Increasingly, Barack Obama is a drag queen impersonator of Condolezza Rice.
Remember Condolezza Rice? “Kind-of-sleezy” Rice, as she was unaffectionately known, hid from the obvious and made amazing excuses for why she did not see what was staring her right in the face.
Those of us who attended the hearings held to investigate events surrounding the August 6, 2001 intelligence briefing called “Bin Laden Determined To Attack Inside The United States” will always recall Rice enumerate the many reasons why she and George W. Bush were surprised when Bin Laden attacked inside the United States. The fact that a document called “Bin Laden Determined To Attack Inside The United States” existed, was prepared for George and Condi, and they actually were given the document, still did not prepare them for the “surprise” attack.
Drag Queen Rice impersonator Obama is also getting clear signals of the economic disaster the United States faces but Obama remains oblivious.
Well, not exactly oblivious. Obama is lying and misrepresenting what the critics of his “plans” are saying. Obama supporters are engaged in the same misrepresentations.
This is from the President’s remarks at the National Academy of Science:
At such a difficult moment, there are those who say we cannot afford to invest in science. That support for research is somehow a luxury at a moment defined by necessities. I fundamentally disagree. Science is more essential for our prosperity, our security, our health, our environment, and our quality of life than it has ever been.
Who the hell is saying we cannot afford to invest in science? Isn’t the real argument about whether we can spend so much more (fully 3% of GDP) on science, and revitalize the economy, and save the banks, and save the Big Three, and spend more on education, and reform health care, and revolutionize the energy sector all at the same time?
I have heard “there are those who say…” from this President quite a bit in the last three months. I think it’s time he start naming names. Who are these people who hold such backward-looking, unacceptable positions? If they are elected members of the government, shouldn’t the President tell us who they are so we can vote them out? If they are unelected, how is it they have such power?
Or maybe there are no such people, at least not of such relevance they deserve specific mention by the President. Maybe this is just a rhetorical trick designed to make Mr. Obama’s position seem like the only one allowed by common sense.
Cost invokes the word “demagogic” to describe Obama’s exploitation of the current swine flu fad.
The swine flu outbreak is a reason to amp up funding for the sciences? This is playing on public fears to advance a political agenda that’s only tangentially related to said fears.
And, of course, no presidential address would be complete without a gratuitous shot at his predecessor. Even a speech on science.
Cost rightly slams Obama for mischaracterizing the position of opponents on issues such as stem cell research as well as on Obama’s attempt to divorce science from ideology (Cost lampoons politicians who make “science” decisions to further political objectives). Those of us who support stem cell research still recognize Obama’s lazy habits and cheap rationalizations for positions which require actual thought not demagogic posturing.
Cost, an Obama admirer if not a supporter, is now aware Obama is not who he thought.
One reason that I was so interested in candidate Obama in 2007 was that he seemed to have the same broad orientation to politics as I do. [snip]
Yet I am sick and tired of the President’s rhetorical sophistry – and if Frank Newport called me up today, I would say that I disapprove of the job he is doing. If Scott Rasmussen’s computer called me, I’d say that I strongly disapprove. A President should not be mischaracterizing, and working actively to alienate, as much as 40% of his consistency – especially after he promised he wouldn’t.
* * * * *
Obama and his supporters, especially the unthinking think they know-it-all Hopium addled addicts, think they know it all, and like Condi and George before them, will one day express surprise at the economic mess Obama contributes to the economic mess we are in.
Obama Big Media supporter Albert Hunt, a Tim Russert entitlement fraudster, is the latest to warn Americans of the Obama mess and warn Obama he is making a mess:
The context is a looming policy and fiscal clash: Obama’s economic, energy, health-care and education initiatives are expensive, and the U.S. faces trillion-dollar deficits as far as the eye can see.
The president can make a compelling case that these priorities are urgent and can help revive the economy. Still, those initiatives, and a strong economy, may be unattainable without fiscal discipline elsewhere. [snip]
The small stuff, such as Obama’s directive to his agencies to cut a total of $100 million from their budgets, may score political points for the president. He’s talked a good game on some of the bigger-ticket items, while showing no inclination to fight for them. His apologists say he has higher priorities.
If it persists, this will produce one of two train wrecks: decimating his health-care and energy initiatives or imperiling a long term, fiscally sound economy.
Our British cousins are delivering the same memo to Obama about the economy and the mess that Obama is contributing:
There are three levers the federal government can pull in the face of this crisis: monetary easing, fiscal stimulus and bank recapitalisation. Obama has used all three but so far ineffectively. In each case, he has run into obstacles rooted deep in the US institutional set-up, indeed deep in the country’s psyche.
On monetary policy, Obama has remained a bystander to the efforts of Ben Bernanke at the Federal Reserve. Having reached close to zero interest rates in December, Bernanke announced the Fed would print money in an attempt to bring down real interest rates. [snip]
Obama is surrounded by decision-makers who had “drunk the Kool Aid” during the subprime bubble and were profoundly committed to the neoliberal ideology of self-regulation that has now fallen apart. Only the fiscal stimulus truly bears Obama’s chosen brand values of audacity and untaintedness. But this, too, is proving heavily problematic. [snip]
The stimulus would achieve the administration’s social objectives as well as a raw macroeconomic boost. But this has now run up against reality.
In the first place, the mechanisms for turning public money into private-sector jobs are as crumbly as the concrete that holds up America’s freeways. [snip]
But opposition to the stimulus goes much wider than this. It is visceral, widespread and real. Elkhart’s Republican congressman Mark Souder sums up the objection: “Historically, our model has a bit more of a boom-bust element to it, but every time we’ve had these busts we came roaring out. If we change to become more like Europe, sure we’ll stabilise. But we’ll never be the growth engine and the protector of the world again.”
As Obama’s 100th day approaches, the dangers looming on the economic front are clear: neither on monetary, fiscal nor banking policy is there a tangibly successful programme in place. Meanwhile, the economic pain is getting worse, encouraging his opponents to chip away at his credibility.
The bank bail-out will transfer large amounts of taxpayers’ money to the bankers, while at least some of the fiscal stimulus money will be redistributed to the poor and to the welfare system. Middle America, already mad at both policies at the gut level of economic principles, will get even madder if they don’t work.
The warning documents even come from Obama Big Media supporters at Newsweek:
The trajectory of Obama’s presidency might have been determined by what he did in his first 100 days. His budget calls for doubling the national debt in five years and almost tripling it in 10. If the necessary government borrowing soon causes a surge in long-term interest rates, the result will be the 1970s redux—inflation and stagnation.
Americans are increasingly angry with the Obama spend, spend, spend. The torrential waste of money on economic deserts will increase the anger.
Born in 1915 and still working, monetarist Anna Schwartz is also issuing a strong warning:
Inflation seems to her “unavoidable”: the Federal Reserve is creating money with little restraint, while Treasury expenditures remain far in excess of revenue. The inflation spigot is thus wide open.
Obama and his unthinking think they know-it-all Hopium addled supporters ignore the economic warnings in the same way Condi and George ignored the Bin Laden will attack inside the United States memorandum.
Obama continues to channel his inner Condi Rice.
It won’t be long before Barack borrows the fashion designer to drag queens from Michelle and dons a sleeveless frock for a night on the town.