Opaque, Contradictory and Subtle

RealClearPolitics - Articles - Obama's Inaugural Surprise

Good column by Krauthammer, I think the following is the highlight. As I read the different innauguration retropsectives, I'm struck by how BO still managed to let everyone hear what they want to hear. He is more like a beer commercial than a leader. BO says "responsibility, work, sacrifice and service" and Charles hears "wow, those are conservative values". The BO supporters hear it and think, oh cool, he is going to make those nasty rich folks be "responsible, sacrifice, keep working hard and serve us!". Both sides applaud and BO smiles sweetly.

How long can BO keep 70% of the population from "looking behind the curtain" (as in Wizard of Oz)? Only the time is in question, because there is a LOT of stuff behind the curtain, and "over the rainbow" is just a dream.

Candidate Obama had promised the moon. In soaring cadences, he
described a world laid waste by Bush, a world that President Obama
would redeem -- bringing boundless hope and universal health, receding
oceans and a healing planet.

But now that Obama was president, the redeemer was withholding, the
tone newly sober, even dour. The world was still in Bushian ruin,
marked by "fear ... conflict ... discord ... petty grievances and false
promises ... recriminations and worn-out dogmas." But now no more the
prospect of magical restoration. In a stunning exercise in lowered
expectations, Obama offered not quite blood, sweat and tears, but
responsibility, work, sacrifice and service.

Morris is an Optimist!

http://thehill.com/dick-morris/the-obama-presidency--here-comes-socialism-2009-01-20.html

I've covered almost all of this in one post or another, but a good summary. The only thing I REALLY disagree with him on is the idea that we will be through this all by 2012. My guess is that BO will be very successful with the realignment of the country into > 50% "tax takers" and < 50% tax payers along with adding a lot of illegal aliens to the voting roles, along with Acorn Style "here, let me vote for you" absentee voting to create a nearly impregnable Democrat majority for a good long while.

The big issue is that we will mostly likely face a rapid decline in quality of life on all fronts -- income, crime levels, medical, education, etc, but that will be solidly blamed on "the country having gone in the wrong direction for so long". My thinking is that it will be 8-12 years before some coalition of some set of folks can start to get the point across that we have to re-ignite the free market economy or the quality of life here will continue to drop.

So I guess that I think Morris is a optimist!

Booing Bush

Nice example of the respect provided by Democrats for Bush. From what I've seen so far, the Republican support for BO is pretty amazing. There is no doubt that Respect should be shown for the OFFICE in all cases, and at this point, BO deserves a "honeymoon", but some reasoned opposition is also just fine.

Even if we have a major depression and BO makes Bush seem like Lincoln, I hope that Republicans don't boo BO as he heads to swear in his replacement.

Patriotic Dissent?

RealClearPolitics - Articles - Is Dissent Still Patriotic?

This is very well written, just read it. The main crux is that for eight years we were to believe that dissent against the Bush administration was highly patriotic, brave and honorable. Now it is "unity" that is patriotic? Uh, what changed other than the party of the President? Nothing -- the MSM assumes that most are sheep, and they seem to be right.

Anybody find meaning in a power even higher than government? Let us hope that many do.

Opacity of Hope

The Opacity of Hope - WSJ.com

Nice title and well written. Unlike the left, that wanted Bush gone from day one and did everything they could to make that clear for the full eight years, no matter what the cost of that disunity to the nation, the general position of the right is "hopefully Obama will succeed" (somehow). Conservatives tend to have jobs, families and investments, which gives them a vested interest in the nation moving forward. More lefties are single, no kids or estranged kids, limited or no employment or tenured or union employment that they believe is just another part of "their rights". They believe that if things get really bad, "the fat cats" will be hurt worse then them, so "bring it on".

We know the least about what Obama intends to do than we have known about any President in my memory, but given the world that we live in, it seems a certain bet that there will be tough, lonely, and unpopular decisions to be made if he is to have a chance at success. I think the following paragraph captures that well -- the rest of the article is worth reading as well:

As a matter of political character, many of these questions hang on Mr. Obama's toughness. We know he is intelligent and clever. What we don't know is if he can make a difficult decision in the national interest that is unpopular, and then endure the consequences. Reagan showed his steel by staring down the Patco strike at home and Soviet scare-tactics against missile deployments abroad. Whatever his mistakes in Iraq, George W. Bush's "surge" was a lonely call that has proven to be right. As far as we know, Mr. Obama has had to make no such decision in his short public life.

Bush's Sin

William McGurn: Bush's Real Sin Was Winning in Iraq - WSJ.com

I believe this to be a pretty correct call. The highlight here:

"Americans must be clear that Iraq, and the region around it, could
be even bloodier and more chaotic after Americans leave," read the
editorial. "There could be reprisals against those who worked with
American forces, further ethnic cleansing, even genocide." Even genocide. With no hint of irony, the Times nevertheless went on to conclude that it would be even worse if we stayed.

This
is Vietnam thinking. And the president never accepted it. That was why
his critics went ape when, in a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars,
he touched on the killing fields and exodus of boat people that
followed America's humiliating exit off an embassy rooftop. As the
Weekly Standard's Matthew Continetti noted, Mr. Bush had appropriated
one of their most cherished analogies -- only he drew very different
lessons from it.

Mr. Bush's success in Iraq is equally infuriating, because it showed
he was right and they wrong. Many in Washington have not yet admitted
that, even to themselves. Mr. Obama has. We know he has because he has
elected to keep Mr. Bush's secretary of defense -- not something you do
with a failure.

I suspect that BO plans to throw Gates under the bus at the first sign of trouble, but if Iraq was where BO and the Democrats had predicted it would be, the Bush SecDef would be OUT, and there would be "immediate withdrawl". If BO, Reid, Hillary, Biden, etc were Republicans rather than Democrats, being as wrong as they were about the surge would have been the end of their electability to anything higher than their posititions at the time they took the "war is lost", "surge will fail" positions--if that. When you are a Republican and take solid positions that turn out that wrong -- or even less wrong than that, you are a pariah (witness Bush).

RATs Leave The Mall

The scene on the Mall of our Nations Capitol after those environmental saints, the BO "Renew America Together" (RAT) lefties leave. The "renewal" is under way, the RATs have to be feeling a sense of relief to see America looking as they would want it to be!

Now if they can just get the rest of the country to meet their "high standards"!

Markets, BO, and IBM

CNNMoney.com Market Report - Jan. 20, 2009

While most of the nation waxed poetic with the heady scent of BO in the air, and seemed excited to become RATs (Renew America Together), the market seemed less than thrilled. -332 and the first close below $8,000 for 2009.

Meanwhile, IBM reported earnings of $4.4 billion for the 4th QTR of '08 vs $4 billion for '07, and broke $100 Billion in revenue for '08 at $103 billion vs $98.8 billion in '07. So, apparently the economy isn't broken EVERYWHERE (yet).

Why is IBM "optimistic" for '09? Because a company that pulled in over $100 billion in revenue for '08 figures that it will get at least it's share of the lard due from BO in '09. Now isn't that special? I guess it is better to give the money to a company that is MAKING money rather than to those that are LOSING it like Detroit, but it still gives one pause.

Listening to the media in '07 and '08 it seemed that the only real issue was "recession or depression", yet here we have a major US company doing well in the teeth of what at least we are being told is "the worst economy since the depression". The winds of negativity at least took the spark out of the stock (and most every other stock), but somebody kept spending $100 billion and made it another good year.

I'm SURE that BO and his minions will straighten this all out -- quickly. Will Sam Palmisano be right and IBM will get nice hefty slabs of pork? or will BO and crew find some other companies maybe doing less well that maybe contributed more to his coffers or those of his party, and smile on them with a bank roll of many billions? I guess the message of to day is "the nation trusts him to do whatever he wants to do, and the media especially trusts him". Most people feel that is "good" -- the market is somehow "crooked", BO is straight -- let him decide who gets the funds, that is a better way.

So the Obamanation begins!

Evidence of Moose Brain Damage

Why so many minds think alike - CNN.com

I often find myself in the "opposition position" -- politically, in meetings, in discussions, etc.. In fact, I feel more uncomfortable in the majority. When 80% of the people were in favor of the Iraq war, I was reasonably certain that the vast majority of people didn't really know what they were "in favor of". The prior two "quick low casualty wars" ... Iraq in '90 and Afghanistan in '01 (although that wasn't REALLY over, most people thought of it as such) had led them to believe that "modern war was easy", which was of course a false belief that was never going to last.

BO at least lets me be comfortable again. It looks like 80% of the folks think "he is great" although it would be impossible to tell from what he has said / done so far to really have any clue of what kind of President he will be other than probably "smooth". I think that people especially like to be in in favor of something that is viewed as "positive but undefined"--it lets them feel good and think less. It is also really fun for 80% of people to be in agreement on being AGAINST something that is "negative but undefined" -- as in George Bush.  Many of them REALLY don't like it when one of them makes a statement that they are CERTAIN that "everyone will agree with", and some big bald guy is willing to stand up for of all people, BUSH! and they don't really have any answer to "why they hate him" -- they were just told to, and figure that everyone either does as well, or would shut up and follow the crowd like evolution demands.


So, maybe the areas of my brain that would make me want to turn with the herd are damaged.

One reason behind conformity is that, in terms of human evolution, going against the group is not beneficial to survival, Berns said. There is a tremendous survival advantage to being in a community, he said.

"Our brains are exquisitely tuned to what other people think about us, aligning our judgments to fit in with the group," Berns said.

It might also be possible that being rather large with a loud voice, some part of my brain has figured out that my ability to "blend in" with the herd is "less than optimal", so I had better be able to operate without or against the herd. It turns out that in "verbal combat" (or even physical), the herd has a hard time doing a "group attack" -- one of the many herd mentality weaknesses.

My guess though is that most of the people that know me would be on the "brain damaged" viewpoint, and there is no way for me to disprove that one.

Poor BO

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.

BO: "America will endure"

WOW, BO thinks that America will ENDURE?? ... or I guess he only HOPES it will endure! How the mighty have fallen. When Reagan was elected he was telling us that the PEOPLE could PROSPER, and we did! Things looked MUCH worse when Reagan took office than they do now -- unemployment, inflation, and "the malaise" that "our best years were behind us". I have the sad feeling that 4 or 8 years from now, we may have all those kinds of thoughts again, BUT, I think I have more confidence than BO that we will "endure" whatever we have to to get through in the coming 4-8 years.

Eventually, there will be "hope", but it won't come from the government -- it will come from where it ALWAYS comes from ... the God of the universe by way of THE PEOPLE!

Obama, at the Lincoln: "But despite all of this - despite the enormity of the task that lies ahead - I stand here today as hopeful as ever that the United States of America will endure - that the dream of our founders will live on in our time."

BO's RAT

Renew America Together

Am I against service to our fellow man? Nope, in fact, study after study shows that conservatives both do more and give more than their liberal counterparts. Like most activities, liberals expect "someone else to do it" -- so they complain a lot but do much less.

My point here is how much derision has every conservative program of this sort received over the past few decades? Nancy Reagan with "Just Say NO" (to drugs), Bush Sr with "Thousand Points of Light", W's "Compassionate Conservatism and Faith Based Initiatives". Every Republican program to be brought out is the subject of laughter, derision, and 100% negative press from the MSM.

Now BO has a program whose intials are "Rat" and THIS the MSM takes seriously? Please explain to me again how the MSM is unbiased!

BO and Lincoln

Power Line - The pre-inaugural MSM -- more childish than partisan

Tom Brokow apparently has Alzheimers -- losing the New Hampshire primary and coming back is "similar" to what Lincoln dealt with in the civil war? This is insanity pure and simple, and especially insanity since both W and Slick Willie lost the New Hampshire primary and came back to win the Presidency -- and I don't recall anyone making the claim that was "Lincolnesque"!

Cuomo claims that the current problems are MORE profound than what Lincoln faced? More insanity. I think PL is giving the MSM a pass here -- childish, partisan, delusional, incompetent ... it seems to me that anyone that gives the MSM even a wisp of credibility after this debacle is utterly suspending any hints of connection to reality. Can they be trusted to know what day it is? I'm no longer certain.

Genuine BO Sunbeam

I think this is a little too "down to earth" for the great BO, shouldn't it be a Moonbeam? One has to be excited about this President. Two years ago, the Democrats took over congress promising "Change", and they have really delivered! Now we have BO yet again promising "Change", but this time with the important addition of "Hope" and "Yes we can".

With that kind of leadership, at least we don't have to worry about the campaign promises being fulfilled! It is REALLY good he didn't promise to balance the budget!

Krauthammer, Bush Exit

RealClearPolitics - Articles - Exit Bush, Shoes Flying

Good article by Charles -- he touches on how News Speak is already deciding that the existing Bush policies are just fine if BO wants to follow them.