The “like a dog” bit seems to be making the rounds, but watch what he says afterwards:
And, Milwaukee, that’s what we’re going to do again. That’s been at the heart what we’ve been doing over these last 20 months: building our economy on a new foundation so that our middle class doesn’t just survive this crisis -– I want it to thrive. I want it to be stronger than it was before.
And over the last two years, that’s meant taking on some powerful interests — some powerful interests who had been dominating the agenda in Washington for a very long time. And they’re not always happy with me. They talk about me like a dog. (Applause.) That’s not in my prepared remarks, it’s just — but it’s true.
You know, that’s why we passed financial reform to provide new accountability and tough oversight of Wall Street; stopping credit card companies from gouging you with hidden fees and unfair rate hikes. (Applause.) Ending taxpayer bailouts of Wall Street once and for all. They’re not happy with it, but it was the right thing to do.
So the new financial regulations are because people talked bad about him? Is there any reasonable way to read those three paragraphs without concluding that “financial reform” passed in order to get back at people who opposed him?
People don’t know what’s in Obamacare and don’t like what they do know. So the cabinet secretary in charge of the program has a solution: “Reeducation“! Fantastic.
As Moe Lane points out, I think it’s fairly obvious that Sebelius isn’t being threatening when she uses that word, she’s being “inarticulate and stupidly insensitive.” Perhaps she needs to be reeducated regarding leftist totalitarianisms of the 20th Century?
Lane, on the real importance of the word: “Use of a term like ‘reeducation’ indicates that the user of it has decided that there’s nothing wrong with his or her argument; the flaw lies in whoever is not being persuaded by it. So there’s no need to fix the argument itself, obviously.”
I think the non-partisan lesson that should be emerging from Obamacare is the danger of passing big (i.e. physically large) bills without bipartisan support. I agree that there’s tons of misinformation out there, and it comes from all sides. I don’t have a clue what the law does to me, and I challenge anybody to produce a comprehensive list of what the law does to them. That’s what happens when you pass a two-thousand page bill: absolutely nobody knows what it really means.
If I could make one reform in the rules of Congress, it would be this: any law longer than 50 pages must pass with 60% of each house. If a matter is controversial, good republicanism demands that the voters at least be able to understand it and act accordingly in the next election. The Obama administration’s “people’d-love-it-if-they-only-understood-it” defense is lame beyond belief – we’ve gone from “Change You Can Believe In” to “Change You’re Too Dumb To Understand” – and, when examined in the light of how they handled the legislative process, is in fact no defense at all.
One of the great joys for me in this phase of the Obama administration is watching people question how a man who was so awesome at speaking and inspiring people during his campaign suddenly has all the inspirational power of Al Gore on Rohypnol. Here’s an example, from a story in a New York-based publication describing how the president can’t convince Americans of basic biographical facts:
“This is a president who gave really compelling speeches about faith and values, memorable stuff,” said the Rev. Dr. David P. Gushee, a professor of Christian ethics at Mercer University who has advised Mr. Obama on religious matters. “And you’re not hearing that voice right now.”
Does anyone remember any speeches from the campaign? I don’t. Anyone ever have an Obama speech quoted at them?
Not only are we “not hearing that voice right now,” we didn’t really hear that voice in 2008, at least not from Obama. A distressingly large number of us heard voices in our heads that we attributed to Obama – eloquent and persuasive voices that held out hope – but the fact that people aren’t hearing those voices now is more a sign that people are overcoming their delusions than a sign that Obama has lost something.
Update:Alternative theory from Margaret Carlson: He’s just so damned smart we can’t understand him. Personally, I hope he continues being this smart through November 2012.
This post from Chuck DeVore (who, now that he is no longer seeking votes does not need to restrain from insulting Californians) breaks down states by whom they voted for in 2008, and then their per capita state debt totals.
Those with a right-wing presumption will not be at all surprised to be told that the 12 most indebted states voted for Obama. Indeed, those 12 states also voted for Kerry and Gore. And 7 of the 8 states with the lowest debt totals voted for McCain (and Bush, twice). Indeed, the 13 states with the lowest debt were part of Bush’s victory in the halcyon days of 2004 (when a mere 12 digit deficit made Democrats pretend to care about spending).
The average debt for the 22 McCain states was $749 per capita. Obama only gained the support of 6 states that had debt limits below that amount, and of those, 4 had voted for Bush at least once.
Of course, there’s no conclusions to be drawn from this. When our president and the Congress controlled by his party sends tens of billions of dollars to bail out profligate state governments, you’d be nothing more than a partisan hack to infer that he was doing so in order to pay back his supporters. I’d say “Tsk tsk” and shake my head at you if you noticed that the average per capita debt of the Obama states is greater than the per capita debt of any McCain state, and concluded that there was anything partisan about federal handouts to the states. Hell, I’d probably call you a racist.
Obama said on yesterday that he didn’t know who Snooki is. But here’s Obama at the White House Correspondents Dinner:
“Of course, that’s not the only thing that we’ve been accused of socializing this year. You might have heard we passed a health care bill and — (applause.) Is that Roger Ailes applauding out there? (Laughter.) Some Republicans have suggested that the bill contains a few secret provisions. That’s ridiculous. There aren’t a few secret provisions in the health care plan — there are, like, hundreds. (Laughter.)
Tonight, in the interest of transparency, I’d like to share a couple. Let’s see — this provision is called the Bay State of Denial. It reads: “This bill shall cover short-term memory loss related to the passage of Massachusetts health carereform.” So, good news, Mitt, your condition is covered. (Laughter.)
This next provision is called the Jersey Shore-Up. It reads: “The following individuals shall be excluded from the indoor tanning tax within this bill.” Snooki, J-WOWW, the Situation, and House Minority Leader John Boehner. (Laughter.)”
So which is it, Mr. President? I for one demand articles of impeachment be drawn up. Unless, of course, he can blame it all on the TelePrompTer.
I’ve just noticed one of those “This road construction brought to you by Porkulus” road signs near my house. Except that there is no road construction nearby. And in the three years I’ve lived here, there has been no road construction nearby. The road is very nice – broad and smooth – but I reckon that’s from a repaving project in the not too distant past. I guess there aren’t federal funds for “This smooth road brought to you by the Bush administration” signs these days.
He seems even less capable than his predecessor of admitting that his opponents have actual thoughts and actually disagree with him. Turns out, he has single digit approval numbers in Israel because of his name, and because Israelis can’t stand him “reaching out” to Muslims.
Of course, back in 2007 and 2008 he hyped his name as a reason to support him, saying it was going to help us in certain parts of the world. Then his supporters (and the McCain campaign) jumped down the throat of anyone who actually used his full name, calling such people xenophobes and racists. Now the presidents seems to think that his name is a reason that one of our closest allies no longer trusts us. This is too much drama for me. He should just go back to being “Barry.”
Apollo posted this at 6:35 PM EDT on Thursday, July 8th, 2010 as Buffoon Watch, CHANGE!
For certainkinds of conservatives, shouting “Radical Islam!” or “Islamofascism!” is as necessary and commonplace as breathing. Though there was much to be said for this attitude in the years immediately after 9/11, I find it’s worn kind of thin lately.
To be sure, some attack is either attempted, foiled or occasionally committed a dozen times a year. But, with tremendous consistency they prove to be unimpressive, naive, or just plain stupid. Given the ease of acquiring weapons and bomb-materials in our country, it’s pretty telling that the worst attack we’ve suffered since 2001 was committed by one handgun-wielding fanatic. Clearly we have a problem with Muslim Radicals that needs diligent attention, but — as I’ve said before — if this is terrorism, I’m not very scared.
But then, I see something like the video below. Askedrepeatedly whether recent plots might have something to do with Jihad-seeking Muslims, Attorney General Eric Holder could not bring himself to give a straight answer:
Rep. Smith: Are you uncomfortable attributing any of their [terrorists] actions to radical Islam? It sounds like it.
AG Holder: No, no I don’t want to say anything negative about a religion… that’s not consistent with the teachings of it.
[...]
Rep. Smith: “Could Radical Islam have motivated these individuals to take the steps that they did?”
AG Holder: “I certainly think that it’s possible that people who espouse a radical version of Islam have had an ability to have an impact on people like Mr. Shahzad.”
Rep. Smith: Ok, could it have been the case in one of these three [terrorism] instances… could one of these three individuals have been incited by radical Islam…”
AG Holder: Well, I think potentially incited by an Islam that is inconsistent with the teachings [of Islam]…
Rep. Smith: It’s hard Mr. AG, it’s hard to get an answer yes or no [from you]…
Addendum: I couldn’t help but notice that Rep. Smith said that the “all three of the terrorist attempts in the last year” were motivated by Radical Islam. Really? The Hutaree may have been losers to the core, but at least they’re alleged to have planned an attack along the lines of what one might expect from competent terrorists (for really interesting coverage about that case, specifically, about how investigators appear to have been tipped off by other militia groups, read this with this update). And if we’re counting a depressed loser/narcissist with tangential ties to some cleric in Pakistan, is it such a stretch to count Andrew Stack, the Austin Plane Attacker? For the record, I’m by no means saying that either of these were Tea Party-inspired, or any such nonsense.
Though I must say it’s remarkable that a former Dean of Harvard Law School has such a paltry paper trail. Souter was a nobody state court judge, so it’s understandable that no one knew what he really thought. Kagan, though, held perhaps the single most prestigious position in legal academia.
Whether or not I have the wish I wish tonight, I don’t think liberals are going to be happy with this in the long-term. With Sotomayor, they got someone who has never shown signs of being able to duel with the best legal thinkers. With Kagan, they got someone who has never shown inclinations to dueling, period. Someone who can’t beat Scalia, and someone who won’t (and perhaps can’t).
I can look at W.’s SCOTUS picks and be happy. John Roberts is an extraordinary judge; thinking back over the justices I’m familiar with, I can’t name a better writer since John Marshall himself. The clarity and simplicity of the Chief’s opinions is a thing of beauty. Sam Alito suffers from being in Roberts’s shadow, but he’s an above average justice who is consistently right and who has the courage of his convictions.
I have serious doubts that in five years Obama supporters will look at Sotomayor and Kagan with the same contentment.
Let me start by saying this is silly and counterproductive. Whatever criticisms may or may not exist regarding Obama’s failure to produce a birth certificate, his mother was an American citizen, so he is an American citizen. The notion of excluding from the presidency Americans born overseas, such as George Meade or John McCain, is stupid.
Nonetheless, I find it very, very hard to disagree with this:
[There is a subset of birthers] where I would put myself – a person:
1) who wonders why it is so difficult for Obama to provide an actual Birth Certificate; and
2) who sees a connection between the lack of details and secrecy regarding Obama’s birth and the lack of details and secrecy about so much else of Obama’s life – his connections to Ayers, his grades in college, the papers he published, the lectures he taught, etc.
I don’t think Obama was born in Kenya or any other place other than Hawaii.
But I find it outrageous and ridiculous that we know more about Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber than we know about Obama.
There was an effort during the 2008 campaign to hide and misrepresent parts of Obama’s life. I have a feeling that in 2012, those who raise questions about unaccounted for periods of his pre-presidential life will be asked, “Why didn’t you ask that in 2008?” Of course, we did. Of course, we didn’t get answers. And, of course, the next time these questions are relevant we’ll simply be told that they’re old news, or somesuch.
Obviously, Obama didn’t produce a birth certificate in 2008 because he wanted to let his detractors continue on like rabid dogs and make fools of themselves. In the words of Borat, “Great success!” But the real story behind that is that the same news media who dared to ask who Trig’s real mother was is perfectly content with the “other-people-say-it’s-so-so-it’s-so” story from the Obama camp.In a world where journalists were actually curious quesiton-askers, instead of partisan ass-kissers, every reporter for every paper in the land would be a birther to one degree or another.
I’m always impressed – though never surprised - at how little Barry understands himself or his office. A person of normal self-awareness should know that this sort of crap does absolutely nothing but demean him. I mean, sure, no one ever said that Sarah Palin was an expert on nuclear weapons. But no one ever said Barry was an expert on nuclear weapons either. Is he not aware that that’s the correct and blazingly obvious response to his jackass commentary?
She’s a citizen with an opinion, and if his best response to her is pointing out that she’s not an expert – not that she’s wrong, merely that she’s not an expert – that’s weak. Really, genuinely, effing weak. And that he think it’s appropriate for the president to run off at the mouth in this manner is a shame.
If I had artistic license to to summarize American leftist utopian politics with a single story, it would look an awful lot like this.
The endless rambling, the inability to limit his answer to a single point, the ultimate refusal (or inability) to answer the initial question, the obliviousness to the audience, the preachy tone on far ranging and largely irrelevant subjects – this guy is nothing more than a well-meaning professor who has, through a set of circumstances that would make Oedipus tilt his head sideways, managed to get himself in way, way above his head.
Since he became a major figure in the 2008 (really, 2007) Democrat primaries, I’ve maintained that I know this man forwards and backwards. He’s the leftist college professor who never personally espouses views in front of his class, but merely informs them that even the most moon-bat crazy leftist has a valid point.
But now he can’t merely be the professor advising students of the views of others. The passage of healthcare means that he must actually defend his own position.* This is something that is completely alien to him, and something, ultimately, he cannot do. He cannot comprehend the minds of those who disagree with him, thus he cannot address their concerns.
Neither this speech nor this date is particularly historic. But I’m planting a marker and predicting the future from here. Increasingly, this presidency is going to be defined by long or undisciplined ramblings. When a president gives a 17-minute tangential response to a citizen’s simple observation that “We are over-taxed as it is,” it is not evidence of a well-ordered mind, but rather the sign of bad things to come.
*I hardly think the Obamacare that passed much resembled the Obamacare that Obama might have crafted on his own. He’s stated before, in fairly stark terms, that he’s a single-payer kind of guy. It is genuinely ironic, in the truest sense of the term, that a popular president elected on a particular health care platform is going to get destroyed because he has to defend the Scheissewurst that eventually emerged from the Congressional Sausage Works.
In what sort of bizarro world does it make sense that a popularly elected president and Congress need to “sell” a trillion-dollar society-altering law they’ve already passed?
Also, it’s neat that the president, after spending a year telling us that we need this law NOW NOW NOW NOW!!!!!!! is now entering “it’s-only-a-first-step” mode. Not only has change come to America, change will come to America again, and, presumably, change the change that’s already changed us. When he signed the law, he said, “This is what change looks like.” But I guess now it’s what the status quo looks like, and whatever it is that he wants to do next will be “what change looks like.” Those who thought George Bush to be a foundationless dunderpate and saw Obama as our coming Philosopher President should take note.
Is when thousands of college kids cheer the president’s promise that insurance companies will be forced to allow them to stay on their parents’ plans:
And since you’ve been hearing a whole bunch of nonsense, let’s just be clear on what exactly the proposal that they’re going to vote on in a couple of days will do. It’s going to — it’s going to change health care in three ways. Number one, we are going to end the worst practices of insurance companies. (Applause.) This is — this is a patient’s bill of rights on steroids. (Laughter.) Starting this year, thousands of uninsured Americans with preexisting conditions will be able to purchase health insurance, some for the very first time. (Applause.) Starting this year, insurance companies will be banned forever from denying coverage to children with preexisting conditions. (Applause.) Starting this year, insurance companies will be banned from dropping your coverage when you get sick. (Applause.) And they’ve been spending a lot of time weeding out people who are sick so they don’t have to pay benefits that people have already paid for. Those practices will end.
If this reform becomes law, all new insurance plans will be required to offer free preventive care to their customers. (Applause.) If you buy a new plan, there won’t be lifetime or restrictive annual limits on the amount of care you receive from your insurance companies. (Applause.) And by the way, to all the young people here today, starting this year if you don’t have insurance, all new plans will allow you to stay on your parents’ plan until you are 26 years old. (Applause.)
The already-enthused crowd literally started screaming on that last line; it was probably the loudest cheer Obama received in the entire speech and the kids sustained it for 25 seconds. It begins in this clip at 2:49:
There is nothing wrong with families helping their grown children, especially during tough economic times.* Indeed, that’s much of the point of family, and most people do so with the expectation that they’ll do the same for their kids some day.
But taking your parents’ charity — like living in their basement — is not something to be proud of, let alone positively excited about. I can’t imagine any conceivable circumstance where a college-aged Tom (and, believe me, that kid had a sense of entitlement that frightens me today) would applaud the opportunity to remain dependent on his parents through his 26th year, let alone cheering a government mandate that a third party be required to allow him to do so.
* Having considered it at one point myself, I’m also cognizant that many families would arrange for the kids to write their parents a check each month to be on their plan. But even so, isn’t it pathetic that even after under the greatest, bestest, awesomest health care reform package in history, this kind of ridiculousness will still be necessary?