Lesson for Dimocrats: Never leave a child alone with a loaded gun, a stove in use, an open refrigerator.
Dimocrats and other Hopium addled addicts are learning the same in regards to Boob Obama.
PINOs and Dimocrats and the Hopium addled have yelped since April 2007 – when we were the only ones who dared to do so – every time we published an article about the unqualified, inexperienced Barack Obama. They howled when we correctly stated that Obama, if elected, would be The Third Bush Term.
Now, everyone is recycling Big Pink articles:
HILLARY CLINTON’S most effective quip, in her long struggle with Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination last year, was that the Oval Office is no place for on-the-job training. It went to the heart of the nagging worry about the silver-tongued young senator from Illinois: that he lacked even the slightest executive experience, and that in his brief career he had never really stood up to powerful interests, whether in his home city of Chicago or in the wider world. Might Mrs Clinton have been right about her foe? [snip]
His performance has been weaker than those who endorsed his candidacy, including this newspaper, had hoped. Many of his strongest supporters—liberal columnists, prominent donors, Democratic Party stalwarts—have started to question him. As for those not so beholden, polls show that independent voters again prefer Republicans to Democrats, a startling reversal of fortune in just a few weeks. Mr Obama’s once-celestial approval ratings are about where George Bush’s were at this stage in his awful presidency. Despite his resounding electoral victory, his solid majorities in both chambers of Congress and the obvious goodwill of the bulk of the electorate, Mr Obama has seemed curiously feeble.
The Economist agrees with us in the central axis of Obama failures. The first is Mr Obama’s failure to grapple as fast and as single-mindedly with the economy as he should have done. And then there are other failures, Second, Mr Obama has mishandled his relations with both sides in Congress.
Hillary mocked Obama and his egomanical “To know me is to love me” “celestial choirs” stupidity. Not only has Obama handed Republicans a strong moral high ground because of his own boobery yet failed to appease Republicans (wasn’t Obama supposed to be a “uniter, not a divider”?) Obama is a boob regarding Dimocrats and Democrats too. If Mr Obama cannot work with the Republicans, he needs to be certain that he controls his own party. Unfortunately, he seems unable to.
USAToday is off the pharmaceutical Hopium and in detox too:
This year, Washington is on track to spend nearly two dollars for every dollar it takes in. Under President Obama’s budget for 2010, the government would spend about three dollars for every two coming in.
Unlike you, of course, the federal government has no credit limit and can print money. And temporary deficit spending is necessary to bail out the financial system and jump-start the economy. In the long run, though, huge deficits are no more sustainable for a government than for a household. [snip]
There are limits to how much the government can borrow without consequence — a fact underscored Wednesday when the Treasury had unexpected trouble selling five-year notes to cover Washington’s enormous borrowing. It might have been a hiccup, but it roiled the stock market and sent a worrying signal that Treasury might have to offer higher interest rates, which could throw a wrench into the recovery.
Obama has promised to cut the deficit in half by 2013 — a low bar, given its current enormity.
From the Prospect – No, he can’t:
Barack Obama was always going to disappoint. When you promise almost everything to almost everybody—I’ll stop the fighting in Iraq but I’ll also keep going after al Qaeda there; I’ll make the economy grow more but I’ll spread the wealth around, and so on—you will inevitably let many people down. Human beings, even those who read fluently from teleprompters, simply cannot walk on water.
But few expected the wheels to come off the new administration so quickly. Just weeks into its existence, the Obama White House is in trouble. The US stock market has lost a quarter of its value since Obama’s election. While a Rasmussen poll in early March had his approval rating at 56 per cent, his net approval (the number of people who strongly approve of what he’s doing subtracted from the number who strongly disapprove) had contracted from 28 per cent the day after his inauguration to around 6 per cent for March—worse than Bush at the same time in his first term. The administration is in a fully fledged staffing crisis: having lost a record ten high-profile picks, it has scores of senior executive jobs unfilled—including every single treasury position below the department’s top job. The head of Britain’s civil service, Gus O’Donnell, has complained about the trouble he’s had finding key administration personnel ahead of the G20 conference in April. “There is nobody there,” he said. “You cannot believe how difficult it is.” Treasury secretary Timothy Geithner looks terrified before executives and television cameras alike. Five months after the election he has yet to deliver a plan for the banking system, much less restructure a single financial asset.
Even the sympathetic press is starting to speak of an “incompetence” crisis. Abroad, North Korea, Russia, China and Iran have all turned up the heat, as have Hamas and Chavez. At home, Obama’s Trojan horse agenda—using the economic crisis as an excuse to advance radical social change in areas unrelated to returning growth to the economy—threatens to pull his government into ideological quicksand when all the public really want are jobs. Centrist Democrats are deeply concerned about what Obama’s poor start means for the long-term, moderate Democratic majority whose possibility was glimpsed in the Clinton years.
As a catalogue of boobery that is a good beginning. The comparisons to Jimmy Carter are equally apt. There is even talk now of “stolen election” and the great future hope – Hillary:
Thus the big question in Democratic circles today: “What does Hillary do about this?” Her supporters still feel that the election was stolen from her. With capital on strike, states rebelling against the president’s dependency agenda, the treasury secretary probably soon to be replaced, many top jobs still unfilled, the liberal press anxious and poll numbers plummeting, Hillary Clinton’s departure could sink an administration that already feels like a listing ship, leaving her a clear path to the Democratic nomination for 2012.
Her relationship with the president, inherently unstable personally, erodes every day that he takes his swinging axe to the remarkable bipartisan achievements of the Clinton presidency, especially welfare reform and fiscal discipline. While the biggest shocks of this presidency to date have been at home, in the foreign sphere Hillary’s job as secretary of state is made more difficult by a distracted and inexperienced president.
The conclusion to the No, he can’t article: The Republican party is in such disarray that it is letting Obama’s crisis go to waste. And the on target: For the moment, though, the president’s real threat is from within his own increasingly restive party.
Obama’s dismantling of President Clinton’s economic legacy is injurious. For moderate Democrats who recognise the national mainstream as the party’s best hope of a long-term majority, it is highly dangerous to be associated with such an ideological presidency. It is even worse when the ideology is the one least likely to work. Weakness and inexperience abroad is already causing a dangerous escalation in tensions. At home, the president’s policies represent a history-making, debt-fuelled arrogation of vast territories of private life and the economy. More war and less growth is bad leadership and bad politics.
Even Obama enablers in the U.S. Senate are “restive”. The Obama thugs are adding to the “restiveness”:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Friday that liberal groups targeting moderate Democrats with ads should back off, saying pressure from the left wing of his party won’t be helpful to enacting legislation.
“I think it’s very unwise and not helpful,” Reid said Friday morning. “These groups should leave them alone. It’s not helpful to me. It’s not helpful to the Democratic Caucus.”
Reid, who said he hadn’t seen or heard the ads, added that “most of [the groups] run very few ads — they only to do it to get a little press on it.”
Reid also clued in the mindless Obama thugs about the lies of Obama enablers and fangirls, like Claire McCaskill:
A number of liberal activists have expressed concerns about a group of 16 Senate Democratic moderates who have been meeting in an attempt to bolster their influence.
Reid has no qualms about the group, and said that “any public statements” Senate moderates have made have been helpful as the chamber takes up a budget next week that would cost more than $3 trillion. And he added: “Some people of course go to those meetings so they can issue a press release back home that’ll make them appear more moderate.”
Keep that in mind Evan Bayh – don’t confide or trust in Claire McCaskill, she is an Obama snoop agent in your midst. Keep that in mind Missouri voters – don’t trust Claire McCaskill.
Obama fanboy Ezra Klein, in the midst of incense burning for Obama, notes the “restive” Dimocrats and Democrats:
One of Laura Tyson’s interesting remarks last night came in reply to a questioner who faulted the White House for insufficient ambition. Her response had nothing to do with policy or economics. It was abut Congress. “They accomplish what they can accomplish within the realities of the Congress,” she shot back. “And the Democratic coalition is breaking already.”
Even Big Media is just now beginning to latch on to our many warnings against Guns and Butter as public policy in a democracy. The cause for the growing concern is Obama’s multiple wars:
President Obama’s new Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy will require significantly higher levels of U.S. funding for both countries, with U.S. military expenses in Afghanistan alone, currently about $2 billion a month, increasing by about 60 percent this year.
“The president has decided he is going to resource this war properly,” said a senior administration official of the plan Obama is set to announce this morning. Along with the 17,000 additional combat troops authorized last month, he said, Obama will send 4,000 more this fall to serve as trainers and advisers to an Afghan army expected to double in size over the next two years.
Wise leaders and strong nations understand that the word “priorities” is about a very short list of things that MUST be done – not a wish list of every item DESIRED. Obama is a boob which is why he has a series of wish lists, not a short list of needs – what MUST be done. To all his “butter” items, Obama now adds more “guns” items.
The officials declined to put dollar figures on aspects of the strategy other than the cost of U.S. combat forces in Afghanistan. Initial funding requests for hundreds of additional U.S. civilian officials to be sent there, as well as increased economic and development assistance to both Afghanistan and Pakistan, will come in a 2009 supplemental appropriation that the administration has not yet outlined.
Wasn’t the Big Media narrative of a few weeks ago how “honest” the Obama “budget overview” was because he included the costs of the war in Iraq? We noted that Obama included the Iraq numbers in his “budget overview” because it deceptively used the numbers to show reduced spending even though it was well known that Iraq costs were on their way down. Now Obama is taking the big costs in Afghanistan and Pakistan “off budget” – just like George W. Bush.
The dishonest bookkeeping is just beginning as is the Obama surge in the Obama war:
The plan notes that the top U.S. general in Afghanistan still wants some 10,000 or 11,000 additional U.S. forces next year, but does not say whether Obama intends to fulfill that request now, sources said. That decision would come by the end of this year.
As Obama wastes our national treasury, the Obama enablers at National Journal also echo our own Obama Is The Third Bush Term even as they make excuses for the Boob:
In 2002, Bush and his party seemed right for their moment. The other party appeared to be not just out of power but out of touch. September 11 had changed everything, and the Democrats didn’t “get it.”
Amid today’s economic crisis, the roles are reversed. Obama and his party seem right for their moment. It is the Republicans who seem beached by history, trapped by an irrelevant ideology in a new era.
But new eras don’t always last as long as expected. When the 9/11 tide subsided, Bush found himself far out at sea. He spent the last few years of his presidency forlornly paddling back to shore. He never did re-establish his shattered credibility with the broad American center. In the end, ironically, he inspired unity in only one regard: Most of the country disliked him.
Another accidental polarizer, another crisis-exploiting presidency, another well-intentioned overreach — all, perhaps, to be followed by another public backlash as the promise of consensus is broken and the center once again proves elusive: These are the last things the country needs. The hardest part of being an ambitious president at a moment of crisis and opportunity is contriving not to overshoot. After 2002, Bush never rose to the challenge of moderation. Can Obama?
The answer is NO, he can’t.