Posted on 02/08/2009 5:23:02 PM PST by Steelfish
February 06, 2009
I Won, He Explained On the stimulus, when Obama says I won, hes out of better arguments.
By Rich Lowry
Barack Obama, a reputed master of the persuasive art, has settled on his central argument for the stimulus bill: I won.
That Obama is reduced to this crude appeal is a symptom of the intellectual collapse of the case for his stimulus bill, a congressional spendfest untethered from its stated goal of providing a rapid jolt to the economy.
As far as political arguments go, I won has its powerprovided its made on behalf of an agenda ratified by the American electorate. But Obama didnt campaign on a sprawling, nearly $1 trillion new spending plan.
If he had pledged in October to double federal domestic discretionary spending in a matter of weeksincluding increasing the budget of the National Endowment for the Arts by a third, spending hundreds of millions more on federal buildings and throwing tens of billions on every traditional liberal priority from job training to Pell Grantshed have been hard-pressed to win at all.
The president should read the transcript of the third presidential debate. He claimed his program represented a net spending cut. He called himself a strong proponent of pay-as-you-go. Every dollar that Ive proposed, Ive proposed an additional cut so that it matches. He added, We need to eliminate a whole host of programs that dont work.
Now, circumstances change, and no president can adhere to every jot and tittle from his campaign, but the I won argument only works if the campaign program matches the governing program. Obama himself seems confused on what exactly I won means.
(Excerpt) Read more at article.nationalreview.com ...
The Prez claims “he won” and overwhelming victory, and that America voted for his agenda...in reality, he squeaked out a victory against a weak opponent in a year when the incumbent was deeply unpopular. Further facts for Obozo to chew on that dispute his mandate for change:
Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law, St.Paul, Minnesota, points out facts of 2008 Presidential election:
Number of States won by:
Democrats: 19
Republicans: 29
Square miles of land won by:
Democrats: 580,000
Republicans: 2,427,000
Population of counties won by:
Democrats: 127 million
Republicans: 143 million
Professor Olson adds:
“In aggregate, the map of the territory Republican won by Republicans was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country.
Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare.”
Explain that, B. Hussein Obama.
“Obama I won” ping.
Neat observations. He won promising the opposite of this.
Is this my cupie doll?
There is no way that even the democrats can be this stupid. They are deliberately trying to bankrupt the country for personal gain.
That is what the American people should say after they eventually get their way. It might take years, but it will come.
These are the enemies within!
This little Gem of a bald face lie is next
Great article with a bunch of speaking points for us!
<<<Bookmark for lunch with liberal friends :)
“There is no way that even the democrats can be this stupid.”
When you are blinded by self righteousness, ego. and ideology you can be that stupid.
Could it be? Less than two weeks from the inspiring images of the inaugural, has Pres. Obama let the focus of power slip to . . . Nancy Pelosi? So suggested Wall Street Journal editorial board member Holman Jenkins on this evenings Journal Editorial Report on Fox News Channel. Jenkins presented the news not as his own critique, but as the opinion of erstwhile Obama supporters on Wall Street. JER host Paul Gigot elicited the stunning response with a question playing off a comment by Mary Anastasia OGrady about the paucity of truly stimulative measures in the supposed stimulus plan.
PAUL GIGOT: As a political matter, Holman, why didnt President Obama70% approval rating in the pollshe really could exert some influence over his party on Capitol Hillhe chose not to.
HOLMAN JENKINS: Thats an excellent question. I mean, the Republicans took him at his word. He said that he wanted a non-porky stimulus bill, one without a lot of earmarks. And instead he gotI mean, people on Wall Street who support Mr. Obama, voted for him, gave him money, are talking about President Pelosi now. This thing is actually more of a defeat for him I think in the long run than were giving it credit for now.
Fellow WSJ board member Stephen Moore, founder and former president of the Club For Growth, fleshed out the portrait of a president who let himself be rolled .
STEPHEN MOORE: Isnt it unbelievable, Paul? Just nine days ago Barack Obama was coronated; this is a president with 75% approval. Nobody expected this to happen. I think the most stunned person in Washington right now is Barack Obama himself. And the mistake he made was exactly the one that Holman just mentionedthat he allowed Nancy Pelosi and David Obey and all the appropriators to write this bill.
Ed Driscoll: change has apparently arrived to change the change that just arrived.
Come to think of it, I was checking out DU to see if they were discussing the Aussie fire and remembered how they used to, and still do, blame President Bush (sigh) for the economy and all the spending. Hmmmmm.
Yes, that could be.
That doesn't add up to 50, or even 57 States.
They would say it’s still Bush’s fault. (And they are partially right)
.."and soon the American people will know just what your pay grade is"....
Liberty once lost is lost forever." John Adams, July 7, 1775
I think you need to go back and read what I actually wrote. Words are important and mine don’t say what you are intimating they do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.