People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it. Welcome to From On High.

Monday, January 18, 2010

Say What?

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman has always had a problem with delusion.  Today's column ("What Didn’t Happen") is put into evidence:
Lately many people have been second-guessing the Obama administration’s political strategy. The conventional wisdom seems to be that President Obama tried to do too much — in particular, that he should have put health care on one side and focused on the economy.

I disagree. The Obama administration’s troubles are the result not of excessive ambition, but of policy and political misjudgments. The stimulus was too small; policy toward the banks wasn’t tough enough; and Mr. Obama didn’t do what Ronald Reagan, who also faced a poor economy early in his administration, did — namely, shelter himself from criticism with a narrative that placed the blame on previous administrations.
Ya gotta feel for guys like Krugman. They are forced to argue one minute that Obama's stimulus was a big success (that 2 million "jobs saved or created" idiocy) and in the next they explain that it was a failure only because the stimulus was "too small."   Which is it, Mr. Nobel Economics Winner?

But the big whopper comes here:
Obama didn’t do what Ronald Reagan... did — namely, shelter himself from criticism with a narrative that placed the blame on previous administrations."
What?  He didn't blame previous administrations?

That's all Obama has done.  When did he NOT blame Bush for all our ongoing problems?  Just yesterday:

We have had one year to make up for eight.  It hasn’t been quick, it hasn’t been easy.... But we’ve begun to deliver on the change you voted for.”

I think what Krugman really wants to believe is that it should be all Bush's fault that the economy sucks a full year after Obama's predecessor  went into retirement.  Things were so much more fun when Bush could be blamed for everything.

This is sad, in a way.  The twisting in knots.  The flailing.  The dumbstruck looks.

"It's all Bush's fault!"  It all made sense back then.

Uh, Oh

The "Copenhagen" curse:

Click on the image of losers past and present to enlarge it.

And here she still had a slim chance before ...

The Lipstick Is Off The Pig

What would happen if the Emperor of Hope and Change showed up and was met with a big shrug?

Massachusetts.  Sunday.
Obama here for Coakley, trailing a diminished aura
By Susan Milligan, Boston Globe

The feverish excitement that propelled Barack Obama and scores of other Democrats to victory in 2008 has all but evaporated, worrying party leaders who are struggling to invigorate the base before Tuesday’s Massachusetts Senate race and November’s critical midterm contests, pollsters and party activists said. [link]
Well, this can't be good.  Feverish excitement was all this guy had going for him.  Now Obama's supporters are faced with a leader who is detached, unqualified, incompetent, and exceedingly disliked by the American people.  What will they do?

As for the rest of us - those who saw a year ago who he was and what he was all about - his stay with us can't end soon enough.  We count the days ...

- - -

Oh, my:

You were warned.

Bye Bye

Who do they think they are?  The Wall Street Journal?
New York Times Ready to Charge Online Readers
By Gabriel Sherman, New York magazine

New York Times Chairman Arthur Sulzberger Jr. appears close to announcing that the paper will begin charging for access to its website, according to people familiar with internal deliberations. After a year of sometimes fraught debate inside the paper, the choice for some time has been between a Wall Street Journal-type pay wall and the metered system adopted by the Financial Times, in which readers can sample a certain number of free articles before being asked to subscribe. The Times seems to have settled on the metered system. [link]
Can you imagine General Motors charging people a fee when they walk into one of their dealerships?   The purpose of the New York Times is to sell advertising.  If advertisers find that the Times' leadership is trying to restrict viewership (customers!) through the implementation of costly fees, who's going to advertise in the Times?

I don't envy Sulzberger and company.  They are faced with a situation where they are currently giving their (expensive) product away for free on line.  As do most all other second-tier newspapers (the top tier being occupied solely by the Wall Street Journal, which charges for viewership, because it can). 

But the key to success isn't in charging people to read the on-line content.  It's in getting advertisers to pay out the nose for the opportunity of being there when readers flock to the site.  That ain't happenin'.  That's the problem.

So the General Motors of the news industry, faced with a staggering problem with its balance sheet, is going to charge customers for that which had been given away for free in the past.  Key words being "customers" and "in the past."  Because that's what their customers will be if they attempt this.

Thank God For George Bush

Otherwise, these poor miserable creatures would have to face the realities of the present day:
After Obama Rally, Dems Pin Blame On Bush
By Felicia Sonmez, National Journal

As audience members streamed out of Pres. Obama's rally on behalf of AG Martha Coakley (D) here tonight, the consensus was that the fault for Coakley's now-floundering MA SEN bid lies with one person -- George W. Bush.

"People are upset because there's so many problems," Rosemary Kverek, 70, a retired Charleston schoolteacher said as tonight's rally wrapped up. "But the problems came from the previous administration. So we're blaming poor Obama, who's working 36 hours a day ... to solve these problems that he inherited."

Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-RI), speaking with a gaggle of reporters after the event, said that while state Sen. Scott Brown (R) offers voters a quick fix, in reality, the problems created by "George Bush and his cronies" are not so easily solved.

"If you think there's magic out there and things can be turned around overnight, then you would vote for someone who could promise you that, like Scott Brown," Kennedy said. "If you don't, if you know that it takes eight years for George Bush and his cronies to ... [blah blah blah] [link]
I think that's the point, Pat.  Obama promised to turn things around overnight.  That's what that "hope" and "change" stuff was all about.  Now most Americans are wondering if he's going to turn the steadily worsening economy around sometime in the next decade. 

Obama has been given a year. And in that year he has nothing to show us in the way of success.

Yet Bush is still blamed.

It's getting rather silly. And annoying.

Where Once It Held Such Promise

It didn't have to be this way:
California: An Obituary
By Claude Sandroff, American Thinker

Only raw and unrestrained liberalism could have destroyed the world's 8th-largest economy. Boasting unparalleled assets in agriculture, high technology, entertainment, and tourism, and blessed with ample energy resources, deep-water ports and ideal weather, California has nonetheless managed to turn itself into a perfect dystopia.

The litany of problems is well-known and oft-cited. We Californians are overtaxed, our state workers are too numerous and coddled, our businesses are overregulated, and our environmentalists are too radical and powerful.

And the list goes on. We tolerate nearly three million illegal residents draining us of $10 billion annually -- enough to pay down half of our deficit through this and the next fiscal year. The educational system is dysfunctional and expensive, while our infrastructure is adequate for the third world -- not 40 million modern consumers growing to 50 million by mid-century. Our energies are diluted by frequent and incomprehensible voter propositions that often focus on divisive social agendas (gay marriage) or are driven by well-funded special interests (stem-cell research).

California is in an exciting race to the bottom with other liberal bastions like New York and New Jersey to see who can best tax its citizens and businesses into oblivion. But California's stunning fall to mediocrity is alarming because it had to do so much wrong for so long to neuter so much of its enormous potential. [link]
To think, there are many (see example of hammer-headed liberal thinking here) in the state of Virginia who want to do for the commonwealth what they did to California and New York and New Jersey and  ...