Powered by TypePad

« Even Scarier In The Transcript | Main | What Krugman Almost Wrote »

March 09, 2009



I'm really sick of us all having to speak PC. I live in New England, and I fear no one when I say that yes, Ted Kennedy is responsible for a woman's death. (But, we're not supposed to talk about that, sshhh!!)

I will never forgive the Dems for how they spoke during the Iraq War. History will not be kind to them - we can look forward to that!

Fresh Air

Well, I want Zero to fall flat on his ugly kisser. And I mean that in the most patriotic sense possible. He is a Marxist, and Marxism is bad for the world, most especially the U.S.A. I will not apologize for this position...ever. I don't expect Rush to do so, either. As for the intramurals, these do not interest me much. We need to run the scoundrels out of Washington. Let's focus on that, please.


"That government is best which governs least" Thomas Jefferson.

Does anybody in Congress understand that? That is so simple and so understandable and so true. And since it is so simple and so understandable and so true, how the heck can anybody with a brain support what the Obama Administration is doing? Beats me.


Republicans are convinced Obama's policies will fail if enacted, because similar policies have failed before, so we oppose his policies, and want him to fail to enact them.

Democrats were convinced they opposed Bush's policies, because he is George Bush, so they opposed his policies, and wanted them to fail if enacted.


We need polls that ask, and track, if Americans think success for Obama's policies means success for the socialization of America. The next question should be is Socialism good for America. Let the true colors fly.


Of course you want Obama to fail,what is the career of one man compared to the fate of 300 million? Sacrifices have to be made for the greater good,you cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs.

Captain Hate

I was hoping Obama would succeed because I had a small expectation that, if he was as smart as the 52% thought he was, he would realize that failed commie policies cause misery and reject them out of hand. But that small expectation was wrong and now I want him to fail, and fail badly, so that the dipsticks that put him in office can learn that there are consequences for making dumbass decisions. Not all of them will learn that, because some of them are mindless drones; but hopefully enough will (including many family members) to prevent an epic mistake like this from ever happening again.


Obama has to be divorced from the concept that his success is America's success.On the contrary,the success of the policies of obama will mean failure for America.
The failure of Obama is a success for America.


Obama is doing what he said would do before he got elected. He's keeping his promises, which is something we're not used to in a politician. I don't know how you can say you put your country first when you activly root and work for your countrys' failure.Obama's more popular than Reagan was and so are his policies.So, you folks can go back to your name calling and birth certificates and socialism. You have no ideas for the future beyond tax cuts for the rich. Gods guns and gays aren't going to get you as far as they used to.


Tuesday, July 22, 2008

Byron York: I Did It To Change The Political Debate. Yeah, That's It. To Change The Political Debate.

TERRY MORAN: ... If you had to do it over again, knowing what you know now, would you — would you support the surge?

OBAMA: No, because — keep in mind that —

MORAN: You wouldn't?

OBAMA: Well, no, keep — these kinds of hypotheticals are very difficult. Hindsight is 20/20. I think what I am absolutely convinced of is that at that time, we had to change the political debate, because the view of the Bush administration at that time was one that I just disagreed with…"

A fair interpretation of his answer: Obama's choice would be to fail in Iraq rather than support a certain remedy because he disagreed with the Iraq policy.


Go back to our socialism? Oh, yeah, Dubya the Socialist. Wow, are you naive, eric.


Obama is doing what he said would do before he got elected.

At which part in the campaign?


All you want to do is talk about how you think Obama is a socialist, or a manchurian candidate or a foreign national with a secret agenda to destroy our country. It sounds crazy to the rest of the world but, apparantly, you take this kind of talk seriously.


The Patterico version of the Rush interpretations is poorly framed because Obama's policies are being enacted, can't be stopped, and the real question is will they fail outright or succeed in converting our market economy over to a social justice economy.

Based on the Obama surge response it is my opinion that he is NOT interested in any policy, no matter how certain, that would restore a healthy market economy.


Heh Boris.

Dissent for me but not for thee.

Failure in order to change the political debate is good --- until I'm president.


Are his policies not socialist? Does he not not have mysterious backers with piles of money? Have you seen his birth certificate?

These are not crazy questions. These are questions a free press would ask. See Robert Samuelson in Newsweek, 'The Great Pretender'. Now, why are you so naive, eric?


Isn't Newsweek part of that liberl and biased media you frequently rail against?

hit and run

Obama is doing what he said McCain would do before he got elected.

Fixed it for ya.

I mean the partisanship, the politics of fear, letting lobbyists and special interests set the agenda, secrecy, politicizing science, etc...not to mention all the foreign policy stuff...alienating allies, FISA, enhanced interrogation, secret prisons, renditions, keeping tens of thousands of troops in Iraq indefinitely, etc...


Exactly, eric, which is why it is so earth-shaking that doubt has invaded Robert Samuelson. Now go read what he has to say. I dare you.


Eric, Obama campaigned on reducing taxes for 95% of working families. Raising taxes on cigarettes and implementy the carbon tax are regressive tax policy. Both will fall disproportionately on the lower end of the 95%.


It means his editors are beginning to wonder, too, honey. Find it through RealClearPolitics and read Jeff Jacoby about global cooling, there, too, if you like.

It's not shameful to learn the truth. Your naivete has been forced upon you. You can reject all that ignorance, yes, you can.


you cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs

Exactly. Clearly Rush has our side discussing whether Obama’s remedies are taking the economy in a social justice direction and whether we are willing to suffer economic hardship long enough to get market remedies instead.

Obama seems to be willing to break the egg, impose continuing economic hardship, in order to move the economy in the direction of social justice.


Based on the Obama surge response it is my opinion that he is NOT interested in any policy, no matter how certain, that would restore a healthy market economy.

If Obama's policies help the economy, it would only be incidental, he's not looking at economic policy one way or the other, it's a high speed social policy train right now.


The bad guys have co-opted the term 'social justice'. What is just about impoverishing us all?


Using the term 'social justice' because it is a little stronger than 'fairness' and evokes a more accurate image (for me) of where Obama and co. want to take the country.


Hey, did you guys notice the Recent Comments links are working again? Looks like they changed the comment ID formats, too.


So what is 'fair' about taking from one, by force, to give to another. The discourse is polluted.


WP sees "discouraging tendencies" in the omnibus spending bill. Over the weekend, did Reid get the 1 vote he lacked, or will we see an actual Senate debate this week?

Charlie (Colorado)

Does anybody in Congress understand that?

Daddy, I'm sure there are people in DC who understand it. The thing is, we've got a Congress where are the incentives are to govern more.


Well, eric, the people appear to be waking up. Rasmussen has the Presidential approval index at +6, a new low. The previous low was +8, which he hit yesterday and Saturday. (Before you try to argue "weekend polls are bunk" note that his number last Monday was +10.) The "strongly disapprove" number is 32%, a new high.

75% of respondents believe that the President's budget will lead to too much government spending. If that isn't disapproval of big government and the drift toward socialism (or if you prefer, a Euro-style social welfare state), what is?

Rasmussen daily tracking

The gap between the true believers (or the Muddle not paying attention) and the people who are mad as hell is closing fast.

Charlie (Colorado)

Speakeasy, not before we have a poll to find out how many people can actually define "socialism."


It's probably just me. I'm old with old fashioned ideas, but wanting the president to fail on Iraq certainly would involve the death of many of our troops and being for that is more than I could stomach, and is the reason why I probably will never be able to vote for a Democrat president. The non-stop vilification of Bush; the lies about how and why we got into the war; the personal attacks on the leaders of the administration, etc. were all part and parcel of that filthy mess.

Captain Hate

Isn't Newsweek part of that liberl (sic) and biased media you frequently rail against?

Yes but when you see rats leaving a sinking ship you have to acknowledge their survival instinct makes them to superior to those that are too dumb to escape. They're still rats though.

It sounds crazy to the rest of the world but, apparantly (sic), you take this kind of talk seriously.

Who does it sound crazy to? The rest of the world would probably be offended that you stereotype it as thinking the same way on everything. You don't get out much, do you?

Axelrod, do something useful and send better trolls.

Charlie (Colorado)

The thing to watch for in the Rassmussen now is then the "approval index" goes negative -- which will have a lot of coverage, much of it negative about the nasty Republicans sliming Obama. Then look for his approval to start dropping among Democrats. That's what will be politically interesting.

Charlie (Colorado)

Axelrod, do something useful and send better trolls.

Actually, don't. Send trolls who can't spell with transparent talking points. Knock yourself out. The last thing we want is for Axlerod to do something useful.


Right, clarice. I've a loved one in a combat specialty, and I'm sick. Thank God for Robert Gates.


"I don't know how you can say you put your country first when you activly root and work for your countrys' failure.Obama's more popular than Reagan was and so are his policies"

Something like that was said in 1933,though it was Germany,not the US.



I've always considered myself a independent, having never registered to either party. But the Democrats behavior during the Iraq war did cost American soldiers lives and I will never forget it.

In 2004 I voted straight Republican for the first time in my life and I will do so from now on unless there is a earthquake of change to the Democratic party leadership. Obviously I don't expect that to happen.

So yes I'm rooting for Obama and his agenda to fail.

Rick Ballard

I've always rooted for thieves, liars and commie bastards to fail. Why should I change?


royf, I hope to never forget the perfidy and lies and other altogether outrageous behavior the Dems engaged in over the Iraq war.
I suppose one might make a good case that they behaved no differently about Viet Nam but I was younger and had less access to good information then than I do now.


I wonder why Eric didn't use Bush in his more popular than Obama post?

Popularity Contests [Peter Wehner]

Here’s an interesting data point comparison: Barack Obama’s approval rating in the Gallup Poll today is 61 percent, with 28 percent disapproving (the Real Clear Politics aggregate of polls has his overall job approval rating at 59.8 percent). A March 5-7, 2001 Gallup poll found President Bush's job approval at 63 percent as well, with only 22 percent disapproving. So George W. Bush, at a comparable time in his presidency, was in marginally better shape than Barack Obama is right now, at least based on the Gallup Poll survey.


So, from this data we can conclude that Obama isn't really all that, no?

Ignatz Ratzkywatzky

I don't know how you can say you put your country first when you activly root and work for your countrys' failure.

If Obama now equals our country then I guess we're further along the cult of personality road than I thought.
I believe Clinton once said something very similar to eric's little loyalty test.

Seems to me the Founding Fathers would have failed such a test.


Obama is making his offerings to Moloch. Can US version of Hwang Woo-suk be more than a year or so away?

Danube of Thought

Newsweek is indeed a left-liberal publication with a clear left-wing bias. It does from time to time publish opinion columns by conservatives (e.g. George Will). Robert Samuelson, a distinguished economics writer, is neither conservative nor liberal so far as I am aware.

Rick Ballard

Goldstein-12 Patterico-0

'Course that's just my scoring. YMMV.

Why can't we just obey the 'Don't Pet the Cobras' signs? They've been there for at least 70 years and the cobras haven't become one wit less poisonous.

Danube of Thought

TCO is in error.

"Reagan’s average approval rating during his two terms in office was 57 percent, in the midrange for a postwar president – tied with Bill Clinton. But looking back today, more Americans – 66 percent – say they approve of Reagan’s work."

--ABC News/WaPo, 7/30/2001

Obama's favorable rating today stands at 56%, per Rasmussen.


ericTObb said: "All you want to do is talk about how you think Obama is a socialist, or a manchurian candidate or a foreign national with a secret agenda to destroy our country. It sounds crazy.."

That reminded me how crazy Democrats sounded when they used to call George Bush an extreme conservative. What a joke. Obama refuted that obviously idiotic claim recently when he called the NY Times to argue he wasn't a socialist and said "...it might be useful to point out that it wasn’t under me that we started buying a whole bunch of shares of banks. It wasn’t on my watch. And it wasn’t on my watch that we passed a massive new entitlement – the prescription drug plan.."
Even Obama now disputes the earlier Democrat claims that Bush was an "extreme conservative."

Now we have a liberal claiming that it sounds crazy to point out our community-organizer-in-chief has ignored the economy and used the recession as an opportunity to expand the government.

I have a sneaking suspicion that history will vindicate the conservative view about Obama. The liberal claims about Bush have already been eviscerated by reality.


I like that comment by Obama. It almost implies that he disagreed with the bailouts.


I like that comment by Obama.

Sample question if we had an independent press:
"Mr President, you have said you are not a socialist, and you have suggested some actions by the previous administration were socialist. Do you plan to reverse any of those actions that you criticized for being socialist?"

Thomas Jackson

Danuable of thought:

Average approval ratings mean nothing. Elections do. Reagan won two of the greatest landslides in history. Clinton never won 50% of the vote.

On the other question if one takes Patterico's position it doesn't matter what is said so much as how one perceives to have been said.

Well I've never been partial to pixie dust or unicorns. Patterico ought to know better about the differences between reality and perception. Those who traffic in perceptions just hate dealing with reality.


Oh, great, now Rush and Newt are getting into it. And there are rumours that Steele's job depends on a single by-election.


Bickering while Obama is crapping out. What is the matter with these people?

The comments to this entry are closed.