In November 2007, Obama answered a question about accepting public funding by writing: "In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election. My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election. The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."
In the middle distance one can see two camps emerging during the Obama era. On one side are what can only be described as the status quo elites and their supporters. On the other are "tea party" types with libertarian instincts. (On the home front, at least.)
As I wrote earlier the tea parties may have been astroturfed by conservative establishment types but they nevertheless hit a nerve - and people did show up in the thousands. The legitimacy of this nascent "movement" won't be known for a while and outside economic events will certainly play a role going forward.
The over the top condescension and attacks on the tea parties from the media elites, most recently the uber smug Bill Maher, should be seen as proof not of dismissal - but of genuine concern that real blow back could be brewing and needs to be checked. It is odd but true: Unlike the mainstream talking heads, I find the Left confused and disoriented at this point and the Right slowly recovering and becoming coherent again. The Left with a few exceptions is still caught in the headlock of the Obama cult and people like Maher are unable to see, or unwilling to admit, that they are the tools of the elite now. Drooling over Obama is, in effect, drooling over those who paid for him - Soros and Goldman Sachs.
Both sides of the emerging debate offered examples of "gut check" responses. The elites/status quo types...(In a nod to Orwell they are currently under the banner of "change" - though the chief "change " agent has busied himself - with a few notable exceptions - with extending and expanding Bush era policies on all fronts.) ...responded from their collective gut - and blasted the tea parties at every turn. Large dollops of snottiness clogged the airwaves - except Fox News which is run by a man with the preternatural ability to clue into gestalts the elites would just as soon ignore.
The tea party types I observed - except those who scream "socialism!" at every turn - were also coming from the gut. Some had specific policy concerns but many - if not all - simply felt something was going very wrong in the country. Certainly Bush kicked this feeling off . The complaint that those people in D.C. don't listen to us, always a feature in American life, has now crystallized with 2 subsequent elections, trillions in bailouts, and financial cave ins - into a sense among some that the monster is out of control. Obama has accelerated this by downplaying his true intentions during the campaign and passing out billions in borrowed money since his inauguration. Like it or not - people did not expect the scale of his ambitions - and the media elites had no intention of playing them up. He was their guy and, by God, he was going to win.
Of course, recent polls argue that I am wrong. 60% are fine with Barry so far. I would argue back that we are in a holding pattern now and that most won't turn until enough time has passed for people to divorce themselves from their recent vote.
The coming arguments will be ruthless on all fronts from Health care, to Carbon taxes, to torture (Obama's first severe self inflicted wound. Soros and Move On have broken from him on this already.). All this will be played against a back drop of increasing unemployment and Israel's growing impatience with Iran.
I suppose the coming fights could be chocked up as the norm in our history - going all the way back to the Federalist versus the Jeffersonians. But the view from the middle distance causes me to see this rendition of the American argument differently in both complexity and tone. Dismal as it sounds, both sides are fighting for the idea of a country which - for different reasons - does not and can not exist. The elite establishment cannot continue to expand its purview with no consequences while expanding our investment in it with health care for all and bromides about credit cards. We just don't have the money. In fact, without the Chinese picking up the tab, we don't have any money. FYI: Credit card company gangsterism is a symptom. Credit itself is the disease.
Conversely the "tea partiers" need to refrain from the delusion that the collected power that they are, in fact, confronting will not fight to the death to keep the system in place. They will. Everyone from Ben Bernanke to Bill Maher will do their part. Whether the "tea partiers" are aware of it or not this is not a fight against taxes or big government - they are arguing against the system itself. That is the were logic leads - and neither side seems to "get it."
Maher can mock (calling them fat white people) the seemingly defuse nature of the first round of blow back because, frankly, it is defuse. But that is because it is frustration with the whole monster - and not focused on its variousparts. More than even that - underneath some of this resentment is disappointment and revulsion against the entire lifestyle conjured in America since at least the 70s is brewing. We've been entertained by bobbles as wages stagnated. The bobbles are losing their ability to distract.
Though elites anywhere can sniff out potential insurrection from 50 paces and blindfolded - the Pelosis and Obamas don't yet grasp the potential gravity of a middle class revolt. But to fight against an unresponsive government at this point is not about making adjustments to the system. The system is set up to be unresponsive to anyone other than those at the top. That is its point. It it what it has evolved into.
The logical end of a new "states rights" movement is a kind of civil war, if not an outright one. The Wall Street Journal had an oped yesterday promoting the idea of a constitutional convention that would reassert the 9th and 10th amendments and repeal the income tax, which would cut off the elites power and lifeline. I recommend reading it, wherever you currently stand. The last 2 times "states rights" became a major issue in this country there was, literally, blood in the streets. Add the jet fuel of economic dislocation and all bets are off for the fire next time.
If I sound gloomy, it is because I am. I tend to agree with Gore Vidal who said "Republics don't restore themselves." They become authoritarian or break apart - which are the 2 options I see just past the middle distance.
The real promise of Obama was that he would heal. Nothing like healing will happen. This is the true betrayal so far.
While the new, and very popular, President Barack Obama appears to mean well, Hillary Clinton's admonishment that he was unprepared for what lays ahead now seems more real than at first imagined.
This comes from Truth Out a Left wing site. Read it all. I disagree with two parts of the quote. The word "very" is misleading. He is personally liked by 60% of the population. His policies when they are laid out are not nearly as popular. He also does not appear to "mean well" to this citizen. He does not appear to "mean" anything.
The piece is a run down of just how often Obama "defers" to the experts and how this betrays the voters. None of this is news to anyone who paid attention last year. The mother of all apologies is due us from the thoughtless, mindless, Obama goons.
But I want to go a step further and a step toward a simpler reason.
I posit another reason for Obama's compulsive deferment to the experts, something that I have not heard a major or minor pundit say: Obama's deferment to the "experts" or any one else around for that matter (he handed off the stimulus to Pelosi within days of taking office) is not wisdom, or inexperience - though inexperience clearly plays a roll - IT IS SLOTH.
(Okay, I know I am running headlong into large underground parking lot of the Stereotype Mall with the last sentence....all I can do it point it out. "Those Negros are shiftless and lazy" is clearly not what I am saying. As always, I see no other way to combat the misuse of the "race card" except to make no excuses, and if I think BHO has a big streak of lazy to say it - not giving a damn what it "sounds" like. Frankly, I felt very much the same way about W.)
Obama has never demonstrated an ongoing interest in any job he's every had - only in the next one he wanted. He is always detached and disinterested in the job he has. Any recollection of his "community organizing" other than is own implies that he showed up when the work was already done. His state senate career was negligible until he was handed bills to attach his name to late in the game. He was barely in the U.S. Senate before he began running for POTUS full time. The essence of Obama's cool demeanor is not wise detachment. It's boredom. Face it, America, he's just not that into you.
Of course he "defers to the experts" on everything. He's barely ever worked. His two books are self serving narcissism - that broke no new ground ideologically. They set HIM up neatly and have served to control the Obama narrative. That is their point.
So I suggest Obama is both out of his depth and, frankly, lazy. He's never held a job which means every issue is above his pay grade.
Meanwhile the same crew that looted before are looting again. Different names, same people.
Obama is an errand boy, sent by grocery clerks to keep the money flowing up. If "errand boy" strikes as too strident then call him what he is: A front man.
This is infuriating. But more than that it is heartbreaking. We are nearly out of time. "We" being the nation. This thing called the United States is creaking under its own weight. I am no longer convinced we can survive a vapid, personality driven Presidency. A Federal Government that willfully and continually detaches itself from those it governs cannot last here. It can in some countries. We are not built that wayunless we are bought off. This is fast becoming impossible.
It should surprise no one that the clip below comes from Texas. Nor should it surprise that the reaction was spurred on - not by Ws insane Federal intrusions - but by Obama's continuation of the Federal expansion. Texas's cultural history and its own narrative makes it a natural first stop for a press conference like this. However, Rick Perry has immediately made himself a voice for a LARGE segment of the entire population.Tea Parties are blow back. Not just against Obama but against Bush as well.
The Left, currently occupying itself with spitting on Tea Parties, isfundamentally misreading their prime impulse. Rachel Maddow, a former Rhodes Scholar no less- and her handlers at MSNBC - have decided that the future shall be loud, stupid, and vapid. They are wrong. Dead wrong.
