I expected almost
nothing from the Obama presidency. I
have not been disappointed at all. I am
far more disappointed that the American press chose to give this man a complete
pass during his rise to the presidency.
Riding in a bubble is no test and smacks of a complete con job.
Worse, this man’s
route through the education system was that of a serious lightweight. Great minds are challenged and seek
challenge. You do the tough stuff. We have seen scant evidence of any of
that. Recall Churchill, Kennedy and
Reagan wrote and gave their own speeches.
Some of their work is as fine as any in our language. None of that here. In fact there is creditable claims that his
political writings per se that he claimed authorship of were well ghost written
by a certain accomplished friend.
Then he was a
community organizer whatever all that entails.
It most certainly never included meeting a payroll. He appears to have shied away from getting
his hands dirty in commerce.
A president must make
hard decisions often and fast. We get
the reverse here.
This first item is written by an ally.
What
the Hell is Barack Obama's Presidency For?
His ascent to power had meaning, but now his
interventions are too rare and too piecemeal to constitute a narrative
‘There’s precious little that
Obama’s done that any of his primary opponents would not have done.’
(Photograph: TJ Kirkpatrick/Corbis)A few days after John
F Kennedy's assassination, Lyndon Johnson sat in his kitchen with his key
advisers working his first speech to Congress. It was the evening of Kennedy's
funeral – Johnson was now president. The nation was still in grief and
Johnson, writes
Robert Caro in The Years of Lyndon Johnson: The Passage of Power,
was not yet able to move into the White House because Kennedy's effects were
still there.
He had been a hapless
vice-president; now he had to both personify and project the transition from
bereavement to business as usual. In the midst of the cold war, with Vietnam
brewing, the Kennedy administration had
been trying to get civil rights legislation and tax cuts through Congress.
There was plenty of business to attend to. Johnson's advisers were keen that he
introduced himself to the nation as a president who could get things done.
"If there was a plot, he's
lost it. If there was a point, few can remember it. If he had a big idea, he
shrank it. If there's a moral compass powerful enough to guide such
contradictions to more consistent waters, it is in urgent need of being
reset."
For that reason, writes Caro, they implored
him not to push for civil rights in this first speech, since it had no chance
of passing. "The presidency has only a certain amount of coinage to
expend, and you oughtn't to expend it on this," said "one of the
wise, practical people around the table". Johnson, who sat in silence at
the table as his aides debated, interjected: "Well, what the hell's the
presidency for."
"First," he told Congress a few days
later, "no memorial oration or eulogy could more eloquently honour
President Kennedy's memory than the earliest possible passage of the civil
rights bill for which he fought so long." Over the next five years he
would go on to sign the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, launch the war
on poverty and introduce Medicaid (medical assistance for low-income families)
and Medicare (for seniors). That's what his presidency was for.
Barack Obama has now
been in power for longer than Johnson was, and the question remains: "What
the hell's his presidency for?" His second term has been characterised
by a profound sense of drift in principle and policy. While posing as the
ally of the immigrant he is deporting people at a faster clip than any of his
predecessors; while claiming to be a supporter of labour he's championing trade
deals that will undercut American jobs and wages. In December, even
as he pursued one whistleblower, Edward Snowden and kept another, Chelsea
Manning, incarcerated, he told the crowd at Nelson Mandela's
funeral: "There
are too many leaders who claim solidarity with Madiba's struggle for freedom,
but do not tolerate dissent from their own people."
If there was a plot, he's lost it. If there
was a point, few can remember it. If he had a big idea, he shrank it. If
there's a moral compass powerful enough to guide such contradictions to more
consistent waters, it is in urgent need of being reset.
Given the barriers to
democratic engagement and progressive change in America – gerrymandering, big
money and Senate vetoes – we should always
be wary of expecting too much from a system designed to deliver precious little
to the poor. We should also challenge the
illusion that any individual can single-handedly produce progressive change in
the absence of a mass movement that can both drive and sustain it.
Nonetheless, it was
Obama who set
himself the task of becoming a transformational political figure in the mould
of Ronald Reagan or JFK. "I think we are in one of those
fundamentally different times right now where people think that things, the way
they are going, just aren't working," he said. It was he who donned the
mantles of "hope" and "change".
It was obvious what his election was for.
First, preventing the alternative: presidential candidates in the grip of a
deeply dysfunctional and reactionary party. His arrival marked a respite
from eight years of international isolation, military excess and economic
collapse. He stood against fear, exclusion and greed – and won. Second, it
helped cohere and mobilise a new progressive coalition that is transforming the
electoral landscape. Finally, it proved that despite the country's recent
history Americans could elect a black man to its highest office.
So his ascent to power
had meaning. It's his presence in power that lacks purpose. The gap
between rich and poor and black
and white has grown while he's been in the White
House, the prospects for immigration reform remain remote, bankers made away
with the loot, and Guantánamo's still open. It's true there's a limit to what a
president can do about much of this and that Republican intransigence has not
helped. But that makes the original question more salient not less: if he can't
reunite a divided political culture, which was one of his key pledges, and his
powers are that limited, then what is the point of his presidency?
This should not deny
his achievements. He scaled down one major war, is winding down another, and
helped save the US car industry. If he's on the hook for growing inequality,
then he can take
credit for the deficit shrinking and unemployment
falling. But together, this amounts to an
extended period of triage before sending the patient back out into the world
without any plan for long-term recovery. The underlying impulses, policies,
priorities and structures that made the wars and economic collapse possible are
still in place.
Finally, there's
healthcare reform. The brouhaha over its botched rollout will scarcely be
remembered a few years hence. But with roughly
31 million people set to remain uninsured and
little changing for many, its undeniable benefits are not likely to be remembered
as transformational. All in all, there's precious little that Obama has done
that any of his primary opponents would not have done.
Occasionally, he
either gives a lead – like after the shootings at Newtown when
he advocated for gun control – or follows one, as in his support for gay
marriage or preventing the deportation of young undocumented immigrants, which
helps to set a tone or establish a moral marker. But these interventions are
too rare, and their remedies too piecemeal, to constitute a narrative.
"If
you're going to be president, then I guess you obviously want to be in the history
books," said Susan Aylward, a frustrated Obama
supporter in Akron, Ohio, shortly before the last election. "So what does
he want to be in the history books for? I don't quite know the answer to that
yet." Sadly, it seems, neither does he.
Explaining Why Obama's Poll Numbers are Close to Zero
Among White Voters
Wayne Allyn Root | Mar 12,
2014
Have you seen Obama’s poll numbers? They are
among the lowest in history. As of last week, Obama’s approval rating is at
38%. That’s just barely above Richard Nixon. But that's not the big story here.
Keep in mind that Obama has the support of
about 35% to 40% of the population that will NEVER abandon him, no matter what
he does, no matter how bad the jobs numbers look, no matter how low the economy
goes, no matter how much scandal and corruption is exposed, no matter how
strong the facts are against him. Nothing will ever change their minds. These
are the “low information voters” of the Democratic Party.
In many cases they love Obama because of the
color of his skin- and nothing else. They will never abandon a black President.
Even though black unemployment is at record
levels. Even though black youth unemployment is at record levels. Even though
black poverty is at record levels.
Even though Obama's exact policies have been
in place for over 50 years in Detroit, a majority black city run by black
Democrat politicians…and the black population has been devastated, destroyed,
and discarded. Left for dead in an abandoned, bankrupt city with very few
street lights operating and the police leaving residents in many areas to fend
for themselves.
So just think about those poll numbers for a
moment. Let those numbers sink in. If 35% to 40% of the population would
support a Democrat for President if he ran from a prison cell…if 35% to 40%
would support Obama no matter what he does, no matter how far America sinks
under his leadership, even if they have no jobs and their own lives are in
total misery...how could Obama’s approval rating be at only 38%?
That means that among the rest of America,
outside of loyal, lifelong, Kool-Aid drinking Democrats, Obama's ratings are
nil. Among voters who don't identify as Democrat, he is the lowest-rated
President in history. No numbers like this have ever been recorded, if you
filter out the Kool Aid drinking low information and partisan voters.
Obama's approval among “the Heartland of
America” (middle class Americans) is lower than Nixon. Lower than W. Lower than
Lyndon Johnson at the height of the Vietnam war. Lower than Jimmy Carter at the
height of the Iranian hostage crisis, with the added burden of an economy in
misery and malaise.
I’m betting that outside of lifelong Democrats
and welfare recipients (I know, I repeat myself), Obama's ratings are in the
unimaginable range of single digits.
I'm betting that outside of food stamp
recipients, Obama's ratings are in the single digits.
Among the white middle class, I’m betting
Obama’s ratings are in the single digits.Or
lower.
Keep in mind many of the white middle class
originally voted for Obama. He could not have been elected without white
support.
Among those that actually own small
businesses, pay most of the taxes and create most of the jobs, I'm betting
Obama's ratings are in the vicinity of ZERO.
Actually if you take the white middle class
and subtract out a few Ivy League intellectuals, Hollywood liberals, and
pathetic Upper West Side of Manhattan Democratic zombies, there are few Obama
supporters left to be found anywhere in America.
Remember that about 47% of Americans get
entitlement checks from government. Obama is PAYING for their support and
he still only has 38%
approval. You know you're unpopular when even bribes don't work anymore!
This man has managed to pull off something
remarkable and historical- he has alienated almost every single American who
actually works for a living and pays taxes- outside of Chicago, Manhattan,
Hollywood and Detroit. He has virtually zero support among the 53% who aren't
getting a check from government. You can't find another instance of that in the
history of American politics.
Obama is amazing!
I do want to answer my critics whose only
response will be…"all of these white voters who don't support Obama are
racists. It's all about race."
First of all, the very definition of racism is
voting for a black candidate because...he's
black. That's racism. The fact that 92% of black voters voted for
Obama and 96% of black women voted for Obama is nothing but voting based on
race.
As far as white voters abandoning Obama in
droves, I've yet to meet one white voter who bases it on the color of Obama's
skin. We all base it on the color of his policies. The color of his policies is
red- as in communist red. We hate his policies, not the man and not the color
of his skin.
We hate the record-setting $12 trillion in
debt he'll have piled up by the time his second term is finished- because Obama
has ruined the future of America with that debt. And he's ruined our children's
future quality of life with that debt.
We hate Obama's big tax increases for the
middle class and small business...and the fact that those tax increases haven't
helped the economy, or created new jobs because the money was handed to Obama's
voters and donors- for more entitlements, more welfare, more food stamps,
bailouts, stimulus and wasted failing green energy "investments."
We hate the fact that Obama has killed
millions of jobs. We hate the fact that the economy is in ruins under his
leadership- except for Wall Street. Of course Wall Street goes up because Obama
has directed the Fed to print trillions in fake dollars to make his biggest
donors richer than they ever imagined.
We hate the fact that Obama ruined the finest
healthcare system in the world, that about 80% of Americans were happy with in
the first place. We hate the fact that he is a liar and fraud, who promised
"if you like your health insurance, you can keep it." Now we either
don't have insurance, or our prices have been raised through the roof. He has
damaged our lives beyond belief. The color of his skin has nothing to do with
it. But the facts have everything to do with it.
Over the years I hated the policies of George
McGovern and Jimmy Carter. They were both white. So did that mean I hated
whites? Today I hate the policies of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Does that
mean I hate Italians and Mormons? I hate the policies of Hillary Clinton. Does
that mean I hate women? I hate the policies of Congresswoman Debbie Shultz
Wasserman and Senator Chuck Schumer. Does that mean I hate Jews? Well guess
what? I'm Jewish. There goes that argument.
And I hate the policies of Joe Biden. Does
that mean I hate idiots? I'm just kidding…kind of.
The point is in every case, it's the politics
and policies that we hate. Not the person, or the race. So the argument is just
plain misleading, fraudulent and stupid.
It all comes down to common sense. White
middle class Americans are suffering because of the policies of a incompetent,
fraudulent, lying Marxist. And we're not in delusion and denial, simply because
we're not blinded by
the color of his skin. The fact is we don't care about the color of his skin.
So we can see the plain truth.
That's why Obama's poll numbers are amazing.
That's why among Americans who are NOT Kool Aid drinkers
blinded by the color of his skin, Obama's poll numbers are the lowest in history.
1 comment:
To mess with our heads and fuck up the country.
Post a Comment