Comments About the First Nitwit and His Failed Two Years of Beta Socialism

Here are some comments that I made to the Economist magazine as their editorial staff lurches leftward with the advent of Peter Avent, an American-style JournoList cabal member, polluting the news and editorial product of that once well-written rag.

Obama is the very first far-left president the US has ever had and he's done a great deal of harm already in breaking up the economy and trying to turn the American economy into a soft-tyranny type Euro-nanny state. Obama is clueless as to the formation of capital---having basically acquired a marxist viewpoint in his very limited scholarly exploits [his much vaunted "president" of the Harvard Law Review job was a sinecure ceremonial post, not that of the ink-stained editor in chief]. Obama never had a real professor's job at U of Chicago either. He was an adjunct professor who was given an office over the entire objections of the Chicago Law faculty, merely to satisfy the University Regents. That's been the story of this coddled tyro's life---his "community organizing' was a chimera and since he's been president, his main skill has been reading off a teleprompter, often gaseous speeches more notable for Churchillian grandeur than any practical punch.

He was elected as the non-GWBush, the tongue-tied dolt who tried to put a camel through the needle's eye on guns and butter. The Economist has been taken over by JournoList.serve scribblers like Peter Avent and now suddenly is no longer the sensible mag of old---but still Lexington seems to understand the American way of life which is so scorned by Euro and Latino types who lurch in their own countries sideways at the moment. The US is suffering from a fiscal crisis, not a business crisis, and throwing money at a fiscal crisis simply makes banks balance their books while businesses hunker down and don't borrow to expand---that leaves Obama playing Johnny Appleseed with borrowed money and Boehner having to be the fiscal sheriff trying to rein in silly Keynesian excesses to keep the crooks out of Dodge City. I was going to use Jesus in the Temple with the money-changers, but the secular crowd who reads this mag might miss the reference.

This was in response to a particularly dense example of nitwittery:

One commenter said:


"If Obama would pursue a "leftish" agenda you would give the american people a PUBLIC OPTION which 70% wanted or a single payer system... etc."

I guess the real poll of the people who voted and for the last YEAR have said in over 60% percentages that they want ObamaCare repealed doesn't count in a 70% poll for the public option---one of those polls which Dems specialize in by excluding Republicans and independents---one poll 18 months ago versus about twenty since then which have seen a steady EROSION of support for ObamaCare and a 60% of the voters who want to repeal the ridiculous 2600-page monstrosity.

Here is an excellent observation by a Mr. Naegele:

We are witnessing the end of Barack Obama's presidency. What happened on Tuesday is merely the tip of an enormous iceberg. Between now and the 2012 elections, the twin pincers of the American economy and his Afghan War will seal his political fate. In all likelihood, he will be precluded from running for reelection, just as Lyndon Johnson was in 1968.

See http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/20/the-end-of-barack-obama

Regrettably, the Economist does not understand American politics, or the political tsunami that just swept through the country, which will roll through the 2012 elections. For example, the article states:

"[The future of the 'American Right' is] clouded by three . . . things: fury, an absence of ideas and more than a little craziness. Much though the leaders of the tea-party movement claim the mantle of Ronald Reagan, they lack both the Gipper’s sunny optimism and his pragmatism."

This is utter nonsense, and simply reflects the Economist's political wishes and biases.

The fury or anger is shared broadly by Republicans, Independents (who constitute approximately one-third of American voters), "disenchanted" Democrats, and supporters of the Tea Party movement. The pejorative, "American Right," is a misnomer. Those arrayed against Barack Obama are broad-based; and they reflect a growing recognition of who the U.S. president really is—which would have been evident if more Americans had read his book, "Dreams from My Father," before the 2008 elections.

See, e.g., http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/is-barack-obama-a-racist; see also http://naegeleblog.wordpress.com/2010/03/31/the-rise-of-independents

The Economist's biases are further reflected in the following statement: "[B]y backing a stimulus now[, Obama] has a cogent answer to the immediate problem of the stuttering recovery." This too is nonsense, because his last so-called "Stimulus Package" was devised by Nancy Pelosi and her House Democrats, and it did almost nothing to stimulate the American economy and merely wasted American taxpayers' monies.

As a further example of how "out of touch" the Economist is, and how it failed to understand what really happened on Tuesday, the article refers to the "distraction of various Republicans, including perhaps Sarah Palin." To characterize Palin as a "distraction" is the height of far-Left elitist sentiments, which were rejected in America on Tuesday.

If anything, Palin is the darling of the Tea Party movement, which energized the moribund Republican Party and may decide its future—and that of its “establishment.” While there is a long list of other potentially-strong GOP candidates, the often-outspoken Palin has “caught fire” and connects with her audiences like few politicians can. Barack Obama did this prior to the 2008 elections, but he has lost his luster and faded.

daveinboca wrote: Nov 4th 2010 7:02 GMT
@rewt
Yes, the Dems are famous for peeling off one or two Senators from liberal constituencies to join in their plundering of the national wealth or regulating free market processes---then calling the "compromise" bi-partisan. The Dems are specious and spurious, but they bribe Republican outliers very well and we can hope this will redound against them, not in their favor. Even Scott Brown was seduced by Harry Reid after his victory in MA to support a silly paperwork-heavy regulation of the financial industry, an industry few Democrats understand except in gross marxian terms to begin with.

Followed by my commentary:

I have to agree with Mr. Naegele that Palin is doing a marvelous job in recommending candidates who then garner immense support and coast to victory. Here in FL, a virtual unknown named Pam Bondi received Palin's endorsement a week before the August primary and coasted from nowhere to be the GOP candidate for Attorney General, always a steppingstone to the governor's mansion. Young Ms. Bondi pondered in wonder to a talk-radio host that Palin had not even called her up to discuss the endorsement. Palin's pixie dust worked as well as Obama's in 2008 with the exception that Palin has been vetted exhaustively, while Obama still remains a virtual stranger due to lack of due diligence by the lamestream media and the fact that all info about Barry Soetero is kept under lock and key, officially described as "disappeared."

Pam Bondi's story has a happy ending. She beat the Dem hack by a two to one margin with over three million votes at last count. To this day, she's only talked to Divine Sarah on the phone, and knows only that her incorrupt resume and strong conservatism were the touchstones for Palin's endorsement.

Political magicians like Palin come around once a generation, but I doubt she will run herself for POTUS. I do think she might get Marco Rubio into a Vice President slot in 2012---he has genuine brains, charisma, and a true understanding of just what the United States means to a political refugee. And his speech-making powers exceed Obama's and are genuine, not artifacts of professorial paperwork.