Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: Flotsam_Jetsome
One need only have watched the Sunday shows yesterday to appreciate the parallel universe inhabited by the elite media. Yes, they understand that the economy is in terrible condition and that people are jobless and suffering and that the people are losing their homes.

But they do not get that Obama is illegitimate. Whether he is constitutionally eligible or not, he is unqualified by experience and biography and, more importantly, by philosophy for governing America. The problem with Obama is not that he is unintelligent, he is intelligent enough. Nor is the problem that he is inarticulate, one need only watch a few of his one-on-one interviews to see that he sounds and looks presidential and has mastered that art. The problem is that Obama is a psychically incapable of governing America properly.

When the talking heads on the Sunday shows, one after the other each in his turn, recite with approval shopworn nostrums for the repair of the economy which are but anemic reprises of the same failed policies already imposed on an unwilling America by Obama, all with the connivance these media elites, one cannot but conclude that there is utterly no disposition on the part of the elite media to change course.

They simply do not get it.

At best, they are tentatively musing about how they could have once again supported the wrong socialist because, if they had chosen the correct socialist, those same policies would surely have succeeded.


4 posted on 09/05/2011 1:23:51 AM PDT by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: nathanbedford

“The problem is that Obama is a psychically incapable of governing America properly.”

This.

The man is in love with the position and the perks that go along with it, and is absolutely down with effecting socialist change via the powers of his office (as long as it’s others that are doing the heavy lifting), he is unwilling or unable to actually take his feet off the Resolute Desk and work to move the country forward. Scandalous is a good descriptor not only for how he gained office, but how he continues to hold it and fails to perform the duties of same.


5 posted on 09/05/2011 1:36:23 AM PDT by Flotsam_Jetsome (If not you, who? If not now, when?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: nathanbedford

Simply put, managing a Republic turns out to be just too much effort for most Americans in the end so now they want a tyrant. Hence, “What is Erkel going to do about the economy.”. No one is saying “What am I, or what are we, going to do?”. So there you have. I read somewhere recently that this is how Empires die. Folks just get tired of the effort. It just never occurs to them that the tyrant they begged for will actually do the terrible things tyrants do.


10 posted on 09/05/2011 4:22:09 AM PDT by wastoute (Government cannot redistribute wealth. Government can only redistribute poverty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: nathanbedford
At best, they are tentatively musing about how they could have once again supported the wrong socialist because, if they had chosen the correct socialist, those same policies would surely have succeeded.

Their idea of "succeed" is tantamount to death of not only our economy, but also our traditional way of life itself. I have wondered whether Hillary would have been able to push amnesty with a "path to citizenship" through a senate with 60 leftist votes, which of course is what Obama started with.

What if Obama had pushed through amnesty at the start of his term? I tried to think of an appropriate military metaphor, reflecting what a supreme triumph it would have been for the left. The atom bomb in World War II? Not exactly, because 1) "The Bomb" was available for use immediately after they developed it, while naturalization takes years, and 2) the Soviets quickly caught up, while the GOP had no such capability.

But why didn't Obama do it? Was he more concerned with legislation that would have a more immediate effect (since naturalization might take about 10 years to make a give his cause a decisive majority of voters)? Did he think that the recession would go away in his first term, so that he could bring back amnesty when voters were less concerned about the unemployment rate?

Would Hillary have acted and succeeded where Obama waited?

19 posted on 09/06/2011 12:40:15 AM PDT by ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas (Budget sins can be fixed. Amnesty is irreversible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: nathanbedford
"...At best, they are tentatively musing about how they could have once again supported the wrong socialist because, if they had chosen the correct socialist, those same policies would surely have succeeded..."

As always NB, great post. I love that line. It is true, and rings with echos of people who used to have the same outlook on communism.

As in: "Hey. The Soviets are scum. But if the right people did it communism would work fine."

Liberals feel that way about the economy, too. "Hey, if YOU PEOPLE would just let us do what we think should be done, spend another couple of trillion on more stimulus and take over health care, the auto and energy sectors, everything would work..."

41 posted on 10/01/2012 9:59:41 PM PDT by rlmorel ("It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong." Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson