Obama’s tapped-out trust

Leaving aside the seriousness of lawlessness, and the corruption of our civic culture by the professionally pious, this past week has been amusing. There was the spectacle of advocates of an ever-larger regulatory government expressing shock about such government’s large capacity for misbehavior. And, entertainingly, the answer to the question “Will Barack Obama’s scandals derail his second-term agenda?” was a question: What agenda?

The scandals are interlocking and overlapping in ways that drain his authority. Everything he advocates requires Americans to lavish on government something that his administration, and big government generally, undermines: trust.

Liberalism’s agenda has been constant since long before liberals, having given their name a bad name, stopped calling themselves liberals and resumed calling themselves progressives, which they will call themselves until they finish giving that name a bad name. The agenda always is: Concentrate more power in Washington, more Washington power in the executive branch and more executive power in agencies run by experts. Then trust the experts to be disinterested and prudent with their myriad intrusions into, and minute regulations of, Americans’ lives. Obama’s presidency may yet be, on balance, a net plus for the public good if it shatters Americans’ trust in the regulatory state’s motives.

Now, regarding Obama’s second-term agenda. His reelection theme — reelect me because I am not Mitt Romney — yielded a meager mandate, and he used tactics that are now draining the legitimacy that an election is supposed to confer.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-will-obamas-tapped-out-trust/2013/05/16/4c50ff12-be5e-11e2-9b09-1638acc3942e_story.html?hpid=z2

336 electoral votes to 206. Who was on the meager side of that one?

Wow, You read that quick!

fshnski wrote:Wow, You read that quick!

It's "quickly"—and NB's got the Marxist's talking points memorized—he only needs a few words to respond.



As to the subject, I'm afraid that Mitt Romney was up against Stalinist tactics, including the use of a Government agency to report every aspect of his income—and just before an election.

The election was rigged by those champions who "play Democracy".

Romney lost because he was a terrible candidate that even you couldn't endorse!!!

America is wounded badly...but not dead. You can't kill the desire for freedom among all of Mankind.

Caesar failed
Nero failed
Caligua failed
Hitler failed
Mussolini failed
Stalin failed
Chavez failed
Mao failed
Castro failed

Obama, a tyrant-criminal—like the tyrants named above—will also fail.

"I'm not a crook"
"I'm not a dictator".
—Obama, March 5th, 2013

News Buzzard wrote:336 electoral votes to 206. Who was on the meager side of that one?

Very true News Buzzard. Obama did win the election. Lately Obama's wins are starting to look a lot like another fan favorite and beloved personality's wins...Lance Armstrong. Armstrong won the Tour de France a record seven times. Sometimes it DOES matter how one gets to the finish line.

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as president?

Approve DisAp No Op

May 17-18, 2013 53% 45% 2%

April 5-7, 2013 51% 47% 3%

March 15-17, 2013 47% 50% 3%

Jan. 14-15, 2013 55% 43% 2%

Dec. 17-18, 2012 52% 43% 4%


Keep up the good work, your efforts are greatly appreciated....approval ratings going up up up

Great job! Oh, wait a minute. One out of two thinks he sucks.

Can Obama bridge the divide between the two Americas?

John Edwards was right. There are two Americas.

In one America, the events of the past 10 days have exposed the true colors of President Obama and his administration. From edited talking points about the Sept. 11, 2012, terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, to the secret seizure of phone records of Associated Press reporters to the IRS’s targeting of conservative groups, a single message has emerged: This is the inevitable result of government run amok.

In the other America, this is all much ado over nothing. The death of four Americans at the U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi was a tragedy, nothing more. The Justice Department acted legally. And the IRS officials who acted wrongly did so of their own accord and had absolutely no contact with President Obama or senior officials in his administration.

Both sides cite polling — there’s enough polling these days for everyone to find something that suits them — that prove their point. According to a new CNN poll released Sunday, 53 percent of Americans approve of the job that Obama is doing, up from 47 percent two months ago. Fifty-four percent of Americans believe congressional Republicans have acted “appropriately” in the wake of the IRS scandal. And those numbers are from the same CNN poll.

You get the idea. While there has been some cross-party agreement over the past week — particularly on the IRS where many Democratic members of Congress have voiced their concern with how the agency acted — the general rule of Washington still held: How you think about things depends almost entirely on the party with which you align yourself.

The investigation into what happened in Benghazi is either a “political sideshow,” as Obama said, or a look into the “most egregious coverup in American history,” according to Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla). The series of congressional hearings dedicated to the IRS’s targeting of groups with “tea party” and “patriot” in their names are potentially “partisan fishing expeditions designed to distract from the real issues at hand,” in the words of White House senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer, or a chance to explore the “culture of intimidation” in the Obama administration, as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said.

The gap between how the two parties view the world can’t simply be explained away by the exaggerations inherent in political rhetoric. Yes, the principals in both parties are doing their best to highlight the pieces of each story that cast them in the best light and their political opponents in the worst. Nothing new there. But the disagreement goes deeper than that. It’s a belief that the other won’t, and can’t, be right and that facts are things that can be manipulated — or at least interpreted — to achieve a desired end.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/can-obama-bridge-the-divide-between-the-two-americas/2013/05/19/7902c006-c091-11e2-8bd8-2788030e6b44_story.html?hpid=z2

fshnski wrote:"...The gap between how the two parties view the world can’t simply be explained away by the exaggerations inherent in political rhetoric. Yes, the principals in both parties are doing their best to highlight the pieces of each story that cast them in the best light and their political opponents in the worst. Nothing new there. But the disagreement goes deeper than that. It’s a belief that the other won’t, and can’t, be right and that facts are things that can be manipulated — or at least interpreted — to achieve a desired end.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/can-obama-bridge-the-divide-between-the-two-americas/2013/05/19/7902c006-c091-11e2-8bd8-2788030e6b44_story.html?hpid=z2

You don't believe YOUR Government?