Abraham Lincoln may well have had it easier -- Newsday.com
Interesting that poor BO has it tougher than Lincoln isn't it? When did this all happen? Reagan was handed an economy worse than today's by any measure, a world with a rising and more aggressive USSR and open revolt from European allies. Did you read any articles of how he had a harder task than Lincoln?
Bush was handed a post internet bubble crashed stock market and economy in recession. The Stark had been attacked in Yemen during the fall, and of course we didn't know what would happen 8 months later. Was the country more divided then? The election was closer, and margins in the house and the senate were closer -- in fact in a couple months Jim Jeffords would tip the balance in the Senate to the Democrats. The MSM certainly was going to do everything they could do to make it as tough as they could -- Bush was "not elected", he was "appointed", he would be a one-term President, the slide of the Senate to the Democrats that spring was heralded as "things to come". I don't recall any comparisons to Lincoln level (or beyond) difficulty at that point.
It is easy to understand the emotion of a Cumo. He "believes". I had some of those same emotions in 1981, although I wasn't so concerned about how Reagan's task compared to Lincoln. I wanted to believe that the "malaise" was wrong, America was a great nation with a great future that having just got out of college in '78, there was a bright future for me and the rest of the people of this country. Reagan delivered, but not because of what **HE** said he would do -- but rather because of what he ENABLED me and millions better than me to accomplish by letting the creative market that is the USA flourish.
Presidents are leaders, and leaders "enable" -- Lincoln didn't win the civil war; more than any single person, Grant did. Lincoln futzed around with George McClellan, Ambrose Burnside, Joeseph Hooker, George Meade and finally Grant. It took Lincoln a long time to get to his "Surge strategist". The Democrats then had exactly the same patience and perspective that they have had with Bush--they wanted Lincoln out of office and wanted the war over, NOW -- damn the consequences! It is awfully funny to see Democrats idolize Lincoln actually. Being a Democrat is about complaining loudly, blaming others, and indicating that "someone else ought to fix the problems". Being a Republican is about "lead, follow, or get out of the way".
So will BO be a surprise and somehow figure out how to get out of the way and let America shine? I don't think that is what his supporters are looking for -- they expect a "saviour", and the Jews were even unhappy with the only real Saviour that the world has ever had. I have no idea of what BO will bring us -- I would LOVE it if he could bring us a continuation of the success that we have largely seen from Reagan on, but my faith is not great.
My guess is that what we are going to get is something akin to 1930-53, and 1965-1983 -- periods of loss, stagnation, discontent, violence, war (serious war, 10's or 100's of K dead, not a few thousand) and the sense that "America's time is over". The GOVENMENTS time is ALWAYS over -- but if we return to the ideals of the American founders and free the market, it can be "Morning in America" anytime we want it.
I certainly HOPE that I'm wrong, but if I'm wrong, it won't be because of BO, it will be because of "We The People" as it always is -- and BO learning to be an ENABLER rather than a supposed savior. He is an intelligent guy, I pray that is a lesson he can learn.
Interesting that poor BO has it tougher than Lincoln isn't it? When did this all happen? Reagan was handed an economy worse than today's by any measure, a world with a rising and more aggressive USSR and open revolt from European allies. Did you read any articles of how he had a harder task than Lincoln?
Bush was handed a post internet bubble crashed stock market and economy in recession. The Stark had been attacked in Yemen during the fall, and of course we didn't know what would happen 8 months later. Was the country more divided then? The election was closer, and margins in the house and the senate were closer -- in fact in a couple months Jim Jeffords would tip the balance in the Senate to the Democrats. The MSM certainly was going to do everything they could do to make it as tough as they could -- Bush was "not elected", he was "appointed", he would be a one-term President, the slide of the Senate to the Democrats that spring was heralded as "things to come". I don't recall any comparisons to Lincoln level (or beyond) difficulty at that point.
It is easy to understand the emotion of a Cumo. He "believes". I had some of those same emotions in 1981, although I wasn't so concerned about how Reagan's task compared to Lincoln. I wanted to believe that the "malaise" was wrong, America was a great nation with a great future that having just got out of college in '78, there was a bright future for me and the rest of the people of this country. Reagan delivered, but not because of what **HE** said he would do -- but rather because of what he ENABLED me and millions better than me to accomplish by letting the creative market that is the USA flourish.
Presidents are leaders, and leaders "enable" -- Lincoln didn't win the civil war; more than any single person, Grant did. Lincoln futzed around with George McClellan, Ambrose Burnside, Joeseph Hooker, George Meade and finally Grant. It took Lincoln a long time to get to his "Surge strategist". The Democrats then had exactly the same patience and perspective that they have had with Bush--they wanted Lincoln out of office and wanted the war over, NOW -- damn the consequences! It is awfully funny to see Democrats idolize Lincoln actually. Being a Democrat is about complaining loudly, blaming others, and indicating that "someone else ought to fix the problems". Being a Republican is about "lead, follow, or get out of the way".
So will BO be a surprise and somehow figure out how to get out of the way and let America shine? I don't think that is what his supporters are looking for -- they expect a "saviour", and the Jews were even unhappy with the only real Saviour that the world has ever had. I have no idea of what BO will bring us -- I would LOVE it if he could bring us a continuation of the success that we have largely seen from Reagan on, but my faith is not great.
My guess is that what we are going to get is something akin to 1930-53, and 1965-1983 -- periods of loss, stagnation, discontent, violence, war (serious war, 10's or 100's of K dead, not a few thousand) and the sense that "America's time is over". The GOVENMENTS time is ALWAYS over -- but if we return to the ideals of the American founders and free the market, it can be "Morning in America" anytime we want it.
I certainly HOPE that I'm wrong, but if I'm wrong, it won't be because of BO, it will be because of "We The People" as it always is -- and BO learning to be an ENABLER rather than a supposed savior. He is an intelligent guy, I pray that is a lesson he can learn.
No comments:
Post a Comment