Barack Obama employed fear to force through his “stimulus” scam. Now Barack Obama will use “glimmers of hope” to try to prop up his failing economic policies – and his falling poll numbers, and his bumbling ways.
For us the Glimmers Of Hope are Hillary Clinton and the daily realization by many that have remained silent thus far that Obama is not up to the job and that steps will have to be taken to navigate around the boob if we are going to save the nation.
Fear or Hope, Obama is doomed to fail because his policies do not make sense. Neither the “stimulus” scam nor the 2009 budget nor the 2010 budget nor any of the other Santa wish lists Dimocrats greedily rub their palms in contemplation of, deal with the central issue of the financial crisis. We have called repeatedly for a comprehensive, coordinated, detailed, and well explained, economic plan that tackles the central financial issues and creates/saves the American financial system. Barack Obama economic “plans” provide for none of these criteria.
Respected historian Robert Dallek a few days ago echoed our additional critique of Obama “plans”, Guns And Butter: Barack Obama’s Moral Hazard And Systemic Failure, Part I. Dallek fortifies our analysis of why Obama’s Santa wish list administration will fail in an article called How Not to End Another President’s War (L.B.J. Edition)
Lyndon Johnson tried to give his nation guns and butter. In the end, he provided neither. [snip]
As Johnson soon learned, despite his protests to the contrary, he could not have guns and butter. And though, as Lady Bird Johnson said, Vietnam “wasn’t the war he wanted. The one he wanted was on poverty and ignorance and disease … ”, once he committed himself to winning the war with a broad bombing campaign and 545,000 combat troops, he lost the freedom to build a Great Society. Protests against the loss of American and Vietnamese lives and the commitment of billions of dollars to fight the war drained away the country’s energy for large-scale domestic improvements.
Now that President Obama has inherited not one war but two, does he face a similar hurdle? With the country’s economy in such poor shape and his eagerness to enact bold health insurance, education and environmental reforms, he will need to recall that wars are the enemy of far reaching change. World War I stopped Progressivism; in the 1940’s “Dr. Win the War replaced Dr. New Deal,” as Franklin D. Roosevelt said; the Korean War sidetracked Harry Truman’s Fair Deal; and Vietnam frustrated Johnson’s hopes of additional Great Society measures.
Democrats held 295 House seats, Republicans 140. They held 68 Senate seats to Republicans’ 32, and 33 governors to the GOP’s 17.
Democratic registration was twice that of the GOP. The liberal press was gleefully writing the obituary of “The Party That Lost Its Head.” [snip]
The GOP came roaring back in 1966 to capture 47 House seats and eight new governorships. In 1968, Nixon led the party out of the wilderness and into a White House it would hold for 20 of the next 24 years.
Full of hubris in 1965, Lyndon Johnson had seized his moment. He had launched a Great Society that would outdo his beloved patron FDR. He would dispatch 500,000 troops to Vietnam to “bring the coonskin home on the wall” and create a “Great Society on the Mekong.” Those were heady days of “guns-and-butter.”
By 1968, LBJ’s coalition was shredded. [snip]
Why did LBJ fail? He overloaded the circuits. He tried to do it all. He misread a national desire for continuity after Kennedy’s death as a mandate for a lunge to the left and a great leap forward with the largest expansion of government since the New Deal. [snip]
History never repeats itself exactly. But Barack Obama is making the same mistakes today that LBJ made in 1965.
To call Barack Obama by the sobriquets George W. Obama or Lyndon Baines Obama is actually a compliment. Lyndon Baines Johnson was a powerful political figure who cared about America and had great accomplishments. George W. Bush at least managed to bankrupt business after business using other people’s money and was, albeit in a state whose governor does not have much responsibility, Governor of the Great State of Texas. By contrast Obama has done nothing. Obama is a great big zero. The Obama “O” is realy a “0″, a big zero.
The first woman managing editor of the Harvard Law Review has no glimmers of hope about Obama:
It reminds me a little bit of my experience with him when he was president of the Harvard Law Review. You know, I hesitated to say a lot about this during the campaign because I really thought maybe it wasn’t fair. That maybe, finally, when he got to be President, this would be a job big enough to engage and hold Barack Obama’s sustained interest, because really, is there a bigger job out here?
[W]hen he was at the HLR you did get a very distinct sense that he was the kind of guy who much more interested in being the president of the Review, than he was in doing anything as president of the Review.
A lot of the time he quote/unquote “worked from home“, which was sort of a shorthand – and people would say it sort of wryly – shorthand for not really doing much. He just wasn’t around. Most of the day to day work was carried out by the managing editor of the Review, my predecessor, a great guy called Tom Pirelli whose actually going to be one of the assistant attorney generals now.
He’s the one who did most of the day to day work. Barack Obama was nowhere to be seen. Occasionally he would drop in he would talk to people, and then he’d leave again as though his very arrival had been a benediction in and of itself, but not very much got done.
So, you know, you see that and you think, gosh, maybe that’s the way the guy operates, hut then you figure ok, obviously he always had his eye on bigger and better things.
But now he’s President…there really isn’t a bigger or better thing.
Big Media and PINO Big Blogs will note that Ms Liebau is a Republican. But isn’t what she describes exactly what Americans have witnessed? Obama is at Camp David, again, this weekend. Obama is constantly either returning from or planning to go on vacation. Big shows and big displays Obama enjoys. Work? Obama does not enjoy work. Work is something Obama leaves to others. When something goes wrong, Obama blames the staff. Usually administrations write bills but Obama prefers to let Pelosi or Reid or others do the work on the “stimulus” on the 2009 budget, on healthcare, on the 2010 budget, in short on everything – Obama is too busy doing the flim-flam keep on moving scam. And we do remember how during the campaign Obama displayed petulance and fatigue when forced to campaign.
* * *
Fear and Hope are not the only Obama distractions. There is also the Obama blame game to drown the forgotten celestial choirs:
In his inaugural address, President Obama proclaimed “an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics.”
It hasn’t taken long for the recriminations to return — or for the Obama administration to begin talking about the unwelcome “inheritance” of its predecessor.
Over the past month, Obama has reminded the public at every turn that he is facing problems “inherited” from the Bush administration, using increasingly bracing language to describe the challenges his administration is up against. The “deepening economic crisis” that the president described six days after taking office became “a big mess” in remarks this month to graduating police cadets in Columbus, Ohio.
“By any measure,” he said during a March 4 event calling for government-contracting reform, “my administration has inherited a fiscal disaster.”
Obama’s more frequent and acid reminders that former president George W. Bush left behind a trillion-dollar budget deficit, a 14-month recession and a broken financial system have come at the same time Republicans have ramped up criticism that the current president’s policies are compounding the nation’s economic problems.
Obama had initially been content to leave partisan defense strategy to his proxies, but as the fiscal picture has continued to darken, he has appeared more willing to risk his image as a politician who is above petty partisanship to personally remind the public of Bush’s legacy.
Democrats used to mock George W. Bush when he blamed the wonderful Bill Clinton. Now Dimocrats and their PINO Big blogs have become what we all used to mock:
Upon entering the White House in 2001, Bush pinned the lackluster economy on his predecessor, using the “Clinton recession” to successfully argue in favor of tax cuts that won some Democratic support. But for Obama, who built his candidacy on a promise to rise above Washington’s divisive partisan traditions — winning over many independent voters and moderate Republicans in the process — blaming his predecessor holds special risks.
For Barack Obama “fear”, “hope” and “blame” are tools to distract from his own inadequacies:
“What the administration is involved in now is the politics of attribution,” said Lawrence R. Jacobs, a political scientist at the University of Minnesota. “Each week that goes by with falling job numbers and Republican criticism of the administration’s flaws means falling approval ratings. What’s the antidote? That the guilty party is George Bush.”
“The trick,” Jacobs said, “is how do you shift blame to George Bush and retain any credibility on the idea that you are looking past partisan warfare? This looks like a doubling down on a very partisan approach.”
* * *
For us the glimmers of hope emanate from Hillary Clinton.
This week Obama shut his mouth and the stock markets rose. Whether it is a Bear Market trap or not, Wall Street rose this week even though it is still down 18 percent for the year. The market rise began on Wednesday.
We’ll indulge ourselves and mock the Hopium addled addicts by calling attention to the fact that it was also on Wednesday that the New York Times published this:
On Wednesday, Bill Clinton himself will headline an Upper East Side fund-raiser for Ms. Gillibrand.
“Kirsten has inspired the band to get back together,” said Karen Finney, who was a deputy press secretary for Mrs. Clinton in the White House and is now advising Ms. Gillibrand. “It’s nice to be working for another great woman from New York.” [snip]
Ms. Gillibrand’s back-to-back campaigns will also provide an outlet to the energies and enthusiasms of Mrs. Clinton’s ardent grass-roots supporters, especially in feminist circles.
One member of Ms. Gillibrand’s kitchen cabinet, for example, is Ann Lewis, a longtime Clinton confidante and a senior adviser on the presidential campaign. Ms. Lewis recently launched NoLimits.org, a Web site and blog, to allow Mrs. Clinton’s supporters to network and stay in touch.
“Hard-core Hillary supporters are fully expecting her to run again in 2016,” said one New York official with deep Clinton ties who demanded anonymity so as not to be seen as speaking for Mrs. Clinton. “That is one reality. Kirsten is a more local reality. But for folks in New York, she gives them a focus.” [snip]
“There are lot of people who think that Kirsten is an admirable successor,” said Ricki Lieberman, a major Clinton donor who is helping organize Wednesday’s event with the former president. “I think it’s a natural alliance.”
2016 is a polite
date number said with a sly smile. And as usual Ricki is on the job.
The Wall Street traders, if they missed the New York Times article, had fun when they read their magazines:
Senator Gillibrand’s transition into office and preparation for her reelection campaign has been greatly helped by the well-oiled machine Hillary Clinton left behind. Nearly all of Clinton’s New York staff has stayed on to work for Gillibrand, her powerful network of fund-raising connections is still churning out the cash, and her other contacts are showing the upstater how to humor all of New York’s various ethnic constituencies. But today the Times briefly hits on what may be motivating some of Clinton’s most loyal hands to work so hard for Gillibrand, and it’s not necessarily the kindness of their own hearts.
In reality, like athletes working out on their own during the off-season, some of Clinton’s die-hard supporters are just trying to stay sharp for when Clinton inevitably runs for president in eight years.
“Hard-core Hillary supporters are fully expecting her to run again in 2016,” said one New York official with deep Clinton ties who demanded anonymity so as not to be seen as speaking for Mrs. Clinton. “That is one reality. Kirsten is a more local reality. But for folks in New York, she gives them a focus.”
In other words, Gillibrand is just a means to avoid getting rusty. Clinton is only 61 years old, which means age shouldn’t disqualify her from running again. And, in fact, Steve Kornacki notes today that Clinton’s time as secretary of State is already paying dividends in the popularity department — a poll released last week put her favorable/unfavorable numbers at 59–22, an “all-time high.”
Did we mention this story with that fun “2016″ quote came out on the same Wednesday Wall Street rallied? Did Wall Street have a Hillary rally? Or was it simply the joy of Obama shutting up?
As we’ve said, 2016 is a polite estimate. As Obama bumbles, stumbles, and falls, Hillary Saves The World, the stock markets, and eventually the presidency.
Now that is real glimmers of hope.