Hammer o’ the Kraut to GOP: Don’t underestimate Obama

Is it possible that neo-con cheerleader and deficit hysteric Charles Krauthammer sees the last 18 months more clearly than some of our sky-is-falling manic-progressives? While Chicken Littles on the left are ready to dismiss Obama as an abject failure / corporate sell-out / reincarnation of George W. Bush, Krauthammer surveys the political landscape and warns fellow Republicans not to count the Kenyan Usurper out:

Consider what he has already achieved. Obamacare alone makes his presidency historic. It has irrevocably changed one-sixth of the economy, put the country inexorably on the road to national health care and, as acknowledged by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus but few others, begun one of the most massive wealth redistributions in U.S. history.

Second, there is major financial reform, which passed Congress on Thursday. Economists argue whether it will prevent meltdowns and bailouts as promised. But there is no argument that it will give the government unprecedented power in the financial marketplace. Its 2,300 pages will create at least 243 new regulations that will affect not only, as many assume, the big banks but just about everyone, including, as noted in one summary (the Wall Street Journal), “storefront check cashiers, city governments, small manufacturers, home buyers and credit bureaus.”

Third is the near $1 trillion stimulus, the largest spending bill in U.S. history. And that’s not even counting nationalizing the student loan program, regulating carbon emissions by Environmental Protection Agency fiat, and still-fitful attempts to pass cap-and-trade through Congress.

[snip]

The net effect of 18 months of Obamaism will be to undo much of Reaganism. Both presidencies were highly ideological, grandly ambitious and often underappreciated by their own side. In his early years, Reagan was bitterly attacked from his right. (Typical Washington Post headline: “For Reagan and the New Right, the Honeymoon Is Over”—and that was six months into his presidency!) Obama is attacked from his left for insufficient zeal on gay rights, immigration reform, closing Guantanamo—the list is long. The critics don’t understand the big picture.

Of course, Krauthammer views all of this as a BAD thing. And he assumes Obama is indifferent to the fate of the Congressional Dems because he’s marshalling his political energy for a fresh assault on mom, apple pie and freedom in a second presidential term.

I think Krauthammer’s wrong about that, but he got the Reagan-scale transformational presidency stuff about right, and it’s exactly what Obama said he hoped to do in widely misunderstood remarks he made during the 2008 primary.

Meanwhile, it’s entirely possible the GOP is setting itself up for a gigantic disappointment this fall. They will surely gain seats in Congress, but with all the premature triumphalism on the right, the handwringing on the left and continuous media drumbeat about the coming November bloodbath, the GOP must now at least retake the House just to meet expectations. And that’s a tall order.

Maybe they’ll pull it off. But if they don’t, I think we’ll see Chicken Littles hatching all over the right, and they’ll direct their beady little eyes at the teabaggers.

Posted by Betty Cracker on 07/16/10 at 07:20 AM • Permalink

Categories: PoliticsElection '10Election '08Barack ObamaBedwettersManic ProgressivesNuttersTeabaggeryOur Stupid Media

Share this post:  Share via Twitter   Share via BlinkList   Share via del.icio.us   Share via Digg   Share via Email   Share via Facebook   Share via Fark   Share via NewsVine   Share via Propeller   Share via Reddit   Share via StumbleUpon   Share via Technorati  

OOH, fun! I like this post. I never did understand the growing antipathy from the left toward the President. I think maybe people still have a Bush hangover and get cranky easily.
Krauthammer out of context is actually a bit uplifting at points. The President has accomplished a lot.

If the Hammer of Gloom is unhappy, things are probably on the right track.

Sometimes, when yet again another Insta-Leftist mistakes Obama’s explanation of just why the country was ready for Reagan as an endorsement of him, it reminds me of the mullahs who could not comprehend (or found it useful not to) that Salman Rushdie was not actually endorsing the Devil.

This is a good thing, since so many of the Disaffected “Liberal” Blogs have been quick to cite Krauthammer whenever his criticisms of The Prez fit their “Obama is Inexperienced/Evil/Unworthy” narrative. Now that Charles is conceding that Obama has been an effective anti-Corporatist, anti-Reagan Executive, they’ll have to spend much more time sifting the archives at American Thinker, Canadian Free Press and the Cypress Times to find right-wing talking points they can repackage as Reasons Hillary Would Have Been a Better President.

One line I’m sure won’t get big play in the WeWuzRobbedosphere:

The real prize is 2012. Obama sees far, farther than even his own partisans.

Truly, by my calculation, 2012 is at least four years farther ahead than some of those “partisans” can see.

In a sane world, this would silence the Firebaggers. Alas…

Yes, they are terrified.  Costcos across the south and southwest are selling out of Depends because they are all constantly shitting themselves.  They are reduced to screaming the N word.

I’m loving it.

Truly, by my calculation, 2012 is at least four years farther ahead than some of those “partisans” can see.

Subtle, so true, and yet still funny.

Why doesn’t the fact that the Dems have won most of the Congressional special elections since Obama took office get more play? I’m just really curious. I mean, I know NY-23 isn’t as sexy a race as Hottie McPinkShorts winning Ted Kennedy’s old seat, but so far, it seems that voters haven’t been eager to toss the Dems out when they’ve had the chance in House races. And in the aforementioned NY-23 case, they went blue for the first time since the Civil War rather than hand the seat to a Tea Bagger.

That’s a damn good question, Oblomova. I think it’s just media narrative as you suggested. But if the coming GOP tidal wave fails to sweep the gavel from Pelosi’s hand, if the Dems hang onto the Senate, if Reid defeats the crazy lady, I think we’re in for a brand-new narrative: the ‘baggers are box-office poison.

And that would be sweet justice now that Snowpack Snookie is calling herself and her flock “Tea Party Americans” as if they were a separate ethnic group and now that the equally lunk-headed Bachmann is starting a formal ‘bagger caucus.

I hate when people do this but:

I think Krauthammer’s wrong about that, but he got the Reagan-scale transformational presidency stuff about right, and it’s exactly what Obama said he hoped to do in widely willfully misunderstood remarks he made during the 2008 primary.

Fixed.

SARAH PALIN SAYS “READ THIS ARTICLE, MUTHAFUCKAS!”

SARAH PALIN SAYS “READ THIS ARTICLE, MUTHAFUCKAS!”

She’s the best liberal cheerleader that America’s ever had.

Why doesn’t the fact that the Dems have won most of the Congressional special elections since Obama took office get more play? I’m just really curious

.

In the case of the progressive blogosphere I think it would interrupt the natural flow of group gloom and doom that started before the inaugural and has gotten “progressively” worse.

I’m guessing the President, Rahm, and Chris Van Hollen don’t mind it at all. Dems are 7-1. They would have been 8-0 if the two dems in Hawaii hadn’t split the vote. Keep it quiet all the way up to the elections.

Page 1 of 1 pages

Sorry, commenting is closed for this post.

<< Back to main