Obama Unbound

| January 22 2013
Christopher Cook

A fair number of conservatives not only intentionally avoided watching the inaugural yesterday, they actually boycotted all television in an effort to put a dent in TV ratings generally. They coordinated their efforts via Facebook to maximize participation. It is not yet clear if this had a noticeable impact, but it is certain that a lot of conservatives probably missed the inaugural address.

For those of you who fall into that category, but who still want to know what the gist of the speech was, I highly commend the video below of Charles Krauthammer on FOX News. It’s under eight minutes and it gives a good summation of Obama’s thinking and agenda.

As if you couldn’t have already guessed, it involves a lot of big government, green energy, and more class warfare. It included a chilling line in the sand: Obama has no plans to allow any changes to entitlement programs. This means that America will definitely go over some sort of economic cliff at some point in the future. And of of course, he no longer has to face elections, so whatever little impulse he had to moderate himself before is now totally gone.

Buckle up, America.

(HT: FSM)

 

Update:

See also Obama’s Second Inaugural Address, Translated

11 comments
sleepergirl
sleepergirl

"The BIGGER the government, the smaller the individual" coming to every nook and cranny in the nation.  It is a frightening look at our next four years (at least).  Let's hope the Republicans can hold their ground and prevent the total destruction of our freedoms and what's left of life the way it used to be.

Econ101
Econ101

Why fight it?  Why not go over the (real) cliff as soon as possible?  As he doubles down on his Big Brother / Big Government policies, our chances of recovery and revival will only decrease, not increase.

 

Failed treasury auctions, rampant inflation, fiscal gridlock, missed store deliveries, hoarding, black markets, rationing, riots, martial law, and terrorist attacks timed to exploit the crises are all ahead of us. When do we want to deal with all that?  Now?  When we're much weaker?  When we're so weak that we'll give up all traces of individual freedom in exchange for an Obama "promise" of security and law and order?

 

In the early stages, you can bet that Obama, his band of neo-Marxists, and his media servants will continue to blame "the rich" for all our problems.  After their wealth is confiscated, Big Government agencies take over, and we (consequently) slide into a deep decline and depression, even some of his followers will try to turn on him and then suddenly disappear.  It's the USSR all over again.

 

Buckle up indeed, America.  It's time for a national Thelma and Louise moment.  

 

To that sizable majority who voted Democrat or didn't vote at all in 2012, this one's on you.  Nice going, idiots.

WesternFreePress
WesternFreePress moderator

 @sleepergirl I think (as I make clear below) that holding their ground and obstructing is about the best we can hope for in terms of actual policy efforts.

WesternFreePress
WesternFreePress moderator

 @Econ101 It does seem very much like 2012 was the last opportunity to find a way to ease our way out of the mess we're in in a slow, controlled fashion. Now, it does look more likely that we're going to have to hit rock-bottom before we can get better.

Econ101
Econ101

 @WesternFreePress Thanks for the reply. That's a milder way to put it. So do you agree that we're better off hitting bottom sooner rather than later?  If we drag this out, we'll end up with populace so beaten down that they will actually welcome martial law (which by then it may be a only a subtle shift.)

 

Will the Republicans ever do anything significant to stop this?  Or will they just sit there in Congress wringing their hands and wetting themselves at every turn. Right now they sound like the old NY Mets fans with "wait 'til next year" as their standard mantra.  Their "leverage" is always just around the corner ... 

 

Most importantly, if we survive until then, do you think they will they nominate another milquetoast for president in 2016 on the grounds that he/she is the "most electable"? 

WesternFreePress
WesternFreePress moderator

 @Econ101  @dleeper47 You are right that the GOP needs to do A LOT more in terms of messaging. But even their best effort (which they're clearly not putting in now) may not be enough. The left has the media locked down, and things may have gone too far. But, I am a meliorist-----if they take the right steps, they can build a groundswell.

Econ101
Econ101

 @dleeper47  @WesternFreePress 

Ugh. Long reply, dleeper47. Ok, you may have a point that the situation is "different" this next time around, and the GOP elders have more and "better" leverage this next time.  But until I see them use *any* leverage of *any* type effectively, I'm not going to get my hopes up.

 

This is big casino, not an evening poker session.  This is for all the marbles.  And it's going badly.  We should all prepare for the worst -- it may soon be every man or family for itself.

dleeper47
dleeper47 moderator

 @Econ101  @WesternFreePress 

Good discussion.  Econ101, I don't blame you for your frustration and anger at Republicans.  But there is good reason to believe that the next "crisis" actually *does* have more leverage built in.  

 

The "fiscal cliff" deal had us facing big *tax increases* across the board as the default do-nothing consequence3, including a 50% increase in the bottom bracket (ugh).  No free-market, limited govt, fiscal responsibility advocate wanted that.

 

The next crisis has us facing severe *spending cuts* as the default do-nothing consequence.  The combination of the debt ceiling brick wall (circa May 19) and the sequester cuts (circa March??) are better for us long term than tax increases.  No Big Govt progressive wants that.

 

The president has said he won't negotiate with Republicans. So let's hope the GOP doesn't beg him to do so with more of Boehner's hackneyed openers like "Now it's time for the president to get serious."  My teeth hurt every time I hear him say that.

 

Instead, put the dollar-for-dollar deal back on the table, recommend where and how the president should make cuts, and *walk away*. Don't wait for the president to call. Instead *hit the road* with our best conservative speakers and make it clear that: 

 

1. If you don't get your social security check, it's because the president chose not to send it to you.

2. If you're in the military or you're a veteran and you don't get your check, it's because the president targeted you as a sacrificial pawn.

3. If the president defaults on debt payment for the first time in history, it's because he explicitly chose to default.

4. And so on.

 

The GOP should make it clear, with numbers, that *none* of these is necessary, and if he does any one of them it is so he can keep sending big paychecks to the EPA, Dept of Energy, Dept of Education, Dept of Agriculture, and *hundreds* of other bloated federal bureacracies whose budgets have gone right on increasing every year.

 

Win or lose, somebody has got be an adult, and the GOP needs to hone that message and pound away at it at every oppportunity, including some purchased time on national television.

 

Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, or Tim Scott ... plus some of our fine young governors like Susanna Martinez, plus a master speaker like Newt Gingrich, should be drafted by the GOP to sharpen the message and make the case directly to the American people. 

 

The president is going to hit the road soon with variations of his demagogic inaugural address, trying to convince the American people that unlimited spending and higher taxation is the road to prosperity.  Every speech he makes should be met with a counter-position within hours.  

 

The next three months may be the last chance to save the country from an all-out fiscal crash.  I hope the GOP will do more than whimper and simper.

WesternFreePress
WesternFreePress moderator

 @Econ101 I am inclined to view your characterization of my position as inaccurate .

 

The GOP cannot get anything substantive done in terms of actual policy. Nothing that actually will fix our problems will get past the Senate or Obama. Even after 2014, even if we take back the Senate and expand in the House, it is unlikely we will have veto- or filibuster-proof majorities. The measures that will actually fix our economy and system of government are exactly the opposite of anything the Dems will ever let through. (This is, incidentally, why the rock-bottom scenario may be the only way). I believe it is unrealistic to expect the GOP, with the current makeup of Washington, to get anything through that will be the least bit helpful or pleasing to those of us in the base.

 

Consequently, I am not holding them to that standard. If any of us are thinking that they should have done this or that, and if they haven't, then they have somehow failed or shown themselves to be RINOs, I think that is unrealistic. They aren't just in the minority, they are faced with the most uncompromising, ruthless, ideological, president since FDR and Wilson, and the furthest left president ever. They're not going to get anything good done. Expecting them to makes no sense.

 

The standard I AM holding them to is that they need to get their heads wired straight on messaging. They need to return to first principles. They need to stop floundering and flailing and reacting and start espousing our core beliefs in natural rights, equal treatment of all, and liberty. They need to make that case AFFIRMATIVELY and explain why those things are both more moral and will produce better results for all humans. And, as importantly, they need to get ahead of the following: When the collapse comes, the left will be working overtime to blame it on capitalism and freedom. The right (the Republicans, conservatives, libertarians)---we all need to get ahead of that argument NOW and make it clear that the collapse is going to be the fault of statism. Otherwise, the left will use the collapse to convince people to give them MORE power and usher in 1000 years of statist darkness. Unified messaging, core principles.....that is what the GOP can actually do now, and they are doing a terrible job of it.

 

I am not an apologist for the GOP, or blindly loyal to them. By the same token, I am not an angry, "they're all a bunch of terrible RINO bums" hater of the GOP either. Frankly, I think both positions are counter-productively knee-jerk. I am trying to have the most fact-based position possible. Please do not characterize me otherwise.

Econ101
Econ101

 @WesternFreePress Thanks for that 2nd reply.

 

Your words are a good example of praise by faint damnation with a dash of tortured rationalization thrown on top. You sound like a loyal member of the GOP, whistling right past the graveyard.  Good luck with that approach.

 

But keep your articles coming.  This one was a bullseye.  

WesternFreePress
WesternFreePress moderator

 @Econ101 Presuming a genuine rock bottom is hit, then it's hard to say. By one way of looking at it, your argument makes sense: if it hits sooner, while we're stronger, the negative effects may be lessened in comparison to a later/weaker scenario. Also, it might be better to have it happen on the watch of statists (like Obama) since they are the ones who made it happen and may rightly be blamed by the people. On the other side of that coin is the notion that if it happens while statists are in control of the government, then they are the ones who will have the power to implement whatever fixes are going to be implemented, and they are much more likely to implement disastrous fixes. If collapse happens on Obama's watch, then he gets to decide what happens next. That is a scary proposition. Thus, I am personally not confident in making a statement as to whether I think sooner (under obama) would be better or worse. I will, just in general terms, say that I do believe that sometimes an alcoholic really does need to hit rock bottom, and America may really have reached the point where nothing else will shake us out of our statist death-spiral.

 

I will agree that the Republicans are pretty unimpressive at the moment. I may not be quite as hard on them as you---they are, after all, only in control of 1/6th of the branches---but I do think they need to get a unified and cohesive message and focus on that, no matter what happens with policy.

 

I do not share the view that some Republican "establishment" nominated Romney, however. It was primary voters who did that. The way to avoid such mishaps in future is to end the open primary system that allows Dems and indies to vote.