PDA

View Full Version : Obama The Mortal



bobbys
09-05-2009, 12:21 PM
Obama, the Mortal
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, September 4, 2009


What happened to President Obama? His wax wings having melted, he is the man who fell to earth. What happened to bring his popularity down further than that of any new president in polling history save Gerald Ford (post-Nixon pardon)?
The conventional wisdom is that Obama made a tactical mistake by farming out his agenda to Congress and allowing himself to be pulled left by the doctrinaire liberals of the Democratic congressional leadership. But the idea of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi pulling Obama left is quite ridiculous. Where do you think he came from, this friend of Chávista ex-terrorist William Ayers, of PLO apologist Rashid Khalidi, of racialist inciter Jeremiah Wright?
But forget the character witnesses. Just look at Obama's behavior as president, beginning with his first address (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/remarks-of-president-barack-obama-address-to-joint-session-of-congress/) to Congress. Unbidden, unforced and unpushed by the congressional leadership, Obama gave his most deeply felt vision of America, delivering the boldest social democratic manifesto ever issued by a U.S. president. In American politics, you can't get more left than that speech and still be on the playing field.
In a center-right country, that was problem enough. Obama then compounded it by vastly misreading his mandate. He assumed it was personal. This, after winning by a mere seven points in a year of true economic catastrophe, of an extraordinarily unpopular Republican incumbent, and of a politically weak and unsteady opponent. Nonetheless, Obama imagined that, as Fouad Ajami (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203706604574370301468452872.html) so brilliantly observed, he had won the kind of banana-republic plebiscite that grants caudillo-like authority to remake everything in one's own image.
Accordingly, Obama unveiled his plans for a grand makeover of the American system, animating that vision by enacting measure after measure that greatly enlarged state power, government spending and national debt. Not surprisingly, these measures engendered powerful popular skepticism that burst into tea-party town-hall resistance.
Obama's reaction to that resistance made things worse. Obama fancies himself tribune of the people, spokesman for the grass roots, harbinger of a new kind of politics from below that would upset the established lobbyist special-interest order of Washington. Yet faced with protests from a real grass-roots movement, his party and his supporters called it a mob -- misinformed, misled, irrational, angry, unhinged, bordering on racist. All this while the administration was cutting backroom deals with every manner of special interest -- from drug companies to auto unions to doctors -- in which favors worth billions were quietly and opaquely exchanged.
"Get out of the way" and "don't do a lot of talking," the great bipartisan scolded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jifjRVLVjzA) opponents whom he blamed for creating the "mess" from which he is merely trying to save us. If only they could see. So with boundless confidence in his own persuasiveness, Obama undertook a summer campaign to enlighten the masses by addressing substantive objections to his reforms.
Things got worse still. With answers so slippery and implausible and, well, fishy, he began jeopardizing the most fundamental asset of any new president -- trust. You can't say that the system is totally broken and in need of radical reconstruction, but nothing will change for you; that Medicare is bankrupting the country, but $500 billion in cuts will have no effect on care; that you will expand coverage while reducing deficits -- and not inspire incredulity and mistrust. When ordinary citizens understand they are being played for fools, they bristle.
After a disastrous summer -- mistaking his mandate, believing his press, centralizing power, governing left, disdaining citizens for (of all things) organizing -- Obama is in trouble.
Let's be clear: This is a fall, not a collapse. He's not been repudiated or even defeated. He will likely regroup and pass some version of health insurance reform that will restore some of his clout and popularity.
But what has occurred -- irreversibly -- is this: He's become ordinary. The spell is broken. The charismatic conjurer of 2008 has shed his magic. He's regressed to the mean, tellingly expressed in poll numbers hovering at 50 percent.
For a man who only recently bred a cult, ordinariness is a great burden, and for his acolytes, a crushing disappointment. Obama has become a politician like others. And like other flailing presidents, he will try to salvage a cherished reform -- and his own standing -- with yet another prime-time speech.
But for the first time since election night in Grant Park, he will appear in the most unfamiliar of guises -- mere mortal, a treacherous transformation to which a man of Obama's supreme self-regard may never adapt.
letters@charleskrauthammer.com

bobbys
09-05-2009, 12:24 PM
I enjoy reading CK,

Im interested in your opinion on this article.

Please refrain from attacking the writer or me.

Captain Blight
09-05-2009, 12:29 PM
So Mr Obama is human and can make mistakes after all?

Heavens. What things you tell me.

jack grebe
09-05-2009, 02:23 PM
So Mr Obama is human and can make mistakes after all?


No.........He is a Mistake........


Please, Someone remind me why this POS is any better
than the last POS in the WH.

seanz
09-05-2009, 03:54 PM
A mistake? John McCain has just turned 73.......

Why is Obama better?

He's not an embarassment to the country he's leading.

He might lead you down the road to rack and ruin but he won't do it on purpose.

:)

Tom Galyen
09-05-2009, 04:14 PM
To Seanz,

President Obama comes from a family that has a history of dying young. He is a chain smoker, who although he does not smoke in public or photos, does still smoke.

Joe Biden has had two I believe aneurysms any of which could be fatal.

That leaves Nancy Pelosi as next in line for the presidency. And you were worried about Sarah P?

Although I did not vote for him, after thinking about those who would replace him, I do pray nightly for his health, and that is no joke.

Captain Blight
09-05-2009, 04:16 PM
No.........He is a Mistake........


Please, Someone remind me why this POS is any better
than the last POS in the WH.Because his election wasn't decided by his brother counting the votes. Votes coming from where YOU choose to live.

seanz
09-05-2009, 05:57 PM
To Seanz,

President Obama comes from a family that has a history of dying young. He is a chain smoker, who although he does not smoke in public or photos, does still smoke.

Joe Biden has had two I believe aneurysms any of which could be fatal. But probably weren't....:rolleyes:;)

That leaves Nancy Pelosi as next in line for the presidency. And you were worried about Sarah P?

Although I did not vote for him, after thinking about those who would replace him, I do pray nightly for his health, and that is no joke.

You just can't seem to elect a healthy VP..why is that?
:)

Now, I won't argue Pelosi vs Palin...but you do realize that if McCain died in office (we now know that) Palin would resign for no good reason and you'd still get Pelosi...
Ya just can't win.
:D


:eek:
Not that I'm a believer but Biden must have a guardian angel....



In February 1988, after suffering from several episodes of increasingly severe neck pain, Biden was taken by long-distance ambulance to Walter Reed Army Medical Center and given lifesaving surgery to correct an intracranial berry aneurysm that had begun leaking;[47][48] the situation was serious enough that a priest had administered last rites at the hospital.[49] While recuperating, he suffered a pulmonary embolism, which represented a major complication.[48] Another operation to repair a second aneurysm, which had caused no symptoms but was also at risk from bursting, was performed in May 1988.[48][50] The hospitalization and recovery kept Biden from his duties in the U.S. Senate for seven months.[34] Biden has had no recurrences or effects from the aneurysms since then.[48]

from The Great Wiki.

Sounds like he's fine now though.....;)
As for his boss's smoking, talk about a bad example for the kids of America.
Mind you, smoking 'only' kills half of the people that smoke......so pray all you like Tom but it's a coin toss.

cheers
Sean

brad9798
09-05-2009, 06:00 PM
Because his election wasn't decided by his brother counting the votes. Votes coming from where YOU choose to live.

Yea ... that's what happened!

Not even worth a comment ... it's that stupid of a statement ... oh wait, that was a comment! :rolleyes:

High C
09-05-2009, 06:07 PM
Yea ... that's what happened!

Not even worth a comment ... it's that stupid of a statement ... oh wait, that was a comment! :rolleyes:

Yep, a pretty bizarre interpretation of history. :rolleyes:

seanz
09-05-2009, 06:14 PM
Sometimes, no matter how you interpret it, history is just bizarre.
:)

High C
09-05-2009, 06:15 PM
Sometimes, no matter how you interpret it, history is just bizarre.
:)

...especially when it's fabricated out of whole cloth.

seanz
09-05-2009, 06:20 PM
...especially when it's fabricated out of whole cloth.

Now, now......some of those ballots were real.
:D

High C
09-05-2009, 06:33 PM
Now, now......some of those ballots were real.
:D

Real fishy! :D

pefjr
09-05-2009, 06:39 PM
Because his election wasn't decided by his brother counting the votes. Votes coming from where YOU choose to live.
And you think of yourself as an "intellectual". Hilliary does too. You are slipping faster than Obama.

Captain Blight
09-05-2009, 07:39 PM
Hillary thinks I'm an intellectual? Awesome.

Mind you, in some Conservative circles an "intellectual" is someone who knows why it's a bad idea to have relations with their siblings.

Milo Christensen
09-05-2009, 08:26 PM
. . . Mind you, in some Conservative circles an "intellectual" is someone who knows why it's a bad idea to have relations with their siblings.

n why'n hellfire tarnation them gud ole boys keeps votin fer Senatur Byrd, well bless there hearts.

Bring the level of discourse up out of the gutter, blighty old chap, do please, or your tendency to say things that will result in your taking a vacation from the bilge will be your undoing, again.

Captain Blight
09-05-2009, 08:28 PM
Truth is absolute defense against accusation of slander.

I'm just holding up a shoe. Are you claiming that it fits?

Milo Christensen
09-05-2009, 08:30 PM
no, in the "mood" you're in tonite, you'll just jam the size 7 sucker on my size eleventy foot.

Settle down. We're all imaginary friends here.

Captain Blight
09-05-2009, 08:37 PM
Milo, I'm in Wisconsin visiting my mom tonight. I've not felt this relaxed in some time. I really think you're taking things I am saying for humorous effect, and blowing it out of proportion.

Do you always get this upset when you're poked fun at? Is it really this easy to wind you up just to hear you tick? If so, I forsee several years of fun for me and agita for you.

Milo Christensen
09-05-2009, 08:50 PM
That's what I'm trying to tell you, dude, I don't give a sh!t what you say, you're just a foulmouthed liberal who has a habit, when "relaxed", of saying things that cause others to push the exclamation point. Understand yet? Ah, maybe it'll have to wait until you're not so "relaxed". We'll continue this early tomorrow morning.

Captain Blight
09-05-2009, 09:00 PM
That's what I'm trying to tell you, dude, I don't give a sh!t what you say,Apparently you do, you keep responding to what I say. So either you DO care, in which case you're lying; or you DON'T care, in which case... well, you're lying.

you're justI actually take a little offense at that "just."It's awfully dismissive. But, like, whatever.

a foulmouthed liberal My language isn't really all that bad, Lunchbox. Though I think what you really object to is that I've never made it a secret that I'm a liberal, am proud of it, and will back up my beliefs with words or, as a last resort (Really. I am not at all a violent man) physically. If you can't beat me with the one, and you surely are past your prime with the other, than I guess that puts you on the losing end of this conversation.
who has a habit, when "relaxed", of saying things that cause others to push the exclamation point.Not everyone. Not even all the Conservatives. Mostly, really, it's confined to you.
Understand yet? Ah, maybe it'll have to wait until you're not so "relaxed". We'll continue this early tomorrow morning.Oh, I get it. I got it when I first joined. I just don't much care for your opinions, as I find them narrow and as subtle as the Saharan sun.

Opine all you want. But either prove me wrong by sucking it up and showing a little sense of humor; or prove me right and whine a little more, and maybe report my posts to Scot.

Your choice.


I calmly and amusedly await your reply.

sailboy3
09-05-2009, 09:10 PM
I don't give a sh!t what you say, you're just a foulmouthed liberal

pot calling the kettle black

pefjr
09-05-2009, 09:12 PM
[quote=Captain Blight;2311201]Truth is absolute defense against accusation of slander.

Ok, I'll buy that. Here a little "Truth" for you. Put this in your snuff box and dip it.

Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Reports) 98 (http://supreme.justia.com/us/531/98/case.html) (2000), is a landmark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_landmark_court_decisions) United States Supreme Court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States) case decided on December 12, 2000. The case effectively resolved the 2000 presidential election (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2000) in favor of George W. Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush). Only eight days earlier, the United States Supreme Court had unanimously decided the closely related case of Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Palm_Beach_County_Canvassing_Board), 531 U.S. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Reports) 70 (http://supreme.justia.com/us/531/70/case.html) (2000), and only three days earlier, had preliminarily halted the recount (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_election_recount) that was occurring in Florida (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida).
In a per curiam decision (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per_curiam_decision), the Court in Bush v. Gore ruled that the Florida Supreme Court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Supreme_Court)'s method for recounting ballots was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause) of the Fourteenth Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitu tion). The Court also ruled that no alternative method could be established within the time limits set by the State of Florida. Three concurring justices also asserted that the Florida Supreme Court had violated Article II, § 1, cl. 2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clau se_2:_Method_of_choosing_electors) of the Constitution, by misinterpreting Florida election law that had been enacted by the Florida Legislature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Legislature).
The decision allowed Florida Secretary of State (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_of_State_of_Florida) Katherine Harris (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katherine_Harris)'s previous certification of George W. Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush) as the winner of Florida's electoral votes to stand. Florida's 25 electoral votes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)) gave Bush, the Republican (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)) candidate, 271 electoral votes, defeating Democratic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)) candidate Al Gore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore), who ended up with 266 electoral votes (with one D.C. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington,_D.C.) elector abstaining). A majority (270) of the electoral votes is needed to win the Presidency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States) or Vice Presidency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice_President_of_the_United_States) in the Electoral College.


And I think you and Hilliary will do well together, you two can sit and measure each other's intellect.

Captain Blight
09-05-2009, 09:19 PM
[quote=Captain Blight;2311201]Truth is absolute defense against accusation of slander.

Ok, I'll buy that. Here a little "Truth" for you. Put this in your snuff box and dip it.

Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Reports) 98 (http://supreme.justia.com/us/531/98/case.html) (2000), is a landmark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_landmark_court_decisions) United States Supreme Court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States) case decided on December 12, 2000. The case effectively resolved the 2000 presidential election (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2000) in favor of George W. Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush). Only eight days earlier, the United States Supreme Court had unanimously decided the closely related case of Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Palm_Beach_County_Canvassing_Board), 531 U.S. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Reports) 70 (http://supreme.justia.com/us/531/70/case.html) (2000), and only three days earlier, had preliminarily halted the recount (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_election_recount) that was occurring in Florida (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida).
In a per curiam decision (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per_curiam_decision), the Court in Bush v. Gore ruled that the Florida Supreme Court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Supreme_Court)'s method for recounting ballots was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause) of the Fourteenth Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitu tion). The Court also ruled that no alternative method could be established within the time limits set by the State of Florida. Three concurring justices also asserted that the Florida Supreme Court had violated Article II, § 1, cl. 2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clau se_2:_Method_of_choosing_electors) of the Constitution, by misinterpreting Florida election law that had been enacted by the Florida Legislature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Legislature).
The decision allowed Florida Secretary of State (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_of_State_of_Florida) Katherine Harris (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katherine_Harris)'s previous certification of George W. Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush) as the winner of Florida's electoral votes to stand. Florida's 25 electoral votes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)) gave Bush, the Republican (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)) candidate, 271 electoral votes, defeating Democratic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)) candidate Al Gore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore), who ended up with 266 electoral votes (with one D.C. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington,_D.C.) elector abstaining). A majority (270) of the electoral votes is needed to win the Presidency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States) or Vice Presidency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice_President_of_the_United_States) in the Electoral College.


And I think you and Hilliary will do well together, you two can sit and measure each other's intellect.Several Constitutional scholars have questioned the legality and validity of SCOTUS' decision in that case. IIRC, you yourself have questioned several of their rulings.

pefjr
09-05-2009, 09:36 PM
I'm sure they have, there's plenty of questioning, keeps those 9 gods on their toes. But as far as this case goes, Jeb was not a player.

Captain Blight
09-05-2009, 09:58 PM
Maybe not. But it makes for a good quote regardless, if what you want to express is bitterness and disappointment that the Government may not have served the public weal as clearly as it perhaps should have for that issue. Which, I'm sure we can all agree, eventually had tremendous import.

Pugwash
09-05-2009, 10:03 PM
I'm sure they have, there's plenty of questioning, keeps those 9 gods on their toes. But as far as this case goes, Jeb was not a player.

Maybe not overtly. But all you have to do is click on the Katherine Harris link in your own quote and it explains soooooooo much.

;)

JimD
09-05-2009, 10:04 PM
Obama The Mortal

Yup. That's the problem alright. America is a race of superheroes, afterall. The shock of learning they've elected a mere mortal is just too much to bear.

pefjr
09-05-2009, 11:10 PM
Maybe not overtly. But all you have to do is click on the Katherine Harris link in your own quote and it explains soooooooo much.

;)You are in good company; Hillary. You and the Cap't can fight over her.

Captain Blight
09-05-2009, 11:46 PM
HillaryAahh. The Majick Worde. Bring up Hillary, and never have to defend anything you say ever again.

Try again.

High C
09-05-2009, 11:51 PM
Aahh. The Majick Worde. Bring up Hillary, and never have to defend anything you say ever again....

Are you saying that he played the Hillary card?

pefjr
09-06-2009, 09:12 AM
Aahh. The Majick Worde. Bring up Hillary, and never have to defend anything you say ever again.

Try again.
Hillary is a trump card, I didn't make rules, you did.

Ok, I'll try again just for you: If you and Mr Negative "Puggy" think the Governor of a state can name the presidential winner of a national election, its your freedom to think so. I'll just go along with the US Supreme Court. The DNC thief was caught. Water long ago under the bridge.

Sam F
09-06-2009, 10:01 AM
Dare I say it? Might it be time to consider using the "I" word vis-a-vis Obama?

T. Traddles
09-06-2009, 10:03 AM
Dare I say it? Might it be time to consider using the "I" word vis-a-vis Obama?

I'll risk the hangman's noose -- would that word be:

INCOMPETENT?

Sam F
09-06-2009, 10:24 AM
I'll risk the hangman's noose -- would that word be:

INCOMPETENT?

Got it in one!

Captain Blight
09-06-2009, 10:32 AM
I still think it's a little early to throw that around. But it's still a little early; time will tell. I fear he may prove to be a POTUS who is good at foreign policy and lousy domestically.

coelacanth2
09-06-2009, 10:51 AM
Just remember, all idols have feet of clay. He is a man, most mortal, as are we all and his pants probably go on one leg at a time. I do wish the best for him (and US!) since we the people elected him as our Executive in Chief. I am a bit dismayed at some of the folks surrounding him, however, as some of them seem a bit isolated from anything other than short term advantage.

PeterSibley
09-06-2009, 05:02 PM
Imagine if Obama has been elected in a boom like his predecessor , rather than on the eve of a protodepression .Life just ain't fair .

pefjr
09-06-2009, 10:34 PM
The boom was before and during Clinton years.

High C
09-06-2009, 10:36 PM
The boom was before and during Clinton years.

...and I seem to recall a recession in 2000/2001.

pefjr
09-06-2009, 10:53 PM
The attempted DNC theft caused the Market to start dropping. It dropped even more after 9/11.

Captain Blight
09-06-2009, 11:02 PM
The attempted DNC theft caused the Market to start dropping. I assume you mean Mr Gore's challenge of the reported election results?

And.... are you SURE it had nothing to do with the dot-com bubble bursting in the summer of 2000? Or are ya gonna try to pin that on Mrs Clinton as well? Mind you, I think she's as evil as the French, but I don't think she had anything to do with what was happening with investor confidence in the tech sector.

pefjr
09-07-2009, 08:08 AM
I assume you mean Mr Gore's challenge of the reported election results?

And.... are you SURE it had nothing to do with the dot-com bubble bursting in the summer of 2000? Or are ya gonna try to pin that on Mrs Clinton as well? Mind you, I think she's as evil as the French, but I don't think she had anything to do with what was happening with investor confidence in the tech sector.Al Gore let it happen, and is guilty of that, and has suffered the consequences, but the DNC was the thief. Yes, it started before the attempted theft, and Hillary was busy conniving with the people of NY.

Tylerdurden
09-07-2009, 08:36 AM
So stupid, I guess it will take the endgame for a lot of people to figure out right/left no diff.

Tyranny is Bi-partisan.

Captain Blight
09-07-2009, 10:59 AM
Al Gore let it happen, and is guilty of that, and has suffered the consequences, but the DNC was the thief. Yes, it started before the attempted theft, and Hillary was busy conniving with the people of NY.
What's it like to be bunny-hoppin' bat**** crazy? Do you even see the same colors the rest of us do?

"Al gore let it happen..." Wow. Thank you SO MUCH for being Republican. You are doing far more to discredit the right's POV than I ever could. Pray, continue! Continue early, often and with great vigor. Make a lot of noise and do it Net-wide. I couldn't do better; no, not if I tried.


Awesome.

pefjr
09-07-2009, 01:03 PM
What's it like to be bunny-hoppin' bat**** crazy? Do you even see the same colors the rest of us do?

"Al gore let it happen..." Wow. Thank you SO MUCH for being Republican. You are doing far more to discredit the right's POV than I ever could. Pray, continue! Continue early, often and with great vigor. Make a lot of noise and do it Net-wide. I couldn't do better; no, not if I tried.


Awesome.Take a deep breath Cap't. Now, I am certainly happy that I do not see colors as you do. But, when you are keeping a level head, you have lately improved your vision. Put a few more carrots in your diet.