On the day after the presidential election in 2008 we asked “So what is next?” We answered that question by saying:
“As Americans, as Democrats, some as former Democrats, we hold Obama’s feet to the fire.”
Read our complete answer from that day to more fully understand how correct we have been. We said to the Obama Hopium guzzlers that “they will soon learn they are not part of the “we” in “we won”. We told the Hopium Guzzlers they “will soon be presented with the fine print of Obama’s promises. They will soon read Obama’s legal escape clause…. Like with FISA, Obama will soon forget all those campaign promises and crib drown them in a sea of flowery words and say “it can’t be done now”.”
But it was not just Obama that we knew had to be exposed. Also in need of disinfectant are the theories and tactics and crackpot ideas of people behind Barack Obama. We knew it was necessary to rid ourselves of Obama and Obamaism.
It’s not just Obama that must removed from the body politic. We also have to remove the hypocrites and crackpots that enabled him.
When we declared that the next president had to be a “fighter” not a naive sloganeer the counterargument from Obama and his army of Hopium Guzzling hypocrites and crackpots was that we needed a “uniter not a divider”. Today James Carville repeated our argument when he said, “if Hillary gave (Obama) one of her balls, they’d both have two.”
Carville was repeating an argument from May of 2008 and this was Obama’s response, fully endorsed by the Hopium Guzzling hypocrites and crackpots:
“Well, you know, James Carville is well-known for spouting off his mouth without always knowing what he’s talking about,” Obama said on Nightline. “I intend to stay focused on fighting for the American people because what they don’t need is 20 more years of performance art on television. And that’s what James Carville and a lot of those folks are expert at … a lot of talk and not getting things done for the American people.”
Now the hypocrites and crackpots are demanding “performance art” from Barack Obama. In 2008 these hypocrites and crackpots denounced Hillary Clinton and George W. Bush, and anyone who did not attend services at the cult of Obama, as proponents of the “unitary executive”. Now these people demand a “unitary executive”. Hypocrite Katrina Vanden Heuvel writes this week in The Nation:
“With a Republican-controlled House, the chances of major legislation making its way to the president’s desk are, indeed, virtually nonexistent.
But the administration’s hands are not completely tied. On the contrary, the president still has the power to use executive orders, rulemaking and diplomacy to further the progressive agenda without ever consulting Congress.”
This is a total rejection of what these hypocrites once advocated. Vanden Heuvel was riffing off a report issued by John Podesta of the Center For American Progress. The hypocrites and Obama must be held to account. The promise to American voters in 2008 was that Obama was a “uniter not a divider” – now Obama’s feet must be held to the fire and his ridiculous promises must be held to account as well.
The hypocrites and crackpots and Obama himself do not want to admit that their governing theories, the ones Obama ran on are completely bankrupt. This country operates on the theory of a clash of ideas – it’s not pretty but it works. Now some Obama Hopium Guzzlers and hypocrites think the answer is censorship, less speech – enforced by the coercive hand of government. Obama promised to “turn the page” and reshape the way business is done. Now he must keep his promises. These were foolish promises but it is not enough to say “well he was just saying that to get elected.” The promises were made, the promises must be kept – feet, meet fire.
At HotAir, the conservative website, they are holding Obama’s feet to the fire:
“Remember when the term “unitary executive” got thrown around a lot by the Left as a way to argue that the Bush administration thought itself above the law and above Congress? The criticism fundamentally misunderstood the phrase, but that didn’t keep progressives from arguing that a Republican President was making himself into a dictator through bureaucratic fiat. By golly, the Left — and especially the Center for American Progress, headed by John Podesta — didn’t cotton to the notion that a President could bypass Congress and the normal checks and balances of the federal government.
Those were the days, my friends, those were the days:
Former President Bill Clinton’s chief of staff John Podesta, now the head of the Center for American Progress, called on President Obama to push forward with his agenda using federal agencies and executive branch power Tuesday, even though Democrats were dealt a blow in the recent midterm elections. Podesta said the American people want the president to move forward with his agenda.
So when a President acts through executive orders in an area that the Constitution clearly leaves to the executive branch (prosecution of war), that’s a nascent dictatorship. When a President acts through EOs and tells executive-branch agencies to circumvent Congress in areas of its jurisdiction, well, that’s just “mov[ing] the country forward.” Good to know for future reference. Thanks, Mr. Podesta!
Not only is this a work of stunning hypocrisy, it’s a dangerous piece of political advice. Democrats had the field to themselves over the last two years and pushed their agenda over the objections of voters around the country. That arrogant disregard for the electorate is the reason why House Democrats will be voting for a Minority Leader today instead of a Speaker in January. If Obama takes Podesta’s advice and doubles down on arrogance and high-handedness after the voters sent Washington a split government in an overwhelming, historic wave, Democrats will likely lose the Senate and the White House in 2012 as well.”
Do we think Obama’s promises are naive and high foolishness? You betcha! But Obama and his army of hypocrites ran on these weird theories of governance and they must be held to account.
Recently Sean Wilentz dumped a ton of reality on “Obama’s Doomed Theory Of Politics“:
“More than candidates are defeated in elections. So are ideas. The Democrats’ heavy losses in the midterm elections may now force a reassessment and overhaul of the Barack Obama political experiment. Whether the president has the dexterity and fortitude to navigate through the harsher Washington political environment of the next two years will determine his survival. Clearly, the hopes and dreams that propelled Obama to the White House are in disarray. The social movement politics that some of his most fervent followers ascribed to him—the idea of electing a “post-partisan” president as the leader not of a nation or even of a political party but of a personalized social movement—has failed. [snip]
The point of the Obama campaign-as-movement was conceived differently: exciting people with the thrill of empowerment, and collective self-empowerment, by electing to the White House a community organizer who believed in “hope” and “change.” Why electing Obama was imperative required no explanation among the faithful; it was enough to get the spirit, share the spirit, and revel in the candidate’s essence, which, by definition, no other candidate possessed. The leader was the program.
Sketchy on specifics, such a movement would have been practically useless after Obama’s election, except as a cult-of-personality mass cheerleading squad to back the president over any decision that he chose to endorse. But then, it was always difficult to imagine exactly how the newly defined role of organizer-in-chief would play out. Even according to the social movement model, movements push reluctant leaders who are skilled in the intricacies of lawmaking, especially the president. How was this supposed to work when the chief executive was the movement leader, though vastly inexperienced in the ways of the White House, let alone of the hazards of Washington? Where was the crafty president who needed to be pushed, the president who would know how and when to use a movement to his advantage?”
It was always a cult. The flowery words were a scam. The entire enterprise one huge steaming stink.
Wilentz is much too kind to Obama. Wilentz gulls himself into believing that issues were ever a concern to the boy raised by wolves. But it was a cult and a cult only. There was never any concern for anyone but Obama.
Wilentz ends by stating that only a return to reality and a reversal on all his promises will allow Obama to escape from his self-created trap:
“It could well be that Obama’s survival as an effective political force for the next two years and his prospect for reelection—and any viable future for social movements—will require engaging cleverly and doggedly in what his movement theorists derided as “status quo” politics.”
That won’t do. Obama made promises and now his feet must be held to the fire. That the fire is blazing up his legs and the smoke filling Obama’s lungs is not our concern. Obama made promises and espoused naive ridiculous theories and now he must be held to account. We will not forget this little bit of history courtesy of Professor Wilentz:
“A good example of this way of thinking arose during the 2008 Democratic primaries, when Obama, campaigning in social movement mode, sought to claim the mantle of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. by celebrating oratorical force over grubby politics. His opponent, Hillary Clinton, noted that it took a president, Lyndon B. Johnson, to push through Congress the civil rights reforms for which Dr. King had fought, as well as the programs of the Great Society, and she pointed out that the job being contested for was president of the United States, not head of a social movement. For this, she got called a racist. But her deeper transgression was to run afoul of the movement conception of politics, in which the agitators are the true instigators of reform and officeholders the grudging instruments of pressure from worthy masses.”
We were all called “racists”.
This past Tuesday, Dimocratic Mandarins met in desperation. What to do about Obama? The Mandarins understand that Obama is their boob, but a boob nevertheless. The Mandarins are divided. Some want to continue to raise huge amounts of money for Obama’s reelection. Some want to build “infrastructure”. “Infrastructure?” HotAir has a valid retort:
“Oddly enough, I thought that “infrastructure” already existed and that its component parts were known to receive checks from George Soros from time to time, but evidently they mean a new, more robust infrastructure that will solve the problem that produced such a devastating loss two weeks ago. And what is that problem? Quote: “The main concern [at the meeting] was about messaging.” Of course it was.“
Sean Trende, in an article we will discuss at length in the future, has a stronger assessment of what is fundamentally wrong:
“The Democratic Party is really a coalition of several semi-distinct parts. At its core, it is comprised of urban progressives and racial minorities, both of which were relative latecomers to the coalition. Layered over this base, with varying degrees of loyalty to the modern Democratic Party, are white working class voters (added by FDR in the 1930s), suburbanites (added by Clinton in the 1990s), and the oldest portion of the Democratic Party, rural voters. [snip]
Less well reported is the weakening of the Democratic coalition in suburban and working class areas of the country. These are areas that weren’t particularly warm to Bush-style Republicans, and had been moving toward the Democratic Party (in the case of working class voters, moving back toward the Democratic Party) since the 1992 election. That movement seems to have stalled, and even reversed.
Democrats in working class districts had their worst showing all decade – perhaps ever. The list of Democrats from white working class areas who fell to or below 60 percent of the vote is lengthy. Among the more notable examples: Anthony Weiner of Queens/Brooklyn (who fell to 59 percent of the two-party vote, from 71 percent in 2004, the last time he had major party opposition); James Oberstar of Duluth (49 percent, from 68 percent in 2008); Dale Kildee of Flint (54 percent, from 72 percent); Marcy Kaptur of Toledo (59 percent, from 74 percent); Peter Visclosky of Gary (60 percent, from 72 percent); John Dingell of Dearborn (59 percent, from 74 percent).
Few of these Democrats actually lost, but then again, few of them faced strong, well-financed opponents, making the fact that they faced competitive elections all the more remarkable. To put this further in perspective, every Democrat from a working class district that faced major-party opposition in 2008 saw their vote share diminished in 2010. [snip]
If Obama doesn’t figure out a way to bring enough white working class and suburban voters back into the Democratic fold to offset the loss of Jacksonian and other rural voters, it will be nearly impossible for him to be re-elected.”
It is not messaging or infrastructure that is the problem. The problem is Obama and his Hopium Guzzling hypocrites and crackpots who refuse to acknowledge the reality of the ditch they have driven themselves into.
At the meeting of Obama Dimocrat Mandarins with money, George Soros spoke in an extra private session.
“According to multiple sources with knowledge of his remarks, Soros told those in attendance that he is “used to fighting losing battles but doesn’t like to lose without fighting.”
“We have just lost this election, we need to draw a line,” he said, according to several Democratic sources. “And if this president can’t do what we need, it is time to start looking somewhere else.”
Some have interpreted these remarks as some sort of acknowledgment that Obama must be replaced and therefore this is good news. But all this really means, at best, is that another dupe will be groomed.
Another dupe will be groomed by the Mandarins. The Mandarins of money will not turn to logical choices to resurrect the Democratic Party. They want to a dupe and that is not Hillary Clinton or anyone capable of resisting their grasp.
If one stooge turns out to be a boob, get another stooge. The Big Money power will not be surrendered. That’s why Nancy Pelousy, is still a leader. The great poet Milton, writing about Satan (“Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heaven.“) is echoed by today’s Obama Dimocrats, hypocrites, and crackpots (“colleagues who would rather be the majority in a minority party than do what’s necessary to regain the only majority that matters“).
The crackpot theories are falling apart. Now new schemes are manufactured to keep the machine in the ditch operating. But we remember the promises. We will continue to hold Obama’s feet to the fire.
Burn, Baby, Burn.