Barack Obama ushered in America’s first large-scale experiment in personality-cult politics. The experiment continues apace. Obama got reelected because he enjoys a degree of personal popularity disconnected from his record. No modern president has ever been returned to office with employment figures and right-track-wrong-track numbers as poor as those Obama has achieved.
Obama couldn’t run on his record, which proved to be no problem—Americans didn’t vote on his record. According to exit polls, 77 percent of voters said the economy is bad and only 25 percent said they’re better off than they were four years ago. But since six in ten voters claimed the economy as their number one issue, it’s clear this election wasn’t about issues at all.
The president’s reelection is not evidence of a new liberal America, but rather of the illogical and confused experience that is infatuation. For multiple reasons, Americans continue to have a crush on Barack Obama even after his universally panned first term. No longer quite head over heels, they’re at the “I know he’s no good for me, but I can change him” phase. Whatever this means, it surely doesn’t suggest conservatives would be wise to move closer to policies that aren’t even popular among Obama supporters.
Why isn’t soul searching underway on the left? When the personality at the center of the cult leaves the stage in four years, Democrats will own his results without the benefit of his appeal. We can’t know quite what a second Obama term will bring, but if his first term is an indication, there’s little reason to expect his party will be crowing. The fiscal cliff is here but a whole landscape of steep drops comes next: the economic cliff (over which lies a possible double-dip recession), the Obamacare cliff (over which lies an unprecedented bureaucratic behemoth), the Iran cliff (over which lies a nuclear bomb), and so on. A precipice in every direction and a president who’s given us no reason to presume he can steer clear. Have Democrats stopped to wonder what initiatives they’ll have to defend when the dust settles in 2016?
Already Obama has signaled he’s continuing policies that don’t meet the moment. There’s the assurance of more taxes, of course. But that’s not all. On Friday, citing ecological concerns, the administration closed off 1.6 million acres of federal land in western states from planned oil shale extraction. An American energy boom lies in wait underground and Obama is determined to keep it there. Abroad, the groundwork is being laid to offer Iran a fanciful “grand bargain” in an effort to halt its work on a nuclear weapon. Think “Russian reset” with fanatical theocrats.
Perhaps Democrats are confident purely because of their stance on social issues. But as a tactical matter (principle and ideology are a different question), is doesn’t make sense for Republicans to fret over the culture and identity wars that have transfixed the left. Gay marriage as a presidential issue is off the table. The November election showed the future of that question lives at the state level, which is both a popular and conservative approach. Obama himself has said he’ll do nothing about it nationally. Multiple polls taken this year show opposition to abortion is at least as high as it’s been in 15 years. By 2016, the new class war will surely have wound down after Americans see that making the “rich pay their fare share” didn’t solve everyone else’s problems and in fact created new ones.
On immigration reform, of course conservatives should act. That was true before Obama’s reelection; it’s now inevitable. In the next four years, serious Republicans will offer policies aiming to give foreign workers a path to citizenship. Leaders like Marco Rubio have already gotten a brilliant head start.
It is in the nature of personality cults to fail at most things beyond generating and disseminating propaganda. This inability is the result of two things. First, the personality’s popularity is not results-driven. Since adoration hasn’t been earned by achievement but by the advent of charisma, why kill yourself trying to get results. Second, few people are willing to candidly critique the personality at the center of the cult, so there is little chance of course correction. None of this bodes well for Barack Obama. And for the country’s sake, let’s hope it’s wrong.
To effect a revolution in American politics, you have to set parameters that successors will be compelled to heed. FDR implemented programs that at least produced identifiable results before revealing their unsustainable flaws. Bill Clinton had no problem declaring the age of big government over because Ronald Reagan had ushered in a prosperous era in which this was so. What part of the Obama agenda will resonate when isolated from the Obama phenomenon? It’s too soon to say, but not too soon wonder.
Speaking of soul searching, since John went public in a lengthy post about an internal matter, and a number of interesting responses followed, why has the "administrator" stopped further comments?
Erased mine.
Censorship at Commentary. Hey, Podhoretz is the big cheese over there, isn't he?
Commenting Disabled nFurther commenting on this page has been disabled by the blog admin. n nAbove copied and pasted. Such chutzpah!
David, I would like to reply to your comment, but……… I would on this thread, but I'm afraid the "administrator" would cut off responses here and therefore deny others the opportunity to discuss Abe's post. I do wish someone in the office would explain such an abrupt decision.
Strange sheet Commentary Always was. Back in the day, I thought Commentary's hostility to gays was part of its hostility toward Martin Peretz and TNR. TNR was the Washington branch of the Mattachine society in those days. But I'm dating myself…
The literary confusion was even worse than the gender confusion. Commentary carried good non-fiction reviews but that was the extent of it. The only fiction to be found in Commentary were short stories by a guy named Epstein. James or Jason or somesuch. Always assumed he was Norman Podhoretz's brother in law.
The election results were about one thing and one thing only: What the media want the media will get so long as their pursuit of what they want is concerted and goes on long enough. n nTHAT is the sort of country we live in today. THAT is much more frightening than a polarized electorate or a conflict between takers and makers. Issues don't matter at all, only opinions; and the only opinions that matter are those of the press, television, and film. If those opinions approach uniformity and continue that way long enough, the media can elect ANYONE. n nThe SOLE corrective to the problem is an adequately educated electorate. n nTHAT's what's even scarier.
sound analysis but the mainstream will overeach one of these days and we will finally put the last coffin in ther freedom of the press. Abe is on to something,of course. And again, nowhere do i see the mention of the obvious:many voters were just not goign to deny a second term to an african-american.
I had hoped (and assumed) that this would be that election. *sigh*
"Abe is on to something, of course." n nYes, of course, but he's also caught up in too much superfluous detail. To speak of a "personality cult" or a "cult of celebrity" without pointing to those influences that are daily engaged in creating the cult, by which of course I mean the media, is seriously confused. n nWe have seen personality cults aplenty before 2012: Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, Kim, Ceausescu, Castro, Chavez. Many, many different cultures, various ideologies, but just one thing in common: control over the media, who get to portray the Dear Leader or Der Führer or El Maximo Jefe for the public as well as instruct it in the proper sentiments to exhibit towards him and his opponents. n nHere in the USA, the opinion of the media is approaching monolithic status. Without having had to give it much thought really, members of the media across the journalistic spectrum, from cable news to broadcast news to film and entertainment reliably trumpeted every Obama success no matter how trivial or inconsequential, all but ignored every Obama failure no matter how serious or comprehensive, and applied exactly the opposite standards to Mitt Romney. They executed the same tactics, broadly speaking, for Democratic and against Republican candidates across the board. n nThe truly execrable Howell Raines, late of the New York Times, called the media strategy I'm describing "flooding the zone": run story after story after story, even if it means defying journalistic common sense and sound practice, attacking Republicans or praising Democrats, and you will get the political result you seek. But you must have the intestinal fortitude—or sufficient shamelessness—to keep at it long enough. n nAbu Ghraib is a fine and instructive example, the Plame affair another. In Abu Ghraib we had a story—a non-story really—that was not even the result of hard Investigative labor. The Department of Defense uncovered the mess at the prison, and it was the Department of Defense that alerted the media, including the Times, in a press release AFTER charges had already been brought and discipline sought against the offenders and MONTHS BEFORE the Times took an interest. n nNever one to let an opportunity for sleazy, Bush-bashing "journalism" go unexploited, even one that was two months old, Raines leapt into action and ran an above-the-fold, front-page story about Abu Ghraib for 70 DAYS IN A ROW! With lots of pics, naturally. That had NEVER happened before in the history of respectable journalism—though you could probably find smelly parallels in, say, the Star or Enquirer. Imagine it: 70 days! JFK's ASSASSINATION did not get 70 consecutive days of front-page coverage in the Times. Apollo 11 didn't. Neither the Normandy landings. Not even Watergate managed to do so well (the media Machiavellis were still learning in 1972). Needless to say, a 70-day page-one story will get the attention of a heckuva lot of people, including the long dead and buried. n nIn the case of the Times, of course, there is to this day the added benefit of something called the New York Times News Service being picked up by hundreds of subscribing newspapers. Talk about leverage! The fact that ALL those clueless network and cable anchors look to the same morning paper to tell them what's news for the rest of every single day certainly doesn't hurt the cause of press uniformity one bit either. As additional stimuli to "greatness" North Korea–style, breathlessly panting in the wings are the Pulitzer people and the Peabody folks and the MacArthur Foundation "genius" grantors: kudos, cash, and yours for the taking if you are a journalist unencumbered by a lot of passé scruples about balance, fairness, and accuracy—ESPECIALLY if you are such a scribbler, in fact. n nHollywood consists of a lot of ex-New Yorkers or people with family roots in New York and has no difficulty taking its cue from print and broadcast journalists back East, so they readily got into the swing of things, churning out anti-Bush films as fast as they could, all of which lost money—But so what? Just keep on keepin' on! And besides, the reviews in the Times could be counted on to be very approving. n nNow the same claque churns out films for the president. THAT is the way one arrives at a cult of personality. THAT is how it has always been done and always will be done. Not with press releases from the DNC or, God forbid, a clear-eyed discussion of "issues." Hell no. The daily, single-minded, partisan collusion with and connivance of the media for 18 months or so, from Brian Williams to Stephen Colbert, is what is needed. n nDo not be confused by side issues like Hispanic outreach or Todd Akins or the 47% or the unemployment figures or Fast & Furious or any la-dee-frickin'-da thing you might care to mention. None of it matters a bit in this country, today, unless it matters to the media; and of course that means HOW it matters politically to the media. n nWe must all acknowledge living in a "celebrity culture," right? Well what does that mean apart from a media-driven culture, one in which a presidential election is neatly equivalent to a three-season reality-tv series? Is there a brain-dead audience available for such shows? In spades, you betcha! And remember, the winners of those "competitions" are pretty much known in advance. The producers decide who will win and who will lose. Sound familiar?
All conservatives, independents, and moderate liberals must realize one thing: the legacy media is the enemy and must be treated as such.
Two words: Andrew Breitbart. We need him more than ever, but will never see his like again.
Toooo looong, ana.
Dpnds.
The fundamental problem is too many voters are feel insulated from the negative practical consequences of bad policy. Unemployed? Get a government check! Health problem? Government will get you a doctor! Hungry? Government food! So who cares if government makes everything worse, as long as you're spared the pain of a worsening world. It's a sort of mental leprosy
"Cult of personality" Well said, ana._Again the media was able to perfect this because of the stupidity of Americans, being brough tup on American Idol and Reality Shows. The amazing thing is, it worked..
What I am looking forward to, as Obama and the Democrats guide the nation over the various cliffs as well as other fiascos less foreseen at this time, is the complete discrediting of the MSM. n nThose thoroughly dishonest scumbags are going to have, I believe, a really daunting task lying their way out of the mess they have lead our nation into – this whole personality cult is their exclusive project, complete with labeling as a racist any critic of the empty suit in the White House. n nMaybe tar and feathering will come back into vogue; that would be interesting. n
"But since six in ten voters claimed the economy as their number one issue, it’s clear this election wasn’t about issues at all." nRight, this election was about wide spread voter fraud through the Chicago Machine, pravda media and the stupidity of the American voter. nWhy would they stop now, it worked. From now on thats how its going to be, we are a banana republic.
American voters……….and he is soo cute.
Romney ran a campaign based on flawed assumptions buttressed by erroneous internal polling that it was his election to lose–accounting for the step-down after the highlight of the first debate. This may or may not be telling us something about the wider political atmosphere.
With Nobama's terrible record, it was Romney's election to lose. To win, the Repubs will have to become more of a socialist party and outspend the demos. Either way we lose. Parasites won.
Those who said they are better off than 4 years ago are getting a bigger welfare check. Parasites won.
Or more gov't money in other ways (cushy gov't jobs, no-bid contracts,…) n n
Obama won because Romney was the wrong candidate. He completely failed to explain HOW jobs are created because no one from private equity/big idea consulting understands job creation. nTENS of MILLIONS stayed home in 2012 vs 2008. nThe Dems have no bench, there is a quiet civil war going on. n nBoth parties are destroying America by the stupidest nomination process on earth. n nThe GOP keeps clinging to tax cuts and vaginal ultrasounds. nThe Dems rely on fearmongering. n nAmerica loses no matter who wins elections at the Federal level.
Mitt Romney is a Mormon. In back of their minds, many people found that too weird.
I don't mean be rude to citizens of another country, but not only may the US nomination process be the stupidest on earth, but so is the election aparatus. Weird gewgaws to take the votes, registration by party, spread-out centres where people have to be bused to and unique in the world, not having to show IDs! In Canada we go to a nearby centre at a school or a community place, show a current ID to three people at a table who check us against a registration list, pick up a ballot slip, walk over to a table, scratch a cross in a circle by the correct name, fold the sheet and hand it over to the folks at the table who stuf it into a box. When time's up, a bunch of volunteers count the ballots by hand several times and call in their results. It works well enough and cheating has never been an issue. And any citizen too lazy to register or too stupid to obtain an ID doesn't get to vote. It's better that way.
All normal people in the USA desperately want the same system you describe. Democrats refuse however and it will therefore never happen.
that's how the actual voting part is in the U.S., at least where I live in MI
Thank you, Abe. I so agree with you. I am from Europe/Germany and they are laughing about the USA election system. To accept a letter from the public service company addressed to the so-called voter as a current I.D. IS laughable. I can easily be faked. I know we have social democratic government in some countries in Europe, but at least I know the elections were honest, the people are better educated. Americans voted for "American Idol". The dumbing down of this country was successful.
Bath House Barry Odummy got re-elected because the GOP once again, brought a knife to a gunfight in the race for POTUS. With a 10% approval rating, if believe the media, the GOP held on to their large majority in the House and maintained the line in the Senate. Both the GOP and so-called GOP pundits writing or doing the talking head act on Fox, better get a clue and quit pandering to the low life filth that is the Democrats and start thinking about your own damn party for a change…. idiots.
Won't matter if Dem policies are unpopular. The barbed fish hook that is Obamacare will be set so deep into the soft flesh of the country that it will never come out, and even if Dems lose, Republican's will accept the premises of the welfare state, so Dems win even if they lose from time to time. n nPlus they may win for any number of reasons. Bad policies DO NOT make bad politics. Obama proves that very well.
It's always a pleasure to read Mr. Greenwald's postings; he's excellent, of course. But I think he makes a flawed assumption when it comes to Mr. Obama and the democrats. Mr. Greenwald takes the position that facts matter and that results matter. They don't, at least not for the democrats. What matters is winning and that is what Mr. Obama did. That Mr. Obama has achieved little (say for that well-deserved! Nobel prize) doesn't matter to his supporters. They want him and they got him. When the country suffers, and we will, democrats will simply blame republicans. Why is our energy policy a failure? It's those republicans who blocked the full effects of Mr. Obama's ideas. Why is the country in double dip recession? It's those republicans and their banker friends who would not let the democrats do more. n n(In some ways, Mr. Obama reminds me of Washington, DC, former mayor Marion Barry. Mr. Barry was a complete failure, but he blamed others, his electorate accepted that, and voted him to be mayor many times. Mr. Barry defied reason, but he did win. Witness Mr. Fenty who had accomplishments for the city; his tenure was shortened by the very people he worked so hard to help.) n nIf you listen closely, you can hear the blame game beginning, as it did during the election. This recession lingers, economic growth is anemic, why? It's all the fault of Mr. Bush, who is not in office nor did anyone follow his policies over the past four years. Yet, Mr. Bush gets the blame. n nIt takes a mature person, and a mature party, to recognize their failings, take responsibility for those failings, and change course. Our democratic friends will never do that. As long as the American electorate is pleased to hear why it is someone else's fault, even an out of power past president, that's where the democrats will lay the blame. n nI wish the democrats could see that, but since the blame game is working with the American people, they will continue that track. I don't blame the democrats, it's the fault of our electorate. n
in addition to Marion Barry, Obama might also remind us of Kwame Kilpatrick, the disagraced mayor of Detroit. all three men have something else in common you haven't mentioned that I will: they are all black men who appealed to their black constituents with a combination of in-your-face-Whitey bravado and goodies and giveaways. I am firmly convinced that Kilpatrick could be reelected in Detroit tomorrow. n nwe are witnessing the balkanization of the American electorate. it used to be e pluribus unum, but that's an outdated concept, apparently. instead of many becoming one, the one has split into many. and that's not good for America.
rulieg nYou make an excellent point. Shortly after Obama "disassociated" himself for Rev. Wright, Wright spoke before the Detroit Chapter of the NAACP. In his speech, Wright argued AGAINST Brown vs. Board of Education. He was advocating that "separate but equal" was the way to go to the NAACP, to applause! How much things have changed in 60 years! nWright's argument is that whites are still oppressing blacks and that is the ideology Obama subscribed to for 20 years. And not a single MSM outlet was interested in this. Those who pursued this approach were extremists or racists.
Obama poring over terrorist bios, weighing drone tagets, reminds me of Papa Doc Duvalier. Baron Samedi whose Tonton Macoute terrorized Haiti. Baron Samedi who cast dark spells that turned his enemies to Zombies. Baron Samedi who transformed himself into a black dog at night and stalked the streets of Port au Prince, searching for those who opposed their President. n nLike no-drama-Obama who drank a warm glass of milk, tucked himself in and snoozed soundly through the bloody cockup in Benghazi, Papa Doc was the calmest and most civil of men. To look at him you wouldn't think the long-time President of Haiti would hurt a fly.
they broke the mold with this cult figurer nas enchanting as he is to his followersr nhe is odious and repulsive to his detractorsr nr nhis secret mudra is a middle finger f*ck your nhidden in plain sight for devotees to giggle atr nr nhe cups his balls during the national anthemr nto flout our hallowed patriotic rituals of stater nr nhis followers defecate in public to honor him
“to give foreign workers a path to citizenship”r nr nthe only path illegal foreign workers should have is to a green card or deportation
After my optimistic prediction (Romney with 7 points) I've been at a loss to understand what on earth just happenned and Abe's is the first view that's starting to make sense. The other one is Australia's Professor Stave Kates, a blogger for the Quadrant Online who said that what won the election was, "The confluence of the mendicants, the envious, the abortion lobby, what I call the cohort of damaged women, and the social-sciences know-nothings …. a formidable combination." One can imagine the outburst over the "damaged women" bit. What he meant was the single woman sector of the hook-up culture to whom access to birth control, easy abortion and a cradle-to-grave Life of Julia are ideals worth wrecking one's country over.
"…I've been at a loss to understand what on earth just happenned…" n nNot me, Abe. I figure I just got old and fell out of touch. Either that or or Al Gore and Mike Bloomberg are right about global warming and America's brains have been fried.
Ha! Go with the brain-fry hypothesis, David; no one can be so out of touch and still use a computer.
Funny ain't it? Here on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, everyone is exuberant over Obama's victory. My lily white neighbors–50%+ Jewish–who live in $250K+/rm apartments in lily white prewar luxury coops are overjoyed. Likewise their Hispanic and African American doormen and porters. The Korean grocers and the Chinese restauranteurs are happy, too. Likewise the overcredentialed, overpaid and clueless young "professionals" browsing overpriced restaurant menus and quaint little shop windows on the avenues. Everyone is in a celebratory mood. n nSame joy prevails in Harvard Yard and in remodeled farmhouses and chalets in Vermont where New Yorkers move to "get away from the city" (ie African Americans and Hispanics). n nYup. Global warming. Must be.
That's some description, Dave; I can almost see it all. We need an Eisenstadt to put it to film and feed it back to the thirsty masses one day as a late-night cringe-flick. Images of waddling actuaries and skipping gaggles of Gidgets, eyes fixed on a future somewhere up and above, marching hand-in-hand with confused doormen, waiters and greengrocers. Let us know what it looks like when the barrels dry up, the bill is presented and the hangover hits…assuming you want to hang around town when that happens.
I think you meant to write "Eisenstein."
Right you are; thanks for the correction. I'll try to remember the name next time I try to pass myself off as cultured!
Romney was destroyed by Newt, Rick Santorum and others before he even got the nomination. We need to go back to smoke filled rooms.
We need to disenfranchise half the electorate who are too ignorant to be allowed to vote.
and that's the truth. the absurd loyalty tests demanded by the voters in the Republican primaries, demanding fealty to a range of things to which the ideological center of this country doesn't like or even finds abhorant, is killing the Republican Party n n"personhood at conception" "no taxing the rich more than the middle class" "we have to back Netanyahu when he's clearly full of shif about Iran" n nain't gonna cut it. n nit's going to kill any chance of abortion reform, sound fiscal policy or sensible foreign policy for America.under a Republican administration.
Well, somebody's clearly full of something about Iran, but I don't think it's Netanyahu.
Hillary will win in 2016 since she too will be a "first." n nWe are not voting with our heads, but with our hearts, or what we think is "cool." n nWhen I see talk of Jeb Bush against Hillary, it will not even be close. n nScalia needs to live until he is 92 — and only then will Republicans have another shot at the White House in 2024. n
Hillary in 2016 win is a given.
—” Why isn’t soul searching underway on the left?”–
why isn’t some searching underway at this magazine. dyspeptic and brain-dead isn’t a good combination and that’s all that this stupid little rant is.
and it’s pretty representative of the author and his product.
some third-rate hack spitting up a bilious hairball of a complaint that America had the effrontery to re-elect Obama when Greenballs says that Obama’sfirst term didn’t do enough to deserve a second.
the pisher, though, fails to figure out that the very old political adage “you can’t beat somebody with nobody” fits the situation.
as well, he can’t absorb the rather obvious truth that Obama’s centrism attracted people and the Republican Party’s drift to the far right, the inflexible far right, failed to attract Americans.
it’s America, Greenie, that interests Americans. Americans don’t care about the same things as you. Americans aren’t all interested in being Likudniks and Americans aren’t all interested in castigating every Muslim on the planet who doesn’t think that settlers smell any better than any other gang of extremists.
Americans want positive messages about America and Americans KNOW who broke the economy and KNOW that the rich folks are going to have to pony up more tax money to help repair the damage that the absurd tax cuts of the Bush admin and the incredible cost of tat disastrous war in Iraq together inflicted.
Maybe KNOWING that the Republican Party wasn’t thinking correctly meant that there was no way that they could vote along with the Republican Party.
If he's such a hack and turns out such garbarge, why is it that people will pay to read his ideas and consider yours the ravings of an anonymous, name-calling apologist for an incompetent but popular celebrity in chief?
you would pay for his piles of bile?
People buy subscriptions to Commentary. How many people buy subscriptions to Idubinsky? But it is amusing to see you to refer to someone else's writing as bile.
sorry, ahad, but buying subscriptions to Commentary is not the same as desiring to to read and pay for Abe's spew. n npeople bought subscriptions before he was brought on and ain't even a handful that would miss his third-rate churlishness. replacing him with a decent human would not be difficult n nor unwarranted.
Id (may I cal lyou Id?), someone reading your comments alongside of Abe Greenwald's might be excused for reaching a different conclusion than you as to what is bile and what is not., and as to who has and has not been ranting.
you may or you may call me dub… and I certainly respect the rights of others to disagree with my conclusionsconcerning the disrespect due Greenwald's work. n n n n
—” Why isn’t soul searching underway on the left?”– n nwhy isn’t some searching underway at this magazine. dyspeptic and brain-dead isn’t a good combination and that’s all that this stupid little rant is. n nand it’s pretty representative of the author and his product. n nperhaps a more worthy person with better and more balanced ideas should instead be employed. n nsome third-rate hack spitting up a bilious hairball of a complaint that America had the effrontery to re-elect Obama when Greenie says that Obama’s first term didn’t do enough to deserve a second. n nthe pisher, though, fails to figure out that the very old political adage “you can’t beat somebody with nobody” fits the situation. nas well, he can’t absorb the rather obvious truth that Obama’s centrism attracted people and the Republican Party’s drift to the far right, the inflexible far right, failed to attract Americans. nit’s America, Greenie, that interests Americans. Americans don’t care about the same things as you. Americans aren’t all interested in being Likudniks and Americans aren’t all interested in castigating every Muslim on the planet who doesn’t think that settlers smell any better than any other gang of extremists. n nAmericans want positive messages about America and Americans KNOW who broke the economy and KNOW that the rich folks are going to have to pony up more tax money to help repair the damage that the absurd tax cuts of the Bush admin and the incredible cost of tat disastrous war in Iraq together inflicted. n nMaybe KNOWING that the Republican Party wasn’t thinking correctly meant that there was no way that they could vote along with the Republican Party.
"Obama's centrism"! That is so crack-brained a notion, so detached from the reality of life on planet earth, advancing it immediately disqualifies anyone from culpability for serious thinking. n nNo. You must be joking. Obama centrism??? Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! That IS good. Have another quip to offer? It's still early.
Naah. Nice try, Dubs; a few minor points of interest, but Abe G's still leagues ahead of you and yours. You're reaching, looking for intellect and nobility in the smelly, vengeful OWS crowds, among the generations of the chronically lazy mooches, the abandoned yet racially loyal automatons, the soul-less snobs with calculators for brains and the insipid hook-up crowd stuck on big sugar daddy guv'mint. That Aussie, Kates, got it right in one sentence: A confluence of the mendicants, the envious, the abortion lobby, a cohort of damaged women, and the social-sciences know-nothings. It's a ruddy disaster, mate, but you won't notice until you're in it neck-deep, and then you'll never admit it to anyone anyway.
actually, he's not " …leagues ahead of you and yours." n nMine and Abe know each other and Abe ain't in Mine's league
Abe Greenwald is funny.
I'm quite far from a supporter of OWS and think them ignorant and infantile rather than noble. n nthanks for the nothing/
"Barack Obama ushered in America’s first large-scale experiment in personality-cult politics." This is hilarious coming from the same crowd that literally worships Ronald Reagan.
". . . the same crowd that literally worships Ronald Reagan." n nIt seems that you have the same cluelessness about the meaning and proper use of "literally" as Jokin' Joe Biden does. Either that or you don't understand the meaning of the word "worship."
Not to mention that even the metaphorical worship of Reagan did not start until well after he was out of office. He never claimed to be the messiah, and few of his supporters looked at him as one.
You still have a ways to go, but that's a good beginning, Dubs. A thumbs-up from me!
If anything else the Obama II regime does not and will not own its own failures. They're universally unaccountable. So if in a few years the US looks like the CCCP circa 1938 they're first ignore it, then they'll lie about it then they'll simply blame it on everyone else. Obama-ism is a utopian ideology therefore it never has to point to reality to refer to actual successes and failures.
They also will redefine "success" by saying (no matter how bad things are) that it "would have been worse". The same way they have tried to define all his current policies as a "success".
This month let the losers do the soul searching . The winners can wait until next month!
Have Democrats stopped to wonder what initiatives they’ll have to defend when the dust settles in 2016? n nAnswer: No need to ponder. It is all about celebrity. The next American Idol will be Hilary. And, by stepping out now, she can disown whatever disasters await in O's second term.
Sorry, Bush will be accused for the 8 years failures!
For the demo, better sink the economy as long as the "rich" sink with it. nThis is the definition of socialo-communism. But they both have a 2% elite controlling everything. nThe American masses have been duped by the far left. That is GREAT.
AG is incorrect. Obama is a facade, behind it the left will impose changes that could lead to irreversible damages to this country. nThe right was plain stupid. And if as the rt claims that the left is incompetent, this was one more reason to win the elections.
Whatever Obama is or isn't, one thing is for sure: Mitt Romney and the GOP did nothing to dent the personality cult the president's built for himself. Why didn't they? Because Mitt was unarguably the worst presidential candidate in living memory—a disaster, an embarrassment—in a long line of horrific Republican candidates, and because the GOP is a broken organization in need of either repair or replacement. n nObama is the president today for one reason: Because our side could not come up with a way to get rid of him! And writing articles and comments about "how bad Obama is" won't make any more difference now than it did before. And to put this in a moral perspective: because the Republicans cannot let go of their obsessions with abortion, religion and homosexuality, they find it impossible to craft dynamic, winning political campaigns in these national elections. At the state level, i.e., re: legislative and gubernatorial elections, the state organizations do well because they reflect local sentiments and ideas. But when it comes to covering a broad, national group of voters, at least half of whom are offended by some of the troglodytes who run as Republicans, that's where the trouble is. n nWe ask ourselves, rightly, why our "conservative message" isn't selling. Well, it isn't selling because that's not our message. We "sell" our objections to gay marriage and abortion and stem-cell research instead! When Romney and Ryan each blurted out his "promise" that if elected they'd run an anti-abortion White House, at that moment they lost enough female votes to ensure their defeat! As for their obnoxious prattling about religion (especially Ryan's), as a devout Jew I have this to say: keep all that to yourself, and within your family and your community. We aren't electing a "preacher in chief," rather a "commander in chief," and Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan were definitely not "commander in chief" material! n nBlaming "the other guy" for one's own mistakes and failings is easy. Looking at oneself is what's hard. That's where the solutions are however. And one can only hope that the battering of Obama will now cease. He may be many bad things, but Obama trounced our party in this election. So who's the fool—him or us?
Bravo.
Please do not pretend to be a conservative. You betrayed yourself in your comments. Fortunately, for many conservatives, your kind do not represent us. We do care about our party being pro-life and pro-marriage between a woman and a man. This is what makes us who we are. Mitt Romney lost because he is a good, God fearing man who represents everything the Left hates; hard work and personal responsibility and devotion to God and family. Sure, the media is complicit in making Obama a star, but so is the fact that this country is not " progressing" by becoming secular, but "degenerating" and soon "disintegrating" before all our eyes.
"We 'sell' our objections to gay marriage and abortion and stem-cell research instead! When Romney and Ryan each blurted out his 'promise' that if elected they'd run an anti-abortion White House, at that moment they lost enough female votes to ensure their defeat!" n nRomney's "anti-abortion White House"—your words, not Romney's, by the way—consists of supporting the position on abortion of a clear majority of Americans, namely, abortion is NOT a good thing and SHOULD be subject to regulation particularly AFTER the first trimester, all perfectly pursuant to the line laid down in Roe. Also: Abortion in the third trimester or abortion for sex selection or abortion because having a baby will bring about "mental distress" to anybody should all be banned. NOTHING about any of that, not a syllable, is extreme or off-putting except to such idiots as there are who imagine that a pregnant woman, in a condition for which she is almost always responsible, is somehow locked in mortal combat with her own offspring. Furthermore, an assertion that a position supported by a majority of Americans, and that includes a majority of American women, led to Romney's defeat is self-contradictory, to say no more. n nYou want to come down on extreme as relates to abortion? Then look at the position of the Democratic Party: abortion on demand for any reason at any time. Todd Akin is the soul of moderation by comparison. And please enlighten me, if someone as a matter of simple decency says that decapitating a child in the act of being born is murder, why should he keep it to himself? What is particularly "religious" about such a claim? n n"As a devout Jew" you act all the time, I guarantee it, on Jewish principles, among which are fairness and equality, and probably are not shy about advertising "Jewish convictions." Why on earth should you be permitted a license to "preach" your values but a believing Christian must be quiet? You take pride in NOT keeping your values "in your family and your community" but everyone else should be ashamed if they don't, is that it? Really now, that is too neatly self-serving. n nPlease, please don't tell me that your values are merely ethical and are not religiously derived. How on earth, given that for two millennia we, which would include YOU, have been living in a civilization among the founding documents of which the most influential, without doubt, is the King James Bible, how, I ask, could one EVER separate ethics from religion, in particular, ethics from Judeo-Christian religious values, in such a civilization? Or do you believe it possible to have a "view from nowhere" as so virginal an attitude has been described? n nSimply because you do not go about chanting Hebrew prayers in public does not mean you are immune to the charge of imposing your religion on others if, as a matter of law, you propose to "let a woman choose." Placing a value on uninhibited choice is a METAPHYSICAL proposition, not a scientific one; neither is it uncontroversial. That means, of course, that any value that may actually inhere in such a choice is grounded in the SAME human potential as religion is: the capacity to make moral judgments. Moreover, unrestricted choice is certainly not equivalent in simple-minded fashion to an "American" value. To assert otherwise is to beg the question. n nWhen a confessing Catholic opposes abortion it is NOT because of the doctrines of Transubstantiation or Purgatory. No one is being asked to accept those beliefs, peculiar to Roman Catholicism, before opposing a so-called right to choose. Opposition to such an absurdly vague and open-ended "right" can readily be advanced purely on the grounds of simple human decency, not to mention sound policy, without so much as having to mention the Augsburg Confession. n nThat is possibly why a majority of Americans of all religions, including no religion at all, AGREE with Mitt Romney's stand on restricting abortions, so it is little short of slander, not to mention a very smelly red herring, to chalk up to religious fanaticism what is in reality a public-policy position with which you may disagree. And here's something you really will find "obnoxious": Good people will oppose abortion on religious grounds AND for good reason even when YOU disagree VERY STRONGLY, stand on your chair, and wave your arms wildly! Your passions are your own, and no one who demurs much cares. n nRomney's positions on abortion are not part and parcel of the crazy movie fantasies of your imagination in which you will be forced to convert to Christianity or something. Such feverish imaginings, I have had ample reason to discover, are as often as not the paranoid droppings of an anti-Christian bigot.
In fairness to Blackparrot, by advocating choice, he IS suppressing his Jewish principles. Nothing in the Jewish religion supports the idea of free choice in matters of abortion. When he talks about leaving one's religious values at home on this issue, he is being perfectly consistent. Jewish religious values would permit abortion only for the purpose of preventing death or severe permanent harm to the mother, from the moment of conception until either the head or the major part of the baby (in the case of a breach birth) has emerged.
"Nothing in the Jewish religion supports the idea of free choice in matters of abortion." n nI believe a fair number of Jews belonging to Conservative and Reformed congregations would disagree with you. Have you ever read a magazine called Tikkun? n nIn any case, unless you are a radical Utilitarian (though even there the issue is not a settled one), to advocate a woman's unencumbered right to choose is to advocate a value, and not, as I was at pains to point out, a scientific one either. It is a metaphysical statement about what is good, as are most religious claims. Therefore no particular censure should fall on anyone who advocates the opposite on religious grounds, and especially when explicitly religious reasons for opposing abortion are not NECESSARY in opposing it.
Andamessa, I'm sorry to say that I have read Tikkun, and it is an hour of my life I will never get back. Any resemblance between the Jewish religion and the contents of Tikkun — or anything said or written by self-appointed "Rabbi" Michael Lerner — is strictly coincidental. n n
"I believe a fair number of Jews belonging to Conservative and Reformed congregations would disagree with you. " True, but not relevant. First, i I recall corectly, Blackparrot does not belong to a Conservative or Reform Congregation. Second, the beliefs taught by those movements have been greatly adulterated by any number of sources that are anti-thetical to Jewish belieft. And third, having belonged to some of those congregations, I would wager that their average member is woefiully ignorant of even his movement's adulterated beliefs, let alone actual Jewish belief. n n"Therefore no particular censure should fall on anyone who advocates the opposite on religious grounds," — True, but please remember the context. Blackparrot was being accused of imposing his (Jewish) religious values on Christians by advocating choice. I was merely pointing out that the poosite is true — the advocacy of choice in this matter was counter to Jewish values.
At least the Democrats have a soul to search…..
Get real, Conservatives. The jig is up. Liberals r just as smart and soul-searching as u r. And the poor slobs no longer believe the falsehood that cutting taxes on the rich will improve their lot. These same slobs have no more tolerance for a party that uses a religious issue, banning abortion, to reel them in. nThe Americans have loudly spoken, at least through their electoral vote. Repubs, quit being sore losers, and let's move on.
" Repubs, quit being sore losers," So in your mind, thinking about the electorate's values or figuring out how to win the next election is being a sore loser? Funny, I thought being a sore loser meant repeated court battles challenging the election result, as Gore did in 2000, or show up with automobile after automobile full of "recently found" outstate ballots as needed, like Franken did in his senate race.
Well yes. Americans don't like abortion. But are they ready for a Federal solution similar to the Drug War? I don't think so. n nAnd how about the Drug War? Republicans are the Drug War Party. Do you think that will hurt them in 2016? n n
"Americans don't like abortion. But are they ready for a Federal solution " We have a federal solution now, and you are right – it does not work. Reversing Roe v. Wade would turn the matter back over to each state. You know, the way the constitution intended. n nBoth anti- and pro-abortion legal scholars have criticised Roe V. Wade as one of the worst reasoned decisions in Supreme Court history. There's a reason that no opinion in Roe v. Wade was able to attract a majority of the Court.
"There's a reason that no opinion in Roe v. Wade was able to attract a majority of the Court." n nA truly excellent point that too often goes unmentioned.
misimon, reversing Roe v. Wade would not create a federal solution to abortion. It would simply return the decision making to the states — which is where the bill of rights intended it to be. n nI started law school as a young flaming liberal a few years after Roe v. Wade. I was shocked that every professor I asked — including several far to my left — were nearly unanimous that Roe. v. Wade was an awfully poor piece of judicial work. When I took Constitutional Law and actually read the case, I understood why. There is a reason that no opinion in Roe v. Wade was able to attract the support of a majority of the justices. The plurality opinion is an incoherent, insupportable mess, and none of the concurring opinions are much better. Whether or not you like the result, any competent lawyer or jurist reading the opinions cannot fail to be embarrassed at the strained reasoning, lack of legal suppport, and muddy writing.
Leneyw, n nUh. We punished the rich with a yacht tax. Who lost their jobs? American yacht builders. It is now done in Europe. See Steve Job's yacht in Amsterdam?
Having the rich pay their fair share of taxes is NOT "punishment." nand the yacht tax is fairer than closing schools for the poor. nConservatives will say ANYTHING to rationalize their greed. nnearly everyone, including Repubs, would agree that it is a" good" thing to be medically insured, yet they turn wine to water to make it look like a "bad" thing. nConservatives should disclose their hand: "medical insurance IS indeed a good thing, but I do not want to give any to u."
Leneyw, n nNo one said it was punishment. All I said is that some people employed by the rich will lose their jobs. The tax money has to come from somewhere. n nAnd Len. Since Conservatives are so greedy how will taxing them more help? They will just employ fewer people. More taxes will not fix the greed problem it will just make things worse for those formerly employed. n nI can see you are having problems thinking things through. Well maybe the coming crash will help.
"medical insurance IS indeed a good thing, but I do not want to give any to u." n nAh. I see you are incapable of earning your own way. My condolences. n nSo you live on charity? I feel so sorry that you can't find a way to contribute. Don't worry. Worse days are ahead. For you.
When 2014-15 rolls around, Lenewyorkais, please remember to post your thoughts then. It is regrettable that most progressives clicked the "Like" button in the voters booth. Cult adoration will come to full fruition long before this country has a chance to heal itself. The hate from progs is awesome and, in my personal opinion, the most shameful emotion of all!
A pox on your fictional "moderates" and their supposed votes, Brett.A wishy-washy lot of crypto-Democrats for whom the GOP held back the artillery that might have saved the day.
"The last Bush budget deficit was larger than any of Obama's." n nThe 2008 democrat congress passed a continuing resolution until Obama submitted his wish list in Mar 2009. Then Obama exploded the 2009 budget which some economists tacked on to Bush. Very clever, haha on you Brett. Go check the numbers.
Obama's "jobs" bill was simply more deficit spending to favored interest groups—the teachers unions, government workers, green BS—and would have resulted in more declining investment because all of that borrowed money would have been out of the private economy (banks have to buy the government bonds, you know). The titanic borrowing worked feebly for one year, 2010. The $275 billion, one-third the stimulus, that went to State governments as payoffs to SEIU paid a lot of government parasites for the usual thing, not working, for an extra 12 months. When no more extortion money could be found thanks to "Republican intransigence," the layoffs of State workers started again. n nThat's the sort of fiscal brainstorm that is doomed to failure even in the near term but typical of Democratic politics nationwide. It should be obvious to a canary that the Federal government cannot keep meeting payroll for hundreds of thousands of jobs that State governments neither need nor can afford. The president paid off his union stooges and environmental ripoff artists with borrowed money that the rest of us are going to have pay back. It will only work ONCE. YOU think he should have done it again, which amounts to record-breaking credulousness. n nYou speak of his deficits almost in passing, as if they were a transient phase we went through like acne and not the permanent feature we're set to enjoy from here on out because of his masterful handiwork. Obama overspent at twice the rate of any president in history year in and year out and has zip to show for it. The decline in median annual household income was twice as great (approx. $5000) in 2009–12, the "recovery," than in 2007–09 (down $2500), the actual recession! Think about that for as long as a second. That is baass-ackwards! Republican so-called intransigence had nothing, repeat: NOTHING, to do with that. And as for the brain-dead robo-talk about the "worst recession since the age of the dinosaurs blah blah blah," please, give it up. It's very tired. PLUS it's a fable. Reagan, for example, faced 10.6% unemployment, 14% inflation, and had them down to 7% and 4% in three years. Obama started and ended his first term with low inflation and 8% unemployment. Real unemployment is, and for four years has been, above 14%, and inflation is about to skyrocket, as well it should under the overwhelming pressure of a trillion or more dollars a year, much of it fiat money, as far as a green-shaded eye can see. The Obama campaign's "five-million new jobs" claim should be awarded a Hugo for best work of science fiction in 2012, it is SUCH an hallucination. There are five-and-a-half-million fewer people employed today than in 2008 in a population that increased by nine million. Hire a tutor and do the math. n nHistorically the deeper the recession the faster the recovery. But the BS worked. And why not? All Obama had to do was convince a lot of people like you. He was reelected running against a man four years retired by economic illiterates who take to White House slogans and press handouts as if they were communion wafers, without an ounce of skepticism, and repeat them on cue like barking seals. What we HAVE is the worst-MANAGED recession in history, one that not only smothered real job growth but has also demolished the incentives to create jobs. What we GOT is a cancerous growth called the Affordable Care Act that is going through money like the Wehrmacht through Belgium AND is just getting started. It's not going to be pretty, and It's sure not going to be better.
Obama's foreign policy has been a success? Well, if your idea of success is weakening and endangering our allies and our armed forces, throwing away hard-won military gains, emboldening our enemies and inspiring them to laugh at us, then I guess it has been. n nSome people might define success differently, though. Those people would disagree with you.
moish, it could well be that the more numerous and learned members of your congregation realize that the policies of Obama are better for the US, Israel and world Jewry than the alternative that was on offer.