While the Democrats have long enjoyed support from Hollywood actors, the Republican party clearly does not want to be left out. Recently, Jon Voight gave a speech that was highly critical of Obama.
Actors, despite being considered the dregs of society by the Romans, are still citizens and are thus entitled to freedom of speech. Not surprisingly, famous actors can have considerable influence, mainly because many people are bad at logic. To be specific, people often let their positive feelings or views about an actor serve as reasons as to why they should accept the actor as an expert in a subject area, such as politics. However, being a good or even great actor does not convey special expertise in other fields (see Plato’s Ion for an excellent discussion of this matter).
Naturally, a person who is an actor can also master other subjects. For example, Bruce Lee was an expert in martial arts as well as being an actor. As such, what he said about the martial arts could be taken as having considerable credibility. While Jon Voight clearly has strong opinions about Obama, his expertise in the matters of politics, economics and foreign policy is unclear.
Lest anyone think that I am just bashing the right wing, rest assured that I have the same view of actors who come out in favor of Democrats. Unless the actor has special expertise, their claims have no more merit than any other non-expert. Naturally, their claims do not have any less merit.
Now, to turn to some of what Voight said.
“Are we supposed to sitting and waiting, watching for the possibility of a new Holocaust? Who’s going to take the responsibility to keep America, I mean Israel, safe. ”
It seems clear that Obama has taken on the responsibility of keeping America safe. While he has been opening diplomatic channels and using soft words, he seems to have done nothing to weaken America’s military. His administration also seems quite willing to play hardball, should it come down to that. For example, look at how North Korea is being handled. Obama and Clinton have made it clear that we will not play North Korea’s old game and that we are ready to shoot down anything they send our way. While people love to paint Hilary as a soft lefty, she seems to be a pragmatic politician who sees foreign policy in terms of realpolitiks rather than in terms of a global game of patty cake. Obama also did not show any left wing softness when he authorized the Seal team to use force against the pirates.
Of course, this is an empirical question. Obama has yet to face a truly serious foreign challenge that will test his mettle, although there seem to be several shaping up. The fact that Obama does not make macho speeches and the fact that he prefers diplomacy might be seen as weakness by some, but they seem to be signs of a smarter foreign policy. Trying to go it alone while talking tough did not work out very well for the Bush Administration. I suspect a return to the more classic approach of diplomacy when possible and force when required will serve us better. But, we shall see. I think that Obama is a pragmatic man who takes protecting America seriously-but this has yet to be tested.
Voight goes on to say “I’ll tell you why this really scares the hell out of me. Everything Obama has recommended has turned out to be disastrous.”
This is, of course, mere hyperbole. While some of his plans have not worked and I think that some of them will fail badly, he has had some success. Also, he has not been in office that long. Saying that all his recommendations have turned out to be disastrous is quite a leap-most of them have yet to come to fruition. Voight might turn out to be right, but assessing Obama now is like assessing a baseball team in its first at bat in the first inning.
Voight next says: “Obama really thinks he is a soft-spoken Julius Caesar. He think he’s going to conquer the world with his soft-spoken sweet talk and really think he’s going to bring all of the enemies of the world into a little playground, where they’ll swing each other back and forth.”
While Obama has a great deal of self-confidence, this is hyperbole. Obama also is quite capable of being self-deprecating and seems far too sensible to see himself in that role. But, of course, we don’t know the contents of his mind. Perhaps he does go to a secret room of the Whitehouse and don a purple robe, armor and sword.
Obama is obviously aware that words alone are not enough and he clearly has no expectation of having such a playground. I assume that Voight is aware of this and is merely using hyperbole to, as the media would say, throw some red meat to the base.
Beneath the hyperbole seems to be the not uncommon view that we should not be engaged in diplomacy and that it is foolish to try to work towards a peaceful world. Underlying this might be the view that force is the only way to go about dealing with countries that are not our allies and that these other countries will never get along with us. This is, of course, speculation. However, one common criticism from the right against Obama has been that he is willing to talk to our enemies. The right sees this as naive and instead recommend the use of force.
While force does have its uses, I think that Sun Tzu got it right-it is preferable to win without fighting. After all, peaceful solutions do not kill people and do not destroy cities. As such, it makes sense to at least try to talk first before resorting to force.
Perhaps the most quoted part of his speech is his claim that Obama is a false prophet. Voight says: “We and we alone are the right frame of mind to free this nation from this Obama oppression. Let’s give thanks to [Republicans] for not giving up and staying the course to bring an end to this false prophet, Obama.”
Obviously, Voight is making extensive use of hyperbole and certainly seems to be bashing away at a straw man. He also seems to have fallen into a sort of messianic state.
Voight’s claim that “We and we alone are the right frame of mind to free this nation from this Obama oppression” is certainly interesting. It certainly seems to imply that he thinks that everyone who is not a Republican (or perhaps not a Republican who happened to be in the audience at the time) has nothing positive to offer the country. As such, his remark seems to dismiss all the rest of us while elevating a chosen few to a special, exalted status. The view that one’s group has a such a monopoly on rightness can be seen as sign of extremism-or perhaps even a mental illness. In any case, he is clearly presenting an “us” versus “them” view with the added element that only his people can save the nation.
That, obviously enough, does not seem to be true. The Republicans had their chance for eight years. That did not, as we have seen, turn out so well. as such, we have little reason to think that only the Republicans have what it takes to save the day.
Of course, it might be claimed that the Republicans are the only folks who can save us from the current Obama oppression, despite their past failures (including their failures in the past elections).
This, naturally enough, assumes that we are being oppressed. I don’t really see any signs of new oppression. What new laws have been passed that oppress us? What is Obama doing that would merit such a harsh word? Voight might not like what Obama is doing, but that would hardly seem to count as oppression. Oppression involves things like intruding into private communications, suspending constitutional rights, imprisoning people without trials, operating secret prisons, and so on. Perhaps the Republicans think they are oppressed victims-I have written about this before and have argued that they are mistaken.
To call Obama a false prophet is, to say the least, both extreme and harsh. It can be seen as implying that there is more than just a difference in political views here. In a religious context, to call someone a false prophet can be a rather serious charge, perhaps implying that the person serves the forces of evil, is an intentional deceiver, and is an enemy of the faithful.While a false prophet of this sort would be a grave danger, Obama seems to be a charismatic politician and not, as some have claimed, some sort of Hitler or Anti Christ. Voight might well be consciously tapping into those baseless fears-or perhaps he sincerely believes what he is saying.
This sort of branding of a political opponent is a rather extreme and divisive tactic-needlessly so, I think. While dissent is good for a democracy, such hateful vilification does not serve us very well. We can disagree and dislike one another, but it is important to do so in a civil manner and to recognize that the other person is an American, too.
I think that the conservative movement has a lot to offer America and Obama’s policies and actions should be subject to critical assessment. But I do not think that the sort of speech that Voight gave does America or even the Republicans any good.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://i0.wp.com/img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png)
“Actors, despite being considered the dregs of society by the Romans, are still citizens and are thus entitled to freedom of speech. Not surprisingly, famous actors can have considerable influence, mainly because many people are bad at logic. To be specific, people often let their positive feelings or views about an actor serve as reasons as to why they should accept the actor as an expert in a subject area, such as politics. However, being a good or even great actor does not convey special expertise in other fields (see Plato’s Ion for an excellent discussion of this matter).”
Have you ever used this argument against Sean Penn, Alec Baldwin or Rosie O’ whith such eloquence? I surmise not.
“It seems clear that Obama has taken on the responsibility of keeping America safe.”
It is more unclear to me. Just as Bush failed with closing our borders so too has Obama.
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/cburgard/2009/06/08/the-russians-arabs-drug-cartels-and-our-southern-border/
“Are we supposed to sitting and waiting, watching for the possibility of a new Holocaust? Who’s going to take the responsibility to keep America, I mean Israel, safe. “
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/10/wright-suggests-jews-white-house-wont-let-speak-obama/
One may wonder after One of Obama’s influences said this recently. After all, he did listen to this guy for many years. we all know how being immersed with certain types of ideologies for long periods of time can have great influence.
“Voight is making extensive use of hyperbole and certainly seems to be bashing away at a straw man. He also seems to have fallen into a sort of messianic state.”
Taken out of the context of your blogpost, I’d ‘swear’ you’re referring to Rush Limbaugh here!
They have so much in common.Both married more than once. Perhaps they’ve shared a cigar–or something stronger– or two. . . They both seem to enjoy fanning the flaming extreme right wing of their party hoping, perhaps, to ascend to heights of power among that freaky base held in thrall currently by Sarah Palin.
But, is it possible to list all of the Republicans who have, at one time or another over the last few months disavowed some Limbaugh position or another? A much smaller list could be compiled of Republicans and Independents who have ‘flocked’ to the great one’s defense. Seems that in Voight Rush has got another one.
Thanks, Michael, for applying clear thought to a subject-matter that, more often that not, leaves me nearly speechless.
I wish I could give you a lengthy multi-blog assignment. I would have you listen to Mr. Limbaugh’s program off and on for a week or so and report back to us–with the same logical clarity you’ve applied to Voight’s speech–every instance you hear there of generalization, hyperbole, non sequitur, and logical what-have-you.
Commenting on the logical fallacies and slanter’s in Rush’s shows would be a full time job. The man is a master of rhetoric and clearly knows that logic is best avoided if you want to win a following.
I’m sure Mike. Give it a try. Good generalization though.
“Lest anyone think that I am just bashing the right wing, rest assured that I have the same view of actors who come out in favor of Democrats. Unless the actor has special expertise, their claims have no more merit than any other non-expert. Naturally, their claims do not have any less merit.”
Of course not. Why would we think that? Do you have any blogs bashing the left wing in the same manner?
Of course. Look at my post about the Harley dealer for one example. I have also been critical of feminists for not being concerned about the gender disparity in colleges today.
Against Left actors or figures? How about David Letterman maybe? Asteroids hitting the Earth? huh.
Letterman? I don’t watch that. Way past my bedtime. Also, he’s not as funny as people think he is.
“Obama also did not show any left wing softness when he authorized the Seal team to use force against the pirates.
I’m not sure any other president we have had would have done differently. He also took his sweet time and didn’t give the American people any reassurance leading up to this point. “No Comment” from a new transparent president was all he could muster.
Exactly right. Obama will do pretty much what any US President would do when the US is threatened. While the right likes to portray him as a softy who just wants to talk pretty, he seems to have what it takes to order the use of force.
“That, obviously enough, does not seem to be true. The Republicans had their chance for eight years. That did not, as we have seen, turn out so well. as such, we have little reason to think that only the Republicans have what it takes to save the day.”
Not necessarily true. I don’t think he was condemning the entire party(voters who are going this isn’t what I voted for) but just the people in power. There are many middle of the fence voters and independents that are wondering what is going on. Obama never said he was going to put us in this much debt when he was on the campaign trail. This is going to lead to either a) huge tax increases or b) huge inflation. I think this might be what he is pointing to. What is your c) option if you can think of one Mike? His administration is saying that we have gained jobs because we have not lost as many as we would have if we had not spent all this money. What kind of math is that? It is like solving a 5 variable equation when you only know the value of 1. It is impossible. George Bush would have been laughed out of the press room and editorialized out of the office if he had said something as rediculous as this.
I am concerned about the approach to the economic crisis. As I have argued in some blogs, such bailouts (those done by Republicans and Democrats) seem to have a long term negative impact on the economy. After all, if the consequences of failure are pushed onto the taxpayer, then business are more inclined to take risks.
The spending is also very worrisome. While I believe that the state should be involved in certain national projects, fiscal irresponsibility with our money does not do the country any good. I’m fine with spending smart for necessary projects, but spending unwisely is not something I endorse.
“This, naturally enough, assumes that we are being oppressed. I don’t really see any signs of new oppression.”
You can’t see economic oppression coming down the road? Just wait.
What sort of economic oppression do you envision? Also, how do you define “oppression”?
Higher taxes can be oppressive.
Depends on how high. If they cut into a person’s ability to sustain a decent life, then yes.
“While Obama has a great deal of self-confidence, this is hyperbole. Obama also is quite capable of being self-deprecating and seems far too sensible to see himself in that role. But, of course, we don’t know the contents of his mind. Perhaps he does go to a secret room of the Whitehouse and don a purple robe, armor and sword.”
Well, he is seen as a god by some of the media and gives shivers up others’ legs.
Well, he handles his godhood well.
“I think that the conservative movement has a lot to offer America and Obama’s policies and actions should be subject to critical assessment. But I do not think that the sort of speech that Voight gave does America or even the Republicans any good.”
Well, thank Dog for free speech. Obviously the left isn’t going to like what he said. As a Conservative though I can tell you this is just the type of talk that may bring me back to the Republican party.
Yes, free speech is a wonderful thing. I’m not sure why you see his speech as so appealing-he relied heavily on hyperbole and straw man attacks.
Mike,
I thought Voight’s talk, at least on the CNN clip, sounded rather tame for a talk aimed at rallying the base.
Also, calling Obama a “false prophet” hardly seems to me to be “hateful vilification.” I see it as a response to some of Obama’s language. Remember when Obama said in June:
“I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.”
Obama is saying no less than that he is the one that will heal the planet. Is it really harsh and extreme to call him out on this?
I’m not sure that it is fair to take that quote as Obama claiming that he is the one that will do all that. He seems to have reasonable control over his ego. But, perhaps he is a megalomaniac as some people seem to be implying. If so, that should become apparent soon enough.
I’m glad you are a good judge of a sociopath’s ego. Have you ever been fooled by a woman?
A response to some of his language or a response to the way the majority of the media portrays Obama.
I like it because it is being honest. Something Obama has a hard time with. Voigt is saying how he really feels. Obama has seemingly not done this yet to the American people as a whole. He only does this with the occasional clips I bring to you. why two Obamas?
Obama is mostly honest. His claim about America having a large Muslim population was way off, though. Or perhaps he knows about all those secret Muslims?
I find it interesting that you finally write an article about actors voicing political opinion–even though they know little in many cases about which they speak–only after one of them is critical of Obama.
One may suspect you were a bit of a leftist…
Oh–and I see biomass is back chirping about Rush again. And boot-licking: “Thanks, Michael, for applying clear thought to a subject-matter that, more often that not, leaves me nearly speechless.”
I too am speechless… or nearly so.
“. . .chirping about Rush again.”
Can’t help it. It’s to laugh. I look forward to the 15-20 of drivetime listening I get on occasion. The guy just keeps painting his little bit of the Republican party into smaller and smaller corners. If he were a libertarian, his corner would be larger. Someone catch me up: Has he praised Scott Roeder or James Von Brunn yet for their contibutions to all that’s good in this country? Has he managed to blame the killings on the Obama administration?
There seems to be a void (leadership?)in the Republican party at present that Rush is all too happy to fill . My recommendation: A Palin/Limbaugh ticket would consolidate all the true-believers on one ticket, and perhaps we could have a three party race in 2012: Democrat/Republican/Ultra Conservative.
I don’t think Rush would ever run for office. His approach is ideal for creating and keeping a profitable core of listeners. But, his methods and approach would assure a loss in the general election. As the more practical Republicans have argued, they need to win over the independents to win elections. That means compromise.
Yes Biomass, that’s why he is more successful than the Republican party.
You are never speechless. 🙂
My criticism included general criticisms of actors and other celebrities. These remarks apply to the lefties as well. For example, what Rosie says about issues has no more weight or merit than what any other non-expert happens to say. But, she gets air time because she is a celebrity (although I still can’t figure that one out).
Left-wing actors say rediculous statements at least once a weak. Even more rediculous that this. I’m trying to look for your blogs saying so. Help me out here. This one is even pretty weak.
I leave that task in your able hands.
The best chance the Republicans have is to be fiscal grownups. Being relatively hawkish is OK, too. Lots of people are turned off by social conservatism. For example, the Terri Schiavo business really cost them.
I suspect many of the social conservatives feel a bit abandoned by the Republicans. After all, Bush failed to deliver some of the things that they wanted.
I agree-if the Republicans could come up with a clear and plausible plan to deal with the economic woes and government spending excesses, then they could get back in office. If Obama drops the ball on the economy, the Republicans have a chance to grab it up and head into the end zone.
If they continue to embrace the delusion that they will win through ideological purity, then they are doomed.
CUT TAXES and be fiscally Conservative! That sounds like a clear and easy plan.
Obama has already dropped the ball on the economy. 1.4% worse and climbing on unemployment that he assured us would not happen if the stimulus bill was passed.
What Ideology Mike? If they keep embracing the ideology of the Democratic party they will keep losing as they have. there is only room for one Democratic party.
I love your view of reality.
Cutting taxes and spending less would work. The challenge is sorting out what should be cut and then seeing if it is politically possible to trim the spending down. Both the Democrats and the Republicans have numerous pork projects that they will resist cutting. Plus, there are major expenditures that are politically untouchable.
Some pundits have alleged that the Republican’s focus on social conservativism has cost them votes. That does seem to make sense-Americans seem to be more liberal on social issues than they were in the past.
Going away from social Conservatism has cost them votes. When they were more socially Conservative they had more votes. Where are you getting your data from?
Pork projects and earmarks must go which Obama promised us and failed to deliver. In fact he has the record for pork on one bill.
Pork is eternal.
Wow. I thought this article was dead in mid-June. . .
“Where are you getting your data from?”
I believe Michael wrote “Some pundits have alleged that the Republican’s focus on social conservatism has cost them votes.” Maybe it would be more useful to ask what information “said pundits” are using to form their allegations.
If you adhere to the quintessentially conservative/Republican claim that polls, which might be an effective way of gathering such information, are, for all intents and purposes, meaningless—esp., it seems, when the results run contrary to their own assumptions/beliefs—information is hard to come by. Polls or no polls, I believe it’s pretty tough to determine the level of social conservatism in this or any country at any given time. Social desperation and social conservatism probably cannot be separated, so wartime conservatism is likely different that peacetime conservatism. Depression-era conservatism likely differs from bull-market conservatism.
Anywho, it would be a blast to sit in on a non-partisan committee to develop a “social conservatism index”. What would the standards be? How many commandments can one break and still hold public office? Can you break more if you only aspire to a local or state office? Which ones can most readily be ignored without suffering political consequences? Is an abortion “ever” acceptable? Must the mother be you or someone you know before the abortion is acceptable? Same question for gays. Is a gay child in your own family less acceptable that one with Down Syndrome? What if your Down Syndrome child turns out to be gay? Would you have different feelings if it were your neighbor’s child? Etc.
Let’s see more social conservatism minus the holier-than-thou bull—- that seems to hover like an evil vapor over some members of the movement who unquestioningly support anyone who wears his social conservatism like a bright badge on his sleeve but can’t keep his haughty sneer off his face or his you-know-what in his pants.
the economy will prove a bigger obstacle than any war. recent polls show that the populace now trusts republicans more to handle the economy then the dems. here we go again… this type of spending government won’t work. things will get worse and people wont stand ofr it. it’ll be far more powerful than repeated clips of soldiers dying in iraq. i promise.
Obama’s biggest liability is the Democratic congress. He would be OK except for them 🙂
With BFF Nancy and Harry, Obama is a 1-termer I’m afraid…
Speaking of which, where is the Iraq US military personnel death toll in papers daily now that Obama is in office? Oh, wait, he is more diplomatic so there is no need.
So now, Mike, you’re praising Obama for being tough, when G W Bush was the target of your ire for almost a decade. I know, I know, it brought the adulations of many a sorority girl. Making fun of G W was like making a joke about picking your nose or farting; you could always get someone who’s sense of humor makes junior high kids looks sophisticated to laugh.
My take: Obama’s foreign policy: Pretty good. So far, it’s almost exactly the same as GW’s: Kill people who want to kill us, be nice to those who’ve been spanked and learned their lesson.
Domestic policy: Utter disaster.
“Domestic policy: Utter disaster.”
Sign of utter party confusion:1/ Hope that
Obama’s policy –not the government,-just Obama and his policies– fails; 2/ Claim, even before he’s been in office 100 days that the plan’s a failure;3 /Wait (as Rush urged today on his show) until we’ve had a chance to watch Obama’s economic recovery plan fail (as it surely will,he says) before moving in for the figurative kill. Talk about mixed signals.This must be so confusing to the faithful. Who do we listen to? When? What part do we respond to, and what part do we ignore? “Racism”/”racialism”/Rush/Newt/. . .
“Making fun of G W was like making a joke about picking your nose or farting”
I’m not sure if “W” suffers from or benefits by being part of the tenor in this comparison. . .
Bush’s mistake was that he did not kill all the right people, but went beyond that. Iraq was a bad idea. His administration handled Katrina poorly, handled domestic security poorly, and was horrible at diplomacy.
Obama is taking a more diplomatic approach while still being willing to kill the right people. That is an effective strategy.
Yes, the economic plans seem to have serious problems. Part of it is that his economic advisers are from within the old system-the very system that dragged us into the pit.
Bush lacked the mental flexibility to be president, and tended to appoint loyal but incompetent people to important positions. However, I always felt that Bush loved America as it is, and had no desire to fundamentally change it. I felt the same about Clinton, too.
Obama, on the other hand, worries me because I believe Obama fundamentally dislikes America as it is, and wants to radically re-make it.
As an example of what makes me nervous, Obama said in his Cairo speech: “And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.”
Is it really the job of the President to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam?
I don’t think so.
That seems plausible. Bush always struck me as a classic American frat boy and someone who was way out of his depth in the office. But, he clearly loves America, apple pie, and ranches.
Obama does seem much more inclined to try to make fundamental changes, but some might argue that such changes are needed.
It is so funny that you get struck by what the media feeds you Mike.
http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12931660
http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2009/01/george-w-bush-the-prideful-fra.html
That was only the first two of hundreds. How pathetic. Originality for sure. you Lefties are more sheep than you think. BaaaaaaaaH.
Try to think for yourself once in a while. I just thought he spent way too much and pandered to the wishes of the Democrats too much.
Oh, I think for myself everyday.
“Though they get branded as liberals, they certainly don’t seem to have any personal qualms about being involved in the workings of the capitalist engine.”
Interesting, I didn’t think they were mutually exclusive.
Hmmm. Liberals don’t like money?
Sean Penn does his movies for free… A cool 20 million a movie is free to him. If they paid how much he’s really worth, well…..
They aren’t. Just pointing out that the folks around Obama don’t seem to be lefty socialists. They may espouse liberal ideas, but the certainly do not seem to have anything against money.
“Throwing money at people who made their fortunes by magic money math and those who ran once great automakers into the ground makes little sense.”
You don’t think the government had anything to do with their fall in the first place combined with the already bad economic situation?
The folks in the government helped contribute to the fall in many ways. One example often pointed to is the giving of money to help failing companies. That, as some experts say, merely encourages irresponsible behavior. Another set of examples is the weakening of regulations, the weakened enforcement of regulation, and a failure to keep the regulations up with the times. Put crudely, the folks in the government sent the message that the taxpayers would foot the bill for failure and that the companies could do almost anything they wanted. That is comparable to parents telling a teenager “hey, we’ll get you out of any trouble you get into, and don’t worry to much about those rules. Have fun.”
You and biomass might argue that…
Mike,
In your opinion has Obama clearly spelled out his vision as to what fundamental changes need to be made in the U.S. and what the impact on our lives would be? Isn’t this something that should be debated?
I tend to favor freedom over security, but sometimes I feel I am in a minority.
Do you have proof that the economic advisers have the same philosophies as the old ways? I think not. They are progressives that think cutting taxes doesn’t work. They think that government jobs stimulate the economy. I thought you knew better than that.
Most of Obama’s folks seem to be the same sort of folks we always get-rich folks from the business world. Though they get branded as liberals, they certainly don’t seem to have any personal qualms about being involved in the workings of the capitalist engine.
They do seem to be buying into the notion that the government can spend us out of a problem-but this is old school. Remember the first time the feds dumped money into GM? Obama’s folks are dumping money into the banks, financial companies and now the automakers. This is completely old school.
As I have argued before, perhaps it is time to get the dinosaurs off life support and use that cash (if we must use it) to get some new companies rolling. Throwing money at people who made their fortunes by magic money math and those who ran once great automakers into the ground makes little sense.
Horrible at diplomacy? How is Iran and N. Korea handing the “good” diplomacy now? They’re like teenagers whose parents have left the house for the weekend… Whooooohoooo! Nuke Party! Bring your own nukes!
Oh right, his administration handled Katrina poorly. Why, because black rappers said he hated blacks or because the administration couldn’t actually stop the hurricane with a super satellite death-ray? You would think the the LA government both state and local should be more responsible in the build up and evacuation then the Federal Government should be. Besides, we had another branch of government that could have done something faster too.
I disagree that Bush appointed incompetent people. Wars that last too long make everyone look bad. Rumsfeld in particular was a failure, I admit.
I too think that Iraq was a bad idea. It was a bad idea that most of the Dems supported at the time. They won’t wiggle out of that– no way. Obama’s idea was to make it worse. That was his campaign agenda. Immediate pullout while watching the collapse of a country we’d made ourselves responsible for. And that was what made him so popular in the begging; he said all of the things the extreme left loved: Less killing of terrorists and more killing of fetuses.
As great as things seem now for Obama, i can easily see him not being elected for a second term. He’s trying to do too much, messing with too many people’s stuff. And all his pandering won’t stop another attack by militant Islam. Watch and see.
It’s an unfortunate truth that sometimes bullets solve more than words.
Magus,
I was thinking of people like Michael Brown, Harriet Miers, Alberto Gonzalez, and others who were Bush’s friends but clearly not the best qualified. Rumsfeld was qualified but should have been replaced much sooner.
Unfortunately there were no good options in Iraq. It would have been a lot better if we had a Security Council resolution before going in.
“I was thinking of people like Michael Brown, Harriet Miers, Alberto Gonzalez, and others. . . .”
Funny. So was I. I wouldn’t think they were that easy to forget. . .
How was Gonzalez bad? I’m not so sure it would be any worse than what is being shoved in our face now.
Well, he didn’t have much of a memory. Plus, he seemed to have something of a poor grasp of the law.
None of them really had an affect on the major issues that made Bush unpopular. It all came down to the war: Win and leave in less than three years–he would be a hero. Get dragged into a counterinsurgency and an all-out war with the media–he’s now a war criminal to some.
Time, as always, will tell what awaits for Obama.
I agree that every administration has its deadbeats. Clinton had people like Hazel O’Leary and Web Hubbell…
Time is very quickly telling. Too fast for his own liking I imagine.
“Yes Biomass, that’s why he is more successful than the Republican party.”
So I can understand your position, what exactly does the word ‘that’s” in the above statement refer to?
“”“Throwing money at people who made their fortunes by magic money math and those who ran once great automakers into the ground makes little sense.”
You don’t think the government had anything to do with their fall in the first place combined with the already bad economic situation?”””
Cafe and safety standards have been exceedingly high which costs the automakers extra money. All that pressure for the big three to make cars people don’t want to buy hasn’t helped either.
I’m fine with safe cars. Also, the car companies that actually make money have to meet those standards as well. GM and Chrysler were not forced to make cars most people didn’t want-they did that themselves.
“I’m fine with safe cars. Also, the car companies that actually make money have to meet those standards as well. GM and Chrysler were not forced to make cars most people didn’t want-they did that themselves.”
Two problems with this statement.
1. Yes, we all like safe cars I would assume, but to make them appealing, have good gas mileage and be affordable gets very hard to pull off. You can trade in exotic materials and technology but that always adds to cost. Always.
2. They were forced by CAFE standards and safety standards to do these things. I do not disagree with this but I think they go too far. To be able to compete with foreign companies that have cheaper labor unions and labor they had to cut their margins to a point where they abviously were not making money.
I don’t think it was safety that did the main damage in the US. After all, foreign cars have to meet the same standards if they are going to be legally sold here.