Q&a

15 responses so far

• 1 gblittle // Mar 3, 2009 at 6:41 am

  As I posted earlier, the policies that Obama and the Democrats are ramming down our throat has nothing to do about saving our economy its pure liberal agenda/policy. In other words I hope they they fail.

• 2 jlloyd // Mar 3, 2009 at 8:24 am

  I also think we should turn the question around to ask what the President views as sucess. It seems to me that he is determined to punish anyone who is successful, and to punish the most successful economy in history in general. In other words, he view success as the destruction of a free-markey, capitalist system, and those who benefit from it. The President wants to strengthen goverment at the expense of liberty in a transformative way, that doesn’t just succeed in “restoring” American greatness, but in completely undermining it for the sake of imposing statist control over the economy and individuals. Once upon a time, this was called tyranny. We need to get the left to define exactly what it is proposing as success to effectively oppose it.

• 3 sinz54 // Mar 3, 2009 at 8:52 am

  The problem is, it is impossible for Obama’s policies to fail while the country prospers by itself. That’s never happened before–not with Herbert Hoover, not with Jimmy Carter. We only get one president at a time. If Obama’s policies fail, then the economy will continue to be mired in a deep recession, perhaps even a depression–with all the suffering that will cause millions of Americans. (I do not believe that our economy is “self-correcting” and will recover by itself.) So wishing for Obama’s policies to fail is tantamount to wishing for the country to suffer, so that it will become disgusted with Obama and elect Republicans. Folks, I’m not that cynical. I don’t believe that Obama’s policies will work. But I would be happy to be proven wrong–because it means that the country will prosper, which is more important to me than winning elections.

• 4 choccity2005 // Mar 3, 2009 at 10:01 am

  Don’t you people get it!!!!

  WHo cares if rush can act a fool on stage.WHy is every MSm pundit picking up this story.Why is obam,gibbs and rahm emanuel electing RUSH as the leader of the republican party.Hmmm let’s see…..cause he’s RICH(100 mil plus)he’s obnoxious,arrogant,polarizing,has tons of tape where he says things uninformed people will be shocked to hear and he’s WHITE!!!

  They don’t want michael steele,bobby jindal,sarah palin or a mel martinez as GOP leaders which they are.They want the same old face,same old thinking that has led republicans into the wilderness.

  None of you ask yourselves that question?

  Steele,palin,jindal,martinez have all been critical of OBAMA….Yet the person they single out is RUSH LIMBAUGH!!!

  YOu are facing the MSM that is in the dems pocket,you have a economy in peril,you have the war over and BUSh is getting zero credit for it,obama will be hailed as ending the war…wait and see.You are facing one of the best communicators in american history next to Ronald Reagan.

  If someone had said they wanted reagans policies to fail…..Would we not go nuts over that statement.

  Rush is giving red meat to the left…he’s giving them a gift with a bow.

  I guarantee when the elections come…..they are going to play these rush limbaugh tapes back all over tv and say…..Republicans rooted for AMERICA TO FAIL!!!The recession will not last 4 years and EVEY economist left and right has said that!!!!

  WE ARE DOOMED!!

• 5 Squire // Mar 3, 2009 at 10:04 am

  This is the reason I like Bobby Jindal. Since his poor performance last Tuesday (which, as Kathleen Parker described in her column on Sunday, was not Bobby Jindal), he has pretty much said those exact words on the “Today” show and “Larry King.” He may not be the caliber of speaker that Obama is, but he has a lot of time to develop his national profile and media skills. I’d rather not see him be the leader of the party right now because I think that should belong to a Republican in Congress. Unfortunately, the two Republican “leaders” in Congress (Boehner and McConnel) don’t have what it takes. Hopefully, in the years to come, Cantor and Ryan can step up (I like Ryan a lot).

• 6 Republitarian // Mar 3, 2009 at 10:04 am

  It’s amateur hour at the GOP. Instead of talking up things like the tax holiday or the importance of reduced capital gains in stimulating investment, they’re like trout to newly tied flies taking every piece of bait the Whitehouse throws at them. It’s pathetic. The Republicans had better find a message (any message other than defending Rush Limbaugh) and stick to it. Or, it’s going to be a blood bath for the GOP in 2010.

• 7 sinz54 // Mar 3, 2009 at 10:33 am

  jlloyd sez: “I also think we should turn the question around to ask what the President views as success.” Having some experience with other liberals, I’m sure I know how he would answer: He considers “success” as reducing the unemployment rate and putting the unemployed back to work. But we conservatives know better. We know that the unemployment rate is a *lagging* indicator of the health of the economy; the economy can be recovering even when unemployment remains high, as it did throughout most of Reagan’s first term. Thus if your policies are all geared toward putting people to work, you are liable to come up with all kinds of short-term make-work schemes that may pay people to show up, but won’t grow the private sector, which in the long term is the true engine of job creation. However, I realize that’s a tough argument to make in times of high unemployment. It asks Americans to have patience and wait for longer-term solutions to kick in. Americans were willing to give President Reagan’s program a chance to work, even if it took years–because back then, the debacles of the Carter presidency had made Americans more trusting of Republicans than Democrats. That’s no longer true today.

• 8 jlloyd // Mar 3, 2009 at 1:52 pm

  Sinz –
  Obama campaigns and governs with centrist platitudes. What I intended was that not only should conservatives get some explicit statement of intent from the left when defining success (and often, that is enough to expose their true nature- e.g. “spreading the wealth, eliminating coal, causing electricity to skyrocket, etc.), but once they commit, we can get them to explain how they intend to achieve their success. We now see the “how” – endless expansion of government, enormous debt (which is by definition un-democratic, since most of those who will wind up paying aren’t voters, or even born yet), subsidizing inefficiency and punishing productivity. Ultimately, it is all endless class warfare, which will never result in success, since the warfare itself is the ultimate goal.

• 9 JJWFromME // Mar 3, 2009 at 2:17 pm

  jlloyd: “since the warfare itself is the ultimate goal.” No that was the *conservative* intent of *its* class warfare:
  http://policingwingnutwelfare.blogspot.com/2009/01/wingnut-welfares-manifesto-new-class.html
  But we’re just trying to solve the problems. Go read Kirk and de Tocqueville and tell me they don’t say modern industrial society can cause problems. That’s why the New Deal happened. Minimum wage, the five day workweek, unemployment insurance, etc. Now we’ve got *different* problems. Climate change, unaffordable healthcare, education needs in a competitive world economy, etc. …And I don’t think he’s doing much more than returning tax rates back to where they were in the previous decade.

• 10 JJWFromME // Mar 3, 2009 at 2:46 pm

  sinz54:”We know that the unemployment rate is a *lagging* indicator of the health of the economy” I told you this before. Unemployment contributes to the bad economy. The reason why the called Reagan economists “supply siders” is that before that there were “demand siders” (although they didn’t call them that). Go look up Keynes. This is settled economics. By the way Sinz, looks like you made it onto Dave Roberts blog at Gristmill: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2009/3/2/03623/14188

• 11 petty boozshwa // Mar 3, 2009 at 3:27 pm

  We need to be a proposition party, not an opposition party. Specific suggestions with dollar amounts of savings attached will be required until we wash off the stigma of incompetence GWB has bequeathed us. A couple of examples: I believe I’ve read that 27% of the inmates in our federal prisons are illegal aliens – the most notorious today is the repeat offender just charged with murdering Chandra Levy. Why not a treaty with some Central American or Caribbean country to incarcerate these parasites at $20,000 a year? With no return to the USA after discharge. Another example: anybody conceiving and bearing a child while on public assistance will be docked any social security contributions above minimum wage until the debt is repaid. This goes for father and mother, and grandparents if the principals are under 18. If the debt isn’t repaid those contributors are barred from receiving benefits until 72 years old.

• 12 Mr.Conservative // Mar 3, 2009 at 3:52 pm

  Semantics–I want President Obama’s PLANS to fail in so far as he is creating a socialist state, destroying capitalism, subverting freedom and weakening our foreign policy standing (the letter to the Russians and their response, please, this is Jimmy Carter, part deux)

  If he changes course and begins to obey fundamental laws of economics, respect free markets, encourage wealth building and projects strength in foreign policy, this I pray President Obama SUCEEDS.

  There. Clear enough?

  David, did Bush’s critics not personalize their criticism. It was never “Bush’s plan failed” it was always, “Bush is a moron, Bush can’t speak well, Bush’s hubris turns off allies” blah, blah, blah

• 13 KZ // Mar 3, 2009 at 3:53 pm

  Great power curve-up

  In embryo, no! We cannot hope to understand this enormous upheaval without first ascertaining the social and political consequences.

  There are changing normative behaviors in the US with the erosion of property rights as people end up living in homes they didn’t pay for. We have a rabble in this country that will plunder everything that comes into their view. Because of the uncertain validity of their legal claims to their new homes they are anxious for political protection.

  As Obama gins up support for his budget (a crucible of socialist change) he will seek their support because many of these squatters from the outset were from the dependent class. A classic quid pro quo here…

  We cannot allow for this great power curve-up to become comprehensive because capitalism is the present and the future of America not sweeping Marxist socio-economic reforms.

• 14 JJWFromME // Mar 3, 2009 at 4:02 pm

  “There are changing normative behaviors in the US with the erosion of property rights as people end up living in homes they didn’t pay for.” Well, who pushed the the mortgages on them? This was a great show on that topic: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio_episode.aspx?sched=1242
  Who made this all possible? Mr. Deregulation himself:http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2008/05/foreclosure-phil

• 15 bbbeard // Mar 4, 2009 at 6:54 pm

  To which the obvious rejoinder is, “But do you want him to succeed?” Your answer is a dodge, and even Katie Couric would make you look like a fool.

  What Would Reagan Do? Would he really say, “Yes, of course, I want Mr. Obama to succeed?” Or do you think he would come up with a wonkish answer about marginal tax rates? Or do you think he would find a more charming way to say what Rush has said? “Well, some folks would like you to think that’s the important question. I think the question is whether he’s taking us in the right direction, and I don’t think he is.”

  David, the question is a rhetorical gambit. It poses the rainbow of policy choices in Manichean terms: either you are with us or against us. “If you want Obama to succeed, you must vote for his agenda. Otherwise in two years we will hoist you under the banner of hypocrisy: ‘Senator Legghorn claimed he wanted our President to succeed. Than why did he vote against Barack Obama seventy-one times? Can Legghorn really be trusted?’ ”

  Rush called this bluff. I think his strategy will work better than yours. The question is: why are you allowing Democrats to frame the agenda? Because Obama is handsome and appeals to women? Sometimes I worry about you….

  BBB

You must log in to post a comment.