February 13, 2010

Promises from Our President — migrated into the Tea Party.

Great opening for an op-ed — in the WSJ — by Glenn Reynolds.

19 comments:

Almost Ali said...

Forget it, Barry knows best, and will executive-order us into submission.

Jason (the commenter) said...

It's interesting that people are focusing so much of their grass-roots attention on the Republican Party and not the Democratic one. Is this because of the "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" mentality of conservatives? If so, it seems to be showing itself as very powerful, once again. I think that's the real lesson here: don't hope others will make the changes you want, have hope and try to make the changes you want yourself.

Issob Morocco said...

Annh, that should, ahhh, read, broken promises from, ahhh, our President migrated into, ahhh, the Tea Party. (written in Obama Speak).

Meade said...

He still has three years left to fulfill those promises.

Issob Morocco said...

A bit of an inauspicious start, Squire Meade, you would agree?

In Politics, unlike logistics, you cannot make up for early short comings with 11th hour
heroics. The perception is cast and his actions so far denote someone, who long ago poured concrete around his true beliefs, making such a turnaround even more unlikely. And if he does, his opponents can claim he is only doing to save his political life, and his supporters will feel he has left them and forgotten them.

Also, those promises didn't start in his mind, but were the glorious workings of the Daley Machine boys, Rahm, David and David. They created the words the teleprompter kicked in front of Obama to put to spoken word. Good enough to win an election, not good enough to govern except in the Land of Corruption, with the epicenter being Cook County-Chicago.

Cheers!

Mark said...

Hey, if the Tea Party becomes a long-term hit, Obama can (with some justification) claim credit for that, too.

Peter V. Bella said...

The only reason Obama does not walk on water is he does not want to get his expensive shoes wet.

edutcher said...

Jason (the commenter) said...

It's interesting that people are focusing so much of their grass-roots attention on the Republican Party and not the Democratic one.

I think a lot of people had hopes for the so-called moderate Demos who, in the end, marched in lockstep with Barry. For them, the Democrats appear a lost cause.

Which is a shame and a big problem for the Demos.

rhhardin said...

Gee, the article was behind the pay firewall earlier today (3am). It's in the open now.

victoria said...

I'm with you Meade. Remember that Reagan was down down down in the polls after his first year. Change is tough and the faux populism of the Republican party will wear thin after a while.



Vicki from Pasadena

Meade said...

Yes, Victoria, my only point was that it isn't impossible for Obama to change his approach and actually fulfill those promises he made that Glenn points to in the op-ed. My guess is, if Obama does, he'll be reelected in 2012. And I hope he does. I also hope the 2010 elections clean house (and Senate) of the dingy Harry Reids and the (hope against hope) Nancy Pelosies

traditionalguy said...

The act of leadership tells followers that there is a real problem that needs a doable solution and the leader pledges good faith to lead the group to the place that is a solution. Glen is correct that the Tea Parties are screaming back at delusional corruption offered to them by play actors that are not leading the group except to the gallows of their freedoms and their economic survival. These "Moderate Democrats" and RINOs are the enemy because they take up the leadership positions with false pretenses and then sell out their followers in a New York second. The anger at them IS the same visceral anger that the Japanese managed to earn in one hour at Pearl Harbor. IMO our current crop of half-ass, Phony/Vichy French type leadership is in for as big of a surprise as the Japanese were in for in the second half of 1942.

Issob Morocco said...

Hi Vicki,

Reagan was down in polls in 1982because he and Congress passed ERTA in 1981 which cut tax rates. The media and the left caterwauled that it would lower revenues and hurt the already devastated (by Carter and the Democratic Congress)US economy (pummeled since 1977). People had lost hope seeing the results of Carter's and the Democrats efforts. Blue Dog Democrats crossed party lines and some actually switched parties.

The difference here is that the Reagan Tax Cut lead to the recovery in 1983 that lasted until 1992. Obama has walked back on tax hikes for the middle class just this week, being 'agnostic' and all. Reagan had the knowledge to know what to do to fix the economy. Obama doesn't. I would recommend you do some research about the 80's and perhaps that can enlighten you to the right path to prosperity.

Cheers!

Meade said...

"...as big of a surprise as the Japanese were in for in the second half of 1942."

Yeah, or as the British government was in for in 1773.

LonewackoDotCom said...

You can't trust what Glenn Reynolds says, especially about the Tea Parties. See those links for the endless details.

In this specific case, he references citizens picking up the slack. Now, see the "Contract" post at the last link; them "picking up the slack" leads to policies that would result in the opposite of what they claim to want.

And, whether it was truly "millions" who were involved in the protests is open to debate.

And, of course, he's very eager to point out the races of those involved, just like the Democrats do (following those on the far-left).

The protests he mentions greeting BHO were, as with all the other things he promotes, almost assuredly anti-intellectual: instead of trying to engage BHO in debate, they almost assuredly just waved loopy signs like little children.

Hoosier Daddy said...

and the faux populism of the Republican party will wear thin after a while.

That's funny.

Penny said...

Lonewacko, I checked it out as you suggested, and here's my take on what I read.

Riled up citizens can tell you exactly what they don't want.

Thank you for sharing, citizens!

Penny said...

Now where the hell are the leaders?

Mark said...

As someone who usually votes Republican, I can honestly say that in any of the elections of the past 28 years (my voting years), a 90% turnover in Congress would have left me tickled pink, regardless of which party was in control at the time.

The Tea Party seems like a good thing to me.