Posts
As today’s election rings down the curtain on the Age of
Obama more than a few voters are saying that they wish they could vote for
Obama again. Apparently, their brains are so addled that they cannot see the
obvious, which is staring them in the face.
The political world that Americans keep complaining about
was created by Barack Obama and by those who put him and kept him in office.
Responsibility always begins at the top. Most Americans are anguished over how
it could have come to such a bad choice of presidential candidates. If they care
to know what went wrong they should look to the man at the top.
As a way to keep some perspective I recall Richard Fernandez’s
excellent analysis of American foreign policy in the Age of Obama:
The Era
of Hope and Change has been one prolonged act of suicide. If anyone had said
that Obama would manage to alienate Israel and the Philippines, lose Turkey,
pay Iran a hundred billion dollars, preside over the loss of a won war in
Afghanistan, lose billions of dollars in military equipment to ISIS, watch a
consulate burn, restart the Cold War with Russia, cause Japan to re-arm and go
the knife's edge with China, would you have believed it? If someone had
told you in 2008 millions of refugees would be heading for Europe and that the
UK would leave the EU after Obama went there to campaign for them to remain,
would you not have laughed?
He
promised "smart diplomacy" and the restoration of American prestige
in the world. How did it come to this?
When a nation loses its pride and its prestige, bad things
happen. As we await the news of who is going to preside over these bad things,
we should keep in mind, not only that we are living in the Age of Obama, but
also that we are even allowed to think that he bears any responsibility for the
nation’s current political discontent.
11 comments:
First they ignore you,
Then they laugh at you,
Then they fight you,
Then you win.
"Responsibility always begins at the top."
Or, as the Japanese say, the fish rots from the head.
Aside from the Fernandez's foreign policy list, a great amount of damage was done at home with Obama's Chicago thuggery. The IRS, DHS, HHS, EPA, NSA, DoD, FEC... so many departments, agencies and institutions weaponized for pure political gain and vindictiveness against any opposition. Combined with the wholly-disgraced journalism "professionals" who are absolutely not doing their job, and you have opaque graft going on at all levels. It's not government by, of and for the people, it's graft by, of and for the people in government, enabled by their willing accomplices in big media.
Having considered all that, Obama really took things to a new low the other day when he effectively encouraged non-citizens to vote in today's election. So Snopes is out saying this is false, and the usual suspects are saying it's hot air. But the question Gina Rodriguez posed to Obama was in this insane context of what it means to be a "citizen," and the president took it from there. You'd have to parse words like a lawyer to see Obama's supposed escape from this. The premise of Rodriguez's question was clear: "Many of the millennials, Dreamers, undocumented citizens -- and I call them citizens because they contribute to this country -- are fearful of voting." So Rodriguez believes that if you "contribute" to this country, you should be able to vote. Well hell, I go to Cancun for vacation and contribute to the Mexican economy... what do you think the Mexican government will do if I try to vote there? Or, better yet, I do consulting work in Canada... I'm a "contributor," right? So should I be able to vote in Canadian elections as an "undocumented person?" I think not! Why not have underage children vote, too? They contribute to society. All this from President Obama, the country's top law enforcement official, who swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. The lingo may be cagey in legalese, but the door is open: vote to give others a voice. Weaponize your empathy for people who look like you. Break the law.
74 days to go.
Never fear. As best I can tell, hating on Hillary is almost as fun as hating on Barry, so we can carry on the silly game for another 4 years at least.
But I admit we still don't know, and they say Florida registered an extra 100,000 voters after Hurricane Matthew, and they could all be Trump supporters for all I know. Turnout could always flip this election, and it could be a blow out either way, based on how many new voters come out.
Incidentally Sam L and I have a $50 bet on the election, so if Stuart will tell us his favorite charity, Sam will give a donation if Clinton wins, and I'll give a donation if Trump wins.
And if we get a record national 60% turnout and a Trump victory, I'll gladly blame or praise the majority for whatever Trump brings, and we'll see if only he can fix everything and that we'll be winning so much we'll get tired of winning.
So who did you vote for Stuart?
Ares Olympus said...
Incidentally Sam L and I have a $50 bet on the election, so if Stuart will tell us his favorite charity, Sam will give a donation if Clinton wins, and I'll give a donation if Trump wins.
November 8, 2016 at 2:06 PM
I think I'm in on the Trump side as well.
http://stuartschneiderman.blogspot.com/2016/09/scott-adams-mighty-prophet-seer-blest.html?showComment=1473917059375#c4369023368392624579
I confess to being surprised that Hilary has lasted this long, physically; I think she is very, very ill, and the Presidency is not kind to sick people. But, if she does win, most of the "governing" will be done by her staff, just as with most of the campaigning.
It's over. Obama has been thoroughly repudiated. The Clintons are done. And the selfish, self-serving D.C. worldview has been thoroughly exposed. The big media watched last night, agape.
A great day. I am very happy, and happy for our country.
AesopFan, Thanks for finding the conversation. I had forgotten which comment section we had the bet. My bet was with you.
So we just need Stuart to note his favorite charity. I suppose if Stuart doesn't reply, I'll give a $100 donation to Habitat for Humanity.
Pay up, Ares.
Ares Olympus said...
AesopFan, Thanks for finding the conversation. I had forgotten which comment section we had the bet. My bet was with you.
So we just need Stuart to note his favorite charity. I suppose if Stuart doesn't reply, I'll give a $100 donation to Habitat for Humanity.
**
Works for me.
Habitat is one of the few good things to Carter's credit.
FWIW, I never expected to see a President (Obama) or candidate (Clinton II) who would make not only Carter, but Nixon and Clinton I look good in comparison.
AesopFan, it does look like the Clinton-Bush dynasty has fully ended now. The proud grandparents can retire in style and thank Trump for their tax cuts.
But with the democrats winning the popular vote in 6 of the last 7 presidential elections (back to 1992), it looks like all they need is enthusiasm to win it back.
Trump got less votes than Romney, although they're still counting.
Expect Warren 2020 (She'll be 71!), but of course we still need to have a country by then. Liberal women are clearly hungry for a first woman president they can rally behind.
Ares, thanks for your bracing commentary through-out the election. It's good to have some non-echo-chamber conversations that don't imperil family ties or employment, as so many people have dealt with.
On the popular vote: I noticed that. You many have seen the petition to "persuade" Electors to change their votes (fat chance of that).
What I fear is someone discovering that it's perfectly constitutional to apportion Electors proportionally, as some states already do.
An amendment won't fly, I think: too much danger of coming back to bite as so many other Dem schemes have done.
I don't know how to solve the conundrum of popular v. electoral votes when the cities are so Blue and the entire rest of the country so Red.
Post a Comment