Quote

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

Wednesday, February 10, 2010

It Wasn't Supposed To Be Like This

Such hopes the dreamers had.  And then their guy got elected ...
Back to the Drawing Board
By Matt Welch, Reason

In just about every speech at their 2008 convention, Democrats promised voters that a change in the White House would, in Barack Obama’s formulation, restore “our moral standing” in the world. Replace the unilateralist cowboy at the top with a humbler multilateralist, and the path would finally be cleared to fix vexing international issues such as curbing carbon emissions and dealing with the mullahs in Iran. Like many of the party faithful’s long-nurtured beliefs, this hope has disintegrated on contact with reality.

“America is losing the free world,” said a January headline in the Financial Times. While that statement is exaggerated, the sentiment behind it has been gaining traction around the globe, especially in the wake of the climate conference debacle in Copenhagen. It’s not just that the less confrontational American president has been unable to deliver results. He can’t even get his phone calls returned. [link]
I think an American president bowing to foreign leaders will have that effect.  They see him as being a chump.  And ignore him.  And rightly so.

This has to be a letdown to those who saw in Obama the future emperor of the world.  To find out that he can't even get two-bit dictators to sit at his lunch table has to be disappointing.

Maybe they'll learn from this experience.

Maybe they won't.

Paranoia, Thy Name Is Liberalism

New York Times ditze Maureen Dowd:
Barry Obama of the post-’60s Hawaiian ’hood did not live through the major racial struggles in American history. Maybe he had a problem relating to his white basketball coach or catching a cab in New York, but he never got beaten up for being black.

Now he’s at the center of a period of racial turbulence sparked by his ascension. Even if he and the coterie of white male advisers around him don’t choose to openly acknowledge it, this president is the ultimate civil rights figure — a black man whose legitimacy is constantly challenged by a loco fringe.

For two centuries, the South has feared a takeover by blacks or the feds. In Obama, they have both. [link]
I know.  You want to dismiss it as the ranting of a liberal moron.  But it's worth considering: Where does this woman get the idea that those who oppose Obama on a broad range of issues - including me, including a whole host of issues - are racists?

Well, maybe we shouldn't give the underlying argument too much thought.  Maybe we should look at the mental well-being of those who see bigots lurking under every rock.  The paranoiacs.  From the American Thinker:
"Nor is it surprising that the broken remnants of the old White Supremacy coalition hate and fear the man. . ."

Now, this got me thinking: who exactly comprises this White Supremacy coalition?  Even though I've immersed myself in conservatism for the last two years, I haven't seen hide nor hair of it.

So I dug deeper:  Is Sen. Strom Thurmond up to his old tricks?  (No, he's dead.)  Is Sen. Robert Byrd reviving the old Ku Klux Klan?  (Impossible; Byrd is a saintly Democrat.)  

Is the Republican Party at the forefront of this white conspiracy?  (Couldn't be; it's headed by a black man, Michael Steele.)

There's a word for people like [the man she quoted above] who believe something that just isn't so:  paranoid.  And from where I sit, liberals are getting more paranoid by the minute.
How else to explain the fact that the only people who bring up the race issue - incessantly - are liberals?  Conservatives couldn't care less about his skin color; they - we - oppose him for his political beliefs and actions.  We were in uncompromising opposition to Hillary too.  Did that involve racism?
To them, probably.

They're that twisted.

Or, as the American Thinker author might call them, using the clinical term: They're stark-raving nuts.

Keep that in mind next time one of these poor fools goes into rant mode.  Explains a lot.

They Are Flailing

They've thrown enough tax money at jobs in the last year to buy every American a job - almost - and the effort has produced squat (regardless what Obama says about those jobs "saved and created").  In fact, in that time, beginning with Stimulus Plan A, 8.4 million souls have actually lost their jobs.  So what do the Democrats come up with to staunch the bleeding?

The Jimmy Carter Jobs Credit
Wall Street Journal editorial

Stimulus Plan A didn't work to create jobs or reduce unemployment. That was the $165 billion of tax rebates and money for states in February 2008.

Plan B flopped too. That was last February's stimulus that has devoted $862 billion into mostly government programs. The unemployment rate climbed steadily until last month, and the main lasting impact has been nearly $1 trillion added to the national debt.

Now comes Plan C, another February stimulus, though this time everyone has been instructed not to use the "s word," lest it scare the voters. This one is a "jobs bill," as if Plans A and B were about something else. Don't expect this one to work any better than the last two.

This latest Senate Democratic bill will cost $85 billion and is shaping up to be largely a rehash of last year's stimulus: extended unemployment insurance, Medicaid cash for the states, and some public works spending. The one new twist is a proposal for a one-year $5,000 tax credit for small businesses for each new worker hired. President Obama calls the credit "the best way to cut taxes" to help small businesses.

But we've also seen this economic movie before—in 1977 under Jimmy Carter. During the two years it was in effect, a jobs credit worth about $7,000 in today's dollars became a $20 billion free lunch as businesses claimed the handout for one of every three new employees.

In the short term, the Jimmy Carter jobs credit appeared to reduce unemployment. The jobless rate dropped by 1.2 percentage points (to 5.8% in 1979 from 7% in 1977). But that effect was short-lived, and when the subsidies ended two years later the layoffs resumed and the unemployment rate rose again and by 1980 was back to 7.2%. [link requires paid subscription]
Didn't work before?  Let's do it again!

Jimmy Carter redux.  For the love of God.