- The American Conservative - https://www.theamericanconservative.com -

A Failed President (or Two)

In Year One of the Reagan Revolution, in which he was a shining star, Budget Director David Stockman told reporter William Greider: “Kemp-Roth (President Reagan’s 1981 tax cut) was always a Trojan horse to bring down the top rate. … It’s kind of hard to sell ‘trickle down.’ So the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really ‘trickle down.’ Supply-side is ‘trickle-down’ theory.”

An astounding admission. The president’s principal salesman of tax cuts was confessing that the altarpiece of the Reagan policy was a ruse — to cut tax rates of the richest Americans.

Stockman had dealt a pair of aces to the president’s enemies.

Yet a betrayed Reagan did not fire Stockman. Instead, he walked him down “to the White House woodshed.”

Few suggested that this showed that Reagan was weak. For Reagan had already survived an assassination attempt, summarily fired an entire union of air traffic controllers, and rammed through a hostile House led by Tip O’Neill the largest tax cut in history.

Yet most everyone here said Barack Obama had no choice but to fire General McChrystal, or reinforce the impression he is weak and indecisive.

The Wall Street Journal/NBC Poll out today confirms that the nation that entertained such high hopes for Barack Obama has lost confidence in his capacity to lead.

Sixty-two percent of all Americans believe the nation is headed in the wrong direction. For the first time, more Americans disapprove of Obama than approve. Fifty-seven percent would prefer someone else, rather than the member of Congress they now have.

Though green shoots have appeared in the economy, Americans no longer believe it. Only one-third thinks things will get better before they get worse again. Independents are deserting Obama. One in six Democrats now disapproves of the job he is doing.
Americans have been through periods of malaise before. But where FDR raised spirits after Herbert Hoover, and Reagan did after Jimmy Carter, the optimism about an Age of Obama is vanishing like the morning mist.

Disenchantment appears pervasive, and the causes apparent:

The Obama economic program — $800 billion in stimulus money piled on top of the Federal Reserve’s doubling the money supply, giving us two straight deficits of 10 percent of gross domestic product — has failed to ignite a robust recovery.

Unemployment still hovers just below 10 percent.

The two-month-old oil spill, where BP’s malfeasance was matched by government incompetence in preventing it from destroying the gulf ecology and economy from Louisiana to Florida, has cast a pall over America’s spirit as wide and deep as the oil slick itself.

The war in Afghanistan is not going well, casualties are running at a nine-year high, and the country no longer wants to fight it, but to get out and come home.

Obama’s “reset” in foreign policy seems to have yielded no more fruit than George W. Bush’s crusade to “end tyranny in our world.”

Three months after Iraqi elections, there is no government in Baghdad. The August deadline for withdrawal of all U.S. combat troops will likely be missed. U.S. relations with Israel have rarely been worse.

Turkey, black-balled by the European Union, a friend and ally of 60 years, is thickening ties to Tehran and Damascus and emerging as first Muslim state of the Middle East and principal patron of the Palestinian cause.

The Russians are pushing Kyrgyzstan to force the United States out of Manas air base, a critical link in the resupply chain to Afghanistan.

Brazil is bitter that America trashed the deal it helped to negotiate to transfer half of Iran’s nuclear fuel out of the country.
For the first time since the late 19th century, the United States is about to be surpassed as the world’s first manufacturing power — by China, which in Mao’s time was still trying to make steel in backyard furnaces.

The British, rejecting Obama’s call to continue stimulating the world’s largest economies until sustainable growth is achieved, have decided to follow Greece and Spain into austerity and retrenchment.

Fearing debt defaults, European nations are slashing government payrolls and pensions, just as California, New York and other states are being forced to do to meet the constitutional requirement to balance their budgets.

America is facing a crisis of confidence in government, with the nation unable to win its wars, balance its budgets, control its borders, stop the bleeding of its manufacturing base or plug a hole in the ocean floor.

Should the sovereign debt bombs start going off, as they have lately threatened to do in Greece, bringing on another financial crisis to dwarf the one we have lately gone through, the crisis of democratic governments will become a crisis of democracy itself.

Perceived to have failed the country, the Bush Republicans were summarily dismissed in 2006 and 2008. Obama’s Democrats go to the wall in November. Republicans will inherit the windfall. Yet few harbor great hopes that the GOP has the cure for what ails America.

Perhaps the answers lie beyond the parameters of our present politics.

Patrick J. Buchanan is founding editor of The American Conservative and author, most recently, of Churchill, Hitler, and the “Unnecessary War” [1].

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM [2]

Comments Disabled (Open | Close)

Comments Disabled To "A Failed President (or Two)"

#1 Comment By Stephanie Herman (Rightgrrl.com) On June 24, 2010 @ 5:02 pm

The GOP will gain the windfall, but the face of the GOP is changing as Tea Party candidates are winning Republican primaries. I hope, though, they campaign against the Obama administration as not a socialist regime, but a corporatist one. Both systems are unconstitutional, but socialism, for many on the left, is acceptable. Corporatism is unacceptable to BOTH sides. We need to campaign on that issue! My book, ‘Obama’s Not a Socialist’ gives a useful overview of corporatism and Obama’s participation. This is the argument that can defeat Obama and other leftists in 2012.

#2 Comment By MattSwartz On June 25, 2010 @ 3:07 am

Is it crazy to think that McChrystal was trying to get himself fired? He knows how PC the atmosphere in the military is, he presumably knew that Rolling Stone would publish juicy gossip as news, and everyone can see that the President at whose pleasure he serves is a bit thin-skinned and self-conscious about being seen as weak.

Why would he want to do such a thing? There are all sorts of possibilities: he might see a disaster (either of the military or PR varieties) coming, he could be fed up with (or embroiled in) the corruption that we’re forever being expected to assume that the Afghans are engaging in on their own, or he might fear for his life or that of his family.

For all we know, this whole thing is a sham that he and the president worked out together to shape public opinion.

Is this too cynical? Am I overdoing it? If so, what makes you feel that way?

#3 Comment By TomT On June 25, 2010 @ 8:07 am

“America is facing a crisis of confidence in government, with the nation unable to win its wars, balance its budgets, control its borders…”

PJB, what an EXCELLENT article. But one must assume, that when you say, “the nation unable”, that you are referring to INTENTIONAL prevention of solving these problems for political and financial gain by the insiders.

One could infer that our “crisis of confidence” in our government is not in their competence, but rather in their ability to represent OUR interests over their own personal financial and political ambitions.

At MattSwartz – I’m reading my thoughts in the form of your words. I would add that I think they misjudged what the Rolling Stone article would portray, but McChrystal later decided to use the opportunity to cut his losses. The guy IS, after all, a committed leftist, and was getting way too many of our guys killed.

#4 Comment By Old Rebel On June 25, 2010 @ 10:23 am

“Perhaps the answers lie beyond the parameters of our present politics.”

No doubt. The options within the present system limit us to two big-business, big-government, globalist parties.

The empire run from DC is too big, too broke, too cumbersome to continue. Society itself is smothering under the burden of an overgrown government that is crippling grass-roots efforts to deal with day-to-day problems.

The United States isn’t too big to fail. It’s too big to survive.

#5 Comment By Chris Moore On June 25, 2010 @ 12:09 pm

Obama’s lack of experience speaks for itself as proof that the man was thrust to the forefront of the Democratic Party by the Party elite because he could deliver a good speech and fit the “progressive” figurehead role to a “T”. The elite knew he would have to dance on their strings because he wasn’t his own man, but a product of their intensive media and party hype, spin and P.R. He’s clearly serving the interests of the elitist globalist agenda (as was G.W. Bush), which draws from both the Left and the Right, and is inimical to American national interests. The globalization elite who run these guys don’t give a damn about this country, and it comes through crystal clear in their policies, which serve their own interests and damage the national interest.

It’s taken years, but today this hidden hand is finally showing up in spades, and can no longer be laughed off as “conspiracy theory.” Goldman Sachs, mortgage bubbles, BP, billions of public money disappearing into the pockets of Big Government and its cronies, getting lied into Middle Eastern wars…all are symptoms of a corrupt system and globalization class run amok, and corrupt mainstream media functionaries that are as elitist and contemptuous of average Americans as are those who own them.

#6 Comment By LauraNo On June 25, 2010 @ 7:09 pm

The two-month-old oil spill, where BP’s malfeasance was matched by government incompetence in preventing it from destroying the gulf ecology and economy…

What a load of crap, Pat. Aren’t you embarrassed by the nonsense you spew?

The war in Afghanistan is not going well…

More nonsense. When was it ever going well? When we were dropping bombs on the entire innocent population? According to the ‘plan’, things will necessarily get worse before they get better. Not that I believe that it will matter…

Obama’s reset in foreign policy will takes years to show fruit, Bush’s 8 years did nothing but make things worse and it will take a miracle to right matters.
I thought by the sound of the name “The American Conservative”, I might find some substance reflecting conservative thought. But no. Ad homien attacks as an excuse to write an article is what I found.

#7 Comment By Steve Hogan On June 25, 2010 @ 10:59 pm

LauraNo,

No miracles are necessary, and it wouldn’t take years to right matters. Stop killing foreigners, bring the troops home, end the empire. Voila! But that means an end to the gravy train for those the profit from endless war, and so the madness will continue until the dollar collapses.

Hope and change! Yes, we can!

#8 Comment By Ian On June 25, 2010 @ 11:33 pm

Well he ( Obama) couldn’t have been dealt a rougher hand. We broke the economy( that is a 2 term so called Republican Presidency did). There was very little conservative about W and his corporate cronies. I guess that is why there is not a lot of difference between W and Obama. My main concern is.. are the new Republican ( Fox News)ideas of Xenopohobia concerning migrants, muslim, latino and gay people the answer?
Berating homosexuals or calling people Nazis will not fix our economic woes. Foreign adventurism and empire building won’t either. I do not seem to hear much else from our modern so called Republican movements. Theres nothing patriotic about badmouthing others … Its very small person thing. Is that all we have to offer>? How about giving us a big picture thing? Lastly who is going to pick Arizonas crops after all those terrible Mexicans and their wives and children have been deported? Us? Really? 5 bucks says we try prison labour. Is that who we are.

#9 Comment By Daniel Weir On June 26, 2010 @ 6:52 am

” … Perhaps the answers lie beyond the parameters of our present politics.”
Translation: Pat Buchanan is thinking of running for President – for a fourth time, which probably matches the record set by Harold Stassen.
Despite my myriad misgivings about Buchanan’s politics and polemics, I rather prefer him to the “kindler, gentler” version propagated by folks such as Pat Choate, Ralph Nader, and – most of all – former radio talk show host Chuck Harder.
These individuals cast their Buchanan-style nationalism in a sort of Barney the Dinosaur fashion … you know, “I love you, you love me, but we don’t love everyone else not like thee.” Harder was especially effective at this somewhat misleading, subversive approach, mixing his rightist nationalism with consumer advice and cuddly, heartwarming stories about stray pets and idyllic childhood memories from the 1950s.
Not exactly the stuff of Buchanan “pitchfork” rallies of years past.
Truthfully, I never did like this approach. It was tantamount to combining Lyndon LaRouche with Mister Rogers; that may sell on SNL or Letterman, but in the hurly-burly political world, it’s a non-starter.
So to Pat Buchanan, I say, go for it! Run for President! Don’t hold back. Say what you mean and mean what you say, and let us voters make up our own minds. That’s what elections are for.

#10 Comment By Hugh McGuinness On June 26, 2010 @ 9:24 am

TomT
“At MattSwartz – I’m reading my thoughts in the form of your words. I would add that I think they misjudged what the Rolling Stone article would portray, but McChrystal later decided to use the opportunity to cut his losses. The guy IS, after all, a committed leftist, and was getting way too many of our guys killed.”

Since when did McChrystal become a “committed leftist”?

#11 Comment By Hugh McGuinness On June 26, 2010 @ 9:36 am

OK TomT says McChrystal is a committed leftist. On what evidence does he say this?

#12 Comment By tbraton On June 26, 2010 @ 10:08 am

“The war in Afghanistan is not going well…
More nonsense. When was it ever going well?”

The “good war” went remarkably well in the first six months. We were able to overthrow the Taliban which was ruling over most of Afghanistan with minimal force and little loss of life and, in the process, evict Al Qaeda and almost capture Bin Laden. The mistake was not getting out as quickly as we got in. Instead, Bush and Cheney decided to get bogged down in a hopeless mission of nation building, in a backward, largely illiterate country that has never had an effective centralized government. We vastly overstayed our presence in a remote country that has no vital national interests for the U.S.

#13 Comment By Chris Moore On June 26, 2010 @ 2:37 pm

The Obama admin is now bragging of expanding Bush’s “world battlefield” paradigm to include the government right to assassinate American citizens.
[3]

Pat Buchanan and the paleocons opposed the Iraq war and the entire War on Terror from the get-go.

Now who’s crazier, the out of control “end of history,” war-pimping, globalization-at-gunpoint elite as epitomized by the Obamunists and the Bushcons, or the America-firster paleocons who want us to regain our sanity and tend our own gardens?

Reading the bizarre comments of Buchanan’s antagonists on this site, I sometimes feel like I’ve fallen through the rabbit hole into some sort of alternative universe where war of aggression sociopaths are celebrated as benign moderates, and benign moderates are castigated as a threat to the peace. This is getting close to what it must have been like to live in the USSR.

#14 Comment By Ian On June 26, 2010 @ 6:05 pm

Now thats the truth.

Bush 1 ( genuine war vet ) left Iraq after Gulf war 1 had achieved the goals they had set. We did make the mistake of keeping our hand half in there which encouraged our later silliness in some ways .. but the sanctions worked ( if the costs on the civilian population are not considered). We did win Afghanistan but are not winning the occupation in the terms of what we understand of winning.

This is what winning is called there.

We’ve gone the distance / stayed the course yadayada (insert your favorite Fox news bubblehead here) We will leave someday…and the place will continue as it was before. Iraq may end up better than before but it is up to them now. If they want to stuff it all up then thats their call – lets not bleed for them.

If you oppose big Government and Taxes whats more big government than foreign wars and huge defence expenditure? We’re firing teachers fire fighters and the like while an “emergency ” measure for 30 billion hits the house this week for these wars. How can we have an annual 30 billion unfunded mandate? I say more teachers less injured marines.

I liked Pats column. How many Republicans ae honest enough to say lets move on?

Are any of you guys above actually conservatives? If so make it an issue. Obama is letting this drift and our guys ( and ladies) are just too damn important for his dilettante half assed approach. I didn’t vote for him and still manage to be disappointed. We’re not gonna win – get out.

who believes we left Vietnam too soon? (or too late?)

#15 Comment By Viva La Revolution On June 27, 2010 @ 10:24 am

” … Perhaps the answers lie beyond the parameters of our present politics.”

It has taken over 200 yrs for our political system to evolve into what we have today. Maybe the time is approaching to hit the reset button. The French did it in 1780 with the the guillotine.

#16 Comment By Jeff On June 27, 2010 @ 4:49 pm

I am always somewhat amused by the short term thinkers and this article is the function of such thinking. The president hasn’t failed yet. He’s handled a few things badly, but he was the only choice in the face of the two idiots who opposed him. I say ‘two’ because Palin would have hen-pecked McCain to death or he would have given in to her screeching. Sensible and fair minded economists have pretty much said we’d be in a pit without the programs Obama pushed. Don’t forget, it was the GOP that brought us to the edge of the pit and the GOP that continues to try and push us into another.
The GOP will not reap a windfall because they still do not have enough real republicans, honorable ones, in position to win over the independents in 2012. Bruce Bartlett and Chris Buckley are probably not going to hit the GOP switch in 2012 and former republicans like me still hold the deciding votes. Right now, Obama is a refreshing change from Bush’s disastrous 8 years.

#17 Comment By Don Yarish On June 27, 2010 @ 6:40 pm

Jeff,
You need to study real economics; Austrian economics.
The”fair minded” economists you rely on, disciples of Keynes don’t have a clue. Did they see the financial crash in the headlights? The Austrians all saw it no one listened.

Yes the GOP does not offer better policies because they too are corporatist puppets of America’s ruling class just as the Democrats are. Obama is a Marxist style Corporatist and I do not consider that a refreshing change from Bush’s Fascist style Corporatism.I can’t believe people, like you, can’t see through this charade. Please PLEASE read Paul’s “Revolution Manifesto” and Peter Schiff’s; ” Crash Proof”.

Ron Paul 2012. He’s been right about everything.The ruling class will do everything they can to stop him because he really does stand for change, he will restore the Constitution, free markets and a free civil society, and our masters from Big Government/Big Business will be out on their criminal behinds.

#18 Comment By Jose R. Pardinas On June 28, 2010 @ 12:45 am

Obama is a disappointment, Bush was an unmitigated disaster and the current GOP/Tea Party chimera can’t muster enough brains to plug up the rectal orifice of an ant.

This country is in serious trouble.

Amazingly, in the midst of this general economic implosion, you still have mutants talking about the need to escalate pointless trillion-dollar wars and to “win” in places like Afghanistan. Which proves that George Carlin had it right: “When you’re born you get a ticket to the freak show. When you’re born in America, you get a front row seat.”

For lovers of history, however, there is a bright side: It looks like we’ll get to see, close up, the demise of the largest and most aggressive military empire that ever was – a privilege that should be well worth any concomitant personal economic pain.

#19 Comment By TomT On June 28, 2010 @ 7:54 am

[4]

“The story about him voting for Obama is not contrived. He is a political liberal. He is a social liberal.”

All through history, we’ve seen rightists start US wars, then the lefties move in and pin us down with nation-building requirements and Rules of Engagement that make the war expensive, financially and at high cost of American lives.

If someone tells those around him to NOT watch Fox, or listen to Limbaugh, but they can check out Huff Post and Daily Kos and Media Matters without themselves being sullied… You got to be colorblind not to see RED FLAGS.

Or be neck deep in the same hypocracy yourself.

#20 Comment By tbraton On June 28, 2010 @ 9:09 am

“All through history, we’ve seen rightists start US wars, then the lefties move in and pin us down with nation-building requirements and Rules of Engagement that make the war expensive, financially and at high cost of American lives.”

You are obviously referring to World War I, World War II, the Korean War and Vietnam, all of which the U.S. became involved in as a result of those “righties” Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman and Johnson.

#21 Comment By TomT On June 28, 2010 @ 11:35 pm

1956, under Eisenhower, “US Military Assistance Advisor Group (MAAG) assumes responsibility, from French, for training South Vietnamese forces”

[5]

World War I, World War II, the Korean War were before my time. Most of us believe that wars are started by a military, industrial, political complex, rather than just the whims of a single man.

#22 Comment By tbraton On June 29, 2010 @ 4:08 am

“World War I, World War II, the Korean War were before my time. Most of us believe that wars are started by a military, industrial, political complex, rather than just the whims of a single man.”

You had stated earlier that “all through history, we’ve seen rightists start US wars, then the lefties move in.” When you said “all through history,” I didn’t realize that you were referring just to the history of the last 10 years. My mistake.

You cite the Eisenhower era decision to assume responsibility for training South Vietnamese forces, but, as I recall, there were only about 1000 miltary advisors in South Vietnam when Eisenhower left office in 1961. It was Kennedy who dramatically increased the level to more than 16,000 before he was assassinated, and, of course, Johnson who vastly increased the troop level over 500,000 and authorized the full scale war. By contrast, we had more U.S. troops in Lebanon in 1982 on a peace keeping mission and more U.S. troops in Somalia on a humanitarian mission in 1992 than we had military advisors in Vietnam at the end of Eisenower’s administration. And neither of those two situations, both misguided in my opinion, resulted in a full-scale U.S. war.

#23 Comment By Jim Evans On June 29, 2010 @ 8:47 am

A Failed President (or Two)

That title brings the Obama robots out of the closet in defense of their most dear leader.

Pat Buchanan: “The two-month-old oil spill, where BP’s malfeasance was matched by government incompetence in preventing it from destroying the gulf ecology and economy…”

LauraNo: “What a load of crap, Pat. Aren’t you embarrassed by the nonsense you spew?”

LauraNo, what planet have you been on lately?

#24 Comment By Christian On June 29, 2010 @ 9:34 am

Obama has followers that so blindly defend him that its beyond say the pride of the Irish and Catholics for Jack Kennedy. This is more than pride for Obama being black and muslim. This closer to the followers of Hitler, Mussolini, Moa and Stalin. Completely trusting and completely blind.

Oh yes Bush would have saved the US auto industry but he would NOT have given the auto industry over to union ownership. Bush would have saved the banks so there isnt much difference there.

The wars seem to play into fiscal stimulus as well as proxies for Israel via Iran and via nuclear technology exchanges from China and its proxy North Korea to the middle east. However, the policy is not that much different than Bush or McCain.

Immigration is really scary. The thought of open borders, H1BVisas, legal and illegal immigration, amnesty while they just cut off millions of US citizens from unemployment and rates remain stubbornly 10%-20% range. However, the policy is not that much different than Bush or McCain.

Its why the Tea Parties are so crucial. Bush killed the republican party by adopting a liberal presidency except for the supreme court.

So far the democrats/liberals have aligned themselves against unemployment with pro-immigration, expansion of minority appointments and minority focused stimulus, etc…but have demonstrated even worse incompetence than Bush with BP oil spill and other areas. FURTHER NEARLY EVERY DEMOCRATIC LIBERAL CITY, COUNTY AND STATE IS BANKRUPT.

If the republicans/conservatives do not understand the value of the Ron and Rand Pauls and think that the tea party is just another populist movement. Sarah Palin is to much like the democrats and Bush and McCain

#25 Comment By TomT On June 29, 2010 @ 10:45 am

“…Eisenhower era decision to assume responsibility for training South Vietnamese forces, but, as I recall, there were only about 1000 miltary advisors in South Vietnam when Eisenhower left office in 1961. It was Kennedy who dramatically increased the level to more than 16,000 before he was assassinated, and, of course, Johnson who vastly increased”

Exactly. And it was the left who forced Nixon into unrealistic ROE that lost the war for us (but given that the basic problem was the corrupt government in S Viet Nam).

“…didn’t realize that you were referring just to the history of the last 10 years”

Um, your mistake in math is almost lib in it’s proportions. 1956 was a bit more than 10 years ago. And I simply meant that I have personal knowledge of the last 50 years, whereas I judge it would be an exercise in futility to try and research earlier than that for you…

I stand by my assertion that wars tend to be started by the “rightwing” elements of the industrial/military/political complex, which some mistakenly try to include into the caricature “neocon”. Then the tree huggers grab ahold of it, and make it prolonged, costly, and bloody.

#26 Comment By Insightful Ilias On June 29, 2010 @ 7:31 pm

“An astounding admission. The president’s principal salesman of tax cuts was confessing that the altarpiece of the Reagan policy was a ruse — to cut tax rates of the richest Americans.”

While it is true Mr. Stockman had dealt a pair of aces to the president’s enemies, it is also true that Mr. Stockman misspoke by accidently revealing the truth and revealing the real agenda of the administration. This is quite a bit different than personally insulting the commander and chief, the administration, and holding the plan he was trying to implement in contempt.

The Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II real economic plans were to provide constant economic stimulus through ever larger deficits. At the beginning of Mr. Reagan presidency the deficit was around an unsustainable $40 billion with a national debt hovering around $1 trillion deficit. By the time of his second term he was running “nothing to worry about” deficits of a 1/4 of trillion dollars and had doubled the national debt.

Bush II bestowed a deficit of 1.2 trillion dollars and a national debt of over 11 trillion dollars to his successor. If it hadn’t been a string of budget surpluses in President Clinton’s second term, Bush II would have passed on a national debt approaching 13 trillion dollars. Obama and America would not have economic and fiscal problems if it wasn’t for the fiscal liberalism bordering on fiscal malice that the last three Republicans committed against America.

Having taken an America with less than a trillion of national debt and leaving it with 12 trillion dollars of additional debt is like blaming the heart attack of a 400 lb man with diabetes, cholesterol, high blood pressure on the last cheese burger he ate.

Obama’s unsolveable problems stem from the three , but especially Bush II, failed foreign policies.

Bush II dragged the USA into a war in Iraq with falsified documents and lies, couldn’t be bothered to actively pursue the actual people who actually attacked and backed the people who attacked us on 9/11 in Afganistan.

His encouragement of glasnost in the Islamic world destabilised our allies and allowed an Islamic Party supporting Islamic Jihad to overtrhrow through the ballot box, the pro Western pro secular power structure that had been in place in Turkey since the end of WW I.

Starting as river with President Reagan and eventually with tsumami with Bush II, American policy has been to allow America’s industrial base to shrivel and become dependent on foreign capital and goods and have ever widening trade deficits. Trade deficits almost larger than many countries in the G20 entire GDPs.

“America is facing a crisis of confidence in government, with the nation unable to win its wars, balance its budgets, control its borders, stop the bleeding of its manufacturing base or plug a hole in the ocean floor.”?

That is all true, and then some, but those are problems, except for the oil spill, are problems that Obama inherited but did not cause. The ocean floor problem came from three decades of systematically abolishing and not enforcing regulations from the last three Republican Presidents.

Lastly it is hard to be thought highly of by the public when the opposition can only converse in terms of calling you a nazi, a communist, an American hater, and assorted mindless bile that seems to have replace reasoned thought and analytical discourse in American politics.

#27 Comment By Andre Chenier On June 30, 2010 @ 3:47 pm

I think that the majority of Canadians tend to look at writers such Paul Klugman and Frank Rich as the voices of reason in America.

But here is another point of view from a respected journalist/economist writing in the Toronto Star, one of Canada’s major newspaper::

[6]

#28 Comment By Jose R. Pardinas On July 1, 2010 @ 10:08 pm

Apropos of Mr. Chenier’s mention of Paul Krugman and Frank Rich, I’d like to point out that the New York Times editorial section also carries a highly intelligent conservative in the person of David Brooks.

His articles are almost always eminently worth reading and together with (some of) the articles here at TAC represent a conservative oasis of sanity in the maelstrom of stupidity, fear and ignorance that passes for discourse among the rabble on the far-Right and the Tea Party.

Here’s a quite accurate (and funny) demonstration of the latter: [7]

#29 Comment By Andre Chenier On July 2, 2010 @ 7:58 am

Yes, David Brooks is indeed an articulate and rational contributor to political discourse in your country. Although I do not like to envision the future from his conservative perspective, I read him regularly and listen to his commentary on PBS.

I mentioned Klugman and Rich only because their statements were the object of the David Olive blog that I referenced.

I am trying to open the link you mentioned but have been unable to do so far because of the poor quality of my internet connection. It seem to be image-loaded.

#30 Comment By Jose R. Pardinas On July 2, 2010 @ 9:34 am

Hi Andre,

That link does indeed lead to mostly (incongruous/humorous) images hyperlinked to the real-world source of what is being expressed.

The whole tableau is an extended answer to the question: What would Jesus do/say? The shockingly un-Christian answers are provided by a number of far-Right and Tea Party politicians and media personalities.

#31 Comment By Andre Chenier On July 3, 2010 @ 9:56 am

I will be visiting my son next week and he has broadband, so I will take a look at the site you suggested.

As a liberal, I am very concerned about the current condition of conservatism in the US and in Canada. We, in Canada, have gone from an open-minded, inclusive conservatism (the Conservative party was called the Progressive-Conservative Party) to a regressive me-myself-and-I approach to politics, obsessed with crime and taxes.

Our current Conservative government (elected by only 37% of voters, the other votes going to leftwing parties) is trying to shift as fast as it can closer to the centre in order to escape its current minority status, but it is hostage to a large part of its core which is of a different mind.

I believe that the succesful implementation of the progressive agenda that I support absolutely needs the scrutiny of people with different optics But more importantly, I want my fellow Canadians to vote liberal because they agree with the liberal agenda, not because the alternative is unacceptable.

#32 Comment By Lordrobot On July 5, 2010 @ 4:54 am

Have you looked at the tax code lately? The reason business will not grow is the Tax Code from liberals looks like a slash and burn. The idea of using tax credits to buy private assets for homebuyers and car buyers is insanity. Meanwhile the tax the rich has got anybody with ability working less. Small businesses can’t get capital. Of the 960 banks that got hammered in the recession, only 5, the gov picks for tarp actually made money.

Look at the business taxes in 2011! Look at the insane Obamacare taxes in 2013. This stuff all has to be repealed. Capital gains shoots up to 20% and interest gets taxed as income. Yet there is no relief from 401K losses.

The Gov is trying tax foreign earnings of corporations. Microsoft said they will leave if that happens. We have a massive number of manufacturers leaving for Asia. Running from Obama Unions, Obama taxes and Obama welfare.

Tax the rich? The rich aren’t stupid. I shut down my business in order to lean on the Gov. I am not going to lift my finger to pull this nation out of recession when Obama’s aunt freeloader felon is living high on handouts while many Americans are working hard and struggling to pay tax.

I am many of my friends are looking to leave the United States. This place is fit only for pot heads and crack slingers. Last year of the total number of births in the US, 51% were out of wedlock and made virtually instant ward of the Obama State which will carry on for the next 18 years. Some future you have with that garbage. They will always have their hands out. Look at gov wages. We have a local school system where these assistant principals are making six figures and they do nothing. This whole setup is a disaster. These liberals and rinos are spending and taxing behind your back everyday. The United States is doomed.

#33 Comment By Andre Chenier On July 6, 2010 @ 8:11 pm

The argument that some people need to bring home exhorbitant incomes to do an honest day’s work is hard to accept.

Ironically, this argument is often used by the same people who have no patience with minimum wage earners … because they may not be working hard enough!

If this kind of double-standard ever prevailed, the United States would indeed be in dire straights.