► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Posts Tagged ‘Bill Clinton’

Empathy gets tossed under the Obama bus

by Mojambo ( 188 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama at August 21st, 2011 - 5:00 pm

Arthur Schlesinger (the court historian for JFK) once referred to Richard Nixon’s administration as “The Imperial Presidency” and coming from a  guy who worshiped at the feet of the Kennedy’s I always thought  that was the height of political hypocrisy. Nobody however can beat Barack and Mooch for the trappings of royalty. One of the reasons I believe Obama’s numbers are tanking is that he really does not have the common touch and connection with the average American. He seems aloof, distant, arrogant and standoffish to other people’s daily concerns.

by Mark Steyn

Rick Perry, governor of Texas, has only been in the presidential race for 20 minutes, but he’s already delivered one of the best lines in the campaign:

“I’ll work every day to try to make Washington, D.C., as inconsequential in your life as I can.”

This will be grand news to Schylar Capo, eleven years old, of Virginia, who made the mistake of rescuing a woodpecker from the jaws of a cat and nursing him back to health for a couple of days, and for her pains, was visited by a federal Fish & Wildlife gauleiter (with accompanying state troopers) who charged her with illegal transportation of a protected species and issued her a $535 fine. If the federal child-abuser has that much time on his hands, he should have charged the cat, who was illegally transporting the protected species from his gullet to his intestine.

So eleven-year-old Schylar and other middle-schoolers targeted by the micro-regulatory superstate might well appreciate Governor Perry’s pledge. But you never know, it might just catch on with the broader population, too.

Bill Clinton thought otherwise. “I got tickled by watching Governor Perry,” said the former president. “And he’s saying, ‘Oh, I’m going to Washington to make sure that the federal government stays as far away from you as possible — while I ride on Air Force One and that Marine One helicopter and go to Camp David and travel around the world and have a good time.’ I mean, this is crazy.”

This is the best argument the supposedly smartest operator in the Democratic party can muster? If Bill Clinton wants to make the increasingly and revoltingly unrepublican lifestyle of the American president a campaign issue, Governor Perry should call his bluff. If I understand correctly the justification advanced by spokesgropers for the Transport Security Administration, the reason they poke around the genitalia of three-year-old girls and make wheelchair-bound nonagenarians in the final stages of multiple sclerosis remove their diapers in public is that by doing so they have made commercial air travel the most secure environment in the United States. In that case, why can’t the president fly commercial?

[……]

Queen Margrethe of Denmark flies commercial, too. For local trips she has a small Challenger jet. When she’s not zipping around in it, they use it for fishery enforcement off Greenland. Does that detail alone suggest that a thousand-year dynasty dating back to King Gorm the Sleepy (regnant 936–958) travels in rather less luxury than the supposed citizen-executive of a so-called republic of limited government? Undoubtedly King Gorm the Sleepy would have slept a lot better on Air Force One, yet the Danish royal family seems to get by.

Symbols are important. In other circumstances, the Obamas’ vacation on Martha’s Vineyard might not be terribly relevant. But this is a president who blames his dead-parrot economy on “bad luck” — specifically, the Arab Spring and the Japanese tsunami: As Harry S. Truman would have said, the buck stops at that big hole in the ground that’s just opened up over in Japan. Let us take these whiny excuses at face value and accept for the sake of argument that Obama’s Recovery Summer would now be going gangbusters had not the Libyan rebels seized Benghazi and sent the economy into a tailspin. Did no one in the smartest administration in history think this might be the time for the president to share in some of the “bad luck” and forgo an ostentatious vacation in the exclusive playground of the rich? When you’re the presiding genius of the Brokest Nation in History, enjoying the lifestyle of the super-rich while allegedly in “public service” sends a strikingly Latin American message. Underlining the point, the president then decided to pass among his suffering people by touring small town Minnesota in an armored Canadian bus accompanied by a 40-car motorcade. In some of these one-stoplight burgs, the president’s escort had more vehicles than the municipality he was graciously blessing with his presence.

[……]

Where was I? Oh, yes. Instead of demonstrating the common touch — that Obama is feeling your pain Clinton-style — the motorcade tour seemed an ingenious parody of what (in Victor Davis Hanson’s words) “a wealthy person would do if he wanted to act ‘real’ for a bit” — in the way that swanky Park Avenue types 80 years ago liked to go slumming up in Harlem. Why exactly does the president need a 40-car escort to drive past his subjects in Dead Moose Junction? It doesn’t communicate strength, but only waste, and decadence. Are these vehicles filled with “aides” working round the clock on his super-secret magic plan to “create” “jobs” that King Barack the Growth-Slayer is planning to lay before Congress in the fall or winter, spring, whatever? If the argument is that the president cannot travel without that level of security, I note that Prince William and his lovely bride did not require a 40-car motorcade on their recent visit to Los Angeles, and there are at least as many people on the planet who want a piece of Wills and Kate as do of Obama. Like the president, the couple made do with Canuck transportation, but in their case they flew in and out on a Royal Canadian Air Force transport described as “no more luxurious than a good motor home”: The shower is the size of a pay phone. It did not seem to diminish Her Royal Highness’s glamour.

I wish Governor Perry well in his stated goal of banishing Washington to the periphery of Americans’ lives. One way he could set the tone is by forgoing much of the waste and excess that attends the imperial presidency. Believe it or not, many presidents and prime ministers manage to get by with only a 14-car or even a four-car motorcade. I know: Hard to imagine, but there it is. A post-prosperity America that has dug itself into a multi-trillion-dollar hole will eventually have to stop digging. When it does so, the government of the United States will have to learn to do more with less. A good place to start would be restoring the lifestyle of the president to something Calvin Coolidge might recognize.

Read the rest – The Imperial Presidency

This Says It All!

by Deplorable Macker ( 157 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Canada, Democratic Party, Elections 2012, Military, Political Correctness, Progressives at August 17th, 2011 - 5:00 pm

While I ran some errands yesterday morning, I saw this Ford Focus in the Target parking lot with the following inscription:

Even though I’m preaching to the choir here, it’s been the express goal of Президент Обама and the Demo☭rats to emaciate the United States Armed Forces. I wouldn’t put it past them to play Rope-a-Dope on the FY2012 budget, so that this “deal” they’ve made in Congress will trigger automatic spending cuts, most of which comes from the military. Their allies in the Fifth Column Treasonous Media™ are only all too happy to oblige them in carrying out their mission.
This, on the heels of a story coming from our friends in The Great White North that, after 43 years and the voices of thousands of Canadian Veterans, the Tory Government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper is restoring the title “Royal” to their Navy and Air Force, as in:
The ROYAL Canadian Navy!
The ROYAL Canadian Air Force!
And what was once Land Force Command is now the Canadian Army. Canada is reclaiming their righteous History, while we are in retrograde. We MUST muster our forces to vote Обама and the Demo☭rats out of office if we are to do the same.

Progressives increasingly see Obama as a loser

by Mojambo ( 68 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Progressives at August 14th, 2011 - 9:00 am

Barack Obama has already claimed the mantle of being our worst president ever. Lacking Bill Clinton’s flexibility, he is a rigid ideologue who does not even know how to give a little now, in order to gain a lot more down the road. The wages of being an ideologue is failure. I would bet that there are thousands of Democrats out there who wish that Hillary had won the nomination in 2008 instead of Obama. Hillary has been singularly unimpressive as Secretary of State but the thinking goes at least she would have Bill behind her in a “two for one”  deal (as revolting as the idea is ) which they promised in 1992. Obama cannot run on his miserable record of the past three years so he will go like a pit bull on a poodle on the Republican opponent.

by James Taranto

Barack Obama’s recent political difficulties have proved shattering to many of his erstwhile enthusiasts. One of them is Jacob Weisberg, editor of Slate.com, who in a column last week declared himself fed up—with America.

The lesson of the debt-ceiling deal, Mr. Weisberg sobbed, is that “there is no point trying to explain complex matters to the American people. The president has tried reasonableness and he has failed.” A pithier expression of this lament was the headline of an online column by liberal Republican Charles Fried: “Obama Is Too Good for Us.”

It takes an authoritarian mindset to look at a failing leader and fault the people for failing to follow him. But Mr. Weisberg has long harbored suspicions about his countrymen’s fitness to be led by the man he described, in an August 2008 column, as “handsome, brilliant and cool.” At the time, Mr. Obama was not doing as well in the polls as Mr. Weisberg thought he should have been, given the all-around awesomeness of the junior senator from Illinois. If Mr. Obama lost to John McCain, Mr. Weisberg concluded, it could mean only one thing: America was irredeemably racist.

[……]

Just ask Drew Westen, who noted in a New York Times op-ed that Mr. Obama “had accomplished very little before he ran for president,” that he “had a singularly unremarkable” academic career, “publishing nothing . . . other than an autobiography,” and that as a state senator he “voted ‘present’ . . . 130 times.” Mr. Westen, a psychology professor who moonlights as a Democratic tactician, was spared the charge of racism only because he waited until this past Sunday to reveal those misgivings. In his essay, he acknowledged that in 2008 he was “bewitched” and “enthralled” by Mr. Obama’s “eloquence” and thus “chose to ignore” the candidate’s deficiencies.

Unlike Mr. Weisberg, Mr. Westen attributes Mr. Obama’s adversity to the president’s shortcomings, not the voters’. But like Mr. Weisberg, he insists the problem is one of communication. As Mr. Westen tells it, “Americans were scared and angry” when Mr. Obama took office. Like traumatized children, they “needed their president to tell them a story that made sense of what they had just been through, what caused it, and how it was going to end.” He reproves Mr. Obama for having refrained from identifying “villains,” including “Wall Street gamblers,” “conservative extremists” and George W. Bush.

In reality, Mr. Obama has been no slouch in the vilification department, regularly demonizing, among others, “millionaires and billionaires,” insurance companies, “corporate jet owners” and Republicans, including Mr. Bush. Mr. Westen errs in assuming that normal American adults are as easily enthralled as he is by political fairy tales.

[……]

Actually, Mr. Obama botched the budget negotiation not because he wouldn’t fight but because he didn’t know when to give in to minimize his losses. He stubbornly clung to his demand for a tax increase long after it was clear that was a deal breaker, yielding only when the alternative was to risk imminent catastrophe.

By contrast, Bill Clinton never even made such a demand in the budget battles of 1995-96, from which he emerged victorious. Later he worked with the Republican Congress to enact conservative policies, including welfare reform in 1996 and a cut in the capital gains tax in 1997.

Mr. Clinton was ideologically flexible, whereas Mr. Obama is rigid. Yet the left stuck with Mr. Clinton even through his impeachment. Everyone loves a winner, and progressives are angry and disconsolate with Mr. Obama because they increasingly see him as a loser. But if the president is a loser, it is precisely because he is one of them.

Read the rest – The Left’s summer of discontent

We are witnessing the beginning of the era of black hole government

by Mojambo ( 133 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Economy, Politics at August 4th, 2011 - 8:30 am

For Barack Obama it will always be about wealth redistribution, making others “pay their fair share” of taxes, increasing spending, and getting more an more people dependent on the government (which makes them almost automatically wards of the Democratic Party). That will always be (as the author states) his default position.

by John Hayward

President Obama​ gave a speech in praise of the debt ceiling bill passed by the Senate this afternoon.  It quickly became clear that this great “compromise” hasn’t put much of a dent in his vision of ever-expanding government.  The Era of Big Government famously ended under Bill Clinton​ in the 90s, to be followed by the Era of Freaking Huge Government.  Today, the Era of Black Hole Government began.  Our betters in Washington don’t want to hear another peep about deficits until the process of collapse is complete.

In his speech today, Obama repeated his incessant demand for more money to spend on “infrastructure,” without explaining what happened to the last pile of money he grabbed for that purpose.  He’s spent more on “infrastructure” than any of his predecessors already.  Why do we still have an “America that needs rebuilding,” as he put it today, and why shouldn’t he be held accountable for it?

With his big new spending plans outlined, the President immediately lunged into his usual tired call for tax increases, which he describes with the focus-grouped euphemism “balanced approach.”  He also blew the dust off the “wealthiest Americans paying their fair share” bromides he borrowed from Bill Clinton.  This is a real jab in the eye to Republican compromise salesmen who assured us that tax increases were off the table.  Obama didn’t even bother with that pretense for one single hour.

“Since you can’t cut the deficit with just spending cuts, we’ll need a balanced approach,” the President insisted.  Like hell you can’t. Would Mr. Obama be willing to put some skin in the game, and immediately surrender his office to someone who can provide a detailed plan to eliminate the deficit without tax increases?  We’d have him out of Washington before dinner tonight.

What he really means, of course, is that he and his constituents don’t want to reduce the deficit without tax increases, which is an entirely different proposition from saying it “can’t be done.”  But taxes and spending are never presented to the public as a rational transaction.  It’s all about force, command, compulsion, and obligation.

[……]

I gather the President thinks we can balance the budget on the backs of the people who already pay the vast majority of taxes in this country.  No chance of asking the 47% of Americans who don’t pay income tax to “chip in,” right?  That would be as crazy as expecting public union employees to make sacrifices.  The only thing completely off the table, besides Obama’s nightmarish health care plan, is putting an end to anyone’s free ride.

Obama went on to blame his stupendous economic failures on uncertainty over raising the debt ceiling, which apparently reaches all the way back to the beginning of his Presidency.  You’ve been more nervous than you realized, but at last, you can relax.  Everything will be okay, now that the government can spend another few trillion it doesn’t have.

[……]

The most remarkable (or, depending on your perspective, disturbing) thing about Obama is how quickly he snaps back to his default tax-and-spend mode, no matter what happens.  Nothing he called for today was significantly different than what he’s demanded in the past.  He gave no sense of presiding over a newly restrained government that would have to make do with less.  Instead, he continued telling us how we have to make do with less, to empower his continued stewardship of the American economy… which he was running so beautifully, before evil Republicans began making everyone nervous by taking the debt ceiling seriously.

Read the rest – The era of Black Hole Government begins