Friday, December 09, 2011

The leadership portion of this Presidency is now complete

Obama revealed more than he realized in his Kansas speech this past week, full of florid language, ping-pong teleprompter scanning, and class warfare.  I think a lot of Americans are going to realize that it's all politics and demagoguery from here on out and there won't be a single decision from this White House that doesn't focus on the 2012 election.  The bankruptcy of Obama's Administration can be seen in the paucity of the "solutions" he proposes when he's not bashing the rich.

Here's Charles Krauthammer in the WashPost with "Obama's campaign for class resentment":
As is his solution, that old perennial: selective abolition of the Bush tax cuts. As if all that ails us, all that keeps the economy from humming and the middle class from advancing, is a 4.6-point hike in marginal tax rates for the rich.
This, in a country $15 trillion in debt with out-of-control entitlements systematically starving every other national need. This obsession with a sock-it-to-the-rich tax hike that, at most, would have reduced this year’s deficit from $1.30 trillion to $1.22 trillion is the classic reflex of reactionary liberalism — anything to avoid addressing the underlying structural problems, which would require modernizing the totemic programs of the New Deal and Great Society.
Michael Barone hits the same note with "Obama's thin gruel at Osawatomie":
But what’s really staggering is the weakness of his public policy arguments. The long-term unsustainability of our entitlement programs he blames solely on the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts—an explanation no serious observer regards as anything but incomplete, to say the least. He points to growing income inequality and to remedy it advocates policies that are utterly inadequate to the task.
But let's imagine for a moment that gathering an extra $80 billion a year from the rich - hell, let's just make it $800 billion - is a feasible proposition.  It still wouldn't cover a single year of borrowing (never mind overall spending) and does nothing whatsoever to address the real drivers of our debt.

Oh, and one other thing: when exactly did Obama have this revelation that we could just raise taxes on the upper crust and everything would be cool?  It never, ever, occurred to him during the first two years of his Presidency when he could have passed any old tax hike he wanted without fear of a filibuster.  The Democratically-controlled Congress could have pushed through any budget they wanted.  But that would have involved choices and numbers on a piece of paper.  Coincidentally, the drive to raise taxes only started after Republicans took back control of the House and gained in the Senate, largely on the anti-deficit revulsion of the country manifested in the Tea Party.

Ah, then - finally - Obama had his devil.  There's no need for budgets, or fiscal restraint, or even solutions that make any kind of mathematically sense: just stir that pot of class resentment.  This is now a failure of leadership compounded by a failure of character.

Extra - From Ace.

More - Zero Hedge: "It was deceitful, inaccurate, revisionist, and demagogic."


The most shocking "no leadership" post yet! said...

Why... he's more monster than man!!!

Anonymous said...

Don't know about monster, but he is demonstrably an incompetent demagogue, and demonstrably includes the word demon.

Anonymous said...

It also includes the word "emo," like the pouty Republicans who boo-hoo-hoo that Obama actually intends to beat them.

Anonymous said...

"that Obama actually intends to beat them."

Yes, just like he "intended" to cut the deficit in half by the third year. His intentions are like farts in the wind...only the smell lingers longer.

Anonymous said...

Obama's going to win, and it burns you up.

Worse yet, he's going to win by (gasp) "playing politics."

Anonymous said...

Oh, he could certainly win reelection. I don't think he will win, and I would be very disappointed if he did. It's pretty obvious that he is in serious trouble at this point, and I think many Americans have turned a deaf ear to his rhetorical "politics." You are correct that he is going to try to win by "playing politics." It's all he's got left. He sure as hell can't run on accomplishments, competency, or broad appeal.

Anonymous said...

The optimism of the right will taste even sweeter in 2012 than it did in 2008.

"If we win, the true voice of America has spoken. But if we somehow, impossibly, lose, it's because Obama tricked all the people who are too dumb to understand that the man has no leadership, accomplishments, competency and broad appeal. And ACORN."

Anonymous said...

Well, your last comment is really just a delusional idea of how "the right" thinks. For example, I think the true voice of America spoke when we elected Obama. He was mostly a blank canvas, as many have noted, and the American people were eager for a fresh, new, and creative voice that would put action to their hopes and dreams. Unfortunately, the reality turned out to be possibly the most inept Administration of my lifetime(55 years), and a man who has proven himself completely unprepared for the office or its responsibilities. As I said, he could win reelection if the person Republicans choose to run against him isn't acceptable to a majority of voters, but you are kidding yourself if you think it will because of any demonstrated competency on his part.

Anonymous said...

No one over the age of 2 1/2 can honestly make the statement that Barack Obama has led the most inept administration of their lifetime.

Anonymous said...

I beg to differ. Netanyahu visits, they make a mess of it. Prime Minister Brown visits, they make a complete mess out of it. They bungle simple announcements, foreign protocol, social events, and so on. They leave President Obama poorly prepared for minor appearances, and more important ones. They unnecessarily create conflict and resistance with supposed bargaining partners. Even the Carter Administration didn't screw up everyday administrative processes--at least, not to this degree. So, I can confidently state that I have never seen a more inept Administration in my lifetime, and I find it VERY surprising, given how efficient and effective they were during the campaign. Governing has proven to be much more difficult for this bunch.

Anonymous said...

What a vaporous list of vague "missteps" and "bungles." For which President was governing easier than campaigning? For which President was there no "resistance" in trade?

Translation: Obama does some things that are in opposition to my political preferences.

Taraton said...

Barack Obama gives Gordon Brown a stack of DVDs; Bush takes five while New Orleans dog-paddles. "Most inept in living memory" is a terrible premise when you only have to go back one administration to disprove it.