Posts Tagged Obama

The Spin is (Still)Making Me Nauseous


When I first saw the Time cover depicting then President-elect Obama as the second coming of FDR, my immediate reaction –nausea—was based on the unabashed and absolute adoration that the mainstream media had been heaping on him throughout the campaign.  As I thought about it, however, my disgust deepened with the realization at how very clever the spin was–it went much deeper than the top hat, sharp suit and classic convertible. It was Time’s capitalization on the fact that so many Americans are misinformed about FDR and his role in the end of the Great Depression. His domestic policies in that dire situation helped ease some of the pain, but it was America’s participation in WWII that pulled us back from the precipice and heralded in a golden age. For the War, as horrifying as it was, put Americans back to work;  the urgency created by a very real threat of world domination by the Nazis  brought out the best in American innovation and transformed the U.S. into a global super power in just four years. But many Americans don’t know this; they associate FDR, not with his socialist leanings, but with his charisma and beautifully eloquent wartime speeches that accompanied America’s return to prosperity and victory. And Time capitalized on this ignorance to keep Obama on the pedestal.

I truly believe that Barack Obama would not have been elected had the American voter paid more attention to the implications of what he was saying (and not saying) on the campaign trail, and less attention to the sycophantic “journalists” who abandoned the last shred of impartiality to push their progressive agenda.  That was the landscape that made us ripe for that 2008 issue of Time.  Now, two years later, the bloom is off the rose and even the media was not able to save Obama from a well-deserved shellacking. But the spin doctors have already come up with an even more nauseating response. They are now comparing Obama to his ideological (and highly successful) antithesis: Ronald Reagan. And there is evidence that many people are swallowing this bunk.

And the bunk has gone global. The Council on Foreign Affairs newsletter has published an article entitled The Gorbachev Predicament, in which its author, University of Amsterdam professor Artemy Kalinovsky, compares the leadership style of Barack Obama with that of Mikhail Gorbachev. The two men, he writes, are “conciliatory by nature”. Obama, conciliatory? Until a few months ago, he was focused only on ramming his progressive agenda down everyone’s throat.  It was only after he saw his chances for a second term going up in smoke that he showed any willingness to compromise.  

But that aside, one might ask how Kalinovsky compares Obama and Gorbachev without drawing parallels between this country and the U.S.S.R. Answer: he doesn’t.  “Both Obama and Gorbachev came to power because there was a broad domestic consensus for change, and their initial appeal was based in part on their ability to attract support across the political spectrum.”  A broad domestic consensus for change? He is comparing a socialist totalitarian society that had kept people in shackles (ideologically, physically, and financially) for generations, with Americans who were sick of President Bush (whose unpopularity, I might add, had much to do with eight years of negative press by the same media mentioned above).  The people of the U.S.S.R. knew what change they wanted: freedom; Americans didn’t know what they wanted, and so they fell for the nebulous “Change You Can Believe In.”

At the end of the article, Kalinovsky grudgingly acknowledges that “Even with all its problems, the U.S. today is not the Soviet Union of 1987.” Really? Thanks for letting us know. Perhaps he should be telling that to his leftist friends, because if they had their way we would soon be waiting in line for toilet paper.

And if I get any more nauseous, I’m going to need a compazine.


, , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Journalists Tell Obama to Put His Money Where his MouthWas (in 2008)

“I’d rather be a really good one-term president,” Barack Obama once said in an interview with Diane Sawyer, “than a mediocre two-term president.” Well, those words are now coming back to haunt him in the form of a Washington Post Op-Ed.

Post contributors Douglas E. Shoen and Patrick H. Cadell (Democrats who worked for Presidents Carter and Clinton, respectively) have called on President Obama to announce “immediately” that he will not be running for re-election in 2010.

Citing Obama’s floundering on how he wants to govern and the “shellacking” the president and his cronies took in the midterm elections, Shoen and Cadell write that the only way Obama can make good on his campaign promises to end bipartisanship and bring real “change” to Washington is to put the country’s future above his own political and personal gain. It’s a novel idea for most politicians, let alone one who was once touted as a modern-day Messiah, and Schoen and Cadell make an excellent case for it. Of course, others could make an even better case for him resigning now, but that another story.

In the meantime, commentators across the pond are weighing on the “symbiotic” relationship between Obama and George W. Bush. “There could have been no Obama without Bush,” Toby Harnden argues in the Telegraph” and only Obama’s stumbles could have made Bush look good again so quickly.” The implications of Harnden’s statement are huge, that in effect Obama was never all that great and that he was propelled to stardom, not due to his own merits, but to the shortcomings of someone else. Indeed, much of Obama’s shortcomings (his lack of experience, his socialist leanings, to name a few) were overlooked because so many people wanted someone other than Bush. Of course, a big part of both the global hatred of Bush and adoration of Obama was the result of  media spin, so it’s sweet irony that now that same media is turning the tables.

, , , , ,

Leave a comment

After Election Day Massacre, Dems Shift to Avoid Further Bloodshed

It hasn’t even been two weeks since the midterm elections, but already the winds of change are blowing across the Capitol. And it’s not just the Republicans who are shaking things up; Democrats are chipping away at their own agenda after watching voters come out in droves to break the liberal chokehold on our Congress.  And they are beginning, thank God, with ObamaCare.

According the Hill’s Healthcare blog http:// Democratic Senator and Finance Committee Chair Max Baucus is calling for the repeal of a healthcare law provision that shackles small businesses with additional 1099 filing requirements. To Baucus’ credit, he had tried before to scale back the provision, but his efforts–along with those of Republican Mike Johanns of Nebraska and Florida Democrat  Bill Nelson–were shot down by the more liberal Dems who had no inclination to comprise.  

Now that so many of their brethren have been handed their walking papers by the American people, they are singing a different tune.  Obama called the measure “probably counterproductive”, and even Nancy Pelosi stated that this one of the few aspects of the healthcare law on which both parties could agree. Maybe they should have spent more time a) reading the bill and b) listening to others before rammining the whole thing down everyone’s throats.

Baucus’ announcement has come not a moment too soon. The article below, which was published by the Patriot Post on October 15, outlines the liberals’ plan to expand the 1099 requirements to include individuals who own rental property.

Will Rental Property Owners Have to Fill Out 1099s?

While many of us are still scratching our heads as to how the innocuous-sounding Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (a.k.a., ObamaCare) was passed, Congress is trying to add yet more layers of bureaucracy that will separate us from our freedom and our money. Congress has handed Barack Obama the Small Business Jobs and Credit Act, which expands the reporting requirements on IRS form 1099 to include individuals who own rental property. Currently, ObamaCare mandates that small businesses file a 1099-MISC for goods valued at over $600. Under the new bill, property owners would be considered to be “engaging in business” and as such would be required to report any goods or services — valued at over $600 in a 12-month period — associated with the property.

This may sound simple, but for the 10 million Americans affected, it will be anything but. Ryan Ellis of Americans for Taxpayer Reform illustrated it perfectly: “So imagine that you’re renting out your starter condo. You pay a property manager, a plumber, a repairman, a locksmith, a condo association, etc. Imagine having to get a taxpayer identification number, order 1099-MISCs from the IRS, fill them out by hand, keep a copy for yourself, send a copy to each payee (from whom you had to get a tax ID number and other information), and then finally take your legitimate rental deduction. Then the IRS finds some hiccup somewhere, and you get audited — all to placate an insane Congress.”

, , , , ,

Leave a comment

%d bloggers like this: