RSS Feed for This PostCurrent Article

With Good Leadership, The Country Is Indeed Governable

One of the political positives of 2008 has been a willingness for some on one side of the aisle to give fair hearing to those on on the other. This was accomplished by none other than Nancy Pelosi, Donna Brazile et al telling those of us not willing to get on board with the new Democratic Party to “stay home.” Or “get lost” depending on your perspective. In that vein, while I might not always agree with conservative Charles Krauthammer, in his latest article, It’s nonsense to say the U.S. is ungovernable, he has the integrity to say something good about some Democrats. Most fascinating is who he took the time to praise:

In the latter days of the Carter presidency, it became fashionable to say that the office had become unmanageable and was simply too big for one man. Some suggested a single, six-year presidential term. The president’s own White House counsel suggested abolishing the separation of powers and going to a more parliamentary system of unitary executive control. America had become ungovernable.

Then came Ronald Reagan, and all that chatter disappeared.

The tyranny of entitlements? Reagan collaborated with Tip O’Neill, the legendary Democratic House speaker, to establish the Alan Greenspan commission that kept Social Security solvent for a quarter-century.

A corrupted system of taxation? Reagan worked with liberal Democrat Bill Bradley to craft a legislative miracle: tax reform that eliminated dozens of loopholes and slashed rates across the board — and fueled two decades of economic growth.

Later, a highly skilled Democratic president, Bill Clinton, successfully tackled another supposedly intractable problem: the culture of intergenerational dependency. He collaborated with another House speaker, Newt Gingrich, to produce the single most successful social reform of our time, the abolition of welfare as an entitlement.

Krauthammer hits the nail on the head:

It turned out that the country’s problems were not problems of structure but of leadership. Reagan and Clinton had it. Carter didn’t. Under a president with extensive executive experience, good political skills and an ideological compass in tune with the public, the country was indeed governable.

One needs experience, depth of knowledge on policy and the workings of government as well as specific understanding of the needs of Americans in order to move this country forward. Tone deaf policies that do little to solve those needs will not lead to a good result.

Krauthammer continues:

It’s 2010, and the first-year agenda of a popular and promising young president has gone down in flames. Barack Obama’s two signature initiatives — cap-and-trade and health-care reform — lie in ruins.

Desperate to explain away this scandalous state of affairs, liberal apologists haul out the old reliable from the Carter years: “America the Ungovernable.” So declared Newsweek. “Is America Ungovernable?” coyly asked the New Republic. Guess the answer. [snip]

Yet, what’s new about any of these supposedly ruinous structural impediments? Special interests blocking policy changes? They have been around since the beginning of the republic — and since the beginning of the republic, strong presidents, like the two Roosevelts, have rallied the citizenry and overcome them.

Krauthammer goes on to dissect the latest liberal complaints about Republican’s use of the filibuster pointing out Democrats did the same in blocking GW Bush’s judicial appointments. Their complaints that Congress’ structure impedes progress is likewise blather to provide cover for an administration that has lost control of its message.

…Indeed, the Senate with its ponderous procedures and decentralized structure is serving precisely the function the Founders intended: as a brake on the passions of the House and a caution about precipitous transformative change.

Krauthammer took time to praise another Democrat along the way:

Leave it to Mickey Kaus, a principled liberal who supports health-care reform, to debunk these structural excuses: “Lots of intellectual effort now seems to be going into explaining Obama’s (possible/likely/impending) health care failure as the inevitable product of larger historic and constitutional forces. . . . But in this case there’s a simpler explanation: Barack Obama’s job was to sell a health care reform plan to American voters. He failed.”

He failed because the utter implausibility of its central promise — expanded coverage at lower cost — led voters to conclude that it would lead ultimately to more government, more taxes and more debt. More broadly, the Democrats failed because, thinking the economic emergency would give them the political mandate and legislative window, they tried to impose a left-wing agenda on a center-right country. The people said no, expressing themselves first in spontaneous demonstrations, then in public opinion polls, then in elections — Virginia, New Jersey and, most emphatically, Massachusetts.

That’s not a structural defect. That’s a textbook demonstration of popular will expressing itself — despite the special interests — through the existing structures. In other words, the system worked.

I also read an interesting piece by Joe Scarborough yesterday, discussing his own conservative principles. He stated that while he may not agree with President Obama’s agenda, he prays for him daily to find a successful way to lead for the sake of our country. He said “if his grandmother could pray for Carter, he could pray for Obama.”

My prayer is that the President starts paying more attention to the message Americans are sending him and less attention to those like Nancy Pelosi who are arrogant in continuing to tell the rest of us to get lost. Perhaps he would then find the country is governable.

  • jwrjr

    “Leadership” and “Obama” should not be used in the same sentence.  “Lack of leadership” would be okay, though.

  • Diana L. C.

    I have been praying for a leader to step forward for a long time.  Sadly, I truly believe O is seriously narcissistic.  Those personalities cannot hear the wishes of others.  Everything they hear is interpreted as confirming their belief in their own righteousness and as confirming their belief that all who don’t agree that they are righteous are now worth consideration and should be either destroyed or marginalized.

    So, I am lift with praying we can get through this so-called presidency with the least amount of damage as possible.

    (And, yes, I want the likes of Pelosi, Reid, Brazile to go into the ash heap with O.)

  • Jackie

    ” In that vein, while I might not always agree with conservative Charles Krauthammer, in his latest article, It’s nonsense to say the U.S. is ungovernable, he has the integrity to say something good about some Democrats.”

    LOL, yet another in a long, long series of PUMA columns that open with the disclaimer “while I might not always agree with conservative Charles Krauthammer”…

    When have you guys NOT agreed with him?!  You write a column praising his neoconservative rants almost every week!  Too funny…

  • Elliott

    Claiming the country is ungovernable and the need for filibuster rule to be abolished is just par for Obama. When he can’t get his way, or is loosing because he he has bad policies he tries to change the rules. He has done in his loosing nominations, and elections. Why can others govern with these rules, win elections with these rules but he can’t? The public has figured this out.

  • Docelder

    Yes, I say it again I wish somebody like Krauthammer could be the President. What part of being “the one” made people think he could be a leader? He was and remains a “party of one”. It was always about him, he being “the one” and he being the “rockstar” that the very world would so love much that everything else would suddenly be unicorns and candy. Why would anybody think that coming in like this that it would become anything other than The President believing his own press? If he wasn’t narcissistic to begin with then, this entire process would have turned most people that way. I agree we have a leadership problem, but we also have a media problem. We need to enact campaign reforms that also limit one sided media coverage.

  • oowawa

    Uh-oh Ani–your thoughtful article has got me trying to think in a serious mode.

    Suppose before the rise of Hitler, some German newspaper asked, “Is Germany Ungovernable?”
    In Russia before the Bolsheviks: “Is Russia Ungovernable?”
    In Italy, before the Empire: “Is Italy Ungovernable?”

    The point is, it’s a nonsensical question.  Every country is governed one way or another.  There is good government, and there is bad government.  A country in which absolute anarchy prevails is no longer a country.  A country in which  a tyrant rules is governed to excess.  And so, the question should not be, “Is America Governable,” but “Can America be governed well, in the best interests of its citizens.”  The framers of the constitution thought that it could, or they wouldn’t have gone to all that effort. Maybe we should honor their optimism and strive to perpetuate their ideals.

    Statements to the effect that America is, after all, ungovernable are simply providing a convenient cop-out exit for the present inept administration.

  • Peggy Sue

    It was wishful thinking to expect anything more than what we’re seeing right now.  Barack Obama had nothing in his background to recommend him to the role of leadership.  He had “feel good” words, an Axelgrease marketing campaign and the DNC deciding it knew what was good for us.

    They were wrong.

    The “ingovernable” meme has been bubbling up from a number of apologists of late.  It’s not the President’s fault; it’s the American citizenry.  Krugman was saying this as early as last spring.  It was bunk then; it’s bunk now.

    The bottom line?  Short of a miracle, we are screwed. So, maybe we all should get down on our knees and start praying.

    I think we can dispense of one fiction: inexperience is “not” a virtue.

    Good piece, Ani!

  • Mark

    When you have Obama, Pelosi, and Reid running the show you don’t have anyone capable of governing.  The guy in charge fried his brain with drugs and spent twenty years being indoctrinated by Wright, a mental nutcase.

    When I observed all of the fools following Obama, I saw one massive Jim Jones movement.  The same thing they said about Obama they said about Jones. 

    I saw this disaster a mile away before it ever happened.

  • timmy

    Listen Jackie….., it’s called intellectual honestly…. when you agree with the argument of the other side. Being able to balance two opposing ideas in your head….. This is something the loony left and Obama supporters don’t understand and have no intellectual means to understand.

    Remeber Bill Clintion… or more importanly Hillary Clinton…. ??? Now there are two brians that kept the DNC alive for the last 20 years…. Without them the DNC is nothing but a dead donkey…… and Obama just proves it….

    Wake up you dumb fool.  Learn the value of intellectual honestly then you might just understand and appreacite Ani’s point of view and why she praises Charles Krauthammer.

    Ani, as always GOOD JOB!!!!

  • oowawa

    Ani, this thoughtful article made me think in a serious mode, and I wrote a long response in which I set up a straw man and then pummeled him furiously until there was straw everywhere–ah yes, it was quite a violent spectacle.

    And then I deleted it to clean up the mess.

    Anyway, just as some tried to excuse the Carter failures by questioning “Is America Ungovernable?”  I expect that a similar rhetorical question will be raised on behalf of Thee One in order to provide Him cover for a dignified exit.   It seems to me that in some quarters, preserving the mythic historic status of “that dignified man” is more important than advancing the well being of the country.

  • Peggy Sue

    So, Jackie, you buy into the “ungovernable” meme–it’s not the President’s lack of leadership, it’s the fact that the American public is ungovernable? 

    Is that the apology? 

    Can you honestly defend the Administration’s inability to get anything done when it has a clear majority in Congress?  The healthcare reform bill, for instance, 2000+ pages that no one seems to understand and that is a basic giveaway to the insurance and Pharma industry.

    Like to defend that? 

    Or the PR nightmare of terrorist trials in NYC? Or the fact that there are multiple states on the verge of default. Hello Greece!  And what do we get?  Happy talk.

    The time for screeching partisan arguments are over.  We’re in a frigging mess.  Or haven’t you noticed?  And yes, the house was on fire before the President took office.  But throwing gasoline on the flames hasn’t helped. 

    You needn’t be PUMA to see that.  Unless, of course, you’re still blinded by the light that never was. 

    Before you start lecturing us, I suggest you take a good hard look at what is. 

  • No Longer Banned in Beantown

    This article is dead on you know what accurate.

    I have been screaming at the lack of leadership since the beginning of Obama’s campaign.

    Just look at what the qualities of a leader are, and ask if Obama has any of them.

    One thing is for certain, this country cannot be led from the Nancy Pelosi Left, or the Rush Limbaugh Right. The country is led when moderates are the leaders. Reagan, Bush I and Clinton are excellent examples.

    Those three were able to find consensus because they knew how to lead.

  • Docelder

    Another thing about Reagan and Clinton is they were “team” leaders. Reagan and Clinton weren’t just the President’s of their own parties, but of the nation as a whole. Building enough votes up to “win” and being a team leader isn’t the same thing. It isn’t even close.

  • bamaLV

    krauthamer said we needed someone  with experience in governing, foriegn policy,and an understanding of how government works.  sound to me like he was talking about hillary clinton.  ill bet many in D.C. (both rep. and dems) are now wishing they had backed hillary instead of this fool.  it must be killing obama that she is getting so much praise from both reps and dems (tho you wont hear about in from the msm.) about how tough she is on foriegn policy , compared to him..  now some are even saying he is now  using all her ideas from the primary.  we dont need a” monkey see, monkey does “in the WH  .we need a real president.

  • I’m a Linda too

    You’re right.  Krauthammer nailed it.

  • bamaLV

    this is a rare time in our history, with many citizens fed up and disgusted with those in power. we now have an opportunity to rid ourselves of all those entrenched, corrupt ,dysfunctional politicians who  have been in power way too long. (reid, pelosi, frank, rangel,schumer, just to name a few.) we can do a clean sweep in nov. and start with some fresh new faces who dont owe any favors and  who havent been bought by special interest (like scott  brown). with minds of their own who wont vote in lockstep with their party. lets not blow this rare opportunity for real  change.

  • Tricia

    Great post Ani!

  • Ani

    Gee, no I don’t always agree with Krauthammer and certainly don’t agree with lots of conservatives.  But I appreciate that he is honest enough to point out the leadership skills of Bill Clinton.  I also appreciated him on the FOX panel on Bret Baier the other night when all the Lewinsky stuff was dragged up once again in some new book –

    his comment was the only in a time of such great peace and prosperity could people have even bothered to have made a big deal out of something that was, in the scope of things, a very small affair and no one else’s business.

    How’s that for a conservative? 

    He was not a hypocrite like some of the others on the panel saying “well, he lied under oath” — whose business was it of those bastards on the hunt for him to ask him personal questions in the first place — that had nothing whatsoever to do with his governing ability.

    Sometimes it is good to listen to people outside one’s own comfort zone.  It is possible to learn something.  Krauthammer also points out Kaus’s integrity — he may not agree with him but finds him honorable.  If he can say that, why can’t others look across the aisle and find a few with whom they can pay the same compliment?

    I no longer wish to have a knee jerk reaction to what anyone says.  I find it is better to consider both sides and then find which one makes the most sense and adheres most closely to the truth.

  • Steve1

    We need to dump the tele reader and his loony left-wing amigos…Hillary Clinton, 2012!  Stupid Dem party leaders, shitheads…They screwed up, big-time!

  • bamaLV

    heres a tip for the republicans.  reach out to all those young people who swooned and fainted over obama and let them know  the burdens he has placed on them and their children for the foreseeable future.  they will have to pay more taxes, (if they can find a job) will be forced to buy healthcare insurance or be fined, and if obama and his cronies have their way, they wont be getting any social security that they will have spent a lifetime paying into.(regardless of what they think now, they too will someday get old)  .all those entitlements that they love so much now  will most certainly become their burden and they will not like it.  repubs. need to start reaching out to them now.

  • bamaLV

    can anyone tell me why the following has not been discussed?                if healthcare is passed now and we have to start paying for it now, even tho it wont kick in until 2014, does that mean we will  have to continue paying for our current health ins. AND our future health ins.?   if many people can barely afford to pay for what they have now, how the hell do they expect us to pay double???  this is NUTS!!!!

  • Dave of Seattle

    Charles Krauthammer brillance didn’t come from being a Washington insider but in this case, I certainly disagree with him. I mean really, putting Clintonian policy in the same league with Reaganism is an insult to both parties; I’ll let you figure out which is which.

    I stand as a centrist and pragmatist; I live in a western state; my wife wife and I, in comfortable jobs but modest incomes make more than any sitting senator or representative, more than any supreme court justice and lag behind the president by a few mere hundred thousand dollars. So thus, 554 of the top leaders in this country make less than an average doctor makes in Kansas! And you want them to govern with conviction, authority and for all? It can’t be done.

    Without providing for the welfare of the governing, we have created a mentality of what can I get and how quickly can I get it? A representative keep a family in his home state and live in the Washington metro area all on a wonderful salary of mediocrity. I know civil servants that make as much as congressmen but somehow, he or she is suppose to maintain some semblance of impartiality? I beg to differ; the forces are too strong not to take the lobbyist funding that’s available and switch my vote from what I think is right to what is right for me and my family.

    I feel sorry for them and understand their dilemma. But until we throw the money launderers out, there will be no governing for the masses.

  • Guest

    Oh, please ! And is this not the man who publicly demanded Clinton resign for his “infidelity” with Lewinsky rather than be rendered ineffective for the rest of his term in a dangerous, crisis-ridden world…  If that isn’t deeply intellectually dishonest enough, bring it home to Krauthammer’s praise for Obama and ridiculing of McCain as petulently erratic as a ping pong ball in at least two columns during the heat of the campaign. How’s that playing with you now ? Of course after Obama’s electoral win, Charles began his supportive gushing again.

  • Diana L. C.

    Thanks, Ani! 

    “I no longer wish to have a knee jerk reaction to what anyone says.  I find it is better to consider both sides and then find which one makes the most sense and adheres most closely to the truth.”

    This last presidential primary and the GE really made a lot of us exert some controls on our knees.  Mine don’t jerk as much as they used to either.

  • Docelder

    In case anybody hasn’t figured it out yet… think of the middle class as sheep. Then think of corporatists as sheep ranchers. then it makes more sense. We are being led to the shearing sheds and everything we have worked for our entire lives is going to be taken. Obama is the big eared kid hired as a hand by the corporatists and he is holding a bucket of feed cubes and he stands outside the shearing pens shaking the bucket and calling for us to come closer. Telling us he is there to help us, until we get inside the pens where we will be summarily sheared of everything we have. It isn’t going to end well for us sheep I am afraid.

  • oowawa

    Ani said: “Sometimes it is good to listen to people outside one’s own comfort zone.  It is possible to learn something.”

    That is certainly the most positive lesson to come from the last election.  Most of us who consider ourselves PUMAs were longtime Democrats who detested Krauthammer and pretty much everything he said.  The 2008 campaign and election opened our eyes to how vile, sexist, and unfair the Democrats could be.  Consequently, we started sharing thoughts with Independents and Republicans in various places, including here on No Quarter.  This does not mean we always agree–but we are talking, and have found common ground.  I often find myself disagreeing with Krauthammer, but when he is correct, I can recognize it, and I no longer reject his ideas out-of-hand.  This country is finding a new dialogue in the center of the political spectrum.

  • Ani

    I remember Krauthammer having nothing but questions and problems with Obama in column after column.  You might want to take another look.

  • Ani

    There was an article in Politico a few months ago pointing out there are 237 millionaires and multi-millionaires in Congress.  Many of these people are already loaded

  • Ani

    I remember Krauthammer having nothing but questions and problems with Obama in column after column.  You might want to take another look.

    The point Krauthammer is making here is not to be ignored.  Clinton knew how to lead.  Obama does not.  I didn’t care for Reagan but (at least according to many) he knew how to lead — Carter did not.  Whatever Krauthammer may have said on Bush’s behalf in the past, you notice he is not mentioned in his article either.  That is also telling. 

  • Jackie

    “it’s called intellectual honestly

    NO, it’s called honesty.

    Remeber Bill Clintion”

    Remeber who?

    “Now there are two brians that kept the DNC alive”

    Ok, now I see that you were drunk when you wrote this.

    “Wake up you dumb fool.  Learn the value of intellectual honestly then you might just understand and appreacite Ani’s point of view”

    I take that back.  This is obviously parody.  Well played!

  • Guest

    Krauthammer doubts about and annoyances with both sides are well documented. But when it counted most Krauthammer: Barack Is Better For America, I’m Voting For McCain. On October 3rd, Chales Krauthammer wrote that Barack Obama was another FDR, only better.

    I’m endorsing McCain today who is more likely to go to war with Iran and prevent Israel from negotiating with the Palestinians and the Syrians etc etc. 

    The point on leadership compared with past presidents is well-taken and stands on its own merits.

  • AnnieCarmel

    Agree, Docelder.  I didn’t like Reagan when he was Gov of CA but maybe he got his ego satisfaction early on in Hollywood and in state office.  He did seem to wear the mantel of the Presidency easily though.  I never thought of him as a strutting peacock.  He had a wife (and I did not like her at all at the time) who was a credit as FLOTUS.  As was Laura and Hillary.  In hindsight I see how teriffic they were.  We’ve hit a real low point in every area of our culture and country.

  • AnnieCarmel

    Wonder how many became wealthy after taking office? 

  • timmy

    Jackie…. I didn’t know that dense…… picking on little typos while missing the whole point in the process….what an Obama drone… denser than a door nob. 


    Being intellectulally honest and being honest are two different things…….. you moron.

  • Jackie

    Hey Timmy,

    There’s nothing wrong with having some typos in your post.  It’s just ill-advised to be lecturing others on their “intellectually honesty” and lack of “brians” when you can’t even spell the very words.

  • lorac

    I like the idea, but they seem to get bought even before they’re elected – they start making deals to get the help to win.  I think we do need a good sweeping, but I think we also need to change campaign election laws, so that people and corporations with lots of money can’t steal the election from the will of the people.  For that matter, we also need something changed so that the MSM doesn’t steal elections with their onesidedness!

  • lorac

    Yes, they don’t seem to live only on their salaries.

  • mountainaires

    Ron Paul wins straw poll at CPAC. Now, this is interesting!  

    http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2010/02/20/ron-paul-wins-cpac-straw-poll/

  • Pingback: Valuable Internet Information » With Good Leadership, The Country Is Indeed Governable : NO QUARTER

  • Docelder

    I like him and his libertarian inclinations. This would be a real change we could believe in. To be free again. I wish.

  • mortuus lark

    First, it tells you the sorry condition of the country in terms of education when they young people feel a compelling need to vote for a man as old as Ron Paul in order to see themselves well represented by government.

    Second, the fact that young people rejected flat out a woman as talented and gracious as Sarah Palin, young and filled with moral standards and American values tells you that the young people know that women are too Hillaristic, meaning surrender and dependent oriented to have the confidence necessary in them to give them a chance at governing the country.

    And third, if a person as authoritarian as Romney took second place by a good margin tells you that those same young people have a militaristic framed brain that can’t see freedom for what it is; but instead see freedom as obedience to authoritarian rule. In other words, they are slave to their own limitations.

  • mortuus lark

    First of all, mountainaires, choosing Ron Paul tells you the sorry condition of the country in terms of education when they young people feel a compelling need to vote for a man as old as Ron Paul in order to see themselves well represented by government.  
     
    Second, the fact that young people rejected flat out a woman as talented and gracious as Sarah Palin, young and filled with moral standards and American values tells you that the young people know that women are too Hillaristic, meaning surrender and dependent oriented to have the confidence necessary in them to give them a chance at governing the country.  
     
    And third, if a person as authoritarian as Romney took second place by a good margin tells you that those same young people have a militaristic framed brain that can’t see freedom for what it is; but instead see freedom as obedience to authoritarian rule. In other words, they are slave to their own limitations.

  • Babs

    In addition to leadership skills, I think that both Reagan and Clinton had a great love for this country and her people, and that was a message that didn’t have to be delivered in a grand speech with Greek columns, it was just an obvious attitude picked up and spread from sea to shining sea. There is no such message from Obama, never has been.

  • mortuus lark

    The poor performance of Palin at APAC is directly related to Hillary’s poor performance as SOS.

    The times of Madeline Albright, Janet Reno and Condoleeza Rice who were independent and self-made are now out of the memory of young men and are being substituted by the dependency and surrender attitude of Hillary Clinton.

    How can Sarah Palin show that she is not exactly like Hillary Clinton when in the last few months she has had to explain how her husband helped her with her duties as Governor of Alaska. That is a problem for Palin because the similaries are too close for comfort.

  • Steve1

    Its time to dump the puppet, bye-bye, Barry Soetoro!  Clinton, 2012!

  • mortuus lark

    But Obama is building that message much more stronger than both Regan and Clinton daily. And Obama, in top of demonstrating his love of America now has Michelle showing how much she cares for America’s children.

  • mortuus lark

    The puppet as you just called him like in children stories has taken a soul and a heart and has come alive and has become the main political stream in America.

    So, instead of dumping the puppet what we have now is that the puppet is the director of the production.

  • No Longer Banned in Beantown

    With a non-existant list of accomplished goals, Obama is only good at directing chaos out of order.

    I imagine Obama has trouble directing his own hand to wipe his ass. He couldn’t direct his way out of a paper sack.

  • mortuus lark

    Yet he is to your dismay your President and like I said  the Production Director of the Play we watch daily. And as the world reads of your opinion of your President they loose confidence in our ability to get out of our moral degradation and will opt to put the interest of the U.S. to the side.

    Even North Koreans have their President in much more high esteem than you do. That means that as your contempt increases, the country’s outlook gets more doubtful.

    So keep up with the depracating of our President and lest see where that is going to get us.

  • EllenD

    I no longer wish to have a knee jerk reaction to what anyone says.  I find it is better to consider both sides and then find which one makes the most sense and adheres most closely to the truth.

    Good for you, Ani!
    I think you should acknowledge what you agree with no matter who has said it. And I don’t usually agree with Krauthammer either.
    You just continue calling them as you see them and ignore anyone who doesn’t appreciate your honesty.

  • EllenD

    krauthamer said we needed someone  with experience in governing, foriegn policy,and an understanding of how government works.

    Isn’t this just the opposite of this much-heard comment?

    we can do a clean sweep in nov. and start with some fresh new faces

    OK – how about we DON’T do a “clean sweep” but decide which current ones with the experience we need are doing a good job, and replace the ones who aren’t doing a good job with someone whose experience bears some reasonable resemblance to the job they are going into.
    I don’t know – I’m just sick of neophytes.
    The Schwartzennegger/Obama syndrome is wearing thin. Would you hire someone for your business with no related experience for the job they’re filling?

  • whoframedrudy

    “When have you guys NOT agreed with him?!”
    Jackie, you see the guy’s picture at the top of the blog?  Larry Johnson has been constantly pounding on Krauthammer’s analysis of the War on Terror.
    Will you never learn?  Blind partisan lies only drive Independents to the right — that’s why some of us former Dems are now reading Krauthammer, because we don’t trust the viral baloney from the left.  I’m starved for some decent, honest commentary from the left, but I can’t even read Paul Krugman anymore, it’s just Obot sophistry.
    I completely agree with this article by K.  But Larry has convinced me that K is wrong on terrorism.  Not everyone’s brain runs on a 2-bit binary chip:  ”Beck=bad.  Olbermann=good.  Republicans=bad.  Democrats=good.”
    But I can see how the debate on NQ would be impossible for an Obot to process.

  • arabella trefoil

    Great post, ani.

  • timmy

    Nothing wrong with typos and typos makes me brian dead..?  You are really a door hole….. 

  • CharlotteKey

     reach out to all those young people who swooned and fainted over obama and let them know  the burdens he has placed on them and their children for the foreseeable future. ”

    well, ok. Except that a lot the swooners–maybe most of them–were hired guns, bussed around the country from speech to speech.  Some were noted as reappearing in surprisingly distant venues. I mean is there really anything about Obama to make anyone swoon? Really? If so, where are the swooners now? Genuinely charismatic celebs have their camp followers. This administration may have a few, especially inside the beltway, but the masses never swooned and certainly wouldn’t do it now, unless they were well paid and in front of a MSM camera.

    You don’t have to worry about young people seeing through Obama. Without his styrofoam pillars, he’s a dud who can’t speak straight. What we have to worry about are the old pols whose machinations maneuvered this dud into office in the first place.

  • OxyCon

    I was labled a racist for pointing out the fact that Obama had zero executive experience, very little practical government experience and had really never accomplished anything in his life except to stay in one place just long enough so he could bag a fancy title.
    At the time I knew the reason why Liberals turned on me for saying this was because what I said was undeniable and it hit home to a bunch of people who were so emotionally invested in Obama that they were approaching cultist status.
    After eight ruiness years of Bush, the last thing I wanted to see was another underqualified, narcisist poser who didn’t have the experience needed for the job.
    The rest they say is history.

  • surfered

    Both Reagan and Bush were succesful at getting bipartisan cooperation on tax cuts.  Big whoo!  How hard is it to get politicians to vote for tax cuts?  But there was no leadership on spending cuts.  As a result of this politically popular but fiscally insane policies, Reagan increased our national debt to $2.9 trillion from $998 billion (186%) and Bush increased our national to $10.6 trillion from debt $5.7 trillion (86%).   Those are records to be proud of.