Skip to content

Works and Days » The Metaphysics of Contemporary Theft

June 20, 2011

As usual, Victor Davis Hanson writes a good un…:

Watching the tastes, the behavior, the rhetoric, the appointments, and the policy of this administration suggests to me that it is not really serious in radically altering the existing order, which it counts on despite itself. Its real goal is a sort of parasitism that assumes the survivability of the enfeebled host. That does not mean it has not done a lot of damage and will not do even more in the next two years; only that it never quite wanted to see cap and trade legislation enacted, blanket amnesty, Guantamo shut down, or Predators ended; these were simply crude slurs by which to demonize Bush, ways of acquiring power and influence, but not a workable plan of living. Note that Obama is now zealous on just those issues which he could have easily rammed through his Democratically controlled congress in 2009-10 when he had large majorities, such as amnesty and cap and trade.

via Works and Days » The Metaphysics of Contemporary Theft.

Advertisements
2 Comments
  1. Michael Eaton permalink
    June 21, 2011 5:57 am

    “it is not really serious in radically altering the existing order”

    How can that be?? Beck swears that it is “the great and powerful evil that has co-opted almost every institution we have in this country”.

    “parasitism”

    Really?

    “never quite wanted to see…Guantamo (sic) shut down”

    Bull. Obama couldn’t get the votes.

    “Predators ended”

    Never said that was a goal. So, a lie.

    “blanket amnesty”

    Again, never a goal, so another lie.

    “he could have easily rammed through his Democratically controlled congress in 2009-10 when he had large majorities, such as amnesty and cap and trade.”

    This guy just ain’t real smart is he? Obama isn’t a dictator. If there is something he wanted, he still needs the votes in Congress. He didn’t have them for some of the things he wanted. Cap and trade was not there. Amnesty was never a goal. Or is “amnesty” conservative-speak for immigration reform? Sorry, maybe I just don’t speak fluent enough…

    But his bottom-line, Obama just isn’t as “radical” as he is made out to be by the right, now that is correct.

  2. June 21, 2011 8:25 am

    Wait. Obama, who forced through Obamacare, didn’t have the votes to shutdown GITMO?

    And blanket amnesty isn’t the goal? Bull crap. And you know it. Sure, it’s dressed up in flowery, feel good platitudes, but its the goal and always has been. We’ve had “immigration reform”, and the only thing that was seen to completion was the amnesty. The immigration parts were less enthusiastically enforced.

    And Obama could have forced through everything he wanted.

    Except for that darn PARTY OF NO!™ Remember them? Those guys? The ones who threatened the filibuster and created an entire wave of gnashing teeth in the progressive circles lamenting the very existence of the undemocratic Senate?

    Yeah. Obama is not as radical because of those guys.

    Thanks for playing…

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: