What's Changed After Wisconsin?

Damocles

Accedo!
Staff member
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303753904577452793597495290.html

Peggy Noonan Article

....

President Obama's problem now isn't what Wisconsin did, it's how he looks each day—careening around, always in flight, a superfluous figure. No one even looks to him for leadership now. He doesn't go to Wisconsin, where the fight is. He goes to Sarah Jessica Parker's place, where the money is.

There is, now, a house-of-cards feel about this administration.

It became apparent some weeks ago when the president talked on the stump—where else?—about an essay by a fellow who said spending growth is actually lower than that of previous presidents. This was startling to a lot of people, who looked into it and found the man had left out most spending from 2009, the first year of Mr. Obama's presidency. People sneered: The president was deliberately using a misleading argument to paint a false picture! But you know, why would he go out there waving an article that could immediately be debunked? Maybe because he thought it was true. That's more alarming, isn't it, the idea that he knows so little about the effects of his own economic program that he thinks he really is a low spender.

For more than a month, his people have been laying down the line that America was just about to enter full economic recovery when the European meltdown stopped it. (I guess the slowdown in China didn't poll well.) You'll be hearing more of this—we almost had it, and then Spain, or Italy, messed everything up. What's bothersome is not that it's just a line, but that the White House sees its central economic contribution now as the making up of lines.

Any president will, in a presidential election year, be political. But there is a startling sense with Mr. Obama that that's all he is now, that he and his people are all politics, all the time, undeviatingly, on every issue. He isn't even trying to lead, he's just trying to win.

Most ominously, there are the national-security leaks that are becoming a national scandal—the "avalanche of leaks," according to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, that are somehow and for some reason coming out of the administration. A terrorist "kill list," reports of U.S. spies infiltrating Al Qaeda in Yemen, stories about Osama bin Laden's DNA and how America got it, and U.S. involvement in the Stuxnet computer virus, used against Iranian nuclear facilities. These leaks, say the California Democrat, put "American lives in jeopardy," put "our nation's security in jeopardy."

This isn't the usual—this is something different. A special counsel may be appointed.

And where is the president in all this? On his way to Anna Wintour's house. He's busy. He's running for president.

But why? He could be president now if he wanted to be.


More at link...
 
He's running for president.

But why? He could be president now if he wanted to be.

omigorsh....every once in a while campaign slogans jump out at you.....this should sweep the campaign trail immediately.....
 
What's changed after Wisconsin?

Any plausibility of denying the negative affect of CU on our "democracy":.
 
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303753904577452793597495290.html

Peggy Noonan Article

....

President Obama's problem now isn't what Wisconsin did, it's how he looks each day—careening around, always in flight, a superfluous figure. No one even looks to him for leadership now. He doesn't go to Wisconsin, where the fight is. He goes to Sarah Jessica Parker's place, where the money is.

There is, now, a house-of-cards feel about this administration.

It became apparent some weeks ago when the president talked on the stump—where else?—about an essay by a fellow who said spending growth is actually lower than that of previous presidents. This was startling to a lot of people, who looked into it and found the man had left out most spending from 2009, the first year of Mr. Obama's presidency. People sneered: The president was deliberately using a misleading argument to paint a false picture! But you know, why would he go out there waving an article that could immediately be debunked? Maybe because he thought it was true. That's more alarming, isn't it, the idea that he knows so little about the effects of his own economic program that he thinks he really is a low spender.

For more than a month, his people have been laying down the line that America was just about to enter full economic recovery when the European meltdown stopped it. (I guess the slowdown in China didn't poll well.) You'll be hearing more of this—we almost had it, and then Spain, or Italy, messed everything up. What's bothersome is not that it's just a line, but that the White House sees its central economic contribution now as the making up of lines.

Any president will, in a presidential election year, be political. But there is a startling sense with Mr. Obama that that's all he is now, that he and his people are all politics, all the time, undeviatingly, on every issue. He isn't even trying to lead, he's just trying to win.

Most ominously, there are the national-security leaks that are becoming a national scandal—the "avalanche of leaks," according to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, that are somehow and for some reason coming out of the administration. A terrorist "kill list," reports of U.S. spies infiltrating Al Qaeda in Yemen, stories about Osama bin Laden's DNA and how America got it, and U.S. involvement in the Stuxnet computer virus, used against Iranian nuclear facilities. These leaks, say the California Democrat, put "American lives in jeopardy," put "our nation's security in jeopardy."

This isn't the usual—this is something different. A special counsel may be appointed.

And where is the president in all this? On his way to Anna Wintour's house. He's busy. He's running for president.

But why? He could be president now if he wanted to be.


More at link...

If you don't want the president to ever run for president make it a one term office. This is stupid beyond words.

Are we going to get more right wing masturbation fantasies over fireman Bush saving the children from Noonan?
 
What's changed after Wisconsin?

Any plausibility of denying the negative affect of CU on our "democracy":.
If people are too fucking stupid to see that both democrats and republicans are bought and paid for by the 1%, then they deserve the government that's bought for them. quit blaming the failure of americans to educate themselves on the constitution.
 
If you don't want the president to ever run for president make it a one term office. This is stupid beyond words.

Are we going to get more right wing masturbation fantasies over fireman Bush saving the children from Noonan?

Translation:
I, Watermark, never read the article and just spouted some sort of defense that I think might distract people from the few points that I saw when I scanned over the OP. This usually makes liberals tell me I'm smart. Please tell me I'm smart! It makes me all wiggly inside when you tell me I'm smart! I wish I had a tail, I'd wag it!
 
Translation:
I, Watermark, never read the article and just spouted some sort of defense that I think might distract people from the few points that I saw when I scanned over the OP. This usually makes liberals tell me I'm smart. Please tell me I'm smart! It makes me all wiggly inside when you tell me I'm smart! I wish I had a tail, I'd wag it!


The irony of this coming from someone that apparently respects Peggy Noonan's opinion is striking.
 
Translation:
I, Watermark, never read the article and just spouted some sort of defense that I think might distract people from the few points that I saw when I scanned over the OP. This usually makes liberals tell me I'm smart. Please tell me I'm smart! It makes me all wiggly inside when you tell me I'm smart! I wish I had a tail, I'd wag it!

Wow what did Wm did to deserve that?
 
I remember Peggy Noonan after one of the Bush/Gore debates. I had really been stunned during the debate itself - Bush was practically drooling; unable to really put a coherent thought together, and relying on buzz terms like "fuzzy math." It was clear he didn't know much about domestic or foreign affairs, and that he would be in WAY over his head as President.

They turned to Peggy for post-debate comment, and she said proudly, "I think George Bush may have sealed the deal tonight," before spending a few minutes praising his command of the issues.

She's kind of a "stealth hack," because she knows how to speak intelligently and is careful to throw occasional praise the other way. But make no mistake - she's a hack of epic proportions.
 
It's fine to read hacks. I do. But I sure as shit don't read hacks and then pretend that their opinions are unassailable or based on the whole truth. This piece is basically a right-wing Republican columnist writing a "what I think about Obama piece" and pretending it has something to do with a current event (the Wisconsin recall).
 
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303753904577452793597495290.html

Peggy Noonan Article

....

President Obama's problem now isn't what Wisconsin did, it's how he looks each day—careening around, always in flight, a superfluous figure. No one even looks to him for leadership now. He doesn't go to Wisconsin, where the fight is. He goes to Sarah Jessica Parker's place, where the money is.

There is, now, a house-of-cards feel about this administration.

It became apparent some weeks ago when the president talked on the stump—where else?—about an essay by a fellow who said spending growth is actually lower than that of previous presidents. This was startling to a lot of people, who looked into it and found the man had left out most spending from 2009, the first year of Mr. Obama's presidency. People sneered: The president was deliberately using a misleading argument to paint a false picture! But you know, why would he go out there waving an article that could immediately be debunked? Maybe because he thought it was true. That's more alarming, isn't it, the idea that he knows so little about the effects of his own economic program that he thinks he really is a low spender.

For more than a month, his people have been laying down the line that America was just about to enter full economic recovery when the European meltdown stopped it. (I guess the slowdown in China didn't poll well.) You'll be hearing more of this—we almost had it, and then Spain, or Italy, messed everything up. What's bothersome is not that it's just a line, but that the White House sees its central economic contribution now as the making up of lines.

Any president will, in a presidential election year, be political. But there is a startling sense with Mr. Obama that that's all he is now, that he and his people are all politics, all the time, undeviatingly, on every issue. He isn't even trying to lead, he's just trying to win.

Most ominously, there are the national-security leaks that are becoming a national scandal—the "avalanche of leaks," according to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, that are somehow and for some reason coming out of the administration. A terrorist "kill list," reports of U.S. spies infiltrating Al Qaeda in Yemen, stories about Osama bin Laden's DNA and how America got it, and U.S. involvement in the Stuxnet computer virus, used against Iranian nuclear facilities. These leaks, say the California Democrat, put "American lives in jeopardy," put "our nation's security in jeopardy."

This isn't the usual—this is something different. A special counsel may be appointed.

And where is the president in all this? On his way to Anna Wintour's house. He's busy. He's running for president.

But why? He could be president now if he wanted to be.


More at link...

Well, blame the SCOTU, for decision to let money rule our elections!
 
money can't rule our elections if we decide to educate ourselves

Best of luck w/ that one. Not that I disagree, but money rules & it will as long as the current system stays the same.

I don't fault most Americans much for this. Most are so insanely busy with their lives that it's not in the realm of possibility to devote significant time to these matters. Systemic change is needed.
 
Best of luck w/ that one. Not that I disagree, but money rules & it will as long as the current system stays the same.
like i said, those that don't educate themselves deserve the government that's bought for them.

I don't fault most Americans much for this. Most are so insanely busy with their lives that it's not in the realm of possibility to devote significant time to these matters. Systemic change is needed.
change is needed? bullshit. that's just an excuse for apathy and laziness. you SHOULD fault most americans for this because it's OUR country, not wall streets.
 
lol...attack the source and not the substance

There really isn't much substance. DH was correct in saying that she is using the WI situation for a "this is what I think of Obama" piece.

I'm sure it appealed to your ODS nature.
 
Back
Top