Replies

There's an alternate hypothesis, which is that they don't think it's supposed to. That there are a solid body of Americans who believe - with whatever justification or historical validity - that government's role is to leave them alone.

Amazingly, this essentially gormless individual manages to stumble onto it, mostly. But not to worry, he quickly veers off again into the wishful emoting--certainly not thinking--for which liberals are notorious.

One need only read the comments of the framers of the Constitution and the formative American generation to hear that their belief is that government's role is ... surprise! surprise! ... to leave us alone. Yet oddly, Mr. Clueless here wants to question the historical validity of that position.

It was, in fact, the nearly universal position of Americans until the 1930's. Unfortunately, something snapped in the American psyche with the Great Depression, and all the evidence that the aggressive government intervention of the New Deal did virtually nothing did not dispel the ridiculous idea that you can take money from the most productive sector of the economy--the private economy--and turn it over to the least productive sector of the economy and that this will somehow "make money." And now, nearly half of the people in our country including the loser who wrote this column cling to this risible belief, all evidence of trillions of wasted dollars and destroyed lives to the contrary notwithstanding.

Ultimately then, what can Obama offer to those of us poor, religious, embittered conservatives who see no value in what the government offers? Why, nothing at all, because government has nothing to offer. It merely takes. There are some places were it must take, because government is a necessary evil. Unlike libertarians, conservatives understand that government is necessary, and unlike liberals, we understand that it is evil.

Like the authors of countless liberal "analyses" of What's Wrong With Kansas or Deer Hunting with Jesus the narcissist writer of the instant piece (and BHO himself) assume that we haven't heard the liberal message, or that we've heard it but lack the sophistication to understand it, or, if they're in a particularly generous mood that we've heard, and sort of understood, but that we've been disappointed in the outcomes.

None of the condescending BS is true. He have heard the message. We understand it fully--far more fully than the liberals themselves do. But we have rejected it, because its message is a lie.