"Second Verse, Same As The First..."
"...A little bit louder, and a little bit worse," as the song goes.
Did you vote for Obama thinking things would be different with him in office? Well, they are! In that he's a bit more tan than George Bush and married to a woman named Michelle instead of Laura. The Center for Public Integrity, in a piece by Fred Schulte, John Aloysius Farrell and Jeremy Borden, reports:
More than two years after President Obama took office vowing to banish "special interests" from his administration, nearly 200 of his biggest donors have landed plum government jobs and advisory posts, won federal contracts worth millions of dollars for their business interests or attended numerous elite White House meetings and social events......As a candidate, Obama spoke passionately about diminishing the clout of moneyed interests and making the White House more accessible to everyday Americans. In kicking off his presidential run on Feb. 10, 2007, he blasted "the cynics, the lobbyists, the special interests," who he said had "turned our government into a game only they can afford to play."
"They write the checks and you get stuck with the bill, they get the access while you get to write a letter, they think they own this government, but we're here today to take it back," he said.
Blah blah blah blah, blah blah, blah blah blah blah blah, blah blah.
Many of Obama's supporters, and many of his most strident opponents, thought he was something very different than who he is. As some commentators have observed, despite his uncommon life story, Obama is a very ordinary politician. No one who was paying attention should be surprised by this.
Christopher at July 24, 2011 10:11 PM
Amy, George W. Bush married someone named Laura, not Barbara. Barbara Bush is the wife of George H. W. Bush. Heh. Maybe you're thinking that Dubya has the Oedipal thing going on? Wouldn't surprise me. He is definitely his mother's child.
Patrick at July 24, 2011 10:24 PM
As for the question, it doesn't apply to me. I didn't vote for Obama and since his election, I've had nothing but validation for my decision. Obama is an abysmal president. Worse than I anticipated.
I was extremely put off by his connections, his "convenient" revelation that Reverend Wright's rhetoric (no alliteration intended) was "divisive..." which is a little calling Stalin an anti-Semite. (It's technically correct, but it doesn't do him justice.)
I also was put off by his terribly-naive/terribly-arrogant/terrible-mixture-of-both attitude that he was the one who could dissolve decades, if not a full two centuries worth of partisan bickering and he would be the one to get the squabbling children to work together.
I had this horrible image in mind of Obama in the House of Representatives, the various reps holding hands, swaying back and forth as Obama leads them in "We Are The World." In any case, his hopes of bipartisanship were almost as realistic.
He was elected because liberals were enamored of the idea of putting a black (actually biracial) president in the White House. So much so that they failed to see his shortcomings, which should have been obvious to someone a little more color-blind. Aside from his oratorical gifts, Obama has nothing going for him.
Patrick at July 24, 2011 10:37 PM
City Journal-
It really is that bad.
Remember: Dubya taught the children how to hate!
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 24, 2011 11:51 PM
He was elected because liberals were enamored of the idea of putting a black (actually biracial) president in the White House.
This. Racism is alive and well, most especially on the left side of the political spectrum. In Obama they found someone with virtually no past political record, with good oratory skills - who could therefore become whatever they needed to win the election.
His nearly total lack of experience, combined with the astounding arrogance of someone utterly out of touch with the real concerns of average people - we're seeing what this means now...
What is truly shocking is how many of his true believer still haven't seen through him...
a_random_guy at July 25, 2011 2:01 AM
No, I did not vote for Obama. I am no McCain fan, but I lived through the Jimmy Carter presidency. I already have sufficient experience with sanctimonious incompetents for one lifetime.
If you've ever interviewed anyone for a job, you know you need to determine if they are willing and able to do the job. He might have fooled me on willing, but his accomplishments? Really?
MarkD at July 25, 2011 3:59 AM
Thanks Patrick...was beyond exhausted when I posted this!
And I'm enamored of the fact that we have a black guy in The White House, just decades after we had Jim Crow laws in effect. I think that's great. I just wish it weren't this particular guy.
Amy Alkon at July 25, 2011 5:31 AM
Obama is just a puppet - George Soros is the one who is pulling the strings and whose head we should be clamoring for. He's the one who set up this junior senator for the presidency, he's the one who had the money to make this all come about, and he's the one who hates the USA and has been orchestrating its downfall for years now. http://townhall.com/tipsheet/elisabethmeinecke/2011/07/21/the_dirty_dozen_george_soros_media_influence
Time for a revolution, and for someone to take this bastard out of the game. Permanently.
Flynne at July 25, 2011 6:07 AM
Dalymple.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 25, 2011 7:16 AM
Remember Tressider? I wish she were still around to see this line: "A large part of the public still views the state as the provider of first resort, which means that the public will remain what it now is: the servant of its public servants."
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 25, 2011 7:21 AM
So much so that they failed to see his shortcomings, which should have been obvious to someone a little more color-blind.
That's raaaaaaaaaaacist!
Aside from his oratorical gifts, Obama has nothing going for him.
Have you heard him talk extemporaneously, without the aid of a teleprompter? he doesn't sound particluarly gifted in those cases...
I R A Darth Aggie at July 25, 2011 7:30 AM
"Have you heard him talk extemporaneously, without the aid of a teleprompter? he doesn't sound particluarly gifted in those cases..."
I was about to make the same comment: Obama isn't a good orator in the conventional sense. He can deliver a good prepared speech when he has the benefit of professional speechwriting, extensive rehearsal, and prompting. Take away those things, and it isn't the same person. He has no inherent facility with words; he lacks the ability to interact with an audience, and he has the typical leftist sense of humor -- mean-spirited and lousy timing. He can't control his emotions; he flies off the handle at the slightest provocation. And he totally lacks skill at logic or debate, to the point where his handlers have to keep him away from it as much as possible. He has a pleasant tone of voice when he can keep himself under control. That's about it.
Cousin Dave at July 25, 2011 9:00 AM
Obama can't negotiate either. I saw right through this asshat long before the election, and yet even I was surprised at how utterly incompetent he is. The man is devoid of any skills actually required to be president. He got elected because the press fell in love with him and refused to actually vet him. They still won't.
Joe at July 25, 2011 9:11 AM
He got elected because the press fell in love with him and refused to actually vet him. They still won't.
Exactly; and that was the plan.
Thank you, George Soros. /sarcasm
Flynne at July 25, 2011 9:36 AM
ummmmm, let's not forget the international support either, can you say "nobel prize"? And wtf did he get that award for again? What contributions has he made to make the world a better place? Seriously, can any sane person out there justify his very existence? BTW, that right wing nut in Norway is only the beginning. The left has permeated too much of our society and violence is unfortunately the only tool left in the bag. This guy went bad when he started targetting unarmed adolescents. Government is a valid target, innocent vacationers is not.
ronc at July 25, 2011 9:58 AM
"The left has permeated too much of our society and violence is unfortunately the only tool left in the bag. This guy went bad when he started targetting unarmed adolescents. Government is a valid target, innocent vacationers is not."--Ronc.
Ronc: I hope the FBI can track your IP, the way Amy Alkon always brags about. Plus you are speaking George Bush's language with your last use of "is."
Beyond that, I hope you plan to visit a mental health professional. Or even an amateur. Anybody, dude, you have to talk this out before you hurt somebody.
BOTU at July 25, 2011 10:22 AM
But can he do the job. I know he can get the job but can he DO the job? I'm NOT arguing that with you. I'm not arguing that with YOU. I'm not ARGUING that with you. I'm not ARGUING that with you Harry! Harry... Harry... Yeah Harry... but can he DO the job. I know he can GET the job but can he do the job?
Goo at July 25, 2011 10:28 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/25/second_verse_sa.html#comment-2381405">comment from BOTUI hope the FBI can track your IP, the way Amy Alkon always brags about.
I've "brag(ged) about" this when? Or mentioned that the FBI can track your IP?
(BOTU is just disturbed about getting caught in pretending to be somebody else, while posting from the same IP.)
Amy Alkon at July 25, 2011 10:29 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/25/second_verse_sa.html#comment-2381408">comment from roncThe Nobel Prize was given to Obama, who'd done little in the Senate or as President, much in the way the presidency was: "Here, here's a prize. See it as incentive to make something of yourself, to rise to the occasion and deserve this."
Too many voters, much like blue jays, are easily swayed by sparkly items.
Amy Alkon at July 25, 2011 10:33 AM
Who am I pretending to be?
But more importantly, when someone advocates Norway-style anti-government violence on your blog, why are you silent?
BOTU at July 25, 2011 11:21 AM
Bubghole, you are an idiot, I am not advocating violence. I was merely stating that the lemmings outweigh the legitimate voting public, those who unlike you, can understand the issues they are being asked to vote on. When this become the norm, it breeds extremism. Yes I expect more of this, just as I fully expect the country that I love, unlike you. To fold from within thanks to idiots like you, now, crawl back under your rock. Better yet, die already
ronc at July 25, 2011 12:32 PM
And if you want a shining example of what a progressive government gives you, the Norwegian nut can be sentenced to a maximum of 21 years. That should make bunghole and lisa orgasm with joy
ronc at July 25, 2011 12:41 PM
"The left has permeated too much of our society and violence is unfortunately the only tool left in the bag. This (Norwegian) guy went bad when he started targetting unarmed adolescents. Government is a valid target, innocent vacationers is not."--Ronc.
The words "government is a valid target," in this context, is surely an example of you advocating violence.
You appear unbalanced, disturbed. I recommend you visit a mental health professional immediately. Or even an amateur talk group--the other members of the group may have advice on further steps. You should dispose of any firearms or weaponery you won, until you feel better.
Good luck.
BOTU at July 25, 2011 1:25 PM
Bunghole wants small government a.d then wants the FBI to look me up, Fing illiterate hypocrite
ronc at July 25, 2011 1:26 PM
Your an idiot devoid of reason, and oh ya, I am very well armed, please stop by for a very short visit. Perhaps you should study a bit more and look up hyperbole
ronc at July 25, 2011 1:29 PM
Amy - the only reason that Obama was given the Nobel was because he isn't George Bush.
@ronc - The last thing we should be talking about is insurrection. If you kill them, they will become more powerful than you could ever imagine.
There's really only one way out of this - we must discredit socialism and progressivism. When nobody is willing to consider socialism a valid form of government, then we will have won. If we start shooting, then they have all the justification they need to not only continue with their program, but to start shooting back.
I'm not down with that until they fire the first shot.
Obama losing in a 49 state landslide (just like Carter) will knock the left back on their heels for another 20 years. Maybe this time the right will not puss out and actually finish them off for good and the Democratic party will be run by sane, patriotic people and not neo-communists.
brian at July 25, 2011 1:31 PM
"Your an idiot devoid of reason, and oh ya, I am very well armed, please stop by for a very short visit.+--Ronc.
Ronc-
You are suggesting that you would shoot me for having different political viewpoints than yours.
I hope you can manage your way through whatever difficult stage you are in. Please refrain from violence, and consider joining a church, talk group or other organization. You may wish to place your firearms in a safety deposit box and give the key to a relative, minister or other figure. Good luck.
BOTU at July 25, 2011 1:56 PM
Here's another big word for you bunghole, paranoia, lay off the cannabis for awhile
ronc at July 25, 2011 2:00 PM
Things are different. For example, Obama has been running up the national debt about twice as fast as Bush did! That makes him doubly efficient.
Lobster at July 25, 2011 2:54 PM
"The words "government is a valid target," in this context, is surely an example of you advocating violence."
Read any founding documents lately?
Radwaste at July 25, 2011 3:11 PM
Only the Federalist Papers.
You are right in one sense, Radwaste (though I abhor violence in the current American context and in general): The Founding Fathers detested standing militaries, and supported citizen militias, in part to keep a balance of power between citizenry and the government.
Obviously, that viewpoint of the Founding Fathers has gone unheeded. We have a very powerful standing military, and only a few whack-jobs and self-appointed creeps talking about citizen militias or arming themselves.
The acts of a few sick madmen--say if you, Brian Ronc went on ill-advised and heinous bombing/shooting sprees--would have the impact of a mosquito biting a herd of elephants. There is no way you will ever match the armed might of your local police department, let alone a national guard, or federal troops.
I strongly urge you to use only civil means to express your political views, and to respect the rights of other to their political views.
"Live and let live" are still among the wisest words ever spoken.
BOTU at July 25, 2011 3:55 PM
The Founding Fathers detested standing militaries, and supported citizen militias
Would you please stop pedling that lie?
lujlp at July 25, 2011 4:02 PM
No lie. Read up on George Mason or James Madison, or various state constitutions that served as models for the US Constitution.
Are you aware that the US Congress gave George Washington, in his first term of office, exactly zero for a federal army (and this shortly after British troops and mercenaries occupied the US and nearly beat us)? And in his second four-year term only enough for 1,500 soldiers to face down Native Americans?
Indeed, the idea of a large standing military is completely a modern confection and aberration in American history. We demobilized after WWI, and again after WWII--so much so that Truman had trouble finding enough gear and troops for Korea.
Now, with no serious military enemies, we spend more on "defense" than we did at the height of the Cold War.
The War on Terror
The War on Poverty
The War on Drugs
All wars designed to perpetuate federal civilian and military agencies, and the grifters attached thereto.
Pay up suckers.
BOTU at July 25, 2011 4:43 PM
Ya.until DC burned in 1812 you moron
ronc at July 25, 2011 4:54 PM
I've made that point to him dozens of times, indeed the only founding fathers who didnt change their minds on the subject of a trained proffesional army were the ones who died before the DC debacle
lujlp at July 25, 2011 6:23 PM
Gentlemen, you can cite what some leaders after the war of 1812 thought--that is not necessarily the same group as the Founding Fathers. They were not being true to the sentiments of the Founding Fathers.
Consider again the words of Madison:
A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence agst. foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.
The idea is that governments use their armies to produce the enemies, then scare the people with cries that the barbarians are at the gates, and then claim that war is necessary to put down the barbarians. With all this, needless to say, comes increased governmental power over the people.
Sound familiar?
The Founding Fathers
Here is how Henry St. George Tucker put it in Blackstone’s 1768 Commentaries on the Laws of England:
Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.
Virginian Patrick Henry pointed out the difficulty associated with violent resistance to tyranny when a standing army is enforcing the orders of the government:
A standing army we shall have, also, to execute the execrable commands of tyranny; and how are you to punish them? Will you order them to be punished? Who shall obey these orders? Will your mace-bearer be a match for a disciplined regiment?
When the Commonwealth of Virginia ratified the Constitution in 1788, its concern over standing armies mirrored that of Patrick Henry:
... that standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.
Virginia’s concern was expressed by North Carolina, which stated in its Declaration of Rights in 1776,
that the people have a Right to bear Arms for the Defence of the State, and as Standing Armies in Time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, they ought not to be kept up, and that the military should be kept under strict Subordination to, and governed by the Civil Power.
The Pennsylvania Convention repeated that principle:
... as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil power.
The U.S. State Department’s own website describes the convictions of the Founding Fathers regarding standing armies:
Wrenching memories of the Old World lingered in the 13 original English colonies along the eastern seaboard of North America, giving rise to deep opposition to the maintenance of a standing army in time of peace. All too often the standing armies of Europe were regarded as, at best, a rationale for imposing high taxes, and, at worst, a means to control the civilian population and extort its wealth.
In fact, as Roy G. Weatherup pointed out in his excellent article, “Standing Armies and Armed Citizens: A Historical Analysis of the Second Amendment” (www.saf.org/journal/ 1_stand.html), the abuses of their government’s standing army was one of the primary reasons that the British colonists took up arms against that army in 1776:
[The Declaration of Independence] listed the colonists’ grievances, including the presence of standing armies, subordination of civil to military power, use of foreign mercenary soldiers, quartering of troops, and the use of the royal prerogative to suspend laws and charters. All of these legal actions resulted from reliance on standing armies in place of the militia.
The right-wing came to embrace many of the sentiments of the Founding Fathers after WW I, and oversaw a near-complete demobilization of the USA military. We re-mobilized for WWII, over the objections of the American right-wing, which wanted no part of the World Wars, until we were attacked by Japan, and Germany declared war on the USA.
There is a lot of huffing and puffing about the Founding Fathers and the Constitution. A strict reading of the document shows a loathing for large government, whether civilian or military, and an especial distaste for standing armies.
BOTU at July 25, 2011 6:52 PM
Simmer down, Bitches...
We know this because Old Media tells us so.
So there's that.
And in the same bushel of foolishness, harvested this evening at Longreads dot com, we get this, about the New York Times:
Got that? The people who want to sell that newspaper aren't counting on you being interested in factual presentation... It's about other things. For them. And maybe for you, too.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 25, 2011 7:39 PM
Hi! This is me, still chuckling. Two clauses which ought never, ever sit side by side, at least in news media ON news media: "as a business" , and "in a metaphorical sense".
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 25, 2011 7:41 PM
...that is not necessarily the same group as the Founding Fathers.
Not the same group as the Founding Fathers?
James Madison, co-author of the Constitution and author of the Bill of Rights, was president at the time and assumed command of the militia at Bladensburg. The militia broke and ran upon encountering the British and sent Madison scurrying for his life.
James Monroe, an officer in the Continental Army and later a representative to the Continental Congress, was Secretary of State in 1814 and oversaw the disposition of the militia at Bladensburg. Monroe, too, was sent running for his life when the militia ranks broke and ran.
Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence and co-author of the Constitution, was the president before Madison. His anti-federalist policies left the army and the navy ill-prepared for war, causing the lack of trained professional soldiers at Bladensburg and on other fronts?
You mean the same James Madison who was president, took direct command of the militia at Bladensburg, and was sent running for his life because the defense of Washington lacked professional soldiers?
The same James Madison who changed his mind about the value of a standing professional army after that experience?
Conan the Grammarian at July 25, 2011 9:12 PM
BOTU,
LIke a broken record, you keep harping on the Founding Fathers' viewpoints against a standing military.
Your arguments show a lack of nuance and understanding of real issues. You're like Rain Man insisting he has to get home in time for Wapner and unwilling to understand the lack of a television set.
In your arguments, you fail to consider that the views of the Founding Fathers changed over time.
You also fail to acknowledge that the scale and scope of military equipment has changed since 1776. The disparity between hunting or sporting weapons and military weapons back then was minimal. Today, that gulf is enormous.
You may have read the Federalist Papers, but you don't understand them.
Only three of the Founding Fathers were involved in writing the Federalist Papers, Hamilton, Madison, and Jay. They had a specific agenda in writing them.
The Federalist Papers were written to support the ratification of the Constitution and convince a skeptical body politic that a federal system would not trample the rights of the people.
They were not widely published outside of New York until much later and so did not influence ratification debates outside New York.
The Papers failed to do that completely and, as a result, the Bill of Rights had to be added to the Constitution to effect ratification.
Other Founding Fathers had different viewpoints on federalism, standing armies, national banks, the need for a bill of rights, etc.
For example, Hamilton favored a national bank. Madison did not ... until he became president of a nation with debts and currency issues and realized the value of having a national bank. He approved the establishment of a national bank in 1815.
Conan the Grammarian at July 25, 2011 10:05 PM
Anyone who was fooled by Obama wasn't paying attention.
The man had NO record worth mentioning.
C'mon now how many times can you be present but not vote in the government before you're just taking up space.
He's built his career on not having a firm opinion on anything.
His slogan was so feel good and empty of substance and full of hot air you could have floated a balloon with it.
"Yes we can." Yes we can WHAT? Go fishing, get laid, get hair cuts, have a cookie? Yes we can WHAT?
Right up there with Bill Clinton's "Change".
Moronic.
I understand why one might not wish to vote for McCain...but really? Obama? Good god why not just pluck a name out of a hat. Odds are the random person will be about as qualified.
Robert at July 26, 2011 5:07 AM
Right up there with Bill Clinton's "Change".
Well this time, it was change that we could believe in. So there's that. Oh, and Hope too!
Miguelitosd at July 26, 2011 2:08 PM
Leave a comment