Posted on 09/03/2009 7:36:05 PM PDT by steven33442
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 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 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Friday is always Krauthammer day. I would say that the Hammer is the most influential columnist on the left or right , at least at this point in time.
Well, not literally, of course.
But Thulsa Doom and Barack Obama do have a great deal in common.
“What would you be, without me?”
“When I am gone, it will be as if you had never been?”
“Who will not face EMPTINESS?”
Obama is an egomaniac, in the tradition of Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez. He loves to talk and hear his own voice, and make YOU hear his voice.
I hope Fox Broadcasting refuses to carry his speech next week. Does Murdoch have the guts to defy the Great O?
Krauthammer is good...
but like all mod-conservatives...
he never goes too far.
He needs to gauge the enemy more closely...
then pull the trigger and fire.
Obama will always farm out everything but the speaking jobs, to other people.
This is his greatest weakness.
He is NOT a legislative heavy weight.
He is NOT a skilled negotiator.
He is an empty suit who, when well prepared, can give a good speech, with the assistance of his teleprompter.
He is nothing more than a mouth piece, and not always that good, at that job.
Ditto
That was sweet, the way Krauthammer skillfully slipped his stiletto between the ribs into Obama's heart.
Obama has never been anything but a lightweight and a poser. It speaks to the dishonest and in-the-tank MSM, and all too many gullible, guilt-ridden white voters that he ever gained enough support to even be a contender. He is an ideologue who understands little about how America works and he has no clue how destructive the policies he desires would be. I don't buy the evil genius, knows exactly what he's doing explanations. He's an ideologue and a lightweight. A truly dangerous combination.
HELLO! BRICK!!!!!
I beg to differ. I believe Obamao knows precisely what destruction he wants to achieve.
Socialists and communists and those with a Third World view of America do not want to destroy it. They want to gain control of her wealth and power and use it for their own purposes. Do you really believe they want a destroyed economy and the resulting chaos they would have no way of controlling or profiting from?
Why not spell out for us precisely what you believed he wants to destroy?
What planet have you been living on? Define destroy. You're getting lost in your own rhetoric.
They want to get rid of democratic government and individual freedom, then control the wealth and power created by capitalism and use it for their own ends. What do you think all this talk of "redistribution" means? That's the socialists' fantasy world, that they can change the system to socialism and still have the same level of wealth available. Changing the form of government is not the same as destruction.
You're caught up in Kruschev's overwrought rhetoric.
Why not spell out for us precisely what you believe he wants to destroy?
(Note: I changed "believed" to "believe" in the above)
I think you have answered your own question, Will88:
They want to gain control of her wealth and power and use it for their own purposes.
To me, that is the destruction I think he is trying to achieve. Destroying the free market approach and implementing more government controls.
Nice analogy!
Not really. What has China been doing? Answer: Allowing the free market approach in many areas of their economy to create wealth their old communist system could not create, BUT still under the control of the old centralized form of government.
American socialists/communists want a form of fascism which allows capitalism (does not destroy it) under the direction of a central government, which redistributes the wealth. They don't want to destroy capitalism. They want to take the wealth created by capitalism and use it for their own purposes.
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.