Learning the hard way (Obama, or The Economist?)

[A]t home Mr Obama has had a difficult start. His performance has been weaker than those who endorsed his candidacy, including this newspaper, had hoped. Many of his strongest supporters—liberal columnists, prominent donors, Democratic Party stalwarts—have started to question him. As for those not so beholden, polls show that independent voters again prefer Republicans to Democrats, a startling reversal of fortune in just a few weeks. Mr Obama’s once-celestial approval ratings are about where George Bush’s were at this stage in his awful presidency. Despite his resounding electoral victory, his solid majorities in both chambers of Congress and the obvious goodwill of the bulk of the electorate, Mr Obama has seemed curiously feeble.

Though he campaigned as a centrist and promised an era of post-partisan government, that’s not how he has behaved. His stimulus bill attracted only three Republican votes in the Senate and none in the House.

If Mr Obama cannot work with the Republicans, he needs to be certain that he controls his own party. Unfortunately, he seems unable to. Put bluntly, the Democrats are messing him around. They are pushing pro-trade-union legislation (notably a measure to get rid of secret ballots) even though he doesn’t want them to do so; they have been roughing up the bankers even though it makes his task of fixing the economy much harder; they have stuffed his stimulus package and his appropriations bill with pork, even though this damages him and his party in the eyes of the electorate. Worst of all, he is letting them get away with it.

I'm happy to mock Obama (keyword search "fulsome"), but he is an intelligent and determined man and no pansy. The same could have been said of Lenin. Liberal Democrats are not "messing him around" -- he had the most liberal voting record in the Senate! They have a common agenda, and if they differ, it's on tactics. The Economist and some other "moderates" (like David Brooks) kidded themselves that Obama was beyond "ideology", as he often proclaims, when in fact he is very ideological. It's The Economist (and millions of Americans) that are "learning the hard way".

In the comments section of The Economist somebody named "Voluble" wrote the following. He should join FR.

***************************************************

If there is a subject about which Obama is not wholly and abysmally ignorant I have yet to find what it is. That his supporters are just now coming to understand this is not surprising since his base is made up of similar people... both those with too little education and those with too much "education." That is, those who have learned too many things that just aren't so. Now we are proceeding with the unlearning as the results of Obama's policies come to bear fruit.

If a president's purpose was to destroy the country which he rules his plan would in no significant way be any different than Obama's. Nationalize large swaths of the economy, print money like it is going out of style to solidify his support by spreading it amongst his supporters and create artificial crises like global warming to expand the powers of his government and to punish the opposition. No part of the economy can move forward on any front without first greasing the palms of the all powerful central government and the surest investment one can make is in a politician. Indeed there is little policy wise to separate Obama from Mugabe or Chavez or a hundred other tin horn dictators who have impoverished third world countries across the globe. His plan is their plan right down to conscripting armies of youths to spread the word about the Annointed One and to do his bidding.

I fear there will be violence in the streets before this thug leaves office. How can it be otherwise? Not everyone will so willingly go into that good night. I have already told my wife that I will not allow my doctor to send my health information to the government nor will I allow my daughter to be forced into involuntary servitude. They can call it community service or whatever they like but slavery is still slavery and only a man as morally reprehensible and lacking in any sense of irony as Obama would ever even contemplate such a thing given the history of his race.

Simply put, there is not a single idea put forth by Obama that does not involve the use of force upon one group or another. There is not a single idea that expands the bounds of our liberty and freedom.

These are dark days for the Republic and for anyone who loves liberty.

It varies with the swings in the economy and the popularity or unpopularity of the administration in power. Bush came in in the wake of the sleaziness of the Clinton White House. Then the Iraq war and Bush became unpopular. None of the people in the outgoing administration were front office material with political skill. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld bred a lot of unpopularity and hostility toward Republicans. A president has to be able to speak and connect with the American people. In the Fall the economy tanked and that did it. Neither McCain nor Palin were able to stop the stampede for Obama as the new messiah.

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.