| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Why I'm rooting for Barack Obama |
| 2012-02-17 |
| And now for something different, h/t Gates of Vienna Let's get one thing clear: Obama unquestionably ranks among the bottom five presidents in US history. In terms of sublime awfulness he's right up there with our late and extremely unlamented ex-PM Gordon Brown -- which is quite some doing, given that Brown singlehandedly wrought more destruction on his country than the Luftwaffe, Dutch Elm Disease, the South Sea Bubble, the Fire of London and the Black Death combined. Agreed: the damage President Obama has done to the US economy with everything from Ben Bernanke's insane money-printing programme, to his cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline, to his ban on deep-water drilling to his crony capitalism hand-outs to disaster zones like Solyndra to his persecution of companies like Gibson is incalculable. And, of course, if he gets a second term the damage he and his rag-bag of Marxist cronies at organisations like the Environmental Protection Agency manage to inflict on the US small businessman trying to make an honest buck will make his first term look like Calvin Coolidge on steroids. So why do I think this would be preferable to a presidency under Mitt Romney? Simple. Because I've seen what happens, America, when you elect yet another spineless, yet ruthless, principle-free blow-with-the-wind, big government, crony-capitalist RINO squish. His name is Dave Cameron -- and trust me, the cure is far worse than the disease. |
| Posted by:g(r)omgoru |
| #12 Thought-provoking, as are Ptah's remarks. Basically the alternatives are (a) gently coast off the edge of the cliff, or (b) continue pedal-to-the-metal, while gambling on (a) a non-kooky hardass candidate in 2016, (b) who will be elected by a large margin. Indeed, that's a gamble that depends on what voters are made of. Given all the fraud, illegals, culture of dependency, etc., I'm not sure I could say either. We're really kinda f*cked either way. The one thing in Romney's favor is that he might buy us some time. |
| Posted by: RandomJD 2012-02-17 22:34 |
| #11 Ptah - You speak wisdom, sir. Let me add a similar sentiment I've held for some years now: the Federal Government is addicted to money the way a junkie is addicted to crack. And never, ever forget for a single moment what a junkie will do to get his fix. Mike |
| Posted by: Mike Kozlowski 2012-02-17 19:38 |
| #10 Reagan? There was 6 years of recession where he added more to the US debt than all other Presidents combined. His re-election was campaigned on a "Stay the Course" platform. Any feel-good from Geezer policies was from his undoing of Carter insanities. Reagan wasn't President when the Soviet bloc collapsed after the Chernobyl circus. Then there was the pullout from Lebanon after the Commander in Chief took responsibility for allowing troops to "guard" a Marine barracks with unloaded rifles. Don't dislike the guy, but why lie about him? |
| Posted by: Ho Chi Panda3530 2012-02-17 15:26 |
| #9 Delingpole is really a comedian editorialist. FTA: I'm presuming what you really want is stuff like: smaller government; a genuine – as opposed to an illusory, QE-driven – economic recovery; sensible environmentalism (ie conservation but not eco-fascism); liberty; an end of crony capitalism; a diminution of the power of Wall Street; a resurgence of American greatness; a renewed sense of confidence and purpose. That's what I want, but I've come to believe I'm in a small minority. My guess is about 45% of the electorate belong to the Free Lunch Party, ignorant of US history & basic economics, getting their information from the MSM, union public relations firms, etc. As long as their government cheques and bennies keep flowing to them, they're most unlikely to change. A resurgence of national greatness, confidence & purpose has to be earned, and IMHO can only occur if that mass of dead weight is somehow shifted, educated, persuaded before a national economic collapse occurs. The Free Lunch Party doesn't have to be converted 100%, just enough to swing several elections in succession. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2012-02-17 14:20 |
| #8 He has a point, but in my opinion has a poor way of proving it. Here's my try at it: The core problem is that the funds necessary to finance Barack's Utopia cannot be totally raised from taxes lest the economy tank and those taxed rise up in revolt. The result is deficit spending that is financed by the sale of US bonds and treasuries. The current problem is that the same policies driving us to Bartack's Utopia is tanking the economy so no one can (or will) buy these treasuries. The Fed steps in to buy these treasures, financed by fiat money with no real value. Thus, the monetized deficit not an IOU to future generations, but will be paid via inflation in a more immediate future. This tanks the economy even further. Now, what I have noticed is that when the economy tanks, the country is slowly learning that one has to turn to the Republicans to run a government that will fix the economy. THAT IS THE ONLY PURPOSE OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY: to patch the economy together enough so that the Democrats who are elected next to replace them will have something to plunder and distribute. The similarity in pronunciation between the initials for "Other People's Money" (OPM) and "Opium" the drug, is fortuitous: Like an addict or a drunkard, the US electorate has barely enough sense to know that when the junk runs out, they gotta turn to someone who will help them dry out and get some cash back into their pockets. Why? SO THAT THEY CAN GET MORE JUNK. You give money to a drunk so he can get a square meal, but he uses it to buy booze. You get him a suit so he can go on interviews and get a job, but he pawns the suit to buy booze. If he has SOME wits, he lands the job, works it a bit, THEN uses his paycheck to buy more booze than he would get pawning the suit. This is essentially a co-dependent relationship, and the addict uses all kinds of ways and means to keep the bennies that the co-dependent brings to them coming: threats, pleadings, accusations, even violence. As long as the co-dependent cooperates and does their part, the addict doesn't have to face the end of the party. This is where the concept of "tough love" comes in: that real love may require saying "no", doing nothing, and letting the addict suffer the full consequences of their behavior. This can have far-reaching impacts if it is a spouse who is an addict and the breadwinner, for letting that spouse suffer the consequences may necessitate a cut in one's income. If the income is more important than the spouse, continuing the cycle of dependency will be the preferable option (See Michael Jackson, and maybe Whitney Houston). The similarities to what this gentleman is saying should now be obvious: He's advocating some policital "tough love", let the Democrats win this battle, let the situation blow up in their faces (or, more likely, blow their faces off), then step in with someone who would really fix the core problem. If we win this time, the public will demand that we treat the lame ducks with compassion. What this guy is saying is that if we take a pass, the democrats will make the situation so much worse that the public will demand that we hang the b*st*rds when we win next time. Now, I anticipate that the response to this comment/explanation will exactly mirror the panicked response of the co-dependent spouse who worries that there WILL be no tomorrow if they don't do something. THAT attitude is what the addict depends on! If the co-dependent isn't thinking "If I don't help, disaster will happen!", then you can count on the addict helping them to think that very thought. If I was to play the counselor in both these cases, I would ask the same question to both: "what do you think your spouse/the american people is/are made of?" I haven't decided what I'll do yet, because I haven't figured out the answer to that question yet. |
| Posted by: Ptah 2012-02-17 13:00 |
| #7 The Coolidge reference is spot on. Re-read the sentence. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2012-02-17 12:45 |
| #6 You're going to be all alone out there. |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2012-02-17 11:30 |
| #5 The Calvin Coolidge reference is a product of ignorance. Coolidge ranks with Reagan among the 20th century's best presidents. |
| Posted by: Iblis 2012-02-17 10:48 |
| #4 As instalundit notes, at least with a Republican in the whitehouse the media acts as a watchdog and not a lapdog helping to hide questionable constitutional moves |
| Posted by: Rjschwarz 2012-02-17 09:50 |
| #3 This should do it. Send Mr. Scratch packing. |
| Posted by: Dale 2012-02-17 07:56 |
| #2 I woukd vote for a road apple over Obama. If Obama gets another 4 years, the USA is over. |
| Posted by: Cincinnatus Chili 2012-02-17 07:41 |
| #1 Many Democrats have no choice. Their party has been taken over. The black vote is still strong because he is black. Even when is is part black. In the days of the riots the black population would have called him an oreo. He still has the support from those on government programs. Some may want cuts but not on their stuff. They tempt the weak. Pied piper of destruction. Mr Scratch looking for more souls to harvest. |
| Posted by: Dale 2012-02-17 07:34 |