Good luck, Mr. President

posted at 12:00 pm on January 20, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

At about the time this post appears, Barack Obama will take the oath of office and officially become our 44th president, following in the footsteps of George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Ronald Reagan — and also Millard Fillmore, Chester Arthur, and Jimmy Carter.  To steal a phrase from a popular movie, any president is like a box of chocolates; you don’t know what you’re going to get until it’s too late.

People have asked me since the election how I will approach the Obama presidency, but it’s really not that much of a mystery.  I’m not going to be rooting for his failure, because I’m rooting for America. I believe most people feel the same way; Obama won the election and for better or worse, he’s our president.  But that doesn’t mean that any of us will sit quietly for the next four years or the next four days.

The campaign is over, and now Obama has to govern, which means he has to start backing policies and initiatives that will reveal himself and his direction very clearly.  If Obama really wants to succeed in restoring the economy and creating jobs, he’ll have to find ways to motivate capital back into action — which will mean keeping taxes low, especially on capital-gains rates, and cutting government intervention.  Policies which confiscate capital will make the situation worse, and I will point that out as often and as vociferously as possible.

On foreign policy, we need strength, deterrence, and tenacity in dealing with enemies.  Allies who don’t support that won’t be worth much as allies, and multinational organizations more intent on anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism are a waste of time.  Expect me to loudly criticize the Obama administration for following useless policies designed to increase the Kumbaya factor at the expense of our national security.

Campaign issues, like Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, and so on, no longer matter.  Obama won the election.  In four years, he’ll run for re-election, and what will matter will be the things Obama did between now and then.  When Obama does something right, I’ll praise it, but I’ll speak up when policies go bad and mistakes are made.  That’s part of being an American.

Best of luck, President Obama.  My prayers are with you, for support and wisdom as you assume the burden of this office and lead our country.  When you fail to provide that leadership or demonstrate wisdom, though, don’t expect me to be silent.  I’m rooting for America, not the coach.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6

What you say is well and good, Ed, and I agree with you.

However, I add one caveat: In the matter of terrorism, Obama gets a three-month honeymoon. If there is an attack on US soil within the first three months of his administration, it’s his fault.

That’s the same standard the left used to blame Bush for not preventing 9/11 — and never mind that Clinton had seven years to do so. Fair’s fair, right?

What say you all?

Paul_in_NJ on January 21, 2009 at 7:18 AM

I certainly won’t allow morons like you to suppress criticism of Obama or criticism of anyone wishing a Marxist to succeed in pushing the US over the tipping point to destruction with the numerous promises he’s made during the last few years and the sickening ideology that’s infested his books, speeches, and minions.

BTW, what was the “nasty” name you referred to?

nottakingsides

Let’s see, does being called a “moron” constitute a nasty name? And by the way, what evidence do you have that Obama is a Marxist? He may be a liberal Democrat, but that does not qualify one as a Marxist. Even a moron would know that. And one other thing, if you cannot separate the concept of wishing someone well with supressing criticism, you might want to work a little more on your analytical skills. There is a difference.

RedSoxNation on January 21, 2009 at 7:23 AM

America’s time has come. It had to end sooner or later. You can’t expect people who don’t fear God to keep electing leaders who do.

TTheoLogan on January 21, 2009 at 7:38 AM

And by the way, what evidence do you have that Obama is a Marxist? He may be a liberal Democrat, but that does not qualify one as a Marxist.

RedSoxNation on January 21, 2009 at 7:23 AM

Well, he had Marxists in his life from growing up – the guy he says mentored him in his youth, Frank whatever.

He wrote about how he sought out Marxist professors.

Black Liberation Theology – a devotee of 20+ years.

His voting record is more liberal than self-proclaimed socialist Bernie Sanders.

His friends are, in good part, Marxists.

Plus, we have a bunch of stupid, Marxist things he said on the campaign trail and in interviews from other times.
All in all, on the evidence he looks more like a Marxist than not, to put it mildly.

progressoverpeace on January 21, 2009 at 7:46 AM

Plus, we have a bunch of stupid, Marxist things he said on the campaign trail and in interviews from other times.
All in all, on the evidence he looks more like a Marxist than not, to put it mildly.

progressoverpeace on January 21, 2009 at 7:46 AM

Obama could move Lenin and his tomb to the Rose Garden, Order Das Kapital as the only economics text in grades k-12, Have “Capitalism Sux” tattooed on one arm and publically use an orignal copy of the constitution for toilet paper and the obamites and rinos would say “He’s not a marxist”

It reminds me of the Monty Python Dead Parrot Routine “E’s not dead, E’s Just Sleeping”.. but “E’s not a marxist, E’s just nationalizing everything mate”

bullseye on January 21, 2009 at 8:02 AM

It reminds me of the Monty Python Dead Parrot Routine “E’s not dead, E’s Just Sleeping”.. but “E’s not a marxist, E’s just nationalizing everything mate”

bullseye on January 21, 2009 at 8:02 AM

LOL. I’d vote for the dead parrot right now, if I could.

progressoverpeace on January 21, 2009 at 8:13 AM

Good luck with that “I just want to spread the wealth around“, Barry.
….
profitsbeard on January 20, 2009 at 11:01 PM

Obama is a Socialist – and he’ll be following in the footsteps of a man who really “spread the wealth around” in 2008. Our great George W. Bush spread 150,000,000,000 taxpayer dollars around in the form of stimulus checks to lower and middle income taxpayers. That’s redistribution of wealth. Then W went on to give away more billions in the TARP and UAW bailouts. oi.

And for those of you who are bitching and moaning about the US being led by a socialist (me included) you need to read this book and consider the unprecedented power he has now.

popularpeoplesfront on January 21, 2009 at 8:16 AM

The typical responce from Ed More-A-Sissy and I’m sure supported by Allah-Phoney and most of the “moderates” here at HotAir. I do not nor will I ever wish this empty suit, jack booted, far left, radical socilist sucess. For sucess would mean the end to Conservatisiam, American honor and pride and a derelection to defend and protect The Constitution. It would and will mean a radical swing left in our courts and a continued and renewed radical marxist tilt in our union owned public schools. The Messiah’s comming seems to bring joy to the faux-Conservatives here at HA and in turn one can assume that both Ed and Ahhal support such far left radical ideals for this great Nation. Simply put, to support The Leader and his agenda for “change” is to support EVERYTHING that Reagan and real Conservatives value. Ed, Allah and the majority here at HA do not have the best intrest of America in mind as they wish this moronic, dumbo-eared, hate-America radical well. I do NOT wish him or his family ANY harm physicaly, I respect the “Office” reguardless of party. But I can not and will not sit by and watch the destruction of our way of life because I “should” be civil. Republicans continue to lose elections BOTH because of faux-Conservative RINO candidates and the desire to “be liked” by the liberal MSM. Ed and Allah and probably MM want the same designation, they want the attention, the recognition for being open to change and progressive Republicans. Invites to “IN” events and quoted by the MSM. I’m calling out the tards and phoneys here at HA, this is NOT a Conservative site, the moderators are both RINO’s at best and at worst Moderate Dems. Thread after thread heaps praise upon the corrupt and moraly bankrupt radical liberals, makes fun of Palin and Conservatisiam and talks of acceptance and unity. A pox on your houses as you maneuver to stay in the “elites” MSM / Blogg circle and wash any symbolence of real Reagan Conservative principals down the tubes with your kool-aid drinking, radical agenda loving, Bush bashing, Messiah worship. I will continue to be a lone voice against such treason. I will not surrender our Constitution, Bill of Rights and future to Progressive Liberalisiam and Political Correctness that has rotted away anything HA ever was or could still be… The voice of Conservative Opoosition.

Mark Garnett on January 21, 2009 at 8:26 AM

Obama is not a Marxist. When someone calls him a Marxist it means they have no clue what Marxism is.

Krydor on January 21, 2009 at 8:27 AM

I wish him the worst.

I suggest buying anti-Obama T-Shirts, bumper stickers, signs, protests.

This guy is classless. His shots at President Bush are over the top and his accolades of himself make me want to puke.

Buck Farack.

Mr Purple on January 21, 2009 at 8:35 AM

May God bless America, and God bless The President of the United States.

BohicaTwentyTwo on January 21, 2009 at 8:38 AM

Maybe those young gangstas out there will look to Obama as a role model and pull their freakin’ pants up. I’m not holding my breath.

Geoffry T. Spaulding on January 21, 2009 at 8:50 AM

(channeling my inner moonbat conservative big red)

wise_man on January 20, 2009 at 10:07 PM

Wise, he did at one point get as low as 60 something. Hitting 49 should arguably make him a Democrat.

Look, the truth is that he’s one of, if not the most, liberal Republican we have, and understandably that was a problem for him in trying to rally the base around him as many of us didn’t forget the things he said just a few years ago, things that went completely against what most of us believe.

It was always a hard sell. The best aspect was anti-Obama sentiment and then finally Palin, but as I said then, when people aren’t voting for the candidate (but rather against Obama or for Palin, depending on who you ask), you’re less likely to win. It didn’t work for Kerry in 2004, and it’s not so surprising that it didn’t work for McCain.

And yes, we need a better candidate next time, but it is hard to get one when independents and moderates are able to make that decision for us. Living in Texas, my only choices were McCain and Huck, so I didn’t even bother.

Esthier on January 21, 2009 at 9:54 AM

Look, the truth is that he’s one of, if not the most, liberal Republican we have,

And yes, we need a better candidate next time,

I’d like to see the rules changed to our primary procedures. People who can suggest, support and make this change happen should do so as soon as possible. We were given this candidate because he got the most votes. While it is valid to say that it’s unfair to the people at the end of the line, it’s also not valid to suggest that he is exactly the same as Obama (he’s not) or that he’s a democrat (he’s not). In the arena of opinion, I agree that what McCain did is no where near where most of us wanted. And in the arena of fact, we have to follow the rules as they exist, and if this process needs to be changed, then we need to change them so this doesn’t happen again.

If ever there was a time to do this, it’s now, since there is so much discontent about what happened.

As I have always stated, and it seems that it’s fallen on deaf ears, or the willfully ignorant, I object to my brothers and sisters acting like liberals, who were unhinged during the Bush years, and it’s after this dark chapter in our history, if people continue this, I see this and more coming back to the point that we’ll be no better than them. And I don’t want to see this happening.

Ed and AP seem to want to discourage Obama trutherism in regards to his birth certificate. And I don’t see this as something that we need to push back when it is directed only at Obama, a democrat – but even republicans that we don’t like as well.

wise_man on January 21, 2009 at 10:09 AM

it’s also not valid to suggest that he is exactly the same as Obama (he’s not) or that he’s a democrat (he’s not).

wise_man on January 21, 2009 at 10:09 AM

That may be true, but in this last election, I think it’s fair to argue that he’s about as close as we could get on both those fronts, and that is a very large reason for the frustration here, which I think you can understand.

Esthier on January 21, 2009 at 10:15 AM

I can absolutely understand this, yes.

And on the same issue, something that has bothered me is a lack of consistency. Such as – when we point out when liberals unfairly accuse and believe the worst about us, or president Bush without any evidence. They don’t act logically, or at least they have one set of rules for liberals, and another set of rules for conservatives. It’s bad when they do it, and it’s also bad when we do it.

For instance, many people obviously are against illegal immigration and want the rule of law to prevail, over what is happening, that we allow illegals to stay here, and even give them federal assistance when in countries like Mexico, they are prosecuted and then deported when they are caught. So, with the two border guards who violated the rule of law by firing on the suspect – shooting at him 15 times and then lying about it. Quite a few here want them to go free, and call them heroes. Either you want the laws to be enforces, or you don’t. you can’t have it both ways, and selectively want some laws enforced ( immigration ) and other laws are okay to break ( attempted murder of a man who is a suspect and not yet convicted in a court of law ).

wise_man on January 21, 2009 at 10:34 AM

It’s bad when they do it, and it’s also bad when we do it.

Certainly, and most, including Madison, get that. But I think with McCain being one of our own, it feels more like policing than sliming.

Either you want the laws to be enforces, or you don’t. you can’t have it both ways, and selectively want some laws enforced ( immigration ) and other laws are okay to break ( attempted murder of a man who is a suspect and not yet convicted in a court of law ).

wise_man on January 21, 2009 at 10:34 AM

While I agree with your main point, I think this is really an over simplification of their points, though this isn’t a case I’ve followed closely.

I think the main issue here is that they believe those two are being railroaded for a technicality (not attempted murder) and that while they deserve to be punished, they don’t deserve the punishment they received.

But as we’ve seen in other threads, there are people here who simply believe cops should be above the law. You can’t really reason with that logic, so it’s worthless to try.

Esthier on January 21, 2009 at 10:42 AM

But I think with McCain being one of our own, it feels more like policing than sliming.

Esthier on January 21, 2009 at 10:42 AM

I’m also not sure what different set of rules we’re using when criticizing McCain. I attack democrats for their liberal policies, and republicans for the liberal policies, which were certainly not limited to McCain, though he had nearly the best of them(Huckabee was worse).

Although, I think there is a slight standard which should be elevated for republicans who espouse liberal ideologies. Democrats are expected to be liberal, so a certain amount of ire is normal. However, Republicans are expected to be conservative, as a balance. When a Republican shuns conservatism for the sake of liberal policies, that RINO should be given even more ire. If they want to be a liberal, they should leave the party, just as a democrat who turns conservative should leave theirs. Lieberman did it. I’m pretty sure Zell Miller, had he stayed on in politics, would have eventually done so.

MadisonConservative on January 21, 2009 at 11:09 AM

I’m also not sure what different set of rules we’re using when criticizing McCain.

Willful ignorance.

I’ve pointed this out dozens of times in the last 14 hours. If you don’t understand this now, you never will.

wise_man on January 21, 2009 at 11:17 AM

MadisonConservative on January 21, 2009 at 11:09 AM

I think he means not giving him the benefit of doubt as you would with, let’s say Palin, which I’d say is true, at least for me, though I’d cite McCain’s history as at least a partial reason.

And what you said about liberal Republicans is basically where I was going with the policing comment.

Esthier on January 21, 2009 at 11:24 AM

wise_man on January 21, 2009 at 11:17 AM

What you never did was answer a direct question. Still no guts.

And you never explained any different set of rules, other than “it was him or Obama”, as if that somehow makes McCain immune to criticism for his Obama-like positions. I did, however, explain how Obama is a socialist, supplying a few links to this very site to explain. Either you lived under a rock and never heard of Joe the Plumber and his conversation with Obama, or, as I said, you’re willfully ignorant. Only a willfully ignorant person could hear what Obama said about “redistribution” and “share the wealth” and attribute it to anything less than socialism.

Well, willfully ignorant…or intellectually dishonest. I’m thinking both.

MadisonConservative on January 21, 2009 at 11:28 AM

I think he means not giving him the benefit of doubt as you would with, let’s say Palin, which I’d say is true, at least for me, though I’d cite McCain’s history as at least a partial reason.

Esthier on January 21, 2009 at 11:24 AM

Relevant part bolded. Palin gave us no reason for doubt. McCain gave us CFR, amnesty, global warming nonsense, railing against drilling in ANWR, etc. If Palin does things like that while pairing up with Russ Feingold or Ted Kennedy, you bet I’ll give her just as much hell if she runs in 2012. So far, though, she hasn’t. She also hasn’t given any doubt as to whether she would be petty enough to hold a grudge. By many accounts, Johnny was fuming after 2000, and gave Dubya hell for beating him, not least of which was his opposition to the 2001 tax cuts.

MadisonConservative on January 21, 2009 at 11:35 AM

What you never did was answer a direct question.

apparently I am supposed to say that Obama is a socalist or a marxist. And if I do not answer in your lockstep approval, you cite three pages from here that supposedly proves that Obama is a marxist socialist.

and when you cite to you proof that McCain is not the same as Obama from a page here written by ed, you first don’t answer the first time, or the second, if recall. and for the third, you disagree.

wise_man on January 21, 2009 at 11:37 AM

as if that somehow makes McCain immune to criticism

when the vote comes down to two people, as you should be able to figure out on your own and I have tried to explain to you on practically hundreds of times here, a yes or no on McCain, and vote for or against Obama, the only reason to constantly harp on the negatives on McCain is to hope that you convince people not to vote for him.

The only people who benefit from this action is Obama and the people who want Obama to win.

wise_man on January 21, 2009 at 11:39 AM

And if I do not answer in your lockstep approval…

wise_man on January 21, 2009 at 11:37 AM

You don’t answer a yes or no question after several hours and being asked numerous times. I answered your question, in your “lockstep approval”, within minutes after being asked once.

And then you have the gall to say…

So why don’t you answer the question, madison?

wise_man on January 20, 2009 at 10:47 PM

You’re gutless.

MadisonConservative on January 21, 2009 at 11:43 AM

I think he means not giving him the benefit of doubt as you would with, let’s say Palin,

Palin gave us no reason for doubt. McCain gave us CFR, amnesty, global warming nonsense, railing against drilling in ANWR, etc.

So because of the things that McCain did in the past, that have nothing to do with Palin, all it takes for you – in your mind – is for some unnamed person allegedly in McCains employ to make a claim that is not true – and then you believe that McCain hates Palin.

Despite the fact that he’s never said anything bad about her, he’s only spoken in glowing regard to her.

And if in your fantasy world that McCain hates Palin, why has Sarah Palin not spoken the truth as you imagine it – that McCain is wrong, but she has only spoken good things about McCain, never anything wrong.

And you think that Palin is in on this conspiracy of McCain’s to decieve us all.

You disregard the facts, you beleive the worst about him, you cite as your evidence of this things that are irrelevant ….. and then you say ‘I’m also not sure what different set of rules we’re using when criticizing McCain. ‘

You are a f*king retard. there really isn’t any other explanation.

I have no problem speaking with Esthier and I can appreciate her point of view, because I share a great deal of it with her. But you are beyond explanation.

wise_man on January 21, 2009 at 11:44 AM

You’re gutless.

and you are a toothless Jones soda drinking, cheese from a can eating 350 pound virgin living in your mothers basement who isn’t capable of rational thought.

wise_man on January 21, 2009 at 11:45 AM

when the vote comes down to two people, as you should be able to figure out on your own and I have tried to explain to you on practically hundreds of times here, a yes or no on McCain, and vote for or against Obama, the only reason to constantly harp on the negatives on McCain is to hope that you convince people not to vote for him.

The only people who benefit from this action is Obama and the people who want Obama to win.

wise_man on January 21, 2009 at 11:39 AM

And once again…

None of that makes his liberal stances disappear, or makes the person who points them out a liar(as you’ve claimed), nor does pointing them out make a person an Obama supporter(as you’ve also claimed).

Just because McCain was the less liberal candidate didn’t excuse his being a Republican who spouts liberal ideology, and excusing it because of the situation only encouraged that ideology.

MadisonConservative on January 21, 2009 at 11:47 AM

But you are beyond explanation.

wise_man on January 21, 2009 at 11:44 AM

and you are a toothless Jones soda drinking, cheese from a can eating 350 pound virgin living in your mothers basement who isn’t capable of rational thought.

wise_man on January 21, 2009 at 11:45 AM

Your progression from rational to maniacal never fails to entertain. I’ve made perfectly valid arguments, and you’ve responded with personal insults and profanity because you continue to fail to come up with any response other than “the alternative was Obama”.

I insulted you because you refuse to answer a simple question, asked multiple times, and then turn around and demand others answer your questions. That is gutless.

MadisonConservative on January 21, 2009 at 11:51 AM

the only reason to constantly harp on the negatives on McCain is to hope that you convince people not to vote for him.

The only people who benefit from this action is Obama and the people who want Obama to win.

wise_man on January 21, 2009 at 11:39 AM

I completely disagree with that. I think serious debate on these issues and being open and honest are very good things for the party. Hopefully we’ve learned a lesson this year. Hopefully we won’t ever see a McCain running as our nominee ever again.

because I share a great deal of it with her. But you are beyond explanation.

wise_man on January 21, 2009 at 11:44 AM

No offense intended, but if you find that we agree often, then you’ll likely find the same is true of Madison, as I often agree with him.

Esthier on January 21, 2009 at 11:52 AM

Oh, and how did we go from “cheese eating” to “cheese from a can eating”? Was it because I pointed out that eating cheese, especially in the state that makes the best cheese in the country, wasn’t an insult? You had to notch it up so you could keep the standard with calling me fat?

MadisonConservative on January 21, 2009 at 11:53 AM

Let’s see, does being called a “moron” constitute a nasty name?
RedSoxNation on January 21, 2009 at 7:23 AM

It seems as though you are easily confused so I’ll make it simple for you.

You said this:

If you cannot wish the President well without being called nasty names, …
RedSoxNation on January 20, 2009 at 6:13 PM

Now that was at 6:13. Try to keep up here. Then I asked you what “nasty names” you were referring to. Now the “nasty names” would have to be PREVIOUS to 6:13 for you to make a reference to it. Got it?

Still waiting.

nottakingsides on January 21, 2009 at 12:04 PM

And by the way, what evidence do you have that Obama is a Marxist? He may be a liberal Democrat, but that does not qualify one as a Marxist. Even a moron would know that.

RedSoxNation on January 21, 2009 at 7:23 AM

progressoverpeace and others have explained it numerous times, so I won’t go over it again. You either can see it or you don’t.

Of course Obama doesn’t tout the Communist Manifesto or make direct quotes. Nor does he admit to his belief in Black Lib Theology, or his pastor’s promotion of it for 20 years (that he conveniently threw under the bus to get elected.) He’s a better politician than that and he will only hope to shape the US in that direction over time.

BTW, who said a “liberal democrat” qualifies one as a Marxist?

nottakingsides on January 21, 2009 at 12:21 PM

Garnett, Ed and AP are right in line with the Goldwater/Reagan brand of true conservatism. It is you and your many brethren who post here that are way, way off the reservation. Not sure what you are (other than sort of an unhinged lunatic), but you’re no conservative.

Obama is not a Marxist. He’s not a Socialist. Silly. Some of you sound like the bozos over at Kos who ranted on for years about Bush and Cheney being Nazis or worse. Ridiculous hyperbole is not your friend when trying to make a cogent argument.

dakine on January 21, 2009 at 1:03 PM

Obama is not a Marxist. He’s not a Socialist. Silly. Some of you sound like the bozos over at Kos who ranted on for years about Bush and Cheney being Nazis or worse. Ridiculous hyperbole is not your friend when trying to make a cogent argument.

dakine on January 21, 2009 at 1:03 PM

We’ve been round and round on this. The guy’s own words and actions point to his marxism/socialism.

I suppose if he purchased all the halftime show during the superbowl and repeated 100 times “I am a marxist” people would still say there is no proof…

Another Monty Python Dead Parrot Salesman heard from.

BTW – I have good reason to fear marxists. 7 Million of my Ukranian ancestors were starved to Death by the Marxist dictator Stalin and another million or so or my Polish ancestors died also at the hand of the Marxist Dictator Stalin. Every heard of the Katyn Forest?? or how the grain was rotting in storage while Ukranian children were dying in the streets from starvation…. just because the small farmowners didn’t give their land up quickly enough.

He has sought out marxists, launched his career in the home of marxists/maoists, said he wants to ‘spread the wealth’ and trashed the constituion by saying it is a document of negative liberties.

He has to prove himself to me before I think differently. Otherwise I have to be wary that he is just consolidating power before making any major moves.

bullseye on January 21, 2009 at 1:55 PM

bullseye, I really don’t mean this as a personal attack because you sound like a decent guy, but you sound unhinged. If you don’t mind, define Marxism as you see it and then play out hypothetically how you see Obama implementing his master plan to turn the USA into a Marxist state.

dakine on January 21, 2009 at 2:11 PM

you sound like a decent guy, but you sound unhinged.

Seriously? Those two are simply not compatible in my view.

Personally, I think Obama is someone who respects Marxism, but he’d need more than eight years to turn this country socialist, which isn’t to say Bush didn’t give him a head start.

Esthier on January 21, 2009 at 2:16 PM

C’mon Estheir, not you too. Define “Marxism” for me if you don’t mind. While you’re at it, give me a good def for “socialism”. Both those terms are thrown around way too loosely around here IMHO. We can talk “statism” if you want…that’s a different story.

dakine on January 21, 2009 at 2:49 PM

If you don’t mind, define Marxism as you see it and then play out hypothetically how you see Obama implementing his master plan to turn the USA into a Marxist state.

dakine on January 21, 2009 at 2:11 PM

What is a “Marxist state”? “Marxism” is not the end.

In short, Marxism basically provides and discusses the means of transition to communism or a communist state. He thought that all forms of gov were basically early forms of communism. It’s difficult to summarize the entire philosophy and manifesto, especially with someone (like you) who hasn’t read it.

Just from your questions I can tell you are clueless on the topic you so smugly dismiss.

nottakingsides on January 21, 2009 at 2:49 PM

dakine on January 21, 2009 at 2:49 PM

Marxism

Socialism

Now, I’ve agreed with you that Obama doesn’t have much of a prayer of destroying capitalism here even if it was his deepest desire, but are you really telling me you’ve seen nothing about him that points to him respecting the ideals of Marx?

And honestly, it gets treated like a dirty word, but populism has never gone out style. I really don’t even see how my statement is controversial. Perhaps you could enlighten me.

As to socialism, “an ideology that proposes that the state has to have a role in the producton and distribution of wealth in a society,” it’s very much summed up by “spread the wealth” or bailout mania. Again, this isn’t even considered an evil concept. I mean, since when do we demonize Robin Hood?

And talk to the average Obama voter. Many of them will say the same things.

Statism

Well, yes, it’s different, and that’s what I believe we’ve always had before. Still, I think we’ve gone a step beyond that in these last couple months. If you have counter arguments, feel free to present them.

Esthier on January 21, 2009 at 3:06 PM

I’ll ignore you takingsides, well, because you’re an ass.

esthier, I’m familiar with the standard defs, but thought maybe you had something different in mind. Based on Obama’s stated policy positions, he is not a Marxist or a Socialist. Sorry. You and others are simply using them as pejorative terms without any real connection between theory and facts.

dakine on January 21, 2009 at 3:18 PM

dakine on January 21, 2009 at 3:18 PM

I actually wasn’t using it pejoratively, which is why I was hoping you’d provide something a little more concrete in response. It’s a little disappointing that you’ve dismissed me so quickly.

Esthier on January 21, 2009 at 3:27 PM

Hey, that was pretty funny, Esthier. He asked you to define those and you linked to wiki. Obviously he wanted to know your take on this, as to how it applied to Obama. Good thing that it wasn’t your good bestest buddy madison who asked that question. Since you dodged it, he would have have said that you’re gutless.

Well, if he was logically consistent, that is. And we all know that he’s not.

wise_man on January 21, 2009 at 3:32 PM

Esthier, I’m not dismissing you. You strike me as an intelligent and rational person. That’s why I was a bit surprised when you jumped on the Marxist/Socialist thing. I think it’s easier to look to actual examples of current communist governments and then compare what they do to Obama’s stated policy positions, rather than speak in the abstract. Not even China is really communist anymore, so we’re left with Cuba, North Korea and who else? Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos? They’re really more like China. Kind of totalitarian capitalism with an overlay of socialism maybe? Hard to convince a thinking person that Obama’s policy positions are in line with Cuba and North Korea. Query: if you’re not using “Marxist” pejoratively, then does that mean you think it has redeeming qualities as a political and economic philosophy?

dakine on January 21, 2009 at 3:37 PM

Obviously he wanted to know your take on this, as to how it applied to Obama.

Yeah, I linked wiki for the full definition so dakine would know exactly what I meant when I used the words, and then I discussed at length why I believe those words fit him.

Please let me know where I failed to directly answer the question.

Esthier on January 21, 2009 at 3:42 PM

Esthier, you answered my question in a very general way, and I responded in a different, but also pretty general way. We’ll just have to agree to disagree yet again.

dakine on January 21, 2009 at 3:47 PM

I think it’s easier to look to actual examples of current communist governments and then compare what they do to Obama’s stated policy positions, rather than speak in the abstract.

Communist isn’t necessarily the same as socialist or Marxist, and I think that may be some of the disconnect here.

then does that mean you think it has redeeming qualities as a political and economic philosophy?

dakine on January 21, 2009 at 3:37 PM

It means that I think it comes from a good place, for most people. I believe Marxists want to help people and see true human suffering and look at the only means they believe they have at their disposal to help, the government.

I use those words, because I very regularly interact with advocates of true socialism and true Marxism. They’re the ones who praise Obama with these words.

So I’s say yes and no. I don’t think it’s a worthwhile economic policy just because I don’t believe that it produces the best economy, but on the other hand, I do believe policies driven with the interest of ending human suffering do at least have some value that can be useful whether or not the resulting policy as a whole is.

Esthier on January 21, 2009 at 3:49 PM

We’ll just have to agree to disagree yet again.

dakine on January 21, 2009 at 3:47 PM

I feel that’ll often be true. I prefer a world like that, honestly.

Esthier on January 21, 2009 at 3:52 PM

There has NEVER been an example of “pure” communism. Hence, from pro-Marxists, the reasoning for why the various forms of it (past and present) have never worked, or have had problems. Just as there has never been an example of pure capitalism, conservatism, etc.. We are talking about the ideology that drives the (de)evolution of governments. Where they are in the contiuum is irrelevant.

Basic stuff for most, but not dakine.

I’ll ignore you takingsides, well, because you’re an ass right.

Again, what’s a “Marxist state”? (and don’t quote the hogwash from Wiki) If you admit to a transitional period, you’ve destroyed your own premise.

nottakingsides on January 21, 2009 at 3:55 PM

Fair enough Esthier. I think I get what you’re saying in a general sense, but I really don’t believe that Obama subscribes to Marxist or even Socialists notions, despite what the Obama folks you hang with might think or wish. I think he wants more government than I believe to be wise or prudent…the usual conservative vs. liberal dichotomy in other words when it comes to the role of government. The rest of it seems to me to be kind of idle hyperbole.

dakine on January 21, 2009 at 3:58 PM

Since you dodged it…

wise_man on January 21, 2009 at 3:32 PM

She didn’t dodge it. She answered it directly, and provided external reference. You haven’t even had the guts, a day later, to answer a simple question with a simple yes or no.

MadisonConservative on January 21, 2009 at 4:02 PM

sides, you started the snarky stuff brah. I understand your general point regarding the sliding scale between pure capitalism (in theory) on one end and pure communism (again, in theory) on the other. I simply disagree with your assertion that Obama wants to move us further down the scale toward pure communism in an effort to devolve our form of government. I really don’t think American liberals and conservatives are really all that far apart on the scale. If we can keep it civil, I’m interested in what you have to say. Otherwise, not so much.

dakine on January 21, 2009 at 4:04 PM

I think he wants more government than I believe to be wise or prudent…the usual conservative vs. liberal dichotomy in other words when it comes to the role of government. The rest of it seems to me to be kind of idle hyperbole.

dakine on January 21, 2009 at 3:58 PM

Understandable. It just seems the disagreement is over how much more government he wants.

I’d say we’ll have the next four years to see, but if Obama has anything truly radical in him, he’s smart enough to wait until getting a second term or until his last months in office, whichever come first.

I will say this, no matter how hyperbolic the conversation got here, I think it’s safe to say that most people here would like to be proven wrong.

Esthier on January 21, 2009 at 4:04 PM

Chickaboomer, she calls em like she sees em who is ready for some objectivity? Inaugural style?

http://chickaboomer.blogspot.com/2009/01/michelle-obama-pulls-train.html

Dr Evil on January 21, 2009 at 4:06 PM

True dat Esthier.

dakine on January 21, 2009 at 4:21 PM

MadisonConservative on January 21, 2009 at 4:02 PM

and she wrote the wiki pages as well! Thats just FKING AWESOME!!!!!!

wise_man on January 21, 2009 at 4:22 PM

Then answer the question, would you call BHO a socialist? Yes or no.
progressoverpeace on January 20, 2009 at 6:01 PM

Here’s my answer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Ta DAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

wise_man on January 21, 2009 at 4:26 PM

and she wrote the wiki pages as well! Thats just FKING AWESOME!!!!!!

wise_man on January 21, 2009 at 4:22 PM

I very well could have. It is user edited.

Though I really don’t see what you’re getting at. I used wiki to explain my beliefs. Had I viewed any of those terms differently, I could have cited something else that would illustrate that better. I wasn’t under the impression that dakine wanted an essay from me in my own words.

I could have done that if asked, but I thought the goal was for him to understand where I was coming from, and linking to wiki accomplished that.

I don’t understand your issue here.

Esthier on January 21, 2009 at 4:27 PM

Here’s my answer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Ta DAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

wise_man on January 21, 2009 at 4:26 PM

The question wasn’t asking you to define socialism, as dakine asked Esthier to do. The question was whether you believe Obama is a socialist, or not. Yes or no.

Like I said, you’re too gutless to answer.

I notice you also haven’t answered how you went from calling me cheese eating to cheese in a can eating. Also, on what basis have you determined my weight?

MadisonConservative on January 21, 2009 at 4:31 PM

wise_man, not sure what your issue is my man. Thanks for the convo Esthier…enjoyed it as always, despite whatever disagreements we may have.

dakine on January 21, 2009 at 4:42 PM

Good times, dakine.

Esthier on January 21, 2009 at 4:50 PM

wise_man, not sure what your issue is my man.

dakine on January 21, 2009 at 4:42 PM

wise_man’s issue is this:

He goes ballistic with any talk about McCain that is not blind worship. He got into an argument with a few commenters who noted, quite accurately, that McCain defended BHO more than he defended Sarah Palin. wise_man launched into an idiotic tirade about how McCain never defended BHO, to which I asked him the question of whether he considered BHO to be a socialist (since McCain went out of his way to defend BHO against the charges of being a socialist that a very scared man had raised during one of McCain’s town halls, saying that he was very scared for the future). If you recall, McCain incorrectly told the man that he had nothing to fear from a BHO Precedency (because McCain has an IQ of 55). In asking wise_man if BHO was a socialist, by wise’s own estimation, he would have had to admit to that instance of McCain defending the idiot messiah, and being totally wrong in his defense. From there, the rest of McCain’s insane defenses of BHO would come spilling out, and that would crush wise_man. wise_man realized this and refused to answer the straight question of whether BHO was a socialist, lest he clash with his idol, though wise had no problem stating the obvious – that BHO voted to the left of self-proclaimed socialist Bernie Sanders.

As to BHO being a Marxist, there’s very little question that he is. He looks at everything as a class/race struggle. To him, there is nothing more important than that. He views everything from this lens. He sees some urgent need for social change (that was the basis of his whole campaign) and destroying the rich is an integral part of it.

BHO’s disdain for the law, as he sees it infringing on the class struggle, is very evident as he was not shy about explicitly stating that he wants judges who use empathy in making their decisions, as opposed to law, (a view that, in and of itself, should have had him booted from the election and thrown out of our government, as we are a nation of laws). This is the manifestation of his Marxist leanings showing up in his “legal” theory.

On top of that, BHO thinks that government should, ultimately, be running the means of production and making all major decisions for society. He does not promote this directly (except in cases where he thinks he can slip it through, as with bailout packages and enviro-nut legislation that will weaken industries enough that they will only be able to survive with government money, and, hence, government control). We see this in the auto industry, where the Congress is dictating to Detroit what actual cars they have to produce. To be fair, this is a general Democratic idea these days, as it was started long before BHO got his Precedency, but the acceleration we will see in the coming economic (and, unfortunately, thanks to moronic policy, monetary) turmoil will make the Chinese state look like Hong Kong capitalism compared to what we will have – if we have anything left, at all.

The evidence of BHO’s love affair with Marxism is rife throughout his record (at least the record that we are allowed to see). He tried to lie about some of this as the campaign went on, but the record remains, and he couldn’t help himself from letting little pieces pop out here and there. There are quotes out the wazoo showing this, but the fact is that you can always know how BHO will come down on any topic – just view it as a class/race struggle (with the assumption that the poor and the black are always in the right and deserving of everything) and the answer will magically appear. In this, BHO goes beyond Marxism straight to hate.

There are many other specifics to this discussion, but this is the general framework of it. If you don’t believe me, just wait and see what the idiot messiah does during his Precedency.

progressoverpeace on January 21, 2009 at 7:23 PM

progress, I think you’re way, way over thinking the Obama is a Marxist thing. The proof will be in the pudding obviously, but IMHO, you’re way off base and kind of out in left field on this one. Let’s respectfully agree to disagree. BTW, I think you’re being way too hard on McCain. If you’re honest and really do your diligence, I think you’ll discover that McCain is as he says he is, a direct descendant of Goldwater/Reagan conservatism.

dakine on January 21, 2009 at 7:33 PM

progress, I think you’re way, way over thinking the Obama is a Marxist thing. The proof will be in the pudding obviously, but IMHO, you’re way off base and kind of out in left field on this one. Let’s respectfully agree to disagree.

Nothing wrong with disagreeing. I had to come out of left field because that’s where BHO lives :)

BTW, I think you’re being way too hard on McCain.

I don’t think so. I hold myself back when talking about him, usually.

If you’re honest and really do your diligence, I think you’ll discover that McCain is as he says he is, a direct descendant of Goldwater/Reagan conservatism.

dakine on January 21, 2009 at 7:33 PM

Well, to be honest, I don’t really care who or what ideology he may follow. I don’t subscribe to any individual’s thoughts as the basis of my political ideas. If anyone else expressed the same ideas as McCain I would have the same attitude. And, BTW, I’m no great Goldwater fan. And I highly doubt that Reagan, who rightfully called the USSR the “evil empire” would have bent over backwards to accomodate a Marxist/socialist/whatever you want to call him like the idiot messiah, as McCain clearly did.

Just one illustrative note to digest about how McCain ran against BHO – McCain went out of his way to say that the idiot messiah was an “honorable” man, only to have BHO release a campaign ad right afterwards calling McCain “dishonorable”. Do you remember that? Just one instance, but there are tons of these.

But look, my utter contempt for McCain is obvious. I make no attempts to hide it and am willing to pull up example after example demonstrating why I hold it. But, we’ll disagree on this, too.

progressoverpeace on January 21, 2009 at 7:49 PM

bullseye, I really don’t mean this as a personal attack because you sound like a decent guy, but you sound unhinged. If you don’t mind, define Marxism as you see it and then play out hypothetically how you see Obama implementing his master plan to turn the USA into a Marxist state.

dakine on January 21, 2009 at 2:11 PM

well, I do condsider your reply to be ad hominem. The question here is which path Obama wants to lead us down. Every indicator I see is that he wants to steer us away from Capitalism toward Socialism and ultimately marxism.

BTW – Can you tell me where you got at least your master’s in Psychology or where you picked up your extensive experience that allows you to determinine “I’m unhinged”/ Your comments sound like the practice of psikhushka or “Punative Psychiatry” in the old Soviet Union.. IOW, when someone speaks out, label them crazy. I think you also tried this with progressoverpeace..

Anyway, let’s take a differnt take here. Suppose a guy gets elected president and

1. His father was a vocal and active Klansman. His mother also was heard to say things in support of the Klan
2. His mentor was a Kleagle of the Klavern and wrote books about the glory of the Klan (along with being a known pedophile)
3. When he went to college, he sought out Ayrian and Klan Leaning professors.
4. The phone number for the Klan is listed as being at his residence
5. He launched his political career at the home of David Duke.
6. When a plumber asks him about what He’ll do for blacks he replies with “We shoulda never done that civil rights thing. Keep it seperate but equal”

you get the picture… I certainly would not want this person in ANY position of power, not even dogcatcher. His supporters could ask me to define the KKK, and scream bloody murder that there is no evidence that he is an Ayrian or KKKer but I could never trust that person.

So, tell me how Obama and socialism/marxism is any different from the hypothetical case I outlined??? It isn’t .. Obama’s own words, written and spoken, along with his actions show which way he leans.

bullseye on January 21, 2009 at 10:21 PM

Mark Garnett on January 21, 2009 at 8:26 AM

Truer words have never been written here at HA

long_cat on January 22, 2009 at 1:47 AM

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6