► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Posts Tagged ‘Victor Davis Hanson’

The Petulant Administration

by Mojambo ( 68 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Liberal Fascism, Politics, Progressives at October 16th, 2010 - 6:30 pm

Scroll down for the NCAA Football Open, Week 7


.

Victor Davis Hanson lays it out on the line regarding the failures of the Obots. It is particularly interesting how they completely misread the results of the election. Despite the fluke of his being elected (in a perfect storm), this country is still a center-right nation. By ignoring unemployment in order to push across an unwanted Health Care plan, foisting a massive ‘stimulus” which created no jobs and added tons to our national debt,  trying to push a jobs killing “Cap and Trade” bill, and going on the attack in ways that make Richard Nixon seem like Mary Poppins,  Barack Obama is setting himself up for a massive fall. All we need is the right candidate in 2012 (no small task given the fact that the Republicans are rightly referred to as “The Stupid Party”).

by Victor Davis Hanson

I was fascinated watching the recent Obama campaign stops, particularly the contrast with 2008. Gone are the faux columns and classical backdrops. There are no more vero possumus seals (now they fall off the podium). All pretense of “no more red states, no more blue states” nonpartisanship has long ago been dropped. Even the shrill, boilerplate evocation of “Bush-Cheney did it” sounds strained. The blatant divisive appeal to unions, young people, and “black folks” is now unapologetic. Them versus Us is the new theme. Gone is the pretense of inclusivity. Even the fainting now seems rigged rather than spontaneous, the faux cadences forced and more Rev. Wrightish rather than inspired. The eyes of the crowd roll, and have lost their glazed zombie look of 2008. It all reminds me of the failed comeback tour of the proverbial fading rock star, the desperate promos for the sinking supposed blockbuster Hollywood movie, or perhaps something akin to Jerry Ford’s WIN buttons or the Carter desk thump.

So Unfair

The recent interviews with and analyses of the Obama administration — as it descends to a near 40% approval rating — by sympathetic liberal journalists reveal one common theme: a sort of petulance that the actual job of an administration proved so much more of a downer than the giddiness of the 2008 campaign. So unfair, so terribly unjust.

[….]

Flukes as Mandates

Obamites still seem to think their arrival signaled a genuine American move to the left, or at least Obama’s singular ability to take the country to the left, rather than a confluence of once in a century events that allowed the northern liberal Obama to do what Dukakis, Kerry, McGovern, and Mondale had not (e.g., the novelty of the first serious African-American candidacy, the anger over the Iraq war, the lackluster McCain campaign that seemed to want to lose nobly rather than win messily, the first orphaned election without incumbents since 1952, the September 15, 2008, panic and meltdown, and the stealth candidacy of Obama running as a centrist moderate).

[….]


Private Enterprise Is Run by Humans

This administration is absolutely clueless about the psychological element central to economic recovery. (Yes, yes, I know, some of you think it was a predetermined effort to wreck capitalism. I wrote about that for National Review for tomorrow.) Obama & Co. seem to think businesses and financial bodies are not human, and so don’t mind serial slurs (from the damnation of the Chamber of Commerce [real smart in a recession] to quips like “I do think at a certain point you have made enough money” as the first lady hits Costa del Sol). Yes, businesses are run by real people with feelings and sensory perception. They “get” the demonization of those who make over $250,000, the loose talk of VAT taxes, caps off income subject to payroll taxes, health care surcharge taxes, a return to the Clinton tax rates only on top incomes, higher capital gains taxes and new inheritances taxes.

[…..]

Trumping Nixon

Then there is the constant petulance. The administration has proven itself vintage Nixonian in its enemy lists without Nixon’s foreign policy expertise. Collate all the dark forces like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Justice Roberts, Fox News, John Boehner, the Tea Party, the Chamber of Commerce, and Karl Rove. Then add those nefarious actors with Journolist, Robert Gibbs’s venomous buffoonery, and the president’s own attacks (e.g. “stupidly” acting police, racist Arizonans that deport kids on their way to ice cream, xenophobic Manhattanites) and we are right back to 1972-3, albeit with the hypocritical veneer of hope and change, no more red/blue state, and across the aisle brotherhood. Hypocrisy is a force multiplier to paranoia.

An Unimaginable Reckoning?

We are looking at a perfect storm in November. In theory, well less than 180 seats are absolutely safe. Millions of independents and conservative Democrats will vote by a straight pocketbook barometer: Obama turned a recession into a near depression in a way Reagan and Clinton did not. Millions of other naïve Republicans and moderates feel embarrassed that they voted for a European socialist and won’t ratify his agenda in November. A hard-core leftist base is petulant that Obama copied Bush’s anti-terrorism protocols and broke a lot of promises in the process; they will vote only if they happen to be driving by the polls on a Tuesday afternoon.

A few wealthy liberals are starting to do some basic arithmetic and, lo and behold, are discovering that they are on the wrong side of the new economic Mason-Dixon line of $250,000 and are suddenly counter-revolutionaries, and thus scheduled for a $20-40 thousand “contribution” in new income, capital gains, health care, and state income taxes to achieve “redistributive change.” (That monstrous Obama ’08 sign on the lawn, much less the fading Obama/Biden bumper sticker, does not count with the IRS.) They remind me of ‘reformers’ who thought throwing out Louis XVI would put them at the forefront of a reasoned revolution and now find themselves on the way to the guillotine, the sympathetic “rich” that Robespierre and the Committee of Public Safety still didn’t like.

[….]

Please Don’t Forget Chris Gibson, in NY’s 20th.

As I wrote on previous occasions, a rare American — war hero, author, West Point instructor, retired colonel, conservative— Chris Gibson is running neck and neck in New York’s 20th Congressional District. I don’t get involved in political races per se; but I met Chris during his one-year stay at Stanford, and found him a rare Renaissance figure — yet another of these idealistic first-time candidates without a political resume who are entering the fray to save this country.

[….]

Read the rest Anatomy of Petulance

Anatomy of the Obama Crackup

by Mojambo ( 23 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Progressives at October 9th, 2010 - 2:00 pm

Scroll down for the NCAA Football Open, Week 6


VDH shines his keen analytical skills on the Obama meltdown and what caused it. As he writes (and as we have said), Obama had a “perfect storm” of circumstances come together for him in 2008 (including a loser Republican opponent who preferred the purity of losing nobly to winning and probably did not even vote for himself). Hubris always meets Nemesis in the end.

by Victor Davis Hanson

Had the Obamites been sober and circumspect after the 2008 election they would have realized that Obama had pulled off what McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, and Kerry had not, due to a once-in-a-century perfect storm of about six events:

1) The September 15, 2008 financial meltdown that destroyed John McCain’s small, but steady lead.

2) The fascination with a possible landmark election of an African American candidate.

3) The inept McCain campaign that at times seemed more to wish to lose nobly than to win in a messy fashion.

4) The adroit Obama campaign that stressed centrist, “across the aisle” issues and style.

5) The “tingle in the leg” biased media coverage.

6) The first election without an incumbent or vice president since 1952 in which both candidates ran against the status quo Republican record.

Instead, Obama — egged on by obsequious advisers, an out-of-touch, hard-left base, and a toady media — decided that he had done what other Northern liberals had not, either because (a) the country was at last ready for European-style socialism, or (b) his singular charisma and talents could convince it that it was even when it was clearly not.

The result was that our Oedipus/Pentheus rushed headlong into socialized medicine, mega-deficits, needlessly polarizing appointments of the Van Jones type, and various federal takeovers, coupled with quite unnecessary editorializing about largely local matters — from the Skip Gates mess to the Arizona immigration law and Ground Zero mosque.

[…]

And now? After November, Obama can only hope that he can outsource the messy work of cuts and budget balancing to the congressional Republicans. Chances are he will demagogue them as heartless while taking credit for an economic rebound once investors, businesses, and corporations see an end to Obamism and its gratuitous slurs against the wealthy, and thus start using their stockpiled trillions to rehire and buy equipment in 2011.

In the meantime, an entire generation of Democratic House members and senators are going to pay a heavy price for falling for a clearly inexperienced, untried, and often petulant candidate amid the exuberance of the 2008 hope and change wave.

Read the rest here: Anatomy of the Obama meltdown

As a special weekend treat you are going to get two VDH columns.  Professor Hanson points out that a Republican congress, by doing the tough and responsible work that Obama refuses to do,  might actually save his presidency. The thing is that Obama is too much the ideologue to stop trying to push his socialist agenda through and cannot remain passive by playing rope-a-dope.

by Victor Davis Hanson

After 2010, will he be Carter or Clinton?

That is the ongoing parlor game now played among pundits over how President Obama will react to a probable shellacking of the Democrats in midterm elections next month.

Jimmy Carter stuck to his liberal agenda after suffering a modest rebuke in the 1978 midterms amid sky-high inflation, interest rates and unemployment. He didn’t take voters’ hint and went on to get clobbered two years later by Ronald Reagan.

In contrast, after his party was slaughtered in the 1994 midterms (losing 51 House and eight Senate seats), a triangulating Bill Clinton moved to the center and handily won re-election in 1996.

So what will Obama do if he loses a Democratic majority in the House and quite possibly the Senate, as his approval ratings tank to 40 percent?

Most likely, he will stick to his liberal orthodoxy — but in a way unlike Carter. Yet, like Clinton, Obama may still have a good chance at re-election.

[…]

But if Republicans take over Congress, they — not Obama — can be blamed for the failure to enact the liberal dream. Obama can nostalgically soar with hope-and-change platitudes about his aborted left-wing vision, with the assurance that there is absolutely no chance he will offend the majority of Americans by seeing any of it passed.

[…]

Read the rest here: The Obama Rope-A-Dope


Scroll down for the NCAA Football Open, Week 6


They are just too damn smart for us!

by Mojambo ( 136 Comments › )
Filed under Economy, Elections 2010, Health Care, Politics, Progressives at October 1st, 2010 - 8:30 am

Yes if only us working stiffs would just roll over and do what our Ivy League (legacy admissions most of the time) elites tell us what to do – this nation and world would be far better off. Nothing like being lectured to  by the horse faced Senator from Massachusetts  who has never worked in private industry or had to make a payroll and married two wealthy women, or the goofy, senile 39th president who gave us malaise and stagflation, or the affirmative action fellow who in some perverse way was able to con the nation into voting for him in November 2008, or the Botox injected Speaker of the House from the People’s Republic of San Francisco, or the raging alcoholic who hosts a show on MSNBC called “Hardball”, or the clipped Oxonian accent of an Islamic sympathizer (Christiane Amanpour) who thinks that Obama has accomplished “amazing things” legislatively.  Never forget that our elites – all graduates with Law or Business degrees from Yale, Columbia, Harvard, Princeton and Wharton – helped bring down Wall Street.

by Victor Davis Hanson

The bookish, twice-unsuccessful Democratic presidential candidate Adlai Stevenson once sighed that if most thinking people supported him, it still wouldn’t be enough in America because, “I need a majority.”

For some reason, Democrats have chosen to follow the disastrous model of Stevenson and not that of feisty man-of-the-people Missourian Harry Truman — though the former nearly wrecked the party and the latter got elected.

Former President Jimmy Carter likewise seems to feel that he’s still too smart for us. Carter, who turns 86 on Friday, is hitting the news shows to explain why he remains America’s “superior” ex-president — and why more than 30 years ago he was so successful yet so underappreciated as our chief executive.

Most Americans instead remember a very different President Carter who finished his single term with 18 percent inflation, 18 percent interest rates, 11 percent unemployment, long gas lines, and a world in chaos from hostage-taking in Teheran and Soviet communist aggression in Afghanistan and Central America.

Now, John Kerry — who failed to win the presidency in 2004 and recently tried to avoid state sales taxes on his new $7 million yacht — is voicing similar frustrations about Americans’ inability to fathom what their betters are trying to do for them. He is furious that an unsophisticated electorate might not return congressional Democratic majorities in 2010. Kerry laments that, “We have an electorate that doesn’t always pay that much attention to what’s going on.” Instead it falls for “a simple slogan rather than the facts or the truth or what’s happening.”

[…]

That sense of intellectual superiority was channeled by Barack Obama himself when he later tried to explain why his message was not resonating with less astute rural Pennsylvanians: “And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

During the recent Ground Zero mosque controversy, Obama returned to that Carter-Kerry-Obama sort of condescension. When asked about the overwhelming opposition to the mosque, the president felt again that the unthinking hoi polloi had given into their unfounded fears: “I think that at a time when the country is anxious generally and going through a tough time, then fears can surface, suspicions, divisions can surface in a society.”

The president often clears his throat with “Let me be perfectly clear” and “Make no mistake about it” — as if we, his schoolchildren, have to be warned to pay attention to the all-knowing teacher at the front of the class.

Disappointed progressive pundits also resonate this angst over having to deal with childlike Americans. Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson recently psychoanalyzed the falling support for the president by claiming that “The American people are acting like a bunch of spoiled brats.”

Read the rest here: American’s still cling to ignorance

Washington’s Animal Farm

by Mojambo ( 125 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Economy at September 21st, 2010 - 2:00 pm

As Mr. Hanson writes, to  Barack Obama if you earn over $250,000 a year you are greedy, unless of course you are Barack Obama or any of his supporters. The idea that those who are wealthy or who create wealth are intrinsically evil is a staple of a Marxist oriented mind set. People who make more money generally are more talented, ambitious, and driven then the rest – those are attributes which should be applauded not vilified.

by Victor Davis Hanson

Since the moment he announced his presidential candidacy, Barack Obama has waged a tireless, now four-year-long spread-the-wealth campaign against the more affluent.

He drew his mythical them/us line at $250,000 in annual income: If you went into the dark territory above that level, all sorts of promised punishments would kick in. At various times his administration has called for higher income taxes on this group, healthcare surcharges, and removing the caps on income subject to Social Security payroll taxes — all to be added to higher state and local taxes. And, of course, higher capital-gains and inheritances taxes as well.

The president is not interested in nuances. He does not care that 40 percent of Americans pay no income taxes, or that the top 1 percent of earners pay 40 percent of aggregate collected income-tax revenue. Yet many of the people in these brackets were not always so rich and probably won’t be for long. Top incomes are transient. Millions of Americans strive to reach them for a few years to provide for retirement, or college expenses, in the expectation that they will fade quickly. A quarter of a million dollars in annual compensation is great money in North Dakota, rather less so in Manhattan or the Bay Area.

Furthermore, most of these upper-income earners are the owners of small businesses, which simply calibrate proposed taxes in terms of money not available to hire employees and buy equipment. In contrast, the president assumes that a hardware-store owner or a small manufacturer already concedes that he makes too much money. The idea seems to be that, in penance, he will cut his profit margin and, for the public good, will gladly pay more of what profits remain to an Ivy League technocracy that knows far better than he how to spend his ill-gotten revenue on others more deserving.

[…]

The result is that Obama has little insight into the mentality of a businessperson, whose values and world view are antithetical to those of the salaried and tenured employee who accepts stability and a monthly check as he does the changing of the seasons. But to the self-employed, the world is an often hostile place in which a bad back, a chance fire, an unethical employee, a wrong guess, or a national recession can destroy years of hard work in a blink.

[…]

To expect otherwise would be to ask the indoor pigs of Animal Farm not to don clothes and walk on two legs as they sacrificed to ensure that the animals outside the farmhouse window were properly equal — or else

Read the rest here: Obama’s Washington Animal Farm