Garry Wills reviews David Remnick's new biography of Obama. As a minor point, Wills explains the absurdity of the notion that Obama had help writing "Dreams From My Father":
Remnick rightly sees that memoir as a bildungsroman in the specifically black form of a “slave narrative,” a story of the rise from dependency to mature self-possession. In order to place himself in that tradition, Obama darkens the early part of the story and lightens the concluding sections. He trims the facts to fit the genre, just as he trimmed the events in his Selma speech to fit the black sermon format. Obama was not literally a slave in his youth, but he was in thrall to false images of his father, fostered by his mother’s protective loyalty to her husband. Since Obama comes to a later recognition of his father’s flaws, the story is crafted to show him shedding false idealism to become a pragmatic realist. The narrative protects him from claims that he is an ideologue or peddler of false hopes. The art with which the book is constructed to serve his deepest personal needs shows how ludicrous is the charge of Rush Limbaugh and others that he did not write it. (The ineffable Limbaugh thinks Bill Ayers may have written it.)
Well, El Rushbo is hardly alone - Christopher Andersen, author of "Barack and Michelle", claimed that Bill Ayers polished Obama's drafts, outlines and notes into a presentable manuscript back when Obama was having yet another bout of writer's block and was under deadline pressure.
And why would the story of a young man in the thrall to his father yet eventually shaking off those chains and finding true consciousness be alien to Bill Ayers, son of privilege who went on to blow things up? (And then went back to his father's nest.) Is a misspent youth redeemed by adult insight an exclusively black story?
Oh, well - Obama and his people lied about the Ayers connection throughout the campaign; why expect them to stop now?
And how the hell does a kid raised by bank executives, sent to the best private schools, have the gall to pattern ANY aspect of his life after a "slave narrative"?
Obama was a spoiled little shit growing up, and is a spoiled big shit now.
Posted by: Rob Crawford | April 07, 2010 at 04:54 PM
Actually, I wrote it. But don't tell Ayers. He and I have been fighting over who wrote it for years. Lately, he has even resorted to blurbing it out to anyone who would listen - like women he sees on the street or at an airport. I don't know what's got into him.
Posted by: Michele my Belle | April 07, 2010 at 04:55 PM
Well, I guess if Garry Wills says it, that settles it.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | April 07, 2010 at 04:56 PM
Amen Rob.
fostered by his mother’s protective loyalty to her husband.
What loyalty? They were hardly together ...and then she abandoned her son. Loyalty is the last word I would use to describe Obama's Mom or Dad.
The whole paragraph from the review is pompous gobbledygook.
Posted by: Janet | April 07, 2010 at 05:01 PM
I'm afraid I stopped caring what Garry Wills thinks about anything at about the same time Wills uncritically embraced Michael Bellisiles' fraud because it happened to confirm Wills' personal bigotries.
Posted by: BC | April 07, 2010 at 05:02 PM
bildungsroman - n.
A novel whose principal subject is the moral, psychological, and intellectual development of a usually youthful main character.
and
mature self-possession - ??? self centeredness in an adult????
I try to avoid any article with the term "mature self-possession".
Posted by: Janet | April 07, 2010 at 05:09 PM
I really give you credit,TM..What steely determination you must have to wade thru all this doo doo just for us.
Posted by: Clarice | April 07, 2010 at 05:16 PM
It's amazing the narratives to which progs bitterly cling.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | April 07, 2010 at 05:17 PM
Obama was not literally a slave in his youth, but he was in thrall to false images of his father, fostered by his mother’s protective loyalty to her husband.
Which husband was Stanley Ann being protective of?
The narrative protects him from claims that he is an ideologue or peddler of false hopes.
Where would anybody get that idea? Even when I was somewhat tolerant of the loons that wrote for the New York Review of Books it was obvious that Wills was, at best, borderline delusional.
Posted by: Captain Hate | April 07, 2010 at 05:29 PM
Of the one time contributors to NR, he was possibly the worst to jump the shark, although
Michael Lind, gives him a run for his money.
Posted by: narciso the harpoon | April 07, 2010 at 05:36 PM
I'm afraid that unless Christopher Anderson's book was reviewed in Mother Jones and the citations of Ayers polishing Obama's knob were mentioned as well, Mr. Wills would not be aware of these events.
Perhaps if the Second Council of the Vatican had mentioned this Mr. Wills would have known about it.
Posted by: Gabriel Sutherland | April 07, 2010 at 05:36 PM
From the review:
Obama makes his mother sound naïve and rather simple in his book. Remnick shows that she was a smart and sophisticated scholar, whose studies for her doctorate were aided by her friend Alice Dewey, the granddaughter of John Dewey.
I find it beautiful that Wills believes Obama falsely portraying his mother as simple makes Obama even more authentic.
Posted by: MayBee | April 07, 2010 at 05:57 PM
Wills seems to be in conflict with Wills.
He details how Barry alters the true story to meet his "deepest personal needs" and yet somehow he can tell through the alterations not only when Barry is "trimming" the facts but that said trimming did not entail a ghost writer.
Does Wills have witnesses to Barry's story to determine what are facts and what aren't? There seem to be darn few.
And does Wills have someone making a claim that this book was written with no input from Barry? Obviously a talented ghost writer can make any pile of jumbled, sand covered notes suit his ghostees deepest personal needs if the chump is around to be interviewed. You know, like some guy who lives in your neighborhood.
Wills is the master of the magisterially inane.
Posted by: Ignatz | April 07, 2010 at 06:02 PM
I cannot wait to hear more about this scrupulous sifting through the maximum use used of Obama's minimal connections with these guys.
I'd rather he had sifted through the evidence of the connections.
Posted by: MayBee | April 07, 2010 at 06:06 PM
He sat on a foundation, two foundation which are his only management experience for one,
attended the church of, got married, and had children baptized on another, got his house
through a third; they have an interesting definition of minimal
Posted by: narciso the harpoon | April 07, 2010 at 06:13 PM
Would i violate a federal law if i said I wished like some Turkish Sultan to be able to tie all these Obama tongue bathers in a sack full of poisonous adders, tie it and toss it in the Bosporus?
Posted by: Clarice | April 07, 2010 at 06:30 PM
Clarice, that was a very helpful summary of the legal issues in the healthcare mess. I think I heard that VA is differently situated from the other states in that it has a state law that conflicts directly with some aspect of the new Act, and they think they are entitled to get a declaratory judgment as to the constitutionality of the federal law--no standing or ripeness problems. (If I sound a little shaky on this, I am.)
Posted by: Danube of Thought | April 07, 2010 at 06:46 PM
I didn't realize the author is the editor of The New Yorker. That's interesting, because one of his reporters got kicked off Obama's campaign plane for writing an article the Obama camp considered unflattering about pre-candidate Obama.
Apparently, writing a book that proves all that stuff wrong is the penance he paid to get his publication back in the good graces.
Posted by: MayBee | April 07, 2010 at 06:50 PM
My bitterness is growing exponentially. All I've got in me are snarky comments...I really need to take a break from following politics so closely.
In the character test that the election became, Obama scored well above his opponents
Is this a joke? It is like the claim that Michelle is so beeeeeautiful, and Obama is a huge White Sox fan...
I just feel disgust for our MSM.
Posted by: Janet | April 07, 2010 at 06:51 PM
Shorter Remnick:
"He made shit up to dramatize his life in order to get people to believe things about him that weren't true for the purpose of getting elected so he could do things he promised he wouldn't do! Isn't it wonderful?"
Posted by: Soylent Red | April 07, 2010 at 06:54 PM
There are actually two - TWO!- reviews of the book in the New York Times.
From the review by MICHIKO KAKUTANI:
Que?
Posted by: MayBee | April 07, 2010 at 06:54 PM
thnx , DoT. I believe it's Fla which is in that position. It's constitution has privacy protections which conflict with Obamacare provisions.
Posted by: Clarice | April 07, 2010 at 07:05 PM
Perfect review Soylent. Straight, to the point, and true.
Posted by: Janet | April 07, 2010 at 07:14 PM
bildungsroman - n.
A novel whose principal subject is the moral, psychological, and intellectual development of a usually youthful main character.
Oh -- 80% of everything written by Robert A Heinlein.
(Reread "Tunnel in the Sky" recently. I'm a little disappointed in my younger self for what I hadn't noticed the previous dozen readings.)
Posted by: Rob Crawford | April 07, 2010 at 07:17 PM
The narrative protects him from claims that he is an ideologue or peddler of false hopes.
It doesn't protect him from a bad cup of coffee
Posted by: Neo | April 07, 2010 at 07:23 PM
Considering Clarice's "sack of tongue-bathers" - that's going to be quite the "sack."
Wills and his cohorts must have incredible drugs to float that high in the ether.
Posted by: Mike Huggins | April 07, 2010 at 07:27 PM
--thnx , DoT. I believe it's Fla which is in that position.--
clarice, I believe it is VA; it and Idaho being the only two states to have passed laws expressly forbidding a mandate to buy health insurance in their states.
Posted by: Ignatz | April 07, 2010 at 07:29 PM
"The narrative protects him from claims that he is an ideologue or peddler of false hopes."
Um, "the narrative" has been superceded by "events."
Posted by: JB | April 07, 2010 at 07:29 PM
--Remnick scrupulously sifts through the maximum use made of his minimal connections with Tony Rezko, Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright.--
Well who does he have more substantial connections with?
I have yet to see any evidence of this weirdo even having any actual friends. Does he?
Posted by: Ignatz | April 07, 2010 at 07:32 PM
Bucks aside, I'd be happy to pawn that tedious sophomoric drivel off on someone else.
Posted by: Old Dad | April 07, 2010 at 07:33 PM
My take on Remnick's book with respect to the Ayers connection can be found at LUN.
Posted by: Steve Diamond | April 07, 2010 at 07:37 PM
Hey Rob, quotes at The Corner and Ace of Spades in the same week? You go, man.
Posted by: Extraneus | April 07, 2010 at 07:40 PM
Would i violate a federal law if i said I wished like some Turkish Sultan to be able to tie all these Obama tongue bathers . . .
I hope so. That was one nasty visual.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | April 07, 2010 at 07:42 PM
Amazingly, Gwen Ifill's review of the book for the Post is a little more nuanced: "In the hands of other writers, Obama has proved to be a murky character study: a self-made man in the grand American political tradition, but one who has largely been allowed to romanticize his own story."
Posted by: Mike Huggins | April 07, 2010 at 07:43 PM
I find it interesting that Gwen Ifill is not as taken by the supposed blackness of the narrative as the two New York Times reviewers (not black) were.
Posted by: MayBee | April 07, 2010 at 07:47 PM
Did Willis forget the obvious? Having Ayers (or anyone else) finish the details of the book from Mr. Obama's outline bears an eerie similarity to the manner in which President Obama navigated the choppy waters of healthcare reform legislation...(1)proclaim intent to do big thing (decide to write book/announce healthcare reform will happen); (2) put forth muddy outline (rough notes for book/talk about"goals" of reform);(3) let others do the heavy lifting and detail work to finish the job (Ayers or whomever/Reid&Pelosi); (4) Take credit (nice pic and author credit on book cover/WH signing ceremony).
Posted by: Kyle | April 07, 2010 at 07:48 PM
Thanks, Prof. Diamond - that was very enlightening as usual. Wonder if anyone will ask Remnick about his confirmation of Ayers' role in bringing Obama onto the CAC board?
Actually I don't wonder. But thanks for the heads up all the same.
Now I have "King Harvest" in my head - always a good thing.
Posted by: Porchlight | April 07, 2010 at 07:48 PM
Maybee - Right, and she admits (now): "I totally bought all of this the first time I read 'Dreams.' I don't know that I would today..."
Posted by: Mike Huggins | April 07, 2010 at 07:51 PM
Mike Huggins, thanks for finding that Gwen Ifill review:
Bingo.
Thank you, Gwen Ifill.
Posted by: MayBee | April 07, 2010 at 07:52 PM
Thanks for the link Steve. I find it unbelievable that Obama's background hasn't been explored more. Like Ignatz said...where are his friends? Who was the girlfriend he lived with? There really is something sinister about "candidate Obama" and his mysterious rise to power.
That Ifill review mentions the 2 times divorce records were released about his opponents.
Posted by: Janet | April 07, 2010 at 07:54 PM
Hey Rob, quotes at The Corner and Ace of Spades in the same week? You go, man.
I'm going to see if I can't get on Insty now...
I'll never restart my own blog -- I'll be the mockingbird of the blogging world!!!!
Posted by: Rob Crawford | April 07, 2010 at 07:55 PM
"Lacking power, Obama is shown to be the ultimate pragmatist. If he can't be in control, he is ready to move on."
Can we count on that after the bloodbath in November?
Posted by: JB | April 07, 2010 at 07:57 PM
bored at the University of Chicago, where as a teacher he focused on writing his first book
What? But he was like a full tenured professor or something! How could he be bored teaching the fascinating subject of Constitutional law at one of the best law schools in the nation?
Surely, surely, this job could not have been merely an arranged sinecure, a perch from which he dropped his book?
Posted by: Porchlight | April 07, 2010 at 07:58 PM
off?
Posted by: Porchlight | April 07, 2010 at 07:58 PM
From the Ifill article -
"Obama was elected to the Senate only after not one but two credible contenders had contentious divorce papers unsealed."
Posted by: Janet | April 07, 2010 at 07:59 PM
jane dystel knows the answer to who wrote the book.
she was obama's agent.
unfortunately, when obama summarily broke his contract with dystel, and dystel sued, they settled out of court and part of the settlement was her silence.
obama could release her.
why doesn't some reporter to ask him if he's willing to release her?
Posted by: reliapundit | April 07, 2010 at 08:00 PM
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- A California man angry about health care reform allegedly made threatening and harassing phone calls to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, including at least one call in which he got through and spoke to her directly, law enforcement officials said.
Sister Lorna Walsh, community operations manager of the Mercy Housing complex where Giusti lives, said he had lived in the subsidized housing for almost 10 years. She would not comment further.
Posted by: Soylent Red | April 07, 2010 at 08:01 PM
Yeesh, sorry about the italic thing...
Posted by: Mike Huggins | April 07, 2010 at 08:04 PM
...and any questions about Obama's background get met with "You Birther!!". His background includes more than just his birth.
Even that David Letterman interview with that great Tea Party lady had Dave accusing her of being a "birther" because she questioned his background.
Posted by: Janet | April 07, 2010 at 08:07 PM
...and any questions about Obama's background get met with "You Birther!!".
You really think you lost the election because you didn't offer up enough dirt on Obama?
You lost because the Bush administration's Randite policies pushed us to the brink of depression.
Posted by: Soylent Red | April 07, 2010 at 08:18 PM
As we all know, Rand's philosophy can be summed up by "when people are hurting, government has to move."
Or not.
Posted by: JB | April 07, 2010 at 08:24 PM
Enough with the Soylent sockpuppeting, 'cleo.
Posted by: Porchlight | April 07, 2010 at 08:25 PM
Ignatz:
" VA; it and Idaho being the only two states to have passed laws expressly forbidding a mandate to buy health insurance in their states."
The states have a variety of issues.
In common, the argument that the Act exceeds the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce when it mandates individuals purchase health insurance.
In addition, some states have laws that conflict with the Act--apparently that is Va and Idaho which prohibit the mandate,
And Florida which has in its constitution a protection of personal privacy which some provisions--i.e. the medical records ones--violate.
Posted by: Clarice | April 07, 2010 at 08:27 PM
It's nice to have you around again Professor Diamond..I remember your inestimable contribution to our knowledge of Obama.
Posted by: Clarice | April 07, 2010 at 08:42 PM
Greenspan, was surprising direct today, blaming the crisis on subprime backed securities, whose demand was motivated by Fannie Mae, through the pressure from the Congress (CRA revisions) and agencies like
HUD
Posted by: narciso the harpoon | April 07, 2010 at 08:46 PM
So, how and where do they generate the O hologram so that others may enjoy its beauty?
Tell his wife your one so she'll leave you alone.
Posted by: t19 | April 07, 2010 at 08:52 PM
I thought so, too, narciso. Amazing his remarks got any coverage.Even more amazing he's still marid to Obama suck up Mitchell.
Posted by: Clarice | April 07, 2010 at 08:53 PM
"one who has largely been allowed to romanticize his own story"
Does Gwen Ifill of National Public Radio, writing in the Washington Post, mention who made the allowance?
Posted by: bgates | April 07, 2010 at 08:55 PM
Have they gotten around to asking Schumer about the Indymac letter yet?
The Cloward-Piven strategy depends on using social justice policies to overload and cause systemic failure, leading to... well, in their own words:
I for one don't believe the CRA and resulting melt-down was a coincidence. But I have my doubts at to whether the commission "investigating" the "financial crisis" will uncover anything so untoward.Posted by: Extraneus | April 07, 2010 at 09:01 PM
Have they gotten around to asking Schumer about the Indymac letter yet?
The Cloward-Piven strategy depends on using social justice policies to overload and cause systemic failure, leading to... well, in their own words:
I for one don't believe the CRA and resulting melt-down was a coincidence. But I have my doubts at to whether the commission "investigating" the "financial crisis" will uncover anything so untoward.Posted by: Extraneus | April 07, 2010 at 09:02 PM
Sorry for the double post.
Posted by: Extraneus | April 07, 2010 at 09:06 PM
Greenspan is a little late to the party. Perhaps he might have offered his analysis before the 2008 election. Here in Mass, Barney Frank, who publicly chastised those who suggested that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were not solid, is re-elected with huge margins. I just don't understand it...
Posted by: MaryAnne | April 07, 2010 at 09:07 PM
All the time and energy spent attacking Obama's legitimacy are money in the bank for liberal/progressive political fortunes.
Conservatives own a very effective, and salutary, critique of government overreach. But instead of making that argument and attacking the ideological underpinnings of liberalism, the right-wing noise machine invests 99 percent of its resources questioning Obama's legitimacy and endlessly, if often unwittingly, celebrating its own political, media and cultural victimhood.
The media noise concept worked well for the right for decades because conservatism was clearly ascendant, coasting comfortably on sunbelt/suburbanization demographic trends, Reagan's electoral success, the Soviet Union's demise, then the post-9/11 resurgence of emotional and intellectual insecurity as an organizing principle.
What the noise machine fails to understand is that ``socialist'' as an epithet only worked because it gave the right a consistent narrative that spanned both domestic and foreign policy. Now that the average American knows that there is no such thing as a "communist threat" to democracy, the "S" word simply cannot conjure fear and dread, other than among the lunatic fringe.
So hammer and yammer away, wingnuts. You're splitting the GOP in two, laying waste the conservative movement's credibility and providing people like me with daily LOL amusement…
Posted by: bunkberbuster | April 07, 2010 at 09:10 PM
Too many details, Soros's stake in Lehman's, which just happened to be Goldman's competitor, betting that oil would actually
go down, the roots of ACORN, who arranged the 'mau mauing' of the bankers, led by none other
than Barack Obama; the fact that Taibbi discovered that Lehman, like Bear Stearns,
was buried under a mountain of false trades,
and finally there has never been a financial crisis, errupt within 60 days of an election
Posted by: narciso the harpoon | April 07, 2010 at 09:11 PM
bb--you are full of it.This is utter B.S.:"the right-wing noise machine invests 99 percent of its resources questioning Obama's legitimacy and endlessly, if often unwittingly, celebrating its own political, media and cultural victimhood."
Posted by: Clarice | April 07, 2010 at 09:13 PM
True, Maryanne, but they eman to make this a modern day pecora Committee, and such statements does counteract that intention.
Posted by: narciso the harpoon | April 07, 2010 at 09:19 PM
Ifill admits that she erred in assessing Obama, and I admire her for that confession.
Her review is definitely worth reading. (Though the book she reviewed may not be.)
Posted by: Jim Miller | April 07, 2010 at 09:19 PM
Bunkerbuster, so true, can't wait for the GOP to get shellac'd this November. Obama has been a great President, but no quite as great as Carter's second term.
Posted by: Pops | April 07, 2010 at 09:22 PM
The Cloward-Piven strategy depends on using social justice policies to overload and cause systemic failure, leading to...
I've been thinking about the C-P strategy lately...
Seems to me that at the point of failure, C-P is dependent on the ability to blame that failure on capitalism. But I don't think that is a foregone conclusion.
What if we allow the system to be C-P'ed, but work to build a campaign documenting every Indymac/Obamacare incident from the last 60 years? Wouldn't that tend to force people to see the folly of the Dependency Society and big gubmint?
I dunno. I just keep buying ammo and MREs.
Posted by: Soylent Red | April 07, 2010 at 09:29 PM
Clarice, that was a very helpful summary of the legal issues in the healthcare mess. I think I heard that VA is differently situated from the other states in that it has a state law that conflicts directly with some aspect of the new Act, and they think they are entitled to get a declaratory judgment as to the constitutionality of the federal law--no standing or ripeness problems.
I sort of skipped thru so this may have been addressed but 2 weeks before Obamacare VA voted and passed a law that said the feds could not force them to buy health insurance.
Posted by: Jane says obamasucks | April 07, 2010 at 09:30 PM
A GOP congress is the best thing that could happen to Obama, as an individual politician. It sets up a win-win for him in 2012.
If the economy bounces back by 2012, he'll get most of the credit. If it doesn't, congress will get enough of the blame to make re-election a lot easier for Obama, who will have the natural advantages of incumbency. More important, the GOP will be just as much "the party of Washington" as the Democrats.
On the other hand, if the teabagged GOP flames out in 2010, the Democrats will have full control and full responsibility. If the economy is still busted in 2012, the Demos are goners politically, Obama included of course.
Posted by: bunkberbuster | April 07, 2010 at 09:34 PM
O's pals are getting special waivers for ethics again like PC, etc. The fund is new and no one expected a new agency or whatever, so he gets a waiver on his previous company getting funded by his fund. Everyone really understands like his lawyer friend at CNCS no one seems to know about.
The fund is the worst pork coming out of previous pork that everyone understands.....
http://philanthropy.com/article/Federal-Program-to-Find/64983/
Posted by: Neutragirl | April 07, 2010 at 09:41 PM
As far as I know only the Thomas Moore Center has sought injunctive relief--and they are representing individuals (not states) who assert the mandate to buy insurance violates their constitutional rights.
Posted by: Clarice | April 07, 2010 at 09:42 PM
Narciso - I hear what you're saying. I always learn something from you or I am reminded of something I had learned and forgotten. It's just frustrating to me that folks like Greenspan stood by silently and watched as the voters got hoodwinked by Obama and his media lapdogs. Kudos to Greenspan for speaking the truth, but it's too little, too late.
Posted by: MaryAnne | April 07, 2010 at 09:43 PM
Didn't Gwen do a piss poor job of moderating one of the debates?
I don't care if she regrets sucking up to Obama now..We needed real journos then.
Posted by: Clarice | April 07, 2010 at 09:44 PM
Remnick scrupulously sifts through the maximum use made of his minimal connections with...
I don't have no truck with people who talk that way.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | April 07, 2010 at 09:47 PM
You're splitting the GOP in two, laying waste the conservative movement's credibility and providing people like me with daily LOL amusement…
That must be why at Rasmussen today the GOP leads the Dems by 9% on the generic congressional ballot.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | April 07, 2010 at 09:49 PM
That was the debate when Gwen tried, but wasn't able to prevent Sarah Palin from kicking Joe Biden's butt, Clarice. Even though she ludicrously made sure a large part of the debate was on Joe's supposed expert area of foreign policy.
Posted by: Extraneus | April 07, 2010 at 09:51 PM
Thank you, Professor Diamond.
It is so frustrating to me that nobody seems to care to figure out why Obama and his people lied about Ayers. What were they hiding, besides one of Obama's few bits of experience?
Posted by: MayBee | April 07, 2010 at 10:02 PM
Greenspan may have known a lot, but a soccer game knew more, even the guarantees for Chinese real estate.
Today is O's official open government thing, so don't miss all his pals get waivers and cash. The wilting Roses are fun too, but who knew he'd sink a battleship?
http://www.nationalservice.gov/about/newsroom/statements_detail.asp?tbl_pr_id=1696
Ayers pals just got awards from him too, like Powell promise alliance, etc and others he just spoke at. He skipped the Universities and sent letters.
http://www.americaspromise.org/partnerships/alliance-partners.aspx?page=3
Posted by: FutureleaderscampKarzai | April 07, 2010 at 10:18 PM
extraneus, As I recall she was outrageously partisan and intrusive in her moderation.
Posted by: Clarice | April 07, 2010 at 10:23 PM
It's the called NSA (N Service A) Innovation Fund. CNCS has become the 14th largest corporation in the world. It also has 'Ready Reserves' in the Health care bill.
http://augieboy.wordpress.com/2010/04/07/ready-reserve-corps-reference-page-1312-healthcare-bill/
Posted by: zaidigitalstitchupcheck | April 07, 2010 at 10:30 PM
but a soccer game knew more,
I, for one, welcome out new Luciferian masters.
Posted by: Soylent Red | April 07, 2010 at 10:34 PM
"A GOP congress is the best thing that could happen to Obama, as an individual politician. It sets up a win-win for him in 2012."
When will it dawn on this dope that we consider his political judgment to be about as serious as that of a nine-year-old? Please, son--spare us this tripe. It is not at all interesting.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | April 07, 2010 at 10:42 PM
You think, DoT? And here I was having second thoughts about the value of winning in 2010.
Posted by: Clarice | April 07, 2010 at 10:50 PM
If the economy bounces back by 2012, he'll get most of the credit.
LOL. Humm, consumer credit contracted "unexpectedly" by 11-ish billion in Feb. The "recovery" is stalling out in Europe and the "plan" for Greece has been exposed as smoke-and-mirrors (the EU represents about 25% of US exports). And oil traders are putting a lie to Obama's energy policy and are bidding up oil to over $85/bbl putting the global "recovery" in jeopardy as well. Oh, and how can I forget, the taxes that Obama has already pushed through and will push through between now and the election-discounting that the Bush tax cuts are going to expire.
This is the only sort of boom that is going define the Obama Presidency.
Posted by: RichatUF | April 07, 2010 at 11:02 PM
Prof. Diamond, thank you for your latest article on Obama. You appear at the best times.
It seems there are too many who are silent on the subject of Obama. His transparency is really a cloak of invisibility.
A Bildungsroman? He's a joke!
Posted by: Frau Wilhelm Meister | April 07, 2010 at 11:10 PM
Rich,
Good list - tack on tax deposits refute BLS employment gains claim plus bank credit continues to contract (including consumer credit), the record number of BKs filed in March and the increase in foreclosures.
The DemDupes really can't even count - it's 30 months 'til Obama's sorry ass is back in the Chicago sewers. 8.4 million jobs have been lost since the Dems gained their majorities. The economy would have to grow at a rate that would sustain 280K new hires per month for each of the next 30 months inn order to get back to the starting line.
Keep track DemDupes - last month's Census inflated "good report" was 120K jobs short of break even.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | April 07, 2010 at 11:23 PM
"If the economy bounces back by 2012, he'll get most of the credit."
People who say such things appear to believe that whether and to what extent the economy "bounces back" is determined by how the Tarot cards play out, or what the mouse entrails might disclose. To them, the imposition of additional taxes on interest, dividends and capital has no economic effect at all. It's all pretty much a coin toss, and the outcome is independent of tax, fiscal and monetary policy.
And they are all allowed to vote. Half the people in America today pay no federal income tax at all. What do they care what further burdens are placed on those who are pulling them along in the wagon?
Perhaps we'll just have to settle for making sure they know the contempt in which we hold them.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | April 07, 2010 at 11:24 PM
Can it be--can it possibly be--that the diplomat from Qatar on the United flight was lighting a match to ameliorate the effects of an embarrassing breakage of wind?
Oh, how fervently I pray that this turns out to be the case. What forms of diplomatic language will be used to explain it all? Worse yet, what new measures will the TSA implement to prevent future instances of this nature?
Posted by: Danube of Thought | April 07, 2010 at 11:35 PM
Europe is tapering too, but Americans think they are free. Welcome out plants, welcome in lucifer or is that a diplomat lying saying he's Satan.
Feet on Fire. Roof on Fire, so what? Ameloirite burn good?
Posted by: Tiger's on fire | April 08, 2010 at 12:06 AM
It's probably just me, but I'm skeptical of political Bio's since there's always the possible potential of bias. Hard to believe, but I think so. Therefore, I'm not buying Wills version of O's mom and pop until I get it confirmed by Bob Woodward, and I get the same level of confirmation he gave us when he interviewed the comatose Bill Casey. So without further ado:
Coming soon, to a bookstore near you: BOB Woodward's "SEANCE---An Interview with President Obama's Deceased Parents."
On sale now at wherever Simon and Shyster good books are sold.
Posted by: daddy | April 08, 2010 at 12:10 AM
Building on what Rick has suggested (send unpaid med bills to the DNC) why don't we bombard them with phone calls, emails and faxes about where we go to get our free healthcare? Continue for some minutes about which doctors are accepting new patients, where do I send my health insurance bill each month, will botox be covered, and any other "complex" questions we rubes can't be expected to understand. They think we are so stupid that we can't take care of ourselves without them, why not take their generosity and beneficence and make their new nanny duties a living hell?
The pucker factor would be priceless. And Alinsky would be so proud.
Posted by: Stephanie says Obama sux | April 08, 2010 at 01:01 AM
BTW, watching The Golf Channel and just wanted to mention that the "golf in Myrtle Beach" commercial that runs periodically features a former boyfriend from high school with whom I lost touch.
Funny old world ain't it?
Posted by: Stephanie says Obama sux | April 08, 2010 at 01:12 AM
Obviously his bad luck Stephanie:)
Anyhow, Just FYI,
At the gym this evening between innings in the Yankee/Bosox game, caught a few minutes of the Rachel Maddow Show on the next TV over. Had on some guy who writes for Rolling Stone who had just finished a book on the US Coal Industry.
He said the Mine disaster was the fault of ...go ahead...guess. I'll give you 3 guesses.
Give up?
George Bush. That's right, apparently he emasculated the MIne Industry standards as President, so it was all his fault, but not to worry, Obama really cares about coalminers, not coal, so he's well on the way to fix another George Bush screw up.
Did anybody guess right?
Posted by: daddy | April 08, 2010 at 03:09 AM
"Oh, how fervently I pray that this turns out to be the case."
Your prayers have been more or less answered. Fortunately it turns out (at least that's the latest indication) the idiot was trying to light a cigarette in the bathroom.
That Thomas More Center is Tom Monaghan's creation, he of Domino's Pizza, and Ave Maria University. I admire him, though he may be a bit extreme even for my taste. He's put a lot of his fortune toward Catholic causes. For example (from Wiki):
In any case, that More Law Center appears to do a lot of good work.
Posted by: jimmyk | April 08, 2010 at 03:56 AM
I wonder if the female of the species ">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/7560391/Scientists-find-new-species-of-lizard-with-double-penis.html"> claims to have a lot of headaches?
Posted by: daddy | April 08, 2010 at 04:18 AM
O/T Obama continues his war against Israel:
I suppose this is to make room for the Iranian technicians we will now welcome.
LUN
Posted by: jimmyk | April 08, 2010 at 06:20 AM
So what do you think went wrong with the treaty signing at the last minute that held it up nearly an hour?
I can only imagine what dear leader gave away at the last minute.
(Daddy I got it right)
Posted by: Jane | April 08, 2010 at 07:00 AM
O/T LUN for the most impressive whoring out of a dead parent since MacKenzie Phillips. Nike should really stick to puppets or whatever garbage their marketing jerkoffs are wanking about these days. This is creepy on at least 2 levels. Sorry Dad but I need the money.....
Posted by: Captain Hate | April 08, 2010 at 07:32 AM