economic stimulus package that was 50% bigger, and was all new spending with no tax cuts. Or when he decided back in 2009 that it was time for us to withdraw from Afghanistan as well as Iraq.
Yeah, I’d like some of that weed, too.
The article makes sense only if you buy into every right-wing myth about Obama and the conservative evaluation of his economic policies. In short, it won’t move much beyond the Freepers and ditto-heads who lap this kind of stuff up.
However the piece is interesting as a kind of reverse psychology, because much of what he says actually applies to conservative criticism of George W. Bush. The neo-cons loved W when he went to war, and only started to criticize him when public opinion turned against his Iraq adventure. Conservatives repeatedly cheered the idea that government should be small enough to be drowned in a bathtub, until the drowning of a real US city became a PR disaster.
Hansen’s"analysis" will not sway a single person who’s mind isn’t already made up abaout Obama. Refuting his garbage is pointless, because the one who believe it will never change. So I think I will just move on.
The “it’s all Obama’s fault!” meme is heavy in the air. I’ve started using it in every situation possible, both good and bad. First, because it makes me laugh, and second, because it makes other people “WTF” and then either laugh or get pissed, depending on their political point of view.
My coffee’s cold? It’s Obama’s fault.
I had a good yoga class today. It’s Obama’s fault.
The article linked in the OP is about as stupid and brainless as what I’ve started doing. I notice that the right wing is still using the “Obamacare was RAMMED THROUGH Congress!” argument. That, along with the “he shoved health care reform down our throats” makes me wonder at the right wing’s fascination with ramming and shoving. Freud would have a field day.
One didn’t have to get very far into the article to find an utter and complete falsehood:
Congress voted on the healthcare bill, not Obama, and what they voted for was nothing that could be classified in any way as a ‘federal takeover of healthcare’. After that nugget of absurdity, there was no point in reading further.
Do you agree?
Heck, I’d like to see him become partisan and brutal - it’s entertaining.
Cite?
Yes, Mr. President, you should be able to get a good view of the gamma-bomb test from right here . . . Hm? Yes, all the Secret Service men are driving away so they can, ermm, patrol the perimeter . . . No, this is the best place to watch from, it’s just for you . . . See you after the test . . . Oh, and then we’ll need to have a talk about Green American demographics . . . No, that’s nothing to do with ecology, excuse me . . .
Well, the stimulus did pretty much all it could do. American consumers were overleveraged, because their incomes had been falling for fifteen years, but their spending habits did not. The stimulus was only going to keep unemployment from spiking; it couldn’t bring on a recovery until Americans worked out just how poor they had become. Obama did make a stab at getting at the root of the problem with health care reform, which was one of the reasons that incomes had fallen, rather than stagnating, as they would have otherwise. I think he booted that in a serious way, and gave too much away to a efw stakeholders at the expense of the rest, but you have to credit him for recognizing how important it was.
Most Americans are not ideologues. They are less concerned with whether policies are liberal or conservative, than with whether or not the policies benefit them.
One can argue that the economy would be worse if John McCain had been elected. What matters is that since Barack Obama has been president unemployment and the national debt have gotten higher.
My criticism of President Obama is that he has not been more effective. I want another Franklin Roosevelt, and a new New Deal.