A Broken President....and a Failure....

chefdennis

Veteran Expediter
Personally I am hoping for nothing but gridlock for the next 2 years of barry reiding in the WH...with gridlock we can at least know that those in our gov won't screw up the nation beyond where it is now...the best i am asking for is to roll back most if not all that the dems and barry have done since 2008...

This article is a good read, i just don't know if we can get rid of barrycare and tax and cap that barrys epa just may mandate as a regulatory action without going thru the congress and the rest if the garbage nancy harry and barry bent us over and stuffed us with....but one thing is for sure (at least from the point of view of alot more people then when he was put in office, barry has failed to a great degree and from here on out, he is done, finished and a complete failure if his bs is rolled back, found unconstitutional or un or defunded.....:D

November 11, 2010

A Broken President

By Geoffrey P. Hunt
American Thinker: A Broken President

As the nation swept the Democrats to the curb on November 2, the sheer relief of having been rescued from consignment to a collectivist dustbin was a blast of pure oxygen. Obama was not only crushed; he was disowned. While the absolute gains in Congress and State Houses all across the country were stunning enough, it was the speed of the about-face that was astonishing and epic.


Just two years ago, Obama was hailed as a 21st-century Lincoln, the figurative progeny of FDR and JFK combined. The finest dramatic speech-maker since Sir John Gielgud dominated the Shakespearean stage. The most gifted political orator since Winston Churchill and Martin Luther King. The long-awaited enlightened emperor who would soothingly heal rifts abroad, seamlessly ushering in a new era of social justice while effortlessly repairing a broken economy at home.


Instead, we now have a broken president. His domestic agenda is dead -- è morto. His legislative gains will soon be disarmed, if not unraveled. His agenda abroad fares no better. The embarrassing extravaganza in India was another lavish display of his ignorance of history -- this time about India and Pakistan. And his cowardly evasion in defining jihad was injury enough. How insulting to Indian lawmakers to witness in their own chamber that Obama was no orator -- just a mere speech-reader, carrying his teleprompter like an IV drip, the first-ever orator in that body to require the mechanical cue cards.


Our hapless president was outdone only by the excesses displayed by his wife. More diamond-studded belts and broaches and wear-only-once satin dresses and shopping bags bursting at the seams while two out of ten of her broke fellow Americans endure another day out of work waiting for the sheriff to serve foreclosure papers.



Contrast this empty and obscene pomp with FDR's modest yet practical choice of venues for meeting foreign dignitaries -- the state rooms of U.S. Navy cruisers such as the USS Augusta. Or Eleanor's selfless outreach to poor coal miners in Appalachia and her numerous visits to CCC camps all across the country in the 1930s.


Can this man, our president, and his lady be any more imaginative in finding ways to remove themselves from the realities of everyday Americans? Was this a vain attempt at recapturing the Star of India glitter or simply Obama's last hurrah, the favorite meal and final cigar of a man condemned to the gallows?


What remains of his presidency? Where can he go from here?


With liberals desperately searching for any Lazarus scenario, Obama has neither the issues nor the votes to mount any revival. Is there any foreign policy issue that he can win? How will appeasing radical Muslims, continuing to prosecute a war he doesn't believe in, piling on further debt that leaves even European socialists gasping, devaluing the dollar by monetizing our debt, and happily denying America's greatness in the world be winning issues?


Is there a single domestic initiative remaining -- energy, labor, environment, taxes, or social justice -- where his brand of collectivist big government solutions will have the ear of the American people and the votes in Congress? And he doesn't have the votes in the Senate to name any more Supreme Court justices.


We are a nation without a president.


Of course, the office isn't vacant in a physical or literal sense. Obama still occupies that titular role as head of state, commander-in-chief able to conduct transactions. He still commands the vast regulatory bureaucracy capable of sustaining a life of its own and able to inflict considerable damage.


Yet when we consider the modern version of the president as the inspirational leader of a free people, as the advocate and defender of America's greatness around the globe, as the champion of the oppressed and dispossessed while exhorting the self-confidence of individual achievement, the presidency under Obama has shriveled up, been rendered virtually irrelevant.


Perhaps the lesson of November 2 is that the notion of this nation embracing a Moses-like deliverer of the promised land has run its course. The founders never envisioned a government where so much power, except for the ability to wage war, would rest with the Executive. It was the House of Representatives -- close to the ground, diverse, and even fragmented -- where the power, the power of the people, was to reside. And the First and Tenth Amendments reserved distributed authority for the people.


The results of November 2 declared a presidency broken but more importantly asserted the primacy of self-government, locally owned and locally operated. A broken presidency, this time, is not to be mourned, but cheered.
 

rollnthunder

Expert Expediter
It doesnt really matter republicans or democrats both dont really care whats best for you or I. I think we should all face it they havent in a long long time.While the dems point a the republicans and we are all looking at them the dems are doing something we dont want and the same goes for the republicans.IT seems like every time we turn around its the republicans fault or its the dems fault.Well who cars just do whats best for us for once.McConnell already stated he is determined to make sure obama is a one term president.So for the next 2 years that is his goal great we wont get anything productive from him.The republicans where always complaining that about jobs and the economy.Now they say the top 2 things on there list is the health care reform and cut spending.So the very things that complained about for the last 2 years didnt even make there top of the list.There are no good politicians.They are all liars and have forgotten about us the people and that they work for us.
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
Actually the author is out of touch with reality.

The voters didn't 'sweep' the democrats aside and we are not a nation without a president.

What happened was a return of some balance.

If we were to have swept the dems, then both houses would have been cleaned up and we would have had large margins, but don't. It is a problem to a point because of the issues that Marco Rubio pointed out in his victory speech, it is not a republican victory but a second chance.

The article uses FDR, a president who if not shows the real problem of American Elitism and their view of the common man, shows the actual contempt for the common man to do the right thing. He isn't the first, and right now he is the same as the sitting president and the last one.

Many, like the author tend to forget the pomp that was used for King George when he and Queen Mary arrived for their official state visit. Or other dignitaries when the country was in amidst of severe depression, the need to put on lavish parties and gatherings. The Author doesn't get the state departments use of tax payer dollars to ship dignitaries to and from their homeland while entertaining them for weeks at a time at places like Briarwood or other resorts.

If we are to assume that FDR is the standard that we should measure any president after his time, then we must also tell the truth of how he almost lost the war, kept his cabinet fighting each other even during the war and experimented with 'cures' of a depression that was short lived everywhere else except here - a poorer performance than the last two presidents and the present sitting one.

Invoking the demi-god Eleanor as another unreasonable example, she was a first lady who had her own agenda and her need to do more than to be in the shadow of her husband after a failed marriage. Her work did some good but it must not be included in his record at all or compared to our present First Lady because she didn't get him to actually make meaningful changes beyond the publicity and she too at tax payers expense did a number of things that would be scrutinized in today's press as very unreasonable.

Gridlock?

You are joking?

There will never be true gridlock on this congress as there was never gridlock on any other congress.

Many of the incumbents are too weak to stand by any gridlock decisions, and if we want to believed that there is a possibility of it taking place, then we too live in the same fantasy world as some of these people who think the republicans won on their own merits.
 

chefdennis

Veteran Expediter
where in the article is it said or implied that the republicans won on their own merits!?!? The republicans that won simply were voted there over the democrat based on what the dems did for the last 2 yrs, nothing more....the blue dogs dems lost the most dem seats but the alot dems left are the old dogs that are still backing nancy...yes there are moderates left, and they are the ones that will move to the center, but there are enough of the old dogs and nancy to still try and push their agenda along with barry...

Yes gridlock...as much as can possibly occur...now that the repubs are in charge, they can continue to bottle up barrys crap and do everything they can to restrict (i don't believe they will repeal) barrycare by stripping everything that they possibly can...barry and the senate will fight it...that ties them up, fighting to contain cap and tax..again ties them up...and continuing to fight and make every effort to deny everything barry brings to the table...yes they need to be the party of no as they have been named....

Then the rebups need to throw anything and everything that they feel needs to be pushed at barry and make him veto it...make him the bad guy as he has tried to do with the right...

As barry told the republicans in 08, "I won"...well the repubs won now and they had better listen to the people because they are not their own merits, they are there because the people said enough of the liberial bs and move to the conservative side and get this mess fixed..and if you don't you are gone the next time...Election have consequences, and I hope they create a situation where nothing gets done....

Yea Greg, TOTAL grid lock will not happen, but bottling everything up and or stopping the "politics as usual" of this country is a good thing...the less they accomplish the less damage they do....and I don't care if any of them get re-elected when their terms are up...so be it....

Fantasy? Maybe, but I'll happily take it if it happens

Oh and the author didn't hold up FDR and JFK as the examples that barry was, the media and left did back in 08-09....and he often refers to them as his examples along with lincoln....

As for Eleanor..please michelle can hold a candle to her no matter what eleanors agenda was...
 
Last edited:

greg334

Veteran Expediter
Where?

First paragraph.

The problem is that many are looking at this as as republican victory, but it isn't.

Bottling up Obama?

You kidding?

Here is what will happen.

The republicans will compromise. The old guard, which are the ones who put us in this mess, will continue to tell the newbies to shut up and listen to them while the Dems will make more demands and get their way.

The real test as many seem to discount quickly is not the rhetoric but one simple move to restrict 'ear marks' but already the old guard has been on the offensive to deflect that issue and says they need to move on to the "big" stuff out of the gate come January.

This is the arrogance of the republicans that many don't just get who claim to be conservative. I am starting to think that the word conservative is now being refined to something that means anti-democratic party and nothing else.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Greg, you may be thinking too short term and only seem to be focusing on the Federal level. At the State and local level there was a change of power of unprecidented perportions. I think that that swing at that level 600+ seats. THAT is where the REAL power lies. It will take time to work it's way through though. The State MAY now start to assert the power that is rightfully theirs under the Constitution.
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
Greg, you may be thinking too short term and only seem to be focusing on the Federal level. At the State and local level there was a change of power of unprecidented perportions. I think that that swing at that level 600+ seats. THAT is where the REAL power lies. It will take time to work it's way through though. The State MAY now start to assert the power that is rightfully theirs under the Constitution.

I understand that but here is the problem -

17th amendment.

The states are stifled until that amendment is removed and the states have representation. It won't happen until there is a serious change in congress and the people will not make that change. The states will either need to move to ignore the federal government and stop sending tax money to Washington to force a move or call for a constitutional convention to rectify the issue. With it being over 100 years with that amendment, it has failed to actually do a thing for the country, but in fact move us towards a government by the government and for the government.

Many are claiming that the governors call the real shots with their policies being reflected at the federal level but without representation at the federal level of the states DIRECTLY, then there is no channel for them to move their wishes and desires to the federal level.

Get rid of the 17th, let the states decide how to select their senators and a lot of problems will be solved.

By the way, this also gets back to the issue of Term Limits, remember those?
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
I understand that but here is the problem -

17th amendment.

The states are stifled until that amendment is removed and the states have representation. It won't happen until there is a serious change in congress and the people will not make that change. The states will either need to move to ignore the federal government and stop sending tax money to Washington to force a move or call for a constitutional convention to rectify the issue. With it being over 100 years with that amendment, it has failed to actually do a thing for the country, but in fact move us towards a government by the government and for the government.

Many are claiming that the governors call the real shots with their policies being reflected at the federal level but without representation at the federal level of the states DIRECTLY, then there is no channel for them to move their wishes and desires to the federal level.

Get rid of the 17th, let the states decide how to select their senators and a lot of problems will be solved.

By the way, this also gets back to the issue of Term Limits, remember those?


The control of Washington will come from the States, NOT from within. We now have more control of the redistricting process which will soon be taking place. There may be enough power in the States to tell Washington to "stuff" their unfunded, unconstitutional mandates. There may be enough power in enough State to tell Barry that he can "stick Obama Care in his ear" That he and the feds have NO LEGAL authority in the States and cannot MANDATE individuals.

Term limits are NOT needed, they would be nice, but, We the People, hold the ULTIMATE power in this country. WE can and MUST control them before they control us.
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
Layout,
the problem is that term limits are needed, the people are too easily swayed by the media to be consistent and it is the need to control more than just districts to get that consistency. Dingel is the perfect example of a real need for term limits.

Without representation of the states as originally intended (and it worked for the first 120 or so years), the states can't control what the feds do in the manner of mandates and other laws that put the burden on the states like in the case of Medicaid.

Without the representation being selected at the state level by the state, there is no reflection of what the state is, hence Michigan has a republican government but a democratic senator representation in congress - that is ****ed up.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Layout,
the problem is that term limits are needed, the people are too easily swayed by the media to be consistent and it is the need to control more than just districts to get that consistency. Dingel is the perfect example of a real need for term limits.

Without representation of the states as originally intended (and it worked for the first 120 or so years), the states can't control what the feds do in the manner of mandates and other laws that put the burden on the states like in the case of Medicaid.

Without the representation being selected at the state level by the state, there is no reflection of what the state is, hence Michigan has a republican government but a democratic senator representation in congress - that is ****ed up.

Yep, but we COULD recall those bums. Our governor, the new one, COULD tell Obama to "shove it". I don't think he has the stones but he does have that power. The State STILL could enforce their rights as it is. They just have to say no.
 
Top