Schadenfreude

NPR’s “On point” is having at Obummer from a liberal point of view and the poor people are frothing at the mouth. They are appalled to discover that, having voted for a “clean, articulate, good-looking black guy” , to quote Joe Biden, they elected an empty suit, Hah hah hah.

39 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

39 responses to “Schadenfreude

  1. Inagua

    Chris – Even though I just called Obama an empty suit, I want to modify the statement slightly. I think it is a deliberate pose he strikes to sway the masses. He knows that spouting platitudes and cliches works. Underneath the phoney facade there lucks a very smart, very committed state welfarist. When he occassionally lets the mask slip (share the wealth, cling to God and guns) most people pay no attention.

  2. Last Liberal Standing

    Chris, it astonishes me that you take such delight in this.

    Are you aware that this country is hurting? That the world, too, is likely to be hurting for the foreseeable future? And that neither Obama’s people nor his mockers have the slightest clue as to fixing what’s wrong?

  3. Inagua

    “Obummer and his pals were not up to the job.”

    I disagree. Obama and his pals, particularly waste-no-crisis Rahm Emanuel, were supremely up to the job. Unfortunately, the job was to continue to advance the agenda of a European welfare state.

  4. Inagua

    “…we do know how to fix it…”

    Yes, but it woud take many, many years because the accumulated debt is so huge and because Bernenke’s monetary policy must inevitably lead to inflation. I think we are doomed to at least another decade of economic stagnation because of the diasterous policies of Bush, Bernenke, and Obama.

  5. Krazy Kat

    LLS – I can not speak for Chris but I can for myself and many like me. We find no joy in the state of the USA nor the broader public’s recognition to Obama’s contributions to this mess. It is appalling and I wish we were not here.

    No, any joy we feel (schadenfreude is the perfect description) is watching the fallout from the sudden realization by the Left and their Media spokespeople that Obama is/was supremely unqualified to be president. They do not see it that way but that is what they are realizing.

    I for one was telling anyone who would listen back in late 2007 and throughout 2008 that there was no substance there. Obama was all credential and no skill nor extraordinary experience. He wrote some bad poetry, managed to not write anything while on the head of the Law Review and then, miraculously, writes two arguably well-written books. How does that work? Anyone who was not fawning over the text and the amazing “insights” would have realized that a ghost writer, or at least a very heavy handed editor, was involved. But to acknowledge such would have diminished the supposed lingual and rhetorical skills of the nominal author, Obama. It would also have invited charges of racism which is a great cudgel with which to squash criticism.

    Same goes for his public speaking – soaring and beautiful rhetoric when reading scripts written by a team, but no better than my barber when speaking contemporaneously. Worse, the supposed smartest guy in politics showed an incredible lack of caution and awareness when speaking off-the-cuff (Joe the Plumber interaction being the most obvious).

    And then, the smartest political campaign machine in history, good enough to beat the Clintons, enters the White House and begins a gaff-fest that was stunning in its scope and amateurism. It was if a political SWAT team was replaced by the Keystone Cops.

    I could go on but I am sure I have your blood boiling by now and that is not really my intent. Obama came in with no real-world experience and proceeded to surround himself with professional political advisors and ideological academics. He and the Dems generally misjudged their victory as a mandate for the Left’s view of things rather than it being an anti-Bush, anti-GOP vote against a less than inspiring McCain. The Tides Foundation and Podesta’s group then took control and pushed an ubber-progressive agenda that had fermented throughout the administrations going all the way back to the Carter years.

    And that is one more thing that give me joy about Obama’s presidency – it has given the American public an opportunity to witness what unbridled progressivism brings when it has consolidated power. In certain ways, I believe that a McCain administration would have only been barely more successful than Obama has been and the public could blame the lingering challenges to more GOP nonsense. Instead, Obama, Reid, Pelosi, et al have shown the vast political middle just what progressivism is all about and they are mostly repelled by it. In addition, the Tea Party is unlikely to have ever risen under a McCain and the change in conversation that the TP has brought would not have occurred.

    So yes, I am enjoying this in a small way. Moreover, as I have said to Chris and others since late Summer 2009, I do not believe Obama will be the Dem candidate in 2012 and that he will be replaced by Hillary. And, unfortunately, should I turn out to be correct, that is a problem for the GOP because a good Republican candidate would likely beat Obama (especially with Marco Rubio as the VP candidate). That is, I am not nearly as confident that any of the potential GOP candidates can beat HRC if she is “drafted” after Obama announces he will not seek reelection. Especially if she picks a hawkish male VP from the South like Jim Webb.

    Time will tell.

    • Krazy Kat, the only slight quibble I have with your post – and it is just a slight quibble – is that I’m relieved that John McCain lost the election. The man is as incompetent as Obummer and is basically a Democrat, but his failures would have been attributed to “conservative” Republicans. Better to have Obummer win, have full authority to impose his central command economy on the country and watch it fail.

      I do agree with you that our best hope is that he runs again – the Democrats can’t afford to dump him or they’ll lose their black voter base, but were he to step aside in favor of Hillary, the latter would make a formidable candidate. And our country would suffer as the result.

  6. KK: Honestly, I had that SAME conversation this morning about Hillary with friends of mine who live in Iowa (who, by the way said watch for Santorum, that he is making a big move in Iowa). Anyway, I digress. I said I would RUN to vote for Hillary (and this from a good Republican) than I would for any candidate on the Republican side (this knowing my husband does strategy for one!!).

    Your comments are extraordinarily well composed, concise, and not angry. Thank you.

  7. Inagua

    “Obama, Reid, Pelosi, et al have shown the vast political middle just what progressivism is all about and they are mostly repelled by it.”

    Time will tell, but I suspect that “mostly repelled” overstates the case. I expect Obama to be reelected by characterizing the Republican nominee as a wierd, crazed ideologue who wants to end social security and medicare. But the Republicans will get control of congress so that all future Obama mischief will be limited to regulatory and executive order stuff.

    Good post. A pleasure to read, Kat.

  8. Last Liberal Standing

    I’m paraphrasing, but: “Obama was unable to pull our country out of the mess it was in when he arrived on the scene–and you liberal idiots are seeing just how incompetent he is . . . Hahahahahahaha!”

    C’mon, now. How would any of you pull us out of this mess? You’re taking the easy way out, which is to laugh like jackals at Obama’s failures (remember, your buddy Rush L. stated at the outset that he WANTED Obama to fail) and at his supporters’ great disappointment in his performance.

    I repeat: How would you fix this? How would you have fixed it as of January 20, 2009, or how would you fix it now?

    • Last time, LLS – abolish 10 of our “departments” any 10 at random, I don’t care which. Slash taxes to 15% or a flat tax, maybe 25% – again, I don’t care, just cut them. Whack the hedge funders with that same 25%, if you want to. Abolish the EPA or at least cut their regulations in half. Try all that and come back to me if teh economy hasn’t zoomed.

  9. Krazy Kat

    Truth be told, I believe the best the GOP can do this cycle is Perry-Rubio though I would gladly trade that for Christie-Rubio, I think. I remain uncertain because I have not heard enough from Perry to know if he is “my guy” and Christie remains off the screen for now.

    Now Chris, I may not have said it clearly, but I agree that McCain would have been only less harmful than has been Obama. Sure, a different Stimulus package and no Obamacare but what would McC have done that would have been ineffective as well? McCain would have been stymied out of the chute by the Pelosi-Reid one-two punch. To feel effective, he would have sought compromise and, as you point out, he would come at compromise from a far too moderate position.

    Worse, and most importantly IMLTHO, a McCain presidency is not guaranteed to have given rise to the Tea Party and all that has come from that (yes, a big net positive from my perspective).

    I wrote long ago that the American people spent the 1990s and 2000s, up to 2008, as the proverbial frog in the pot of water. The progressives, since the early 1990s, have been slowly par boiling the frog over a very low flame. Coming into 2008, the frog was nearly in a coma and would soon be cooked. However, Obama won, the Dems saw a mandate, and they could not help themselves and they showed their true progressive hearts. Their push of the ineffective stimulus package, a regulatory orgy and Obamacare was the equivalent to turning the heat up to High. The frog, awakened by the sudden change, sensed danger and hopped out of the pot, scolded but still very much alive and far wiser.

    The tide has turned on the Progressive Movement, partially because it has run out of other people’s money to spend and partly because it has lost control of news flow with the rise of the internet.

    Which brings me to why Obama, a proud man with an even prouder spouse, may indeed be convinced not to run in 2012. At the end of the movie Star Trek 2 (Wrath of Khan), Spock sacrafices his life to save the Enterprise. He states to Kirk, “the good of the many outweighs the good of the few, or the one” which is how the Progressive Machine see Obama. He served a purpose but his current vulnerability jeopardizes the progress made since January 2009. If he loses, the GOP victors will vanquish all of the Progressives placed throughout the Washington bueracracy and all “progress” will cease. Consider CIA, FBI, ATF, SEC, EPA, State, Interior, Homeland Security, FDIC, FSOC, etc etc. All of the progressive minded installed or elevated since January 2009 will be replaced by the exact opposite, an untenable turn of events for the Movement.

    So, for the good of their ideology, better to have Obama step aside gracefully (they will give him the UN presidency at some point after he makes millions on the speech trail) and have Hillary come to the Movement’s rescue. She will even appeal to the vast political middle as a more moderate Dem while winking to the far left reminding them that she called herself a progressive at a debate back in 2008. The political middle, now tired of the other extreme, will likely repel from Perry and gladly vote for Hillary who will come across as a moderating spirit and a tried and true leader at State (but what has she really done will not be asked by a pliant Media).

    The Media, who turned on the Clinton’s in an instant after Iowa 2008, will immediately go with the new narrative with many acknowledging that they may have erred back in 2007-08. They will not throw Obama under the bus completely but I am sure there will be few exposes highlight just how light the due diligence on O was back then with the requisite mea culpas.

    Net, net, the Progressive Movement survives its nearly fatal self-imposed wound, HRC has a two-term potential and Obama will eventually run the UN and be King of the World.

    I wonder if LLS is light-headed after considering this fantasy????

  10. Krazy Kat

    EOSR, as for your being a “good Republican” but willing to vote HRC over Perry, Romney, Bachmann, et al, please consider the “machine” aspect of what I wrote above. HRC, while seemingly more moderate than any of the GOP possibilities, will make no changes to the progressive lineup at all the important agencies. No changes a EPA where they want to make cow farts a polutant so all we meat eaters have to pay a tax for beef. No changes to our currently suicidal energy policy. No changes to the view that banks are pure evil and should become public utilities. No changes to a foreign policy that seeks to take America from leading power to just another run of the mill western democracy. No changes to an anti-Israel foreign policy that is willing to sacrafice the only true democracy in the ME for the sake of global acceptance. And most importantly, an HRC presidency does nothing to chasen the mainstream media on their malpractice in 2007-08.

    Believe me, I would prefer a GOP candidate that is an amalgam of traits from almost all of the current crop of hopefuls but that “perfect” candidate is not to be. Thus, I will hold my nose, as I did with McCain, and pull Team Red.

    One last note if anyone cares, whoever the GOP primary victor is, they will jeopardize their chances if Rubio is not their VP choice. The Latin vote in this country is up for grabs even though they have historically voted Dem. A conservative people based on values, they have not had anyone speak to them from the GOP’s side in a literal and figurative language that resonates with them. Rubio, the son of Cuban exiles, can speak to them in a way that maybe no one else in the GOP can, at least at this juncture.

    So my money will be with Perry-Rubio though I would support Romney-Rubio as well. Perry-Rubio, the son of a sharecropper matched with the son of Cuban emigrees would turn the worlds view of the American GOP on its head.

    EOSR, please reconsider. I will provide a clothes pin for your nose if needed next November….

  11. Krazy Kat

    CF: To your list may I add means-testing SS and MC?

  12. Krazy Kat

    Sorry, earlier, “The progressives, since the early 1990s, have been slowly par boiling the frog over a very low flame.” should have read “…since the early 1900s….” – basically, from the time before Wilson forward.

  13. Inagua

    Kat – May I suggest that means-testing take place only after death, as in many cases the amount of SS, MC, and a person’s wealth are not known until it is all over?

  14. Peg

    LLS – how would I have fixed it? I would have slashed federal spending; as Chris says, cut out entire departments. I would have saved NO specific corporations whatsoever. If they can’t make it on their own – then they can’t make it. And that message would go out to all businesses.

    I would simply our tax code, cut welfare for EVERYONE (yes, that includes corporations, the middle class and the wealthy).

    I would have stopped idiotic programs like Cash for Clunkers and would have allowed the real estate market to land wherever it would on its own without subsidies and tax gimmicks.

    No idea exactly where we would be today then. I’m do believe we’ve been developing a lot of our deep problems for some time, so they would not be turned around overnight. Still – we’d be in a helluvalot better spot then we are now. The Democratic Congress and this president took a tough situation and made it about as dramatically worse as possible.

  15. Last Liberal Standing

    1. “abolish 10 of our “departments” any 10 at random, I don’t care which.”

    For starters, you propose a measure that is flagrantly irresponsible and absurdly unfeasible. It sets a tone of irreverence, no less silly than “First, abolish our system of government and install an absolute monarch.” In other words, this might suit your fantasy, but it isn’t a serious answer.

    2. ” Slash taxes to 15% or a flat tax, maybe 25% – again, I don’t care, just cut them. Whack the hedge funders with that same 25%, if you want to.”

    You seem convinced that high taxes are killing our economy, even though we’ve had higher taxes in the past–when the economy was booming. It seems to me that you just hate having somebody else take your money–who doesn’t?–but is taxation really what ails America and the world? Do you really consider excessive taxation the root of our malaise? I don’t. Not even close. I’ll agree with you if you say that entitlements are excessive and unsustainable and must be cut back, but that’s not quite the same problem, is it?

    3. “Abolish the EPA or at least cut their regulations in half.”

    There’s no denying that some companies could make a niftier profit if only they could pollute at will. That’s basic sense. If only they’d let me use lead paint, and dump industrial waste into Long Island Sound, and strip mine for coal, and clear cut my lumber, and boil oil from sand, etc. etc., I could beat the hell out of my sissy competitors. I could get rich, which is, after all, THE fundamental human right, and in the process I could put some people to work, and we’d all live crappily ever after.

    4. “Try all that and come back to me if t[he] economy hasn’t zoomed.”

    If they find plenty of running water on Mars, maybe someone will try it there. Fortunately, it ain’t gonna happen here. But thanks for providing a “Last time” solution to our difficulties. It seems as though you confuse your Randian pet peeves with legitimate economic and societal issues.

  16. KK: You’ll be happy to know I’ve never actually voted for a Democrat in my lifetime of pulling the lever, although tempted, and have thrown away a couple of votes by writing in Donald Duck over McCain (who did nothing for me). So chances are slim I’ll cast my vote for Hil if she were to jump in the fray, but it has crossed my mind.

    I think one thing Hil has in her favor is her ability to communicate – she can talk about almost anything of substance and not use one note or cue card because she knows of what she is speaking. I think that goes a long way for any candidate. I think she’s more moderate than you give her credit for because she knows how the game is played and she knows one has to be more centrist than lefty. Plus, she HATES Gore so she won’t want to do anything to help his Green movement.

    Yes, Rubio would be a great Veep but with whom? Christie swears he’s not going to run and Perry, who is going to announce this weekend, has “issues” being so socially conservative, at least for me. Romney got heckled today so I don’t see he’ll go as far as he hopes. Perry will also have the hurdle of being from Texas and being associated with W.

    signed,
    Confused in Rhode Island

  17. FlyAngler

    LLS – I can assure you that no matter what, a President McCain would not have added nearly $5TRILLION to the national debt in his first three years in office.

    Iguana – I think the Wisconsin recall results pretty much show the public’s mode right now. Walker’s program and progress has clearly not repulsed a nominally purple-blue state.

    Krazy – See Hanson’s observations on liberals bailing on Obummer here:

    http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/the-politics-of-liberals-bashing-obama/?singlepage=true

    EOS redux – I echo what Krazy said about HRC vs any Republican. Clothes pin, Vicks Vaporub, gas mask – whatever it takes to slow the “progressive machine”.

  18. Cos Cobber

    Thoughtful and well written posts Krazy Kat. Please drop in more often.

  19. LLS2

    CF said:

    “or they’ll lose their black voter base”

    ha ha… african americans make up what % of the voting populace? and what about the ones that don’t vote ?

  20. Last Liberal Standing

    Fly Angler, to you it’s as simple as, “Obama added nearly $5 TRILLION to the national debt in his first three years”? Really? Obama did that? In his first two and a half years? All by himself?

    Do you guys ever look at the big picture? Have you ever heard of globalization? of shrinking resources? of unfunded wars? of stock market and bond market larceny to the tune of trillions? Did Obama create these conditions, too?

    I’m not saying Obama has made all the right moves. He’s blundered badly, and in several ways. I’m pretty unhappy with him. But you guys lull yourself into the huge rationalization that this huge mess we’re in is Obama’s fault, or the Democrats’ fault, or progressives’ fault. And if only we’d lower taxes, erase regulations, suffocate guvment, and elect Republicans (or, better yet, Libertarians), we’d solve our problems.

    I’m looking up “simplistic” in the dictionary. I hope there’s a photo illustration. . . .

  21. FlyAngler

    LLS, we have tried the Keynesian path and it has filed. All manner of politicians, GOP and Dem alike have conspired with unions to create benefit plans that are unsustainable. The can has been kicked down the road for over 40 years and we have run out of road.

    The US, given our political system, does not allow for longterm planning since pols have to get reelected every two to six years. Thus, they tell their constituents what they want to hear rather than what they need to hear. They, all of them, pander to the populist instincts of their side and such at the teet of the big money interests. All of them.

    We have allowed the rise of a Cleptocracy that takes what they can while they can and screw longterm planning. Globalization was a fact but we did nothing about it as a nation when we could have in the 70s & 80s. Te unions had their benefits, the corporations chased cheap labor abroad and we allowed our working middle class to flounder without giving them real skills to compete. We killed trade schools, pushed everyone into college, even if they were “not college material” and felt good about ourselves. No one in govt said “stop” until we were so far behind that it may be impossible to catch up.

    The rise of the urban and exurban middle class in the US is an accident of history. After WW2, we were the only industrial nation not bombers to smithereens so we became the builders and rebuilders of the world. But we were arrogant and lost sight of how unique our status was historically and did not plan for the rest of the world to catch up to us with far cheaper labor costs. Why? Because it would have required a slowing of income growth and wealth in the US and that neither gets politicians reelected not makes for healthy corporate profits.

    Sorry about the rant but I am well aware of the issues you suggest I do not appreciate. I do not have the answers but I know enough that when a plan or policy is not working, you do not do more of the same.

    I also agree with Gates and the Generals that our national debt is the single greatest strategic risk to our sovereignty with foreign oil independence being a close second. And yet Obama has instituted policies that worse each of these exposures exacerbating an already precarious position. if federal spending an poorly conceived stimulus have not worked, more of the same is not likely to bring a better result. Piling more debt on our current burden, for whatever reason, is not sound.

    Now o could go all Glen Beck on you and suggest this is actually the master plan, to destabilize and diminish the USA so we can not fight efforts to form a new world order but I won’t.

    Thera a great video online with Bill Whittle (?) on Pajamas Media where he goes through just how much revenue can be raised if you effective confiscate all of the income of all high earners as well as all corporations. I believe he takes into account assets as well. What does that all add up to? One years worth of federal spending at current rates. So, just how high do you want to raise taxes on the evil rich and the selfish corporations? To what end?

    So, no, Obama did not create all see problems but that is beside the point. Our situation is what it is and Obama’s policies to date are not improving matter. Worse, once Obamacare kicks in fully, things will only get worse (you do know they found another $50BN in coats because the Dems only asked CBO to grade on employee cost, not the full cost of employee families). Seriously, can you defend a program that is so onerous that over 1500 companies and other entities (including a plethora of unions) require waivers?

    I have to go to sleep now and will not proofreader this so my apologies for the inevitable mistakes and strange iPad “corrections”.

    LLS, we are all Americans and we all love our country. However, if we can not find common ground on which we can change our current path we are doomed as a society. I only hope that we are not past the point of no return.

    Peace!

  22. FlyAngler

    One last thing, we need term limits in both the House and Senate. Two terms and out. Stagger them so we have some continuity and institutional memory but let’s end the concept of “career politician”. Also, put in a law that prevents pols from becoming lobbyists for a full four years after they leave office. Representing the people was never supposed to be about self enrichment and these two ideas would break that cycle.

  23. sigh. christie?

    I really wish Republicans would stop fantasizing about a Christie candidacy. I get the appeal of the tough guy shtick, but he is a political hack who lacks the character and good judgment to avoid the pitfalls and temptations that come with power. And he’s just a jerk.

  24. Last Liberal Standing

    Krazy Kat,

    In the posting you addressed to me, you said, “I could go on but I am sure I have your blood boiling by now and that is not really my intent.”

    Actually, no, you didn’t have my blood boiling. You presented your views logically and clearly. You provoked thought, not hostility or defensiveness. (I hope you’ve got a blog; if not, please consider starting one.)

    I disagree with a number of the points you made, including the suggestion that Obama couldn’t have written his books without a ghost writer or editor, and the claim that he can’t express himself well when he’s got nothing but his own wits to guide him. I obviously think he’s much smarter than that. It’s not that I see him as wonderful, for I could list a number of serious complaints of my own. For instance: He’s conflict-averse, and when he’s feeling overwhelmed, he runs and hides. (Remember this– http://www.mediaite.com/tv/obama-brings-bill-clinton-in-to-talk-tax-plan-and-then-leaves-to-go-to-a-christmas-party/ –? I almost literally fell down when I watched that spectacle. Uh-oh, I thought. He’s lost it.)

    But where I strongly disagree with you is over your claim that Obama and fellow Democrats are following an “uber-progressive agenda.” One of the most consistent sources of discontent among progressives is that Obama ABANDONED progressive ideals, if he ever had them, and that he did so right from the start. Do his economic advisors have a progressive agenda? Was it progressive of him to gloss over the abuses and crimes of the Bush era, to pretend that “moving on” precluded an extensive investigation into the Iraq disgrace? Has he made government more transparent, or less so? Was it a progressive voice that whispered to him, “Stay longer in Afghanistan! Endanger more lives, and spend tens of billions more, for a lost cause!” During the debt crisis haggling, did he insist on ANYthing a progressive would have considered essential?

    What many of his supporters and former supporters have become aware of is that he’s far too interested in pleasing everybody (by governing from the center, not from the left), and far too obsessed with serving two terms–with the upshot that he is pleasing nobody and looking very much like a one-term president.

  25. Krazy Kat

    LLS – one of my best friends from grade school is a Valhalla social studies teacher and union rep. We knock heads constantly and the frustrations you voice are the same as those he voiced to me earlier this week. As I told him, how Obama has governed is in the eye of the beholder. You see a too-right series of decisions and policies and I see him too-left, way too left. Another of our high school friends is way out in Left field and there is little he and I can discuss rationally (his perspective is that msnbc is too conservative).

    If you will indulge me a bit more, I will explain why I think you and many liberal progressives are so disappointed. First, we have not had a truly left agenda in the WH since Carter. Sure, Clinton’s early inclinations were very progressive but HillaryCare died a public death and Bill had to move to the center and triangulate to get anything done and get reelected. Bill, to his credit, saw the evil genius that is Dick Morris and found his path, albeit, an centrist path. Thus, progressives have Ben shut out for thirty years and have seethed and plotted and planned for their eventual return to power. The reason why the Gore loss went down so hard was because they thought they had a more kindred spirit in Big Al who lost to the dunce from Texas.

    So the progressives suffered through eight years of W watching the world, to their eyes, go to shit at the hands of the evil neocons and corporate interests.

    Campaign 2008 heats up and it looks like a HRC coronation in the earliest days. While Hillary proclaims herself a “Progressive in the early 20 century meaning of Progressive” (her words trying to tie herself to the movement’s roots), many are suspect having been burned by Bill. Then, out of nowhere, Obama rises and somehow wins Iowa.

    (As an aside, did you ever wonder how/why O won Iowa? He was not suppose to. His political team had no caucus experience while the Clinton’s had been there before. What forces outside of the Obama camp conspired to have him win there? But I digress.)

    So, nearly overnight, the Media falls out of like with Hillary and falls head over heals for Barack. Smitten. Tingles up their legs. Swooning to his written and spoken words. Fantasizing about the heretofore unheard of possibility of a multiracial, 21st century, post-partisan president. Hillary is cast aside for the new shiny thing and even Bill is attacked by the Media for asking questions about O. And yet, like the man who falls for a woman at first sight, the Media do only a cursory review of the past and O’s qualifications.

    But Obama, as a candidate, is a mirror. He projects back on all viewers exactly what they want to see, a part of themselves. A kindred spirit who understands them and will govern thusly. And that is where the Progressives like yourself got trapped. You projected on to him all manner of intellect, judgement and a presumed umber-liberal mindset. You assumed a man of such intellectual and rhetorical gifts would see the wrongs of the past three decades and be able to immediately address them upon inauguration. That he would reverse all of W’s worst policies because, you know, W was a neocon’s puppet, a moron and the second coming of Satan (well, Cheney at least). So every left thinking liberal assumed all of that nonsense could be undone with a few strokes of Obama’s wand and viola, Progressive policies would be ascendant.

    I think, to a certain extent, Mr and Mrs Obama believed that too. However, once Obama started to get high-level security briefings, his tone and actions changed a bit. I believe he learned that for many of the policies that you and liberals hated under Bush, there were no good alternative solutions. I believe he learned of dangers and threats to our nation that he never envisioned and came to understand some of the Bush-era policies as necessary and, even, pragmatic (Patriot Act, rendition, water boarding, Gitmo). Sure, Obama, through Holder, tried to pick around the edges on Gitmo (move to the ConUS?), trying MSM in a civilian court, etc. But in the end, Obama came to realize that there were either practical, legislative or legal impediments to changing Bush policies. Same goes for education and a host of other policies where you feel he fell short.

    LLs, no mater what you believe, the US is still a slightly center-right country and has to be governed in such a way. Progressives became so convinced at their way was better that they lost sight of the practical point that there are limits to what the country will accept. Thus, with a liberal shopping list a mile long, it was inevitable that expectations would be way too high. It is from that lofty expectations vantage point that you feel disappointment. Being out of power for so long made Progressives forget there is only so much that can be done in the real world and that nothing of substance can be done overnight. Worse, you forgot that most of your changes require huge sums of money and that the national fisk was tapped out. Hence your and my friends’ disappointment.

    But I thank you and Pelosi and Reid and Durbin and Schummer and Biden and Axelrod and Soros and Chris Matthews and Lawrence O’Donnell and Air America because you all helped give rise to the Tea Party. Yes, the Progressives were midwives to that which they now loath for without your too high expectations and your impatience and you belief that the means justify the ends, the Tea Party would not exist and the national conversation would not have changed in the most needed ways. The frog has awaken and he is out of the pot

    So I appreciate your frustrations but I do not sympathize because your frustration mean we have hopefully averted full disaster. But I am concerned about your frustrations because you still feel there is a more Progressive way and that is not going to lead to the national compromise we need to get the US out of this mess. Especially so when the Micelle Bachmann’s of the GOP have too many adherents of her own.

    Train is pulling into the station and I have to go.

    And no, I do not have a blog because I have a day job and a family.

  26. Inagua

    “During the debt crisis haggling, did he insist on ANYthing a progressive would have considered essential?”

    Yes, he insisted that ObamaCare was off the table. And social, and medicare, and medicaid.

  27. Krazy Kat

    Cos Cobber – I am always hanging around Chris’ joint, just not this vocal on most topics. Some things just get me going, sometimes a bit too enthusiastically like this thread. That is another reason I could never host a blog, my fingers would bleed incessantly from too much keyboard action. Either that or the iPad’s inane corrections would drive me to drink (more).

  28. Last Liberal Standing

    KK,

    Two quick things, and then I’m off to Syracuse for the weekend.

    1. Without having much to go on, you’re making several assumptions about what I believe and what resonates with me. The fact that I admired Obama and wished him the best does not mean I saw him as a Messiah. I’ll tell you what I actually DID hope for from him, but I’ll do so when there’s more leisure.

    2. Do you really do all that writing while you wait for the train? Sheesh. Take a later train, and start a blog. Or quit your job. 🙂

  29. Last Liberal Standing

    Inagua,

    Okay, you got me. What I meant was, did Obama insist on anything ADDITIONAL on behalf of his purported progressive cabal? If all he did was say, “Can’t touch these,” that doesn’t imply a deep dark plot to socialize and destroy America, just an unwillingness to give up the social net we already have. Hardly the quintessence of a seething progressive.

  30. Krazy Kat

    LLS, that last one was the full train ride to GCS from Cos Cob. And that was on the late train because I slept in this morning.

    Yes, I am often guilty of taking some utterings of those I don’t know and making some very strong assumptions on what I think makes them tick. That is a shortcoming of mine which I battle on a regular basis. It is a form of stereotyping and gets worse the more I type. Some days I find that I am projecting but we are all guilty of that. It is like the general impressions held by the Left of what someone sympathetic to the Tea Party is all about. We all use stereotype and I readily apologize if I assumed too much about who you are or what you believe.

    That said, I will still stand by my broader comments about Progressives in general in the earlier posts. Stereotypes by their nature become more accurate over larger cohorts.

    As for writing a blog, I have heard if from a range of people over time but have never felt I had much to add to the myriad of opinions out there. Generally, I believe that individuals have to possess certain talents that allow them to create original content in order to justify the commit of time and effort in proper blogging. Chris is a perfect example of original content when he is focused on real estate and railing against Madoff. Thus, I can forgive him when things are slow and his recycling of material from Instapundit or Business Insider, etc. Most blogs are derivative of someone else’s postings so no harm in bringing that to an audience that might not view Instapundit or BI on a daily basis. You do still love me CF, right?

    In my case, I do not have too many original insights, observations or thoughts. Mostly I consume signficiant quantities of material from a range of sources, swirl them around my brain and develop my opinions. Sadly, most of my opinions are derivative of the input sources which I try to keep somewhat balanced. I am always wary of getting caught up in the echo chambers of my preferred inputs so I need to watch MSNBC and CNBC to keep things in perspective. Unfortunately, much of what they say reinforces the echoes eminating from the right-of-center stuff I consume so I am only marginally successful at being balanced. And, probably most importantly, I am way too verbose in making my points and would drive readers with limited attentions spans crazy.

    Enjoy Syracuse. Maybe Chris can plan another of his readers’ get togethers in the future and we can meet and chat at length. Maybe at one of the burger joints discussed this week? Chris, you up for that in September?

  31. Krazy Kat

    It’s Saturday morning and it is likely too late for Chris to update this stale thread or for anyone to read this if he does. That said, I thought it worth noting this WSJ OpEd from Norman Podhoretz:

    What Happened to Obama? Absolutely Nothing.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903918104576502093021646166.html

    For Last Liberal Standing, I direct your attention to this excerpt:

    “Hence the question on every lip is—as the title of a much quoted article in the New York Times by Drew Westen of Emory University puts it— “What Happened to Obama?” Attacking from the left, Mr. Westin charges that President Obama has been conciliatory when he should have been aggressively pounding away at all the evildoers on the right.

    Of course, unlike Mr. Westen, we villainous conservatives do not see Mr. Obama as conciliatory or as “a president who either does not know what he believes or is willing to take whatever position he thinks will lead to his re-election.” On the contrary, we see him as a president who knows all too well what he believes. Furthermore, what Mr. Westen regards as an opportunistic appeal to the center we interpret as a tactic calculated to obfuscate his unshakable strategic objective, which is to turn this country into a European-style social democracy while diminishing the leading role it has played in the world since the end of World War II. The Democrats have persistently denied that these are Mr. Obama’s goals, but they have only been able to do so by ignoring or dismissing what Mr. Obama himself, in a rare moment of candor, promised at the tail end of his run for the presidency: “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”
    —————

    As you might guess, this rings true to my ear and, were I a bit more eloquent, I might have penned. What many of us on the Right see is exactly what we expected, not change or lack of consistency, but a predictable behavior. 

    You see a man of promise who has not been neither progressive enough, aggressive enough nor true to the promises you perceived during the 2008 campaign (I am not assuming too much hear, am I?). 

    We saw a man lacking any practical, administrative or executive experience who hoodwinked the World with platitudes and bromides but was a fairly predictable progressive statist. We now see what happens to such a man when he runs head first into the realities of governing a center-right country in an age of declining national finances and creeping conservatism in the nations Obama heretofore wanted to emulate.

    As I noted previously, perspective is all in the eye of the beholder, I just feel strongly that the Right’s perspective is based more on reality than the now disenchanted Left’s.

  32. lastliberalstanding

    Krazy,

    I wish Chris had a way of keeping some of the threads–the ones I contribute to!–alive for a longer period, more than just as bulleted items under “Top Posts.” As it is, a discussion of Obama’s virtues and vices too soon disappears in what you call a “stale thread,” well before people have had a chance to read, respond, and follow up as necessary. (Yes, Chris, I know it’s still possible to click back to “Older Posts,” but once an item is off your front page, its audience shrivels.)

    Anyway, your 5:53 a.m. posting deserves a better reply than I can peck out on my laptop from remote Syracuse. I hate laptops. Can’t hit the right keys, and often send potential masterpieces prematurely or lose the drafts entirely. For now, I’ll read the Podhoretz op-ed and reread Drew Westen’s piece in the NYT. (Laptops do have SOME practical functions.)

  33. Krazy Kat

    A laptop is the IBM Selectric to the iPad equivalent of an Underwood.