In his election post-mortem following the Democrat debacle in Massachusetts, President Obama had this to say:"Here's my assessment of not just the vote in Massachusetts but the mood around the country: The same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office," the president said in an exclusive interview with ABC News's George Stephanopoulos. "People are angry and they are frustrated. Not just because of what's happened in the last year or two years but what's happened over the last eight years."
At first I wanted to laugh at Obama as being fully delusional, which Pops believes. But the always thought-provoking W.C. Varones had this to say in a different context that got me thinking, maybe Obama is right, but not in the sense he believes. (W.C. is commenting on Senator Boxer's reversal of support for Bernanke.)
See Babs, the thing is that the population voted in change over a year ago. What the Democrats did was not change but continue the policies of the previous administration times 3. In the process the economy has gotten worse, the middle class is still earning less, unemployment keeps rising and yet, yet the folks who cheated the worst on Wall Street also happen to be paying out massive bonuses financed by the taxpayer.
Exactly. Obama is in fact delusional in that he thinks he is a break from the "failed Bush policies," but in fact he has continued almost everything that the public has come to loathe about the Bush presidency. Not the least of which is the incessant growth of both the size of government spending and the size of the national debt. Dean has commented extensively on the continuity from Bush to Obama (and that is an indictment of Bush, not an exoneration of Obama.) So yes, Mr. President, why don't you try reversing course, ending cozy relationships with various industries, pharma and banking, for example and start reducing the size of government. You might even have a chance for a second term if you did that. Of course you might not win the Democrat nomination either, but that's your problem.
I was in a huge argument in Chicago when supporters of Obama were challenging his
ReplyDeletesocialist moniker.
Of course he's a socialist, but so is Bush, McCain, and Dole, it's just a matter of degree.
I don't think the same desire for change swept Obama into power that changed the Senate seat in Massatwoshits. Although I can relate to the position and can see the merits.
The change that swept Obama into office was magnified by a lack of enthusiasm for McCain.
'Dawg,
ReplyDeleteI agree to a certain extent. As I opined on these pages and in person, McCain proved himself to not be up for the challenge after the AIG blow up and the first bail out. He rode back inot Washington and hinted he was considering challenging both Bush and Obama and all the Democrats over the issue, but then he backed down. Maverick lost his moniker, and the election.
Linked.
ReplyDelete