Can you explain a bit more about Hot Air ” Blog Archive ” The meaning of the Greg Craig “debacle”. Thanks…

Most of these high opinions and high expectations came from Obama’s two memoirs.

Perhaps the AP can send some of the (Palin’s “Going Rogue”) 11 fact checkers to check out those 2 Obama books…

I’m just saying…

In other words, Drew is stunned to discover that, rather than Obama is not the transformative memoirist she thought she knew…

Drew has another thing coming if she thinks she can play the “This is not the ______ I thought I knew” game against … Obama. He’s the *master*.

And if she tries this she’d better have eyes in the back of her head… nobody but nobody plays that game better than the One, and she’ll be under the bus faster than she can say “pot, kettle, black”.

In exchange for safe, discreet, round-trip passage, anonymity, and immunity, I offer to close Guantanamo.

Kralizec on November 21, 2009 at 2:04 PM

If you get this contract, I would like to offer my sevices . Free of charge

When the blunders compound even the intentionally blind are forced to see the truth. Hopefully deluded bama voters are intelligent enough to realize it.

Unsurprisingly, the deadline became hard to meet, for various legal and political reasons – including the congressional outburst of NIMBYISM (similar to its earlier outbursts on Dubai Ports and even Terri Schiavo – short-term, irrational, and politically motivated fits that erupt from the Congress from time to time). If Craig failed to foresee this (as some later charged), he had a lot of company.

Mmmkay. So the unsurprising consequences of the purely ideological decision to close Gitmo were not foreseen by a lot of people, not only by Craig. In other words, he was not the only one blinded by leftist ideology. Sterling defense of Craig there I must say. Any more forthright, and you could call it damning with faint praise.

Certain things are not his fault: the unprecedented truculence of the Republican Party, scared silly by right-wing ranters on cable television; the unholy economic and foreign-policy mess that he inherited; the fact that he never had, as so many liberal commentators asserted, the 60 (or 58 or 59) Senate votes that would enable him to get what he wanted from the Congress. It’s not his fault that unemployment rates remain stubbornly high following a traumatic recession.

Nothing produces truculence like being ignored–he brought that on himself. As for the “unholy” mess he “inherited,” he’s done nothing but throw gasoline on those flames ever since they came under his purview. It IS precisely his fault that the unemployment rate remains so high. The economy seems like the weather to liberals; they don’t realize that we can a lot to influence it, positively and negatively.

Ayan Hirsi Ali talks about the romantic movement and leftism as well. It all started with the French Revolution (the French, of course!) and the Commies just adapted it to their own use. Read up, and win those Thanksgiving arguments, people!

Hirsi Ali on Reason

“…his situation was untenable, and he had to leave. …he was treated shabbily.

“There’s a lot of concern among a lot of lawyers in this town, especially those who were supporting Obama, that somebody this bright, this respected, this good, and with this integrity, was treated in such a way.”

Sorry to step on your man-crush, Elizabeth, but you know who was treated shabbily on his way out?

Elian Gonzales.

His mother died to gain his freedom and with a midnight knock on the door, Greg Craig and the Clintons stuck a gun in his face and dragged him back to the island prison. And I don’t mean Gitmo.

World’s smallest violin, lady.

Every Obama Democrat should read: “Journey Into the Whirlwind”
by Eugenia Semyonovna Ginzburg and figure out which group you might be in the next 3 years or so. If you can’t find it at a regular library go to a university bookstore.

a)the communist party member unjustly accused and imprisoned who slowly understands that Stalin knows what is going on
b) the communist party member who thinks Stalin has no clue of what is going on even as they are desparately searching for frozen berries in the tundra and writes poety to him
c)the one who knows it is Stalin all the way- and commits suicide
d)the prisoners of faith, foreigners who have been persecuted before and know how to survive in the prisons and hold fast to their faith
e)the common criminals who steal, beat, misuse,rape the political prisoners once they are billeted together

their Byron of the Beltway was always an illusion, an empty suit on which they projected all of their own Romantic notions.

…an imbecillic narcissistic teenager, with Messianic notions…became their Utopian idealistic apotheosis because he is sun-tanned.

Ed, most of the high opinions and expectations came from the left’s desire to have an un-opposable black man as a democratic president.
conservnut on November 21, 2009 at 11:17 AM

And don’t forget the many goofballs who jumped on the bandwagon of “being on the right side of history” by voting for the first black president.

marybel on November 21, 2009 at 11:27 AM

PROPAGANDA that coerces obedience destroys Romanticism.

A Romantic does not for the sake of principle simply reject logic. Neither does the Romantic reject feeling. The Romantic identifies with both; but when there’s a conflict, the Romantic refuses to go against his instict simply to appease a rationality. Let your conscience be your guide.

By the way, when did they repaint Air Force One?

unclesmrgol on November 21, 2009 at 1:20 PM

Yea; I saw that too. Since when can Obama use Air Force One as his own flying personal commercial?
Looks like he plans on flying around the world blessing loaves and fishes for the masses in the not too distant future.

who once held an unromantically high opinion of Obama.

That blares “inappropriate” usage, that you well noted.

It was, like the Romantic movement itself, a rebellion against rationality and establishment borne by the arts.

Be careful not to oversimplify the meaning of Romanticism.

Do look into the “War of the Romantics” to appreciate what Romanticism was/is vs. what late 19th century neo-classicists perverted it to be understood according to their purist dogma that smothered the essence of creativity into conformity. The “Young Romantics” born before 1820 are not those like the critic Hanslick, the dictator of “The Beautiful”, the so-called “Romantic” who wasn’t, yet whom Jonah Goldberg referenced as “Romantic” in his book, Liberal Fascism.

Romantics include Beethoven and our Founding Fathers. They did not “reject the Enlightenment”–indeed they embraced their Classical heritage, studied all the Classics fervently as they also embraced the concept of organic growth and evolution stemming from the “metaphysical” imagination and creative spirit that inspired IDEA upon which they experimented to generate scientific discovery with the goal to improve the lot of common man while worshiping the glory of Creation. Yes, they did reject the negative effects from the Industrial Era (pollution, poverty and essential slavery of the labor force, and wars of aggression). But they did not reject the goods that the machines progressively produced, the steam ship, the grand piano, the Eiffel Tower, the Statue of Liberty, the Rail Road, the telegraph. They simply longed for the unattainable, to live a perfect dream: the idealist return to nature’s utopia. That opportunists would twist the imaginative dream into a waking horror of Marxist perversion is not the fault of the Young Romantics. Goethe and Rousseau were not so alike as diametrically different. Listen to Liszt compared to Brahms to hear the structural distinction between a Young Romantic’s novel organic development that evolved from Beethoven’s direction contrasted later with a Neo-Classical conformist who attempted to have the same bowel movements as the late Ludwig. Liszt was encouraging, whereas Brahms constricted.

For contemporary examples in politics, Sarah Palin is a Romantic. Whereas, Obama is a neo-classical Marxist.

A Byron of the Beltway? More like a McGonagall of the Midway.

Spiny Norman on November 21, 2009 at 10:54 AM

och, that hurts!

He didnt write either one.

Now, it’s not unusual for a politician to have a ghost writer, but Bill Ayers?

And the moron (the president, not Ayers) has repeatedly said that he wrote the books himself.

There is literally nothing he won’t lie about.

–Wallace Stegner

Naturally, the eye can be deceived.