Karl Rove, in critiquing the president’s first 100 days in office and his penchant for outsourcing his agenda’s details to Congressional Democrats, writes:
The stimulus bill turned into a liberal spending wish list that will retard, not hasten, recovery. Already, with mounting job losses the gap between the 3.675 million jobs he said he would create or protect in his first two years and the number of actual jobs in the economy has risen to nearly five million. Reaching his job target now requires creating 249,400 new jobs a month for the next 20 months. Democrats will not fare well in next year’s elections if there is a yawning Obama “job gap.”
That’s always the rub with the Keynesian schemes — they don’t work. Usually “the problem” is that the economy bounces back before the money gets spent so the government spending is, in essence, a wasted effort. Obama, having boldly declared a trillion dollar (interest included) boondoggle to be the solution to our woes, now claims responsibility for its results. With the “job gap” widening as unemployment creeps ever higher, GDP contracting at an alarming rate and his toxic bank clean-up plan still up in the air, the recovery seems a long way off. And if you had any doubt, Larry Summers himself told us this was the case.
And if we don’t experience a robust recovery, including dramatic reduction in unemployment, who will the voters blame? Goerge W. Bush is a distant memory. The Republican Party can’t be blamed because they said, well, “no.” So we return to the president and Congress who spent a few weeks cobbling together a pork-a-thon and, the rest of the year on items not related to job growth or economic recovery. In fact, most of the projects Democrats have pursued may retard recovery even further with a bevy of new employer mandates and regulatory schemes.
We are told the president is a very good salesman. I suspect his skills will soon be put to the test.
“the Irving Kristol Award,” I thought i was going to win that
I like Charles Murray. And, since he tested his hypothesis that blacks aren’t all that bright; I’d say he has a prejudice, now.
While the right has gone full speed ahead on their dislike for the president. Out early, with Rush’s statement, that he hopes Obama fails.
Sad stuff, in better times most people go along with whoever gets picked. So? My point is the GOP is onto something; or like the south of old, who couldn’t stomach Lincoln, they’re out early because they’ve got belly fulls of hate.
This stuff should show up on intelligence testing. But probably doesn’t.
oh the bell curve guy? I saw him on CSPAN this weekend it was good. from “freedomfest”. he said something I really agree with was that most college degrees mean nothing except that you were relatively bright enough to make it to graduation.
Carol, your notion that people went along with whoever was picked is laughable. Unless you were in deep isolation this last 8 1/2 years you might have noticed that the people’s pick was not accepted – to say the least- by the democrat party.
As to the racism charge, we just want liberty- liberty for everyone. Liberty to be whoever it is they can best be or not, as THEY chose.
The demnad for equal results in all fields by all groups has proven insupportable. AsLincoln is reputed to have said: “You can’t pull the man on the bottom up by pulling the man on the top down.”.
Carol: Many of us on the right were actually pleased when he won. The pride in Chicago was palpable, and his election promised to at long last really heal much of the racial rift here. His pre inauguration persona was centrist and inclusive. He made appearances with centrists like Larry Summers and his tone was encouraging. I think most of us right wingers you are so disgusted with actually gave Obama the benefit of the doubt.
His inauguration speach told a different story. He was not gracious. He was smug and arrogant and triumphal. His policies have been anything but centrist, and are totally lacking in any sense of compromise whith those of us who shudder at charging our kids with mountains of wasteful and counter productive pork projects.
Obama is emerging as an utterly paritisan politician who hides behind the rhetoric of careing.
His policies will fail, and we understand that the damage he is causing will be very difficult to repair.
Murray is an Aristotelian, through and through. Among the benefits of reading his work is that it all points back to Aristotle’s Ethics and Politics, as does the science he mentions in his talk.
All he did for the “Bell curve” is compile statistics. Numbers are racist?
#7: Numbers, I might add, that have been supported through rigorous followup research by others (such as Douglas K. Detterman et. al.). The problem the mainstream media and liberals in general had with “The Bell Curve” is that it painted a disquieting picture–one that challenged the deeply-held, if wrong-headed, belief that equal opportunity is synonymous with equal results.
One additional observation: Although some observers took issue with Herrnstein and Murray’s scientific methods, the underlying assumptions of the book were never challenged by the scientific community at large. Since the president is such a big fan of science (as his recent remarks on stem cell research attest), maybe he will reopen the debate on whether blacks ought to take more responsibility for their comparatively low test scores. And maybe pigs will fly.
Carol Herman, I’ve tried reading your post three times and for the life of me, I cannot understand what you are trying to say. Would it be possible for you to write in complete sentences?
“All he did for the “Bell curve” is compile statistics. Numbers are racist?”
it’s true – no one ever twisted the truth using statistics…
Carol Herman,
I watched very carefully the Hannity Show on which Rush Limbaugh appeared. His statement was that he wanted Obama’s socialist policies to fail. His words have been disingenuously twisted to say something totally different by the MSM and almost every liberal who comments on his statement. You liberals really need to learn how to listen and read; the whole country would be much better off if you did. Of course, if you read and listened well, you would have to become conservatives.
Hi Carol Hermann,
Good to see you posting on Contentions. Giving the government, including the president, a blank check is not what democracy is about. Effective and efficient democracy requires dialogue, debate and conflict. Unfortunately, the current president and the Democratic party has shown themselves to be adverse to debate and discusssion. We just had a trillion dollar spending bill passed that no single person had read in it’s entirety. The American public was deliberately denied the opportunity to read and comment on a massive spending bill that will affect every American for generations to come. That’s neither good governance nor democratic. It was bad policy, and it is approprate for citizens to be concerned and highly critical of such heavy-haned and irresponsible actions.
Likewise, President Obama has pursued a course of action vis a vis the Mexico City policy that will directly cause the death of innocent children, and it will force the rest of us to participate by funding his international pro-abortion agenda. Should Americans with so much as an ounce of compassion and decency speak out against killing children, or should they give President Obama a honeymoon, regardless of how cruel his policies are?
There is nothing in the constitution about honeymoon periods. Mr. Obama has lied to the American public, and has acted with extreme irresponsibility and disregard for human life. His actions undermine democracy, and are in some cases, are an affront to human decency.
Loyal citizens have a right and a duty to object to bad policy and unethical behavior by Mr. Obama. It’s not a matter of hate, it’s a matter of responsibility and ethics.
FWIW, Murray’s main complaint has been that meritocratic college admissions have fostered a genetic/economic/social caste system in the US by skimming off high achievers and segregating them from the rest of the population. I would add, by f*cking up their vaunted intellects in the process. Hey, isn’t that kind of like what the Germans tried to do to Poland?
I’m confused. Didn’t Charles Murray come out for Obama before the election last year? I remember reading it on National Review Online. How does that fit with his speech?!
Alix, I don’t recall seeing that Murray endorsed Obama. He did have nice things to say about Obama’s speech on race a year ago – perhaps that’s what you’re thinking of?
Even if were true, then it would only prove that Mr. Murray is both intelligent enough and big enough to own up to his mistakes – and correct them. That’s a rare combination of qualities these days, wouldn’t you think?
Paul M.
Oops. You are right. I just Googled it (I didn’t think to do it before) and it was the speech about race that Murray had posted positively about. And then I read ithe post and he said he could never vote for him but like the speech. Thanks!
#2 To see a real belly full of hate, google “Bush: Wanted Poster” or images of “Bush Chimp”.
This ship has already sailed.
“we place different weight on the bearing that “nature” v. “nurture” has on educational achievement”
Klugman had an interesting column on Europe today and concluded that the Euro might prove to have been a bad idea.
But I think Murray may be wrong about the social democrats. They are more aware than we of Europe’s continued weakness for right radicals. They are afraid of the disgruntled unemployed, a time when money turns worthless and people turn desperate. Against that danger they have built up a social welfare state. As a lesser of two evils I much prefer that.