Krauthammer: The Return of the Real Obama

WaPo ^ | 1/3/2013 | Krauthammer

[SueRae]

The rout was complete, the retreat disorderly. President Obama got his tax hikes — naked of spending cuts — passed by the ostensibly Republican House of Representatives. After which, you might expect him to pivot to his self-proclaimed “principle” of fiscal “balance” by taking the lead on reducing spending. “Why,” asked The Post on the eve of the final fiscal-cliff agreement, “is the nation’s leader not embracing and then explaining the balanced reforms the nation needs?”

Because he has no interest in them. He’s a visionary, not an accountant. Sure, he’ll pretend to care about deficits, especially while running for reelection. But now that he’s past the post, he’s free to be himself — a committed big-government social democrat.

As he showed in his two speeches this week. After perfunctory nods to debt and spending reduction, he waxed enthusiastic about continued “investments” — i.e., spending — on education, research, roads and bridges, green energy, etc.

Having promised more government, he then promised more taxes — on “millionaires” and “companies with a lot of lobbyists,” of course. It was a bold affirmation of pre-Clintonian tax-and-spend liberalism.

Why not? He had just won Round 1: raising rates. Round 2 is to raise yet more tax revenue by eliminating deductions. After all, didn’t John Boehner offer him $800 billion of such loophole-closing revenuejust a few weeks ago?

[tsowellfan]

somehow making Boehner the face of evil....those people say they are conservative, but they miss the point

How did John Boehner vote on the fiscal cliff? Did he vote FOR or AGAINST what Obama just signed into law?

[tsowellfan]

“The best advice I have heard so far comes from (gasp) Newt Gingrich who has himself been down this road a couple of times before. His advice: stop negotiating and start legislating. Send bill after bill to the Senate with prudent and reasonable legislation contained therein and let the president and this Democrats in the Senate be reactive instead of slouching into a corner where Boehner and the Republicans are painted by the media be reactive.”

---

Amen to THAT and the rest of your comment in #14

[Josa]

Agree 100% that O’Reilly loves obama. He pretends to ask “tough” question. I hate, hate, hate when he says he’s doing it “for the folks.” Puhlease, O’Reilly wants to be loved by the MSM. He’s the foil so some can say there is balance at FOX. Spoke with a friend whose relative was a producer for FOX. Said almost ALL of their announcers are liberals just pretending. That’s why Megan Kelly was giddy with excitement on election night. Have not watched FOX since I saw her disgusting display when b. hussein won.

[Mouton]

These arguments about how his excellency was elected, how poor a candidate Romney was, the country is center right, center left, et al have no affect upon where we are right now. When the Japs destroyed most of our pacific fleet in Dec 1941, we did not say gee if only Roosevelt had not backed them into a corner or perhaps we should have supported China when it was invaded in the 30s or when Japan joined the Axis. We started on day one with a plan to beat them into the ground, period. In a similar vein, all these monday morning quarterbackings serve no purpose. We know the enemy, we need to defeat the enemy or just give up a fight we figure we cannot win. For me the enemy is anyone with a D as their party affiliation. May as well be a scarlet letter in my mind. Don't back down, don't kowtow. Don't even acknowledge they managed to reelect the greatest calamity to every happen to the US political system. Confront and attack. Now if some in DC would actually do that, I don't know but as bad as some of them are, they are far better than anyone with the dreaded D on their forehead. We are in a fight for the nations survival, we are the equal of Russia backed up to the gates of Stalingrad. Let's stop bayoneting our officers and start pointing those at the enemy.

[Lee'sGhost]

I don’t think Reagan could win today, but not because the demographics have changed (which they have), but because Obama and the rest of the shi’ite eating democrats no longer pretend to play fair. No sir. They now blatantly buy votes with Obamaphones, union bailouts and exceptions, extended unemployment benes, “free” health care, etc, etc.

Obama now has 50 percent of the population on the public dole. We will NEVER go back to the way it was via our traditional political methods. Conservatives will not be able to win over people by telling them they will get less free stuff and should take pride in providing for themselves. As Rush said, it’s hard to beat Santa Claus.

The ONLY way we will return to our former greatness will be through some kind of correction. I don’t know if such a correction will be an Obama-superdepression or outright revolution — or both, but the glacier shift in the American psyche can not be reversed by using the same methods that got us here. The glacier will have to be removed.

[palmer]

Other nations that produce our "cheap" products will soon want something other than useless paper for their goods.

If Obama has his way, we won't be able to trade our cheap energy for their products either. Got gold?

[nathanbedford]

I agree with your pessimistic assessment, but I make a conscious choice to remain positive.

We have seen two individuals in my adult lifetime takeover institutions, reshape them, and employ them as instruments of national power. The first, was the takeover of the Senate by one of the most accomplished politicians of our time, Lyndon Johnson. Not before and not since has the Senate to that degree been the instrument of one man's will. It is interesting that Johnson accepted the position of Majority Leader when it had very little political upside and much downside, he transformed the office by force of his political acuity, and in the process transformed the Senate from a southern oriented, anti-civil rights organ in thrall to old bulls who ran important committees into an arena to work his own will. When he left that position, the Senate reverted to some degree.

The second was done by Newt Gingrich when he decided that the Republicans really could obtain a majority in the House, faught the establishment within his own party, found the means such as televised Special Orders, defined the issues, crafted the message, conceived of ways of delivering that message (Contract with America) and won a majority for his party. As speaker, he came close to running the country from the House of Representatives.

My point is, as you say, not that it will be done but that it can be done.

[bert]

The deduction to revise is the standard deduction

That is where the money is

[Sooth2222]

"And who in the MSM, including Charles will bring up the quote “ not raise your taxes one thin dime”"

True that! Note the source here! (NOT the NYT or WaPo!)

"Workers making $30,000 will take a bigger hit on their pay than those earning $500,000 under new fiscal deal"

[randita]

We live in a center-left country now.

I think that if you went issue by issue asking people to choose whether they agreed with the conservative stance or the liberal one, a majority would favor conservative stances.

But the one issue that trumps them all is the addiction to entitlements. People will not give up the government cheese even if it means that future generations will be enslaved to big gov. That cheese is a powerful opiate.

There's a huge psychological disconnect between what people say they want collectively and what they vote on personally.

If conservatives can find a way to bridge the disconnect and convincingly show that undermining the collective undermines the personal, they can be winners.

[americanbychoice3]

I had recorded the new show “Vegas” and last night decided to watch several episodes.
It was eerie to draw parallels to our current administration. The show plays in 1960 and presents the takeover by Chicago mobsters, who now seem to have taken over Washington.
I am also somewhat optimistic that toward the end of this Bozo’s tenure the shine will be removed from his administration. They will have to radically increase everyone’s taxes and fees to accomplish the “shared sacrifices” he keeps talking about. This administration wants to continue spending without checks and balances.
When, not if, interest rates on Government bonds rise, our debt will be impossible to maintain and we will officially go bankrupt. Some of the money grabs that will follow will be: Takeover of all pension, 401K, Iram etc. in order for Government to “help the poor American Worker”. Inflation to manage our debt, an automatic decrease of 22% in entitlements, etc.
Watch the pitchforks slowly but surely emerge.

[paratrooper82]

Democrat party = neo moochers party of 2013!

Guess who pays for the neo moochers party? The hard working American people!

Time to take a page from the Polish people who refused to work for the socialist polish government and went on strike across the country!

If every American with a pair would simply stop working for thirty days, call it a vacation from the moochers, this paper socialist government would collapse under its own weight! The American people have the power to bring down the neo moochers party, all it will take is some guts to do it!

With the socialist demanding more money to the moochers, eliminating Americans and their firearms, I do believe the time for the working American to take a protracted vacation from their hard work for thirty (30) days would certainly put one hell of a crimp in the neo moochers party's plans!

Stand up America, you are the makers, the neo moochers party are the takers! Stop producing the wealth, where will the neo mothers party go for the money to give to the moochers? No hand outs, no neo moochers party any more!

Americans can work their a$$ off paying the moochers, or they can stand up and say NO MORE! The free ride is over, moochers watch your step getting of the hand out train!

Let's all sit back and see how much the American people will swallow before they take a stand against this out of control moochers socialist government!

Personally, when I get home, if I get home, I will NEVER work for a pay check, instead, all work will be for cash, if, and only if, I decide to accept federal reserve notes (FRNs)! The neo moochers party cannot take what I don't have!

Stand strong America, it is WE THE PEOPLE, not, WE THE NEO MOOCHERS PARTY.

Side note, the Constitutional Law Professor who wants to get rid of the US Constitution, I say OK, that will also get ride of this Government, since the only thing the US Constitution did was create a federal government, with limitations placed on this Federal government under which it may operate, then, by all means, lets get rid of this out of control government! The communist need to be very damn careful what it is they wish for!

[Vaduz]

That should be a bumper sticker it might inform the idiots of what he’s doing.They never think on their own they have been traind like a dog.

[nathanbedford]

I fear the reaction that failed socialism is not true reform but more socialism.

My belief is that none of this would have happened but for Obama's skin pigmentation. Obama has succeeded in diverting attention away from all negatives whether they are in his own biography or in the national ledger sheet, in Benghazi or in Chicago. He has been successful in diverting scrutiny of his biography and performance because the media runs interference for him. I understand that they will always support a liberal but in this case they are supporting a radical, probably a communist, certainly a socialist.

My belief is that they would not have done so, at least to the blatant degree they have done so, if Obama had not been black. So when you say that the costs of supporting Obamaism become apparent his support will fall away, we cannot rely on a Marxist analysis; in other words, we cannot say that a purely economic analysis will persuade over race. Certainly, it will not persuade the African-American "community" over identity politics. It simply will not avail. My belief is that on this issue at least, that demographic is beyond reason.

We have seen in the last election that Obama is able to appeal to persons of other colors, such as brown Hispanics and brown Asians, by playing a race card which is perhaps more credible because of his own color. His color also shields in from scrutiny by whites out of white guilt and an understandable human preference not to acknowledge that one has made a mistake in the last election.

Even with questions of color aside, the history of socialism around the world teaches us that the socialists take over the apparatus of power and when their economic policies fail they resort to political power. I believe that is why we see the left in America lose its once proud adherence to the First Amendment, or at least the free speech provisions of the first amendment. If one examines the reaction of the people of Greece to failed socialism we see them rioting and burning in the streets as a way of demanding more socialism, not less. When Hugo Chavez dies of his current malady (from my pen to Allah's ears) I will be rather surprised if Venezuela moves right and embraces capitalism. Too many powerful forces are entrenched their now.

As Obama insinuates socialism into the American body politic, its culture, and its economic system, we will see the rise in corruption, the breakdown of the rule of law, the spread of cynicism, the loss of patriotism, the rise of selfishness, and the institutionalization of cronyism everywhere. We will have seen the breakdown and corruption of counterbalancing institutions such as the church, academia, the police, courts, the media, our eleemosynary institutions, family with parental control etc., and, of course, the media.

I hope you are right and I am wrong.

[Graewoulf]

Revenge for Obama’s Grandmother File.

[Leaning Right]

Younger people might want more socialism but until they are getting richer not poorer it just isn’t going to happen.

I think that it is going to happen (soft socialism, that is). The problem is that the younger people have been bought off by trinkets. And they'll be more trinkets down the line, like perhaps college loan forgiveness.

I saw a couple of news videos where young voters said they voted for Obama because of the free cell phones. They simply don't understand that if America was working properly, they'd have good jobs to buy those cell phones for themselves, and much more.

The GOP has done a terrible job in getting that message across.

[Buckeye McFrog]

We live in a center-left country now.

Yep. Under the best conditions the trend may start to reverse in a decade or two, but only if Conservatives bolt the GOP once and for all and start about building a REAL opposition party.

My gut says that we will be living in a center-left Social Democracy for the rest of my lifetime. Obama will dangle a bunch of new Social Benefit Goodies before the electorate in 2014, and will likely rout the GOP.

Spend some energy preparing your life to function within this paradigm.

[nascarnation]

Good advice.

With 2.5 million (mostly white Republicans) dying every year being replaced by black/hispanic/asian >70% Dem voters, the trend is clear.

[Leaning Right]

The only real issue that polled well for Obama was to raise taxes on the rich and not the rest.

Good point. The GOP is going to have to face this choice: hold on to every core principle, and lose every Presidential election from now on, or be flexible and stay competitive.

It's an ugly choice, for sure.

[Leaning Right]

We don’t produce enough exportable goods, or any goods for that matter in this country.

Every person in this country had driven past a shuttered and abandoned factory. Every person in this country knows someone who was laid off from a good factory job.

I simply don't understand why no one in the GOP (except for Trump) says anything about this.