I've spent the past three days in Washington DC. I expected the city to show some signs of the two million people who had been there just days before; perhaps some of the barricades would still be up or there might be trash flying around. To my surprise, the city was clean and traffic flowed smoothly...as much as it ever does in DC.What I was not prepared for was the mania that seems to have sprung up around our new President.
There are Obama stores: We're not talking kiosks, these are brick and mortar retail spaces on major thoroughfares that are filled with Obama merchandise. A store has to move a lot of items to be able to pay for retail space in DC. These stores are like an Obama themed K-mart. Every size, shape and color of tee shirt, sweat shirt, and the ever-popular hoodie. You can have your choice of slogans from "Yes we can" to "I love that one", a swipe at the way John McCain referred to Obama during one of the debates.
I suppose being able to buy a tee shirt commemorating an historic event is not out of the norm, but how about Obama lipstick: "I kiss Obama", and Obama tissues, and as seen in this photo, an Obama shirt for your dog.
Out for a walk on what felt like an early spring evening, before the current cold front moved in, I discovered there were also many street vendors still hawking their wares including Obama flags for the front of your house and Obama blankets to make you cozy and warm.
It wasn't the over-the-top merchandising that concerned me, it was the comments that were heard everwhere; cab drivers, waiters, front desk clerks, as well as many of the professional people with whom I interacted at meetings. I heard things like "Obama will save us", "He's going to change the world", "Everything will be better now", and my favorite, "He's going to give my son a job".
Keeping our spirits up through these tough times based on the hope that our new President can stimulate the economy, and thereby create a climate where employment numbers will increase, is one thing. But thinking about President Obama in the fantasy-induced terms that I heard is to give him an impossible task and to set yourself up for disappointment.
Barack Obama is a smart, politically savvy, educated man, who is riding an unprecidented wave of gooodwill. Rush Limbaugh aside, no one wants President Obama to fail. But let's not lose sight of the fact that he is our elected leader, not an annointed savior: He is a mortal man like a million others. The only way we can be saved is if we save ourselves.
Posts
41 comments:
Sorry, Pam. I also want Obama's Big Government, Big Spending policies to fail. Much like the Left who declared, "We support the troops but not the mission" I say the same about President Obama. I want him to succeed for America but I don't support his policies.
The nice thing is that such liberal Big Government policies will fail as they always have. Or else socialism would have worked elsewhere in the world. It has not and is not.
The problem is, after racking up another 1 or 2 trillion dollars of debt our children and grand-children will have to pay the bill. So much for leaving a "better America" for our children.
But, hey, let's keep putting faith in Big Government programs to solve our problems. When we are bankrupt, in about 10 to 20 years, what will we do then?
Maybe then reality will hit the voters square in the face as economic realities are proven once again.
You can't borrow your way out of financial problems. You can't promise every group a program to be paid by everybody else. And, frankly, government is a wealth destroyer not a wealth creator.
But let's all "hope" for "change" and blame those who point out reality. We have lived on credit cards as government funds every wish list item for the last several generations. The bills will come due...
Pam....apparently didn't get the memo. The 2nd Coming has come. Please get in step with the rest of the faithful. :)
Pam -
Toward the end of your post, you wrote "Rush Limbaugh aside, no one wants President Obama to fail."
Just to set the record straight on what Rush Limbaugh said, here is a portion of the transcript from his interview by Sean Hannity:
HANNITY: Coming off record-ratings year for you, but you are a passionate conservative. You've defined conservatives for many people in this country for years. He represents the antithesis in terms of his worldview. So then the question becomes: Do you want him to succeed?
RUSH: Now, this... (turns to camera) I am so glad that he asked me that question. (turns back to Hannity) I am so glad that you asked me this question.
HANNITY: I'm glad to. (chuckles)
RUSH: I'll tell you why. I am hearing many Republicans say that very thing. "Well, we want him to succeed," and prominent Republicans! "Yes, we want him to succeed." They have laid down. They have totally. They're drinking the Kool-Aid, too. They have no guts to stand up for what their beliefs are because they're afraid of criticism. They're afraid of being called racists. They're afraid of not having gotten with the program. Now success can be defined two ways. I said earlier, "I don't know about this guy." I really don't. I've got my suspicions and they're pretty close to convictions, but we're going to have to wait to see what he does. Now if he turns out to be a Reagan, if he adds Reagan to his recipe of FDR and Lincoln --
HANNITY: (laughing)
RUSH: -- and if he does cut some taxes --
HANNITY: Yeah.
RUSH: -- if he does not eliminate the Bush tax cuts, I would call that success. So yes, I would hope he would succeed if he acts like Reagan. But if he's going to do FDR -- if he's going to do The New New Deal all over, which we will call here The Raw Deal -- why would I want him to succeed? Look, he's my president. The fact that he is historic is irrelevant to me now. It matters not at all. If he is going to implement a far-left agenda... Look, I think it's already decided: a $2 trillion in stimulus? The growth of government? I think the intent here is to create as many dependant Americans as possible looking to government for their hope and salvation. If he gets nationalized health care, I mean, it's over, Sean. We're never going to roll that back. That's the end of America as we have known it, because that's then going to set the stage for everything being government owned, operated, or provided. Why would I want that to succeed? I don't believe in that. I know that's not how this country is going to be great in the future; it's not what made this country great. So I shamelessly say, "No! I want him to fail." If his agenda is a far-left collectivism -- some people say socialism -- as a conservative heartfelt, deeply, why would I want socialism to succeed?
I am excited about Obama and am hoping his ideas can bring the U.S. to a better place, but I agree with you Pam. We, as citizens, need to jump into the fray IMMEDIATELY if we really want the nation to improve. I have been a community activist for years and know that if people continue with the "he is going to do everything for me while I just sit back and watch" attitude, NOTHING will change.
Alfonso Todd
Amen Alfonso. Spectators need not apply.
Joe,
You're too confusing. In the same paragraph, you claim you want failure and success. Which is it? And why would you wish failure upon him?
AJC--it's cold idiology and politics above country. All the talk from the right about loving the country goes out the window when they don't control the gov't. Now they want Obama and the country he leads to fail.
True character revealed.
AJC,
It's the same position as the libs "We support the troops but not the mission."
But if I need to clarify: I do not want collectivist socialism Big Government policies to succeed.
This does not mean that I want the President to fail. Unlike libs who savaged Bush for 8 years. Where was all the love and bipartisanship then?
Anon 5:53,
Where were you when the Left savaged Bush for eight years and wanted us to lose a war?
They advocated Bush's death and declared that he was not "their" President.
Obama is my President and it is fantastic that an African-American achieved that goal. (I had hoped it would be a Republican first, but it's still a great achievement.) But, I don't want liberal policies to prevail. Because that would be bad for the country. If I thought Liberal policies worked, I would be a Democrat.
Anon 5:53,
Where were you when the Left savaged Bush for eight years and wanted us to lose a war?
They advocated Bush's death and declared that he was not "their" President.
Obama is my President and it is fantastic that an African-American achieved that goal. (I had hoped it would be a Republican first, but it's still a great achievement.) But, I don't want liberal policies to prevail. Because that would be bad for the country. If I thought Liberal policies worked, I would be a Democrat.
"Where were you when the Left savaged Bush for eight years and wanted us to lose a war?"
Right next to you calling it bull shit. Now I'm calling you on the same bull shit.
You want the country to fail so you can win political points and say that your ideology is best. Well, some of us are tired of ideology and want the country to succeed. It's called patriotism. Unfortunately, Bush couldn't succeed (so many reasons). Perhaps this one can. I'm certainly willing to root for him.
Anon 11:34 -
I don't think anyone wants the President to fail for political reasons. However, I think it is worth thinking about what will be left of the country if he is able to implement his policies.
He is not infallible, and he certainly has an ideology that he is following. He is a believer in big government and a former legislator to boot - a dangerous combination.
Most legislators look at every problem and see the answer as more funding. That is a feel-good approach that frankly doesn't require a whole lot of creativity or deep thinking and avoids making difficult decisions.
It has been said that if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. That adage is pertinent here.
Pam's observations on Obama merchandise shows one thing, that capitalism works. No government loans were needed to get Obama tee shirts made or sold.
.....
Mr. Obama should take a lesson.
"Right next to you calling it bull shit. Now I'm calling you on the same bull shit."
Far left politicians and their supporters wanted America to lose a war.....that is indefensible, ...and if those same persons now turn around and savage people who openly admit admiration for our President's personal achievement but want socialist policies he espouses to fail, then they are hypocrites of the most base and cowardly sort.
As Samual Adams once said, "Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."
Supporting the troops is one issue - not supporting the war is another. However, wishing that Americans lose the war, i.e. more Americans lose their lives, is a horrible way to think.
The fact is that we have been losing this war all along. Most people don't even know who we're fighting.
An Obama failure could lead to more deaths. Is that what you really want?
"The fact is that we have been losing this war all along. Most people don't even know who we're fighting."
AJC....you must have information that our American military does not have.....because they believe Iraq to be won. So do I..... The proof is no further away than the glaring lack of headlines in the main stream media. Not to mention Sen Ried not mentioning it anymore.
That is, if you need proof beyond what our own kids in the Army, Navy, Air Force, and USMC are telling us
There is a great difference between wanting something to fail and expecting something to fail.
If you don't think something will work, you try to get it changed. As the Democrats are pretty much calling the shots, that's unlikely to happen. In this situation, you just do the best you can and prepare for what you expect to happen.
"$335,000,000 FOR STD PREVENTION IN ECONOMIC STIMULUS BILL
Wed Jan 28 2009 09:58:30 ET
Democrats may have eliminated provisions on birth control and sod for the National Mall in the "job stimulus" -- but buried on page 147 of the bill is stimulation for prevention of sexually transmitted diseases!
The House Democrats' bill includes $335 million for sexually transmitted disease education and prevention programs at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned. "
Do I want this bill to fail? You betcha! Do I want to give ACORN 4.5 BILLION dollars? Nope!
Do I want to provide 300 million in funding for contraceptives? Nope!
So, if this is Obama's bill, and I want it to fail, does that mean I want my President to fail?
You guys gotta be kidding!
from the Bill, page 2!
(a) IN GENERAL.—Each amount in this Act is designated as an emergency requirement and necessary to meet emergency needs pursuant to section.....
Each amount is an emergency? Are you kidding me? Condoms? STD's? Nat'l Endowment for the Arts? Please, please read the bill!
http://www.rules.house.gov/111/LegText/111_hr1_text.pdf
Now that Obama is in office, Republicans will be blaming him for everything. Let's not forget who has been in office for the past 8 years.
Let's not forget that it was YOU DEMS and YOU REPS that got us into this mess.
(And let's just skip over the "we voted for them" crap.)
$$$$for NOAA and Gore
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION OPERATIONS, RESEARCH, AND FACILITIES For an additional amount for ‘‘Operations, Research, and Facilities’’, $400,000,000, for habitat restoration and mitigation activities. PROCUREMENT, ACQUISITION AND CONSTRUCTION
For an additional amount for ‘‘Procurement, Acquisition and Construction’’, $600,000,000, for accelerating satellite development and acquisition, acquiring climate sensors and climate modeling capacity, and establishing climate data records: Provided further,that not less than
15 $140,000,000 shall be available for climate data modeling.
NATIONAL MALL REVITALIZATION FUND For construction, improvements, repair, or replacement of facilities related to the revitalization of National
8 Park Service assets on the National Mall in Washington,DC, $200,000,000, of which $100,000,000 shall only be made available to the extent that funds are matched by non-Federal contributions:
For necessary expenses for a ‘‘Prevention and Wellness Fund’’ to be administered through the Depart-
ment of Health and Human Services Office of the Secretary, $3,000,000,000:
not less than $335,000,000 shall be used as an additional amount to carry out domestic HIV/AIDS, viral hepatitis, sexually-transmitted diseases, and tuberculosis prevention programs, as jointly de
termined by the Secretary and the Director;
not less than $60,000,000 shall be used as
7 an additional amount to carry out environmental health programs, as jointly determined by the Sec9
retary and the Director; not less than $50,000,000 shall be used as an additional amount to carry out injury prevention and control programs, as jointly determined by the Secretary and the Director;
Does anyone care at how vast, uneccesary, and crippling all this paper being printed/generations of debt will be?
Pam, I'm going to be somewhat cold and calculating for a moment. Is it possible that the cab drivers, wait staff, venders and everybody else were saying such lofty things b/c they knew the hype made people feel good, which in turn prompts them to spend money?
Perhaps I'm allowing the cynic to come out.
Hi Everyone...
Sorry I haven't been participating in what has become a really interesting thread...a little OT, but a great conversation none the less.
I'm in one of my hyper-work modes, so just barely keeping my head above water. But do continue: this is a fascinating discussion.
Ron, thanks for the direct input from the bailout bill.
Not that this pot needs any stirring, but it would seem that many of the items you've pointed out don't belong in an emergency rescue package.
"A rising chorus of GOP leaders are protesting that the blockbuster Democratic stimulus package would provide up to a whopping $5.2 billion for ACORN, the left-leaning nonprofit group under federal investigation for massive voter fraud.
Most of the money is secreted away under an item in the now $836 billion package titled “Neighborhood Stabilization Programs.”
Ordinarily, neighborhood stabilization funds are distributed to local governments. *****But revised language in the stimulus bill would make the funds available directly to non-profit entities such as ACORN,***** the low-income housing organization whose pro-Democrat voter-registration activities have been blasted by Republicans. ACORN is cited by some for tipping the scales in the Democrats' favor in November."
Why isn't the whole country upset about this? Why is this package in such a rush to be passed?
This is nuts!
Geoff,
You are no more cynical than I. It occurred to me that there was some "spin" going on, but I have to tell you that I found no evidence of that even when looking for it.
The state of euphoria that has been induced by President Obama's election appeared to be a genuine belief that he was going to "make everything alright"...
...Which in the end could make things worse when those same people become disillusioned: He's the President not a miracle worker.
Ron,
If there really is money of any amount, let alone BILLIONS, sequestered away in the bailout bill for ACORN, that is an outrage.
Would you be so kind as to share your source for that comment?
from the bill, and from Drudge. Note the bill's language that allows non-state entities to now rec'v monies that was previously reserved to governments.
sorry...from the bill and Newsmax.com
Obama’s Bill Hands ACORN $5.2 Billion Bailout
Tuesday, January 27, 2009 7:06 PM
By: David A. Patten Article Font Size
A rising chorus of GOP leaders are protesting that the blockbuster Democratic stimulus package would provide up to a whopping $5.2 billion for ACORN, the left-leaning nonprofit group under federal investigation for massive voter fraud.
Most of the money is secreted away under an item in the now $836 billion package titled “Neighborhood Stabilization Programs.”
Ordinarily, neighborhood stabilization funds are distributed to local governments. But revised language in the stimulus bill would make the funds available directly to non-profit entities such as ACORN, the low-income housing organization whose pro-Democrat voter-registration activities have been blasted by Republicans. ACORN is cited by some for tipping the scales in the Democrats' favor in November.
According to Fox news, Sen. David Vitter, R-La., could appear to be a “payoff” for community groups’ partisan political activities in the last election cycle.
“It is of great concern to me,” Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., tells Newsmax. “I think our government has stayed strong because we’ve had a two-party system, we have had robust debate, people have felt that it was one man-one vote. They are privileged and grateful that they have that ability to cast that vote. And when something is done to belittle or diminish that, it is of great concern to me.”
Regarding ACORN, Blackburn added, “Additional funds going to these organizations that have tried to skew that system, it causes me great concern and I believe that it causes many of my colleagues great concern.”
The three-term congressman stopped short of suggesting the “neighborhood stabilization” money is a power grab by Democrats seeking partisan political advantage. But radio talk giant Rush Limbaugh did not.
Limbaugh warned his listeners Tuesday: “I’ll tell you what’s going on here: We, ladies & gentlemen, we’re funding Obama and the Democrats’ army on the street. We are funding the forces of the Democrat party’s re-election.”
Blackburn echoed the concerns of Republican leaders who object that the bloated package lacks the short-term stimulus a cut in payroll or sales taxes would provide.
According to Matthew Vadum of the Capitol Research Center, the stimulus package now under consideration includes:
$1 billion stashed away in Community Development Block Grant money that ACORN often vies for successfully.
$10 million to develop or refurbish low-income housing, a specialty of ACORN’s.
$4.19 billion to stave off foreclosures via the Neighborhood Stabilization Program. Vadum states the current version of the bill would allow nonprofits to compete with cities and states for $3.44 billion of the money. Some $750 million, however, would be exclusively reserved for nonprofits such as ACORN, which is actually an umbrella organization for over 100 progressive organizations.
Regarding the Neighborhood Stabilization Program, Vadum writes in American Spectator: “Although ACORN operatives usually get their hands on such funds only after they have first passed through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development or state and local governments, the new spending bill largely eliminates these dawdling middle men, making it easier to get Uncle Sam's largess directly into the hands of the same people who run ACORN's various vote fraud and extortion rackets. And the legislative package provides these funds without the usual prohibition on using government money for lobbying or political activities.”
The charges of partisan political payback appear to be resonating in part due to Obama’s longstanding association with partisan get-out-the-vote operations. He was endorsed by ACORN, and during the campaign paid an ACORN affiliate $832,600 to get-out-the-vote assistance. Early in his career, he led a voter drive for an ACORN-affiliated group called Project Vote.
It’s not the first time ACORN has been entangled in a bailout controversy. In September, House Republicans objected that the original $700 billion bailout package included $100 million for ACORN – a tiny fraction of the sums for ACORN now being considered in the stimulus package.
Please note the below $$$$. All laudable goals, but not even remotely an emergency stimulus program!
CHILDREN AND FAMILIES SERVICES PROGRAMS For an additional amount for ‘‘Children and Families Services Programs’’, $3,200,000,000, which shall be used as follows: $1,000,000,000 for carrying out activities under the Head Start Act, of which $500,000,000 shall become available on October 1, 2009; (2) $1,100,000,000 for expansion of Early Head Start programs, as described in section 645A of the Head Start Act, of which $550,000,000 shall become available on October 1, 2009: Provided, That of the funds provided in this sentence, up to 10 percent shall be available for the provision of training and technical assistance to such programs consistent with section 645A(g)(2) of such Act, and up to
12 percent shall be available for monitoring the operation of such programs consistent with section 641A of such Act: Provided further, That the preceding proviso shall apply to this appropriation in lieu of the provisions of section 1106 of this Act: Provided further, That the provisions of section 1103 of this
18 Act shall not apply to this appropriation;(3) $1,000,000,000 for carrying out activities under sections 674 through 679 of the Community Services Block Grant Act, of which $500,000,000 shall become available on October 1, 2009, and of which no part shall be subject to paragraphs (2) and
24 (3) of section 674(b) of such Act: Provided, Thatnotwithstanding section 675C(a)(1) of such Act,",,,,and so on!
Ron,
I hope you protested all the other bailouts when Bush was signing checks.
Are you against them all, or just the Obama-signed ones? This is a sincere question.
I don't like that ACORN is getting money either, but then again, I have mixed feelings about the whole "bailout" theory. I also dislike that anyone would wish failure upon any of this, while at the same time wishing for success.
AJC...I very much opposed the TARP Bailout, pushed for by President Bush and Sec'ty Paulson
Anon 11:34,
Glad you took that position. But AGAIN, I don't want the country to fail. I want Big Government/collectivism/socialism to fail.
Both sides have "ideology". This is hilarious! Those who believe in limited government, free market principles are "ideological" and "partisan". Those who believe in Big Government are not. Actually too many self-proclaimed moderate Republicans make the same argument. Conservatives are "ideological" but they are not. Ah, yes they are, they just have a different ideology. And sorry, but belief in Big Government IS an ideology and yes, I want it to fail - because it ALWAYS has.
Ron, great stuff. Thanks.
AJC - again, you "supported the troops but not the war" (the policy). I "support the President but not most of his policies".
What is the difference? And where have you been for the last year? Iraq has been won - unless we totally pull out too quickly and allow the situation to destabilize.
AJC -
Yes, Bush was the President when the TARP program was passed. And as Ron noted, Paulsen was the Treasury Secretary.
But please don't forget that then-Senator Obama was a major player in crafting what the TARP program would look like, and also voted for it (as did Senator McCain).
They are now trying the same solution - massive government spending - and hoping for a different result. Isn't that the definition of insanity?
From Drudge
"WASHINGTON (AP) - The $800 billion-plus economic stimulus measure making its way through Congress could steer government checks to illegal immigrants, a top Republican congressional official asserted Thursday.
The legislation, which would send tax credits of $500 per worker and $1,000 per couple, expressly disqualifies nonresident aliens, but it would allow people who don't have Social Security numbers to be eligible for the checks.
Undocumented immigrants who are not eligible for a Social Security number can file tax returns with an alternative number. A House-passed version of the economic recovery bill and one making its way through the Senate would allow anyone with such a number, called an individual taxpayer identification number, to qualify for the tax credits."
"The two sides of Capitol Hill appear to be engaging in a bidding war to see who can put more money toward the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases in its version of the economic stimulus bill.
The House included $335 million in its package. But the Senate, not to be outdone, provided $400 million in STD spending in its bill.
But the Senate bill, on page 138 of the 431-page measure, directs $400 million to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention "for the screening and prevention of sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV."
This just gets stranger and stranger!
Joe,
You are truly ignorant. Once again, supporting the troops is different than not supporting the reasons for war.
Troops are people, not policies. I support the people, i.e. hope they make it out of a horrible situation alive and well.
Is it really that hard to understand? Do you care at all?
"And where have you been for the last year? Iraq has been won - unless we totally pull out too quickly and allow the situation to destabilize."
I must have missed that memo. Tell me, why aren't you in charge of our military? Seems like you have it all figured out...
Ah AJ,
Now the personal insults. Thanks.
Here is my response based on your position (which I understand - the confusion is why can't you understand the analogous position I take?)
"Supporting the President is different than not supporting liberal policies."
I care and I support the people - Americans - because I want them to make it out of this bad economy. Liberal policies will fail and make things worse for the people.
I want policies that will help the people.
So, I support the President but not the policies that will harm people in both the short and long term.
Can you personally insult me again? But I would prefer a reasonable approach to debating.
RE: "Seems like you have it all figured out..." I appeared on Business Matters twice about the Iraq War. Once at the beginning of the surge and then again after the surge appeared to be working.
Most of my positions and predictions proved to be accurate.
"Most of my positions and predictions proved to be accurate."
Yet, you're not proving anything. Hence, my ignorance claim of you is legit.
Post a Comment