This article serves a couple purposes. First, some of you still think Obama is a hardcore ideologue with dreams of turning the US into a socialist paradise. Let’s disprove that. The other purpose is a pick-you up. As bad as you've been told things are for our side, just be thankful you’re not a liberal. Seriously.Imagine it’s 2008 and you have a bright young ideological president and total control over Congress. You expect big things... big liberal things! But that's not what you got:
(1) Make Liberalism Cool: As we noted the other day, the biggest thing liberals wanted from Obama was to make liberalism cool and to make people come to love government instead of see it as the enemy. Yet, polls show Americans favor smaller government now over bigger government in larger numbers than when Obama was first elected. This will now be made worse by all the abuse of power scandals rattling his administration. FAIL
(2) Close Gitmo: Obama was supposed to close Gitmo. That was the one thing they all knew would happen and that would restore America’s image. Obama had the power to do this by Executive Order. He didn’t. Not only is Gitmo still open, but liberals have noted that Bush did more to close it than Obama. FAIL
As an aside, recent polls show that the US’s standing in the world is exactly where it was when Bush was in office. Our standing in the Muslim world is the same. And now Obama has added talk about the dollar losing it’s reserve currency status and we lost our credit rating. FAIL
(3) Grant Gay Marriage: Obama was supposed to finally give gays what they wanted – gay marriage, repeal of DOMA, ending DODT and equality of benefits. He did end DODT. He has yet to grant gay federal employee the same benefits as heterosexual couples even though he could do this by Executive Order. He never signed a gay marriage law, nor did he repeal DOMA... despite having the power to do so when the Democrats had a supermajority in Congress. He also never endorsed gay marriage. Basically he just talked around it... supporting it without actually supporting it. He hasn’t even barred discrimination by federal contractors, even though he could do that right now. Now gays are upset because their concerns have been tossed aside in the Rubio bill and they are actually withholding money from the Democrats because of it. FAIL
(4) Environmentalism: Obama was going to regulate carbon, impose taxes to stop industry, and fix the environment in any number of ways. He did none of that. Under a Supreme Court ruling, the EPA even has the power to regulate carbon and yet Obama not only hasn’t done this, the EPA confirms that it’s not even working on the regulations. Instead, Obama points to stimulus spending on cronies and the auto industry agreeing to raise CAFE standards as showing Obama’s actions have been “historic.” Laughable is more like it. Remember the agreement to agree from Copenhagen and how Obama got backhanded by the BRICS? Obama was supposed to kill offshore drilling and fracking, but both are in high gear and the US is producing more oil than ever. He never punished BP. Wind and solar remain a pipe dream. He was supposed to stop coal, but coal continues on its merry way. Now they’re sure he’s also going to approve the Keystone pipeline. He hasn’t stopped GM food or overfishing and he sides with industry every time. The greens are livid. FAIL
(5) Socialized Medicine: Obamacare was supposed to be socialized medicine. Then it was going to be a single-payer plan that would wipe out insurers. Instead, it’s become a massive giveaway to insurers both in terms of forcing people to buy from them and providing direct subsidies. Not only that, but insurers have jacked up rates in the last three years and the number of uninsured has risen from 43 million to 49 million. FAIL
(6) Assault Weapon’s Ban: The left wanted Obama to ban assault weapons and institute a new round of gun control measures. Instead, the Supreme Court finally declared gun ownership a right and it struck down a lot of laws. Obama gave a half-hearted attempt to counter this and couldn’t even get background checks on insane people. FAIL
(7) Equal Pay Laws: Feminists wanted Obama to pass a law requiring equal pay for “comparable” work. Not only has Obama not even endorsed the idea, but he’s had massive pay disparities in the White House. He also fought to keep the abortion pill from being given to minors and actually tried to keep it behind the counter. He has otherwise done nothing except talk about a war on women. FAIL
(8) Unionize the World: Obama was going to use the NLRB to force unions into right-to-work states. That didn’t happen. All his attempts have been struck down by the courts and unions continue their death spiral. In fact, under his watch, Wisconsin broke its own public sector unions! Nor has there been a successful strike under Obama. To the contrary, “lockouts” and bankruptcies have shattered the unions that are left. FAIL
(9) Race Baiting: Obama talked about moving the country beyond race, which liberals claim to want. Instead, he polarized it. Meanwhile, blacks are enduring massive unemployment in black ranks. Blacks lost more assets under Obama than any other group. He’s appointed almost no blacks to anywhere in his administration or on his courts and the charge of racism has been neutered under his watch. FAIL
(10) Unconditional Amnesty: Hispanic groups have been screaming for unconditional amnesty. Obama did nothing. In fact, all he’s really done is stand in the way of the only bill that will lead to legalization. If (when) they do get legal status, it will be because of Republicans and it won’t be unconditional or immediate. Conservative misinformation aside, this will be a difficult process which requires 13 years and which cuts these people off from benefits before they can get their “amnesty.” That’s not what Obama’s Hispanic supporters wanted, and it’s not coming from him. FAIL
(11) A Leftist Court: Obama could still get this, but so far he hasn’t managed it. TBA
(12) Punish the Rich: His supporters wanted him to punish the rich. They wanted Wall Street banks humbled and taxes jacked up to French levels on the Warren Buffetts. Instead, they got a 3% hike on the upper income bracket (less than hit the middle class) and a regulatory bill that reads like a giveaway to the biggest and baddest of Wall Street. Federal money props them up to this day. Liberals used to claim Wall Street bankers should be sent to jail, but no one has. As I’ll point out tomorrow, income inequality has grown more under Obama’s first three years than it did under the last 12 years of Bush and Clinton. FAIL
(13) Restoring the Middle Class: Obama was supposed to give us all good jobs building high speed trains and internet porn delivery devices. Throughout his entire administration, unemployment has remained 50% above the worst it ever got under Bush. FAIL
(14) Kill No Child Left Behind: Obama was supposed to end the testing requirements of the NCLB Act and save schools from accountability. Under his watch, every single state has finally adopted testing requirements. FAIL
I could go on and on: Obama failed to save the failing newspapers, he hasn’t eliminated supposed racial disparity in prison sentencing, he hasn’t stopped drones, he hasn’t undone the wire-tapping aspects of the Patriot Act, he has tried to squelch internet freedom twice (until the backlash turned him against SOPA), he hasn’t repaired our bridges or our roads... he hasn’t even tried.
That’s the point here: Obama could have done all of this either when the Democrats held a supermajority in the Senate or through Executive Order, but he never tried. He’s no ideologue, he’s a cleptrocrat who sees government as a way to reward his friends with largess, not laws. And if I were a liberal, I’d be beyond depressed at the above. Of the agenda they thought they would get with him and with a Democratic Congress, they got maybe 1%. And the few things they have passed – like Obamacare and financial reform – have been a sick joke, doing the exact opposite of what Obama and the Donks promised they would.
The guy’s a dud. So the next time you think things are bad on our side, just be thankful you’re not a liberal.
33 comments:
You forgot the biggie: "The Most Transparent Administration EVER!!!" EPIC FAIL
Well, actually, it's becoming more transparent every day, but not by design.
True on both counts! LOL!
In all seriousness, could you imagine how frustrating this must be for liberals?
Pee-shahhhh, it is NOT President Obama's fault that he has failed at just about everything. Don't you see? It's those dang evil Republicans thwarting his every move. If Reid would just "go nuclear" and change the Filibuster rules, then everything would be just fine. Peace, love, harmony, equality, and prosperity for all (unless you are a Republican or deviate from liberal,ideology, of course. They should all die of some hideous disease or in the words of Prof Chris Swindell should be executed by firing squad for treason). Hey, Obama got bin Laden! There's something!
Andrew,
As I said in your Cool Liberalism post I think that the reality is that all presidents become traitors to the cause for not doing X, Y and Z and thereby conferring eternal dominance upon their party (which ignores the fact that the obsessions of political activists are often not the dreams of ordinary people).
For example, I don't think Hispanics will look the gift horse of legalization in the mouth and I think that conservatives (the more cynical and publicity hungry of whom rail against non-whites, which includes not only Hispanics, but Asians, who have been the majority of immigrants in recent years)) and liberals working together will make sure Obama gets the credit no matter who does what in the actual process.
Also, I don't think income inequality matters or that resentment of the rich is a much of a thing. People care more about their personal circumstances than they do about the general spread of wealth (a guy with a job which enables him to pay the bills, a home and a family is a happy guy no matter the income differential between himself and Warren Buffet).
On that note, Obama's only two real problems are the unemployment rate and the abuse of power scandals.
Andrew.....Perhaps he is being stymied in his efforts "transform" this country by that old, musty document the "Constitution?!"
Maybe the old white guys were on to something when they set out to create a more perfect union? If he has to go through the "system" to get what he and the liberals really want, he will be stymied by Congress in the form of the House, by SCOTUS when his actions are deemed unconstitutional, and by the public as you point out above.
Hasn't he decried our form of government before when whining that if only Congress would agree to his agenda then everything would be hunky-dory? With our system of checks and balances, maybe we DO have the ability to stop demagogues and would be tyrants like this little piss-ant and his cronies. Sure, he can loot the Treasury and ensure his peeps can all live like minor gods but he won't be able to install "heaven on earth" like him and his socialists drones would like.
So I say, enrich your buddies jerk-off, we'll make more once you're gone. And maybe some enterprising reporters will finally research where all the stimulus money went and who now is extremely wealthy with offshore accounts. Like the former head of the AFL-CIO who retired right after the stimulus? What ever happened to Andy Stern? Former President of SEIU?!
So yeah....I agree that liberalism hasn't achieved what they thought they would with BO. But I don't think Chicago politics works that way. It's all about enriching their friends and controlling the levers of power. This "New World Order" crap is just a way to scam the idiots who believe (and to get their votes) and have a utopian vision they can snake oil the public with. Behind all that is the most simple of reasons for why he hasn't accomplished anything of liberal substance...greed.
Trumps all other considerations and ideologies.
I considered having my spine surgically removed (which would give me the posture of a boiled shrimp) in order to become a liberal. But declined the opportunity.
The only other option would be a combination of castration and a pre-frontal lobotomy. That didn't sound good either, but I was assured that it would make me very progressive.
Bev, That's an excellent approximation of the liberal counter-argument. You just need a little more hate mixed in! Also, don't forget to mention to 16 oz. drinks are evil. :)
Anthony, Sadly, I must disagree for the most part.
First, I think that there is a difference between Obama not giving liberals as much as they want and him giving them nothing. He has given them nothing. This is like being told you can have anything in a bakery and your representative comes back with some gum they found by the cash register.
On income inequality, I would like to agree with you, but I've met the people who really are obsessed with the idea that other people have more. They would honestly be happier if everyone had nothing rather than other people having more than they do. There are a surprisingly large number of these people. What's more, they've decided that they are entitled to "more" and the basis of their entitlement is that others have more. So they will never be satisfied.
On immigration reform, I'm not sure. I agree that the talk-radio conservatives are working hard to make sure that non-whites hate us. So that will make it impossible for conservatives to win any credit for this. But the Republicans are a different matter. They seem to be lining up behind this (as are some conservatives finally like the Southern Baptists). And what really surprises me is that this thing has remained the Rubio bill. He is the face of it. He's the architect. He's the salesman. Obama has been kept out of the loop (by himself and the Democrats). And that's left the floor to Rubio. I'm impressed so far that he's proven savvy enough to believe that the credit will be his.
Patriot, I agree. But keep in mind that when Obama was elected, liberals didn't understand that those were the rules Obama would be playing by. They saw a bright, young, idealistic liberal with shades of JFK... remember the MSM boomers crying about him? They also saw a supermajority in the House and Senate. They had big expectations.
What they got was a leader who robbed the Treasury for his friends and promptly went golfing. He never even tried to do the things he claimed he would. It was totally bait and switch. And that must be truly frustrating for them.
For our side, it's good to dodge the bullet. Obama an the Democrats could have done major damage if they'd tried. Instead, all we got was years of unemployment and an Obamacare system that seems on the verge of implosion.
LL, LOL! Bravo! That is exactly how they make liberals!
Andrew,
I dunno, liberalism seems pretty easy to me: 1) turn off your brain; 2) yell loudly about fairness, injustice, and racism; 3) pretend not to notice when the candidate you worship impoverishes you, steals your freedoms, and embarrasses the country worldwide to reward his rich, crony friends; 4) keep voting Democrat.
Well, that's not really fair, because that's really mostly just the liberal media and the hard left. The special interest groups that you mention above did have an agenda item that Obama promised to fulfill, and he specifically screwed each and everyone of them. Whenever they complain about it though, the media and hard left crush their dissent and oust them from the fold.
In that sense, it really would suck to be a liberal, because you would begin to hate yourself for siding with a party that lies to you, disenfranchises all except the rich ruling class, then lies to itself about it.
wahsatchmo, So true! I think your definition of liberalism is quite a good one. It fits most of them. I would just add the word "smug" in there somewhere, like "smugly yell".
It is kind of funny, in a schadenfreude sort of way, to think that this is how liberalism works for liberals. Even the rise of the progressives hasn't changed much except the level of anger in the rhetoric.
I wonder if liberals realize this or if they are so deluded that they don't see the great con being run against them by their leaders?
You know, I also wonder what changed for liberals. In the 1930s - 1960s, their leaders actually delivered on the things they wanted. Granted, it damaged the country, but they got what they wanted. Now it's all lip service. I wonder what happened?
Andrew,
As I've noted, guys who make their wings happy tend to make voters unhappy. Power is a poisoned chalice for political parties (though based on what I've gotten through of your book, Republicans can change that).
Obama hasn't used power effectively, but that means that he has spilled some of the poison that would have wiped out him at the rest of the Democrats at the ballot box. An assault weapons ban would not have made 2010 or 2012 any better for Democrats.
On income inequality, I'm sure people exist that would rather everyone (including themselves) be equally poor, but I doubt there's many of them. The big worry people have is that soaring profits aren't translating into jobs, not the soaring profits themselves. I think if people turned against the rich politics would get very interesting because in politics money makes the world go 'round but I don't see it happening.
We'll see about immigration reform. Rubio certainly has been the face of it so far.
I think some of this plays right back into a previous cynical arguement you had a number of posts ago. That is for some of these issues the Dems don't want them to be fixed because they use them as a means to raise money. That would make Obama more savvy than I think he is but I don't think he is really in charge.
Anthony, That's true. Power is definitely poison and the more you give your base, the more you turn off the rest of the public. It just strikes me that Obama really has given his base nothing. I honestly do find that a little shocking. Usually, the base gets something at least. I know if I were a liberal, I'd be pretty furious right about now.
Good point about inequality and I think that's absolutely right -- the problem isn't the inequality itself, it's when only the people at the high end benefit. Basically, so long as everyone is doing well, then people accept inequality, but when only some are doing well, then it becomes a problem. And right now, we are in a situation where only some are doing well. That is something I wish more conservatives would realize. When you allow a situation like that to continue too long, you tend to get a radical response from the public.
Yeah, we'll see about Rubio. I am optimistic, but you never know.
Glad to hear the book has give you something to think about! I think it would help the Republicans a lot to adopt this platform! :)
Koshcat, I think that's what's ultimately behind this. Obama/Pelosi/Reid could have done anything they wanted... yet they gave none of their followers anything. I think the only conclusion that can be drawn is that they never intended to give them anything because they use it for fundraising and to maintain their voter base with false promises.
I wonder if republicans are smart enough (and brave enough) to disarm some of the dems yelling issues. For example, the GOP could sponser a bill that stated something to the effect that the Federal Government will accept a state's definition of marriage.
It wouldn't specifically make gay marriage the law of the land. It would follow the idea of Federalism which would make the libertarian arm happy. The tricky part is if a gay couple is married in Vermont where it is "legal" and then they move to Texas, would the Feds honor it? I would say yes but would write it the bill in such a way that Texas doesn't necessarily have to. I hope I am making sense.
Koshcat, On gay marriage, I think there is no middle ground. So-cons will fight any concession and gays will fight any limitation. So there really isn't a work-around -- it's all or nothing to end the issue.
That said, I think your point is a good one and the answer is that I think some of this is coming.
For example, Rubio is pushing immigration which will break up the Democratic plan for holding Hispanic votes. And the closer he has come, the angrier the left has gotten and the more the Democrats have tried to sabotage it. It's been kind of fascinating to watch actually. Most of them have gone silent when they should be pushing this. Others have offered poison pills to try to get conservatives to sink it. Now the unions and black groups are starting to complain that they will get hurt if this passes. Essentially, this is starting to make their prior full-throated demand for amnesty appear like the bluff it was.
On the gay issue, I think the GOP will adopt gay marriage soon -- probably through their next President.
Those are the two big ones where I think the GOP can and will call the Democrats' bluff and expose them.
Beyond that, Rand Paul is stealing a lot of the civil libertarian issues and exposing those as things the Democrats don't actually support. But I'm not sure those are big enough to actually create a constituency -- except maybe college kids who want free speech and a free internet, something the Democrats talk about but then do the opposite of.
We'll see. These are interesting times.
I'm betting that constantly making excuses and concocting "vast right-wing conspiracies" has got to be tiring.
You would think so, but if it's a question of constantly making up excuses or admitting that your ideology is garbage and you've been a fool... it's probably easier to just keep making excuses.
You are probably right about no middle ground but you forget an important rule about politics: kick the can into someone elses yard and let them take care of it. There would still be arguing and fighting just not at the federal level.
Everyone complained about don't ask don't tell but the reality was that it allowed the military to stop or at least limit throwing people in jail for just being gay. No one could claim that the military was refusing homosexuals because they didn't ask if you were. Yes, if you were up front you wouldn't be allowed to join but sometimes these take small changes.
Koshcat, That's true. Intermediate steps are often the best way to handle difficult changes, and that's probably how the gay marriage issue will ultimately go. I just meant that in terms of calling the Democratic bluff, that really can't be done as a half-measure. That would just anger the base without defusing the gay support for the Democrats. As a way to change policy that works, but not as a way to make political changes.
As an aside, one of our regular readers sent me a link to an interesting article about Libertarians in Washington state wooing gays by linking the idea that gays need guns. It's an interesting approach that strikes me as a great way to start winning them over. I'll be curious to see where it leads.
Gays need Guns.
Imagine that on a bumper sticker on the back of a beat up Ford pickup with a gun rack.
Koshcat, That would be rather incongruous. LOL!
But you know, it makes sense. Guns are an issue that reaches into every ethnic, gender, race group in the country. So why not use the issues we can to try to attract people we can't otherwise reach?
On the topic of expanding conservatism in new directions, here: LINK
Kit, I saw that this weekend. And I am hopeful that between him and Rubio and maybe a couple more, the party will reconnect with average people and pull in the people we've been alienating.
O...M...G...!
IRS can't find it's receipts
Receipts are for little people...
Not line dancing, though. Not line dancing.
Not line dancing?
Oh, PLEASE God, if I am ever gonna be audited, make it NOW! LOL!!
Bev, I'm sure that can be arranged. Just write "Conservative/Tea Party" where you put your occupation.
Post a Comment