Obama, Left Behind

What does it mean when progressives turn against the president?

(Page 2 of 2)

Yet there are lessons we can all learn from Obama's lost year. Chief among them is the insight that when you project all your hopes, desires, and even fears onto a Rorschach test of a politician—whether Barack Obama, Sarah Palin, or otherwise—not only are you bound to be disappointed, you might just deserve it, too. Government officials use force and the threat thereof to impact our lives, not always (or even most of the time) for the better, so it behooves all citizens to get over their schoolyard crushes and figure out just what their objects of political desire plan to do with all that power.

Besides, the sooner the whole country learns the rhetorical tricks of this president—the false "false choices," the phony economic consensuses, the brazen refusal to acknowledge broken promises—the better we'll all be at assessing the wisdom of his policies. Surely the aesthetics of Tom Hayden's car is a small price to pay for some long-overdue skepticism.

Matt Welch is editor in chief of Reason magazine. A version of this article originally appeared in the New York Post.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Morris||

    You doctrinaire right-wing hack. What could Obama do that you would aprove of? Fuck you.

  • brotherben||

    Morris, Senator Coburn is praying for you.

  • ||

    Steady Morris... you've already used up eight of your nine lives...

  • Brian Sorgatz||

    But give Morris his due credit for being the second openly gay feline on television, after Snagglepuss.

  • Snagglepuss.||

    It'th jutht a lithp you homophobe.

  • Brian Sorgatz||

    NTTIAWWT

  • Brian Sorgatz||

    I think maybe somebody got Snagglepuss mixed up with Sylvester, the cat with the lisp (who doesn't strike me as particularly gay).

  • ||

    No, Snagglepuss used to say "Exit, stage left". A theatrical reference, which could make him gay. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I think Sylvester's line was "Thuffering Thuckertash".

  • Flush Obama||

    What could Obama do that you would aprove (sic)of (sic)?

    Self-immolate?

  • ||

    Toss my salad for once. Fair is fair.

  • T||

    Off the top of my head and in no particular order:

    Veto whatever abortion of a health care bill gets passed.
    Quit handing out money to corporations to prevent them going bankrupt.
    Quit prosecuting people in federal court for dug possession.
    Quit lying.
    Reduce government spending.

    All of these would be acceptable, if unlikely.

  • Wacky Hermit||

    They're prosecuting people for dug possession? They can't do that! That's like half the people in the country! I myself, as a woman, have two of them, and I'd have to have surgery to get rid of them! (If my husband's holding them, is he a criminal too?)

  • ||

    Progressives are ineffectual losers just like the teabaggers.

    They "turned against" President Bush and that didn't do anything.

    They marched bravely with
    hats made out of teabags,
    hats made out of code pink signs,
    signs with Bush as Hitler,
    signs with Obama as Hitler,
    papier-mâché heads of Bush filled with blood,
    papier-mâché heads of Obama filled with blood,
    and nobody gave a shit what the fucking freaks thought.

  • ||

    What could Obama do that you would aprove of?

    He's already accomplished what will be remembered as his greatest possible service to the country: he prevented a Hillary Clinton presidency, at least for four years.

    One other thing he could do that would get my full-hearted approval would be to resign.

    -jcr

  • kinnath||

    Looking forward to that Joe Biden Presidency.

  • ||

    That would be a distinct improvement, because Biden has far less arm-twisting capability. You can tell Talky Joe to fuck off without anyone calling you a racist.

    -jcr

  • T||

    Biden's leverage is his mouth. Do what he wants or he keeps talking. Think of that putz on prime-time television with the POTUS bully pulpit.

  • Jeffersonian||

    SNL would finally get funny again.

  • ||

    As much as I'd like to Obama go, I'll wait until 2012. I can think of three things that are worse than the thought of a president Obama:

    * President Biden
    * President Kerry
    * President Edwards

    Oh, shit...they are all white...I must be a racist.

  • ||

    Obama is beloved by all, you creepy little libertarian randroids.

    Click here for more Objectivism/Libertarian fail

  • jj||

    Step back and put down the kool-aid... On second thought, drink up Constitutu.

  • Constitutu's Mom||

    That's very nice, Honey, but shouldn't you be practicing your ballet?

  • Botox Porcupine||

    HA!

  • ||

    Jesus Christ, do all leftist have poor reading skills or are they just mendacious bastards that misrepresent the positions and beliefs of anyone in opposition to them?

    Stupidity or malice, take you pick.

  • oncogenesis||

    That comic was pretty funny -- but irrelvant to the current conversation.

  • Ted S.||

    What could Obama do that you would aprove of?
    Resign.

  • Old Mexican||

    What could Obama do that you would aprove of?

    He taught me economics - for instance, you can spend yourself out of debt, crate jobs by hobbling job creators and take a country towards energy independence by raising the cost of energy.

    He also taught me to fly by thinking gravity does not matter . . . Oh, and he walked on water, once.

  • Morris Mirror||

    Full of shit! Full of shit!

  • Botox Porcupine||

    He could teach you to spell, I guess.

  • ||

    What could Obama do that you would aprove of?

    Bend your mom over the kitchen table.

  • .||

    Why do you imbeciles rise to the troll's bait? A little restraint, please.

  • Joe Lieberman||

    Bend your mom over the kitchen table.

    Obama doesn't want to go where I've already been.

  • barack obama||

    Hell Joe, I could do that without gettin hard.

  • ||

    Maybe without touching the sides!

  • ||

    I'd hit it.

    Love,

    Bill

  • ||

    It took the conservatives a lot longer to figure out how much Bush sucked. So in that respects, liberals may be smarter.

  • jesse||

    I wouldn't say that, I just think Bush was better at playing the game.

  • pants on fire||

    Or it could be the proficiency of the liar

  • ||

    As bad as GW Bush was, Obama really takes the cake. Bush also had 9/11 that caused the whole nation to rally around and be frightened. Most importatantly, however, for most of Bush's presidency, the economy was pretty strong with unemployment levels in the 4.5-6% range, plus everyone's home value was going way, way up.

  • ||

    One of my current jokes.

    What's the best thing the Bush administration has going for it?

    Obama.

  • ||

    And vice versa.

  • ||

    Yeah, but we already knew that. No one expected Obama to help make Bush look good/better.

  • Tony||

    So two of the biggest disasters of the Bush administration--9/11 and the economy--are points in his favor? Or something like that?

    Obama is only one massive terrorist attack, one phony war, one lost city, and one economic disaster away from being as bad as Bush.

  • kinnath||

    Are you implying that the Bush II adminstration was responsible for 9/11 happening? Or just blaming Bush for being in office when it happened?

  • Tony||

    Hell yes he deserves some blame for ignoring specific warnings about an attack that happened on his watch. It makes a hell of a lot more sense than giving him brownie points for it.

  • ||

    Are you shittin' me? So you're saying all the "specific warnings" started coming in only after Jan. 21, 2001?

  • Tony||

    No, there were warnings the Clinton administration was aware of that were tossed aside by the Bush administration.

  • kinnath||

    So one of the guys that's hardover about climate deniers turns out to be 9/11 truther . . . delicious

  • Tony||

    Not a truther, just someone who doesn't believe Bush should get any kind of credit for the massive terrorist attack that happened on his watch, like it was a good thing or something. I am certain that if he were a Democrat he would have been blamed.

  • ||

    +2

  • ||

    So you're telling me there's a chance.

  • ||

    .....than what?

  • ||

    warning threadjack
    I always thought there was something funny about those people

    http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/284244

  • BakedPenguin||

    What could Obama do that you would ap[p]rove of?

    I can't speak for Matt Welch, but for me he could:

    1) Stop medical marijuana raids like he fucking promised to
    2) Stop torture like he fucking promised to
    3) Stop increasing the power of the imperial presidency like he fucking promised to
    4) Increase governmental transparency like he fucking promised to

    As for you, Edward, if you would fuck off and die, I'd really approve of that.

  • Cabeza de Vaca||

    +1

  • Mike||

    +1 indeed. I'm tired of people pretending that liberals and libertarians have no goals in common. Civil liberties are something we can all bitch at him for.

  • ||

    Sure we could, if the liberals actually cared about civil liberties. Unfortunately, they don't.

    -jcr

  • Murray||

    Hey that's stripper-girl from Californication. Man, she has some rockin' tits.

  • Murray||

    Dammit, commented in the wrong tab. Fail.

  • thenino85||

    This seems to put your other comment in context. I wouldn't call it a fail at all.

  • thenino85||

    Wow, fail on my part too.

  • T||

    A name is essential for the GIS. I'm just sayin'...

  • ¢||

    Things Democrats promise that libertarians like are always lies, Mr. Penguin. And the people who vote for Democrats know it. No one's dumb enough not to know. They just don't care. They pretend to, sometimes.

    Cosmo types need those same promises to point to, too, to justify their being herded. But they know. And they don't care. They pretend to, when it's election season or "Democrat disappoints leftists" column time.

  • BakedPenguin||

    cent - Things any politician - R or D - promise that sound libertarian are almost always lies, because that means decreasing the government's (and by extention, their own) power.

    I didn't hold out much hope for Obama, except possibly for MM, because that would actually be a political winner - polls show a large majority of Americans favor legalized MM. But since that would also decrease the power of the state, he's going to drag his feet until it becomes a positive political liability not to stop them.

  • ||

    Aye.

    It's ALL about economics. All that other stuff (civil liberties, torture, trancparancy) is merely instrumentalized to get Democrats in power. At which point they promptly drop it and start nationalizing stuff.

  • mr simple||

    Any measure that expands private insurers' monopoly over health care...

    And what about those damn private elcetronics companies and their monopoly over big screen tv's? It should be my right to watch television in hi-def.

  • ||

    My Letter to Sen Casey:
    Dear Senator Casey,
    Congratulations, you have successfuly infuriated & disenfranchised over half of the country, job well done sir! I'm glad to see that you have transfered your legislative power to the Democratic Party Communist Left wing & the Obama administration. As most Americans are beginning to realize that step one in "Remaking America" is the demolition phase. By your unrelenting support of the president, you have undermined the United States system of checks and balances. You have supported the most corrupt administration in the history of the United States. You have Unconstituionally given the power of the purse to the President (through TARP) to allow him to maintain a massive slush fund to buy support & punish non-supporters. As a result of YOUR actions, your position is no longer needed as you are nothing more than a pawn of the Left, a financial burden to tax payers and by YOUR own insane actions. I feel it is my duty as a Citizen & Patriot (a believer in our founding fathers & the Government System with checks & balances they set up) to hereby ask for you to resign.

    This may be your last chance to VOTE NO TO HEALTH CARE DESTRUCTION BILL !!!
    If you vote for passage of the fully deleted & redirected H.R.3590 "To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify
    the first-time homebuyers credit in the case of members of the Armed Forces and certain other Federal employees,
    and for other purposes"
    As you are now aware by this notice, has absolutely nothing to do with health Care. This bill, having been totaly deleted "Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following"
    Constitutes a totaly NEW bill, that is a revenue raising bill ORIGINATING in the SENATE. Please be advised, in your "job description" The Constitution of the United States, Article 1, Section. 7. clearly states "ALL bills for raising Revenue SHALL originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills."
    It does NOT give Harry Reid or the Senate legal legislative power to totally transform any generic House revenue bill and GUT out it's original purpose and morph it into something it was obviously NEVER intended for. You sir are in clear INTENTIONAL violation of The Constitution.

    I urge you to Vote NO. A yes vote will be considered an ACT OF WAR against the United States & it's citizens. Having broken ALL rules of your own Senate, it will be difficult to understand why any AMERICAN would follow ANY LAWS produced by this OUTLAW SENATE & HOUSE. You are nothing more than common CRIMINALS and YOU WILL END UP BEHIND BARS.

    I will begin by raising thousands of signaures from Pennsylvanians requesting you to resign. I will further investigate legal avenues to remove you from office.

  • brotherben||

    When he ran into the hysterical use of the wor "communist" in the second sentence. That's when your letter went into the vertical file.

  • ||

    Dad?

  • brotherben||

    Who's yer daddy?

  • ||

    Lighten up, Francis.

  • Evil Red Scandi||

    I'd disagree that Democrats are better at eating their own and Republicans are better at sticking together. Two examples that come immediately to mind are Congressman "Cold Cash" Jefferson and Senator "Wide Stance" Craig. I'd say that both parties just suck rhino ass.

  • Ska||

    Jefferson was a Democrat.

  • ||

    Exactly.

  • ||

    I think that's his point. The Dems didn't devour Jefferson, and the Reps didn't rally behind Craig.

  • Ska||

    Yeah, I don't really remember how his peers reacted. Point taken.

  • ||

    Well, some conservatives did rally behind Craig, but your point is well taken.

    http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22249

  • ||

    I think it depends on whether you mean within the ranks of the party or within the ranks of the elected cadre.

    Democratic congressmen and senators are excellent at covering eachothers asses. Witness Barney Frank. It's their "grassroots" party base which eats people.

    Meanwhile, Republican elected officials will abandon eachother to the wolves at the drop of a hat, but their voter ranks will stay loyal to the bitter end.

    This is, IMO somewhat a function of media bias. Elected Democrats can get away with more bullshit than Republicans without causing a big media shitstorm.

  • ||

    Also, if I am not mistaken most Republicans voted against the prescription drug benefit and against no child left behind. Those bills passed because Bush got a lot of Democratic votes in Congress. And the Republicans shot down Harriat Myers as well.

    The Republicans will always defer to the President on foreign policy issues, even if he is a Democrat. But on domestic issues they will occasionally turn on a President.

  • ||

    Don't forget the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act. Which is one of the greatest expansions of government ever.

  • ||

    "What could Obama do that you would aprove of?"

    He could die or resign in disgrace.

  • barack obama||

    If he expires, maybe he'll have the common decency to take Biden with him. Then we could have our first female potus.

    (careful what ya wish for)

  • brotherben||

    oops. that were me spoofin DearLeader

  • ||

    Liberals are turning on Obama because they are idiotic children. For most liberals politics is nothing but an emotional outlet and a way to act out whatever childish hangups and fantasies they have. Liberals don't want to win. They don't want to change the world. They want to live out their fantasy of fighting the establishment and doing good. For the modern liberal it is forever 1968 and Johnson is forever in the whitehouse and MLK is forever giving speeches. You can't do that if you are the establishment. For this reason, no establishment is ever pure enough. When they are out of power they are fighting those who are in power. When they are in power, a new morality play takes shape where they are betreyed by those they have helped put into power. If it wasn't so dangerous to the country, it would be comical.

  • Tony||

    Because John (person wishing for the president's death) is the perfect person to psychoanalyze liberals!

  • ||

    Wishing for someone's death is actually a compliment. Not everyone is worth shooting. You certaintly are not.

  • Poop Slinger||

    Didn't we lock you in a dumpster one time?

  • .||

    Hey, look who showed up - it's Tony! Thought you'd be too busy robbing Salvation Army kettles about now for some of those "positive rights" you're always going on about.

  • Tony||

    Hard to get close with you screeching about what a soul-crushing, world-destroying parasite he is.

  • ||

    Liberals are turning on Obama because they are idiotic children.

    I agree that they're idiotic children, but I don't buy your claim that that's why they're turning on him. It looks to me like they're turning on him because he's reneged on a couple of very important campaign promises, starting with his "take it to the bank" promise to end the war.

    -jcr

  • ||

    Not just the liberal.

    Right-wingers will run to daddy government in the attempt to censor adult oriented things.

  • Eric||

    I agree. Many conservatives are as addicted to government as anyone on the left.

  • ||

    I'm a right winger and I say turn the channel if you don't like it. Police your own kids and stop relying on the state to do the work for you. This administration is a fucking abomination. All here are advised not to go along with this scheme they're trying to pawn off as "healthcare reform". Take it it to the streets. See y'all in the gulags!!

  • kinnath||

    It shames me to say, but I now miss Jimmy Carter.

  • brotherben||

    Had we kept his policies, we wouldn't be in bucket-o-shite we find ourselves in.

    where's my sweater;}

  • monkeys||

    Hell, we miss Nixon.

  • Paul||

    Obama's intention to double down in Central Asia was no secret in 2008—it's right there on his campaign Web site: "Barack Obama will refocus our efforts on Afghanistan. He has a comprehensive strategy to succeed in Afghanistan with at least two more US combat brigades."

    I seem to remember an H&R thread where Obamanauts got upset at Reason commenters who took Obama's-- and I quote-- "rhetorical flourishes" seriously?

  • ||

    There were lots of those threads. They actually convinced themselves he was an "anti-war" candidate. I don't like Obama. But I can't help but sympathize with him. What are you supposed to do when your supporters are so retarded that they refuse to believe what you tell them no matter how plain you say it?

  • brotherben||

    Somebody mentioned the Forer effect on here recently. I think it's an apt explanation for those of us that voted for Obama.

  • ||

    You go easy on you and yours by calling up Forer Effect.

    The simple truth is you were had by a personality cultist.

    This says as much as you as it does about Obama.

    Millions of us never had an instant of doubt what he was about.

    Call it whatever you want to soothe your conscience.

  • ||

    Ben is not an Obamaist. He was just talking about people who were.

    You are right though. There was no doubt who and what he was to anyone who was paying attention. What is funny is that all of the knuckle draggers on the Right were the ones who weren't fooled. It was all the "smart", "thoughtful" libertarians and conservatives who managed to deny the obvious and be fooled.

  • ||

    The knuckle draggers on the Right are just as stupid. They still really believe that Obama is a "socialist" or that Obama actually believes anything Rev. Wright says. It's always been obvious as hell that Obama is a pragmatic centrist who wants to please the establishment. And Obama's proved that. (Note - "pragmatic" does not equal "competent.") Obama wants to be Clinton II.

  • ||

    Egads vanya. Obama wants to be King of the World. He hates Clinton.

  • Tony||

    I actually party agree with you here. I don't get why people thought he was the most progressive choice during the Democratic primary. There were plenty of signals that even Clinton would be more liberal. That's why I voted for her and worked against an Obama nomination.

    But I'm not too demanding. I know he can't waive a magic wand, but at least I know that if he could he would make the country more progressive. After the catastrophe of the last 8 years that idiots like you gave us, herded like sheep to vote for the guy who was closer buddies with Jeebus or who you could drink a beer with even though he was a nondrinking alcoholic or who would cut taxes and fight more wars because that's the American way or just because he sounded as stupid as you when he talks and thus made you feel comfortable, any improvement is something to celebrate.

  • kinnath||

    Tony, you haven't been a grown-up long enough to have a useful opinion about anything political.

  • ||

    Tony,

    Hillary and both of the Clintons are more conservative than Obama ever was. If you voted for Hillary because you wanted the most liberal choice, you are dumber than we thought you were. Hillary never claimed to be an anti-war candidate.

  • Paul||

    Have to agree with John on this one. It's not as if the Clinton's used the military reluctantly. And as speaking as a libertarian, I miss Clinton's (relatively) smaller government ways.

  • eb||

    but clinton's relatively smaller government ways was only out of necessity... because he got his ass handed to him in 94 and he was more interested in being popular than doing anything to he went along with the republicans, who at the time actually believed in contraining the purse strings

  • ||

    Hillary would have done the right thing for the wrong reasons. She would have tacked right to save her political ass. Not ideal but a hell of a lot better than Obama who seems to be willing to sacrifice his political career to ram his brand of bullshit down the country's throat.

  • Tony||

    I thought Obama was a spineless waffler who's pissing all the liberals off because he's caving on all sorts of issues? Guess whether he's that or a radical socialist dictator depends on what day of the week it is.

  • ||

    Obama's been tacking right since the day he took the oath. Pay attention John. Hilary is probably more liberal than Obama on health care, but there really isn't a dime's bit of difference between the two. Edwards was the real liberal.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony,

    But I'm not too demanding. I know he can't waive a magic wand, but at least I know that if he could he would make the country more progressive.

    Tony, you really freak me out - what exactly do you believe being more progressive would be like? The States are running the biggest budget deficit in history; the unfunded liabilities from all the "progressive" programs and pensions are running now in the hundred TRILLION, impossible for all productive hands alive to pay off; and you want more?

    You have said that my aphorism "Robbing Peter to pay Paul does not give either Peter nor Paul any economic security" is nothing more than a cliche; well, your pretension are becoming a very disturbing cliche in itself.

  • Old Mexican||

    "Pretension IS becoming a very disturbing cliche in itself."

  • Tony||

    Higher deficits don't have anything to do with progressiveness. They have to do with a massive recession. And entitlement program funding is one of the easiest problems this country faces. At this point I don't think the country needs hardcore progressive changes, it needs fixes to fundamental problems that SHOULD be apolitical. But nothing is apolitical, not even science, and that's not liberals' fault.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony,

    Higher deficits don't have anything to do with progressiveness. They have to do with a massive recession.

    Yup - that's what my wife tell me: "Hey, my running off the credit cards had nothing to do with my expensive shoes, but with the fact that you are not making more money!"

    Same argument, Tony. Same argument.

    And entitlement program funding is one of the easiest problems this country faces.


    Oh, that's what my wife tells me: Get more money, so that I can spend more. I mean, it can't get easier than that - never mind the obvious solution of NOT spending, but then again, we're talking about progressivism here.


    At this point I don't think the country needs hardcore progressive changes, it needs fixes to fundamental problems that SHOULD be apolitical. But nothing is apolitical, not even science, and that's not liberals' fault.


    Really? Bringing up alleged problems and then attacking those that disagree on the existence of those problems, that is NOT their fault?
  • Tony||

    It is not some radical new socialist theory that deficit spending is necessary in a recession. It's mainstream economics, and it seems to have been vindicated. You care about deficits because critics of Obama know they can turn it into a weakness. Were you such a hysterical deficit hawk when Republicans were running them up in the first place?

    No, it's definitely not liberals fault that a conservative minority don't believe in science.

  • ||

    it seems to have been vindicated

    Cite, please.

  • K-Y||

    But, but, but, but...it's so much easier to just say shit.

  • FrenchHash||

    Tony, you are about as interesting and insightful as a wet carrot.

  • FrenchHash||

    You must be taking lines from the Keynesian textbook, which, no, have NOT been vindicated.

  • Patrick||

    If anything, it seems Keynesianism is nothing but a sorry intellectual excuse for big government spending to favored groups.

  • ||

    "It's mainstream economics, and it seems to have been vindicated."

    They're clamoring for yet ANOTHER "stimulus" so we'll see if it's "vindicated" or not over time, especially when the bills for this orgy come due. Finally, a true test of Keynesian economics, too bad that America will fail along with Keynes.
    The "mainstream" in economics is full of dead fish.

  • ||

    After the catastrophe of the last 8 years that idiots like you gave us, herded like sheep to vote for the guy who was closer buddies with Jeebus or who you could drink a beer with even though he was a nondrinking alcoholic or who would cut taxes and fight more wars because that's the American way or just because he sounded as stupid as you when he talks and thus made you feel comfortable, any improvement is something to celebrate.

    Other than the tax cutting part, none of this describes libertarians.

  • Old Mexican||

    Wait - haven't I seen this before?

  • Tony||

    But it describes John.

  • ||

    STFU Tony. As I told you before, we give you a lot of leeway around here because we know you have such below average intelligence. But that leeway only goes so far.

  • Tony||

    Nobody is forcing you to be a right-wing Sean Hannity fellating boob. Of course nobody is discouraging you either, which is interesting.

  • ||

    No one is forcing you to be the dumbest human being ever to post on here not named Lonewacko. Of course you were born that way, so it is not like all of it is your fault. But you could at least try once in while.

    Yeah, I just listen to Hanity (whoever he is) and Rush Limbaugh to. Yeah that is it. That is a sorry effort on your part.

  • Tony||

    I'd give you a similar courtesy if I knew you were just the sad victim of right-wing propaganda, but if you really have thought these issues through deeply and come to the same conclusions as Sean Hannity, well that's just comedy.

  • ||

    I don't listen to Sean Hannity and I am frankly not sure who he is. So, I couldn't tell you. As far as my being a victim of propaganda, all I can say is that in order to make such an allegation, you must be the least self aware person in the world.

    Everyone knows who you are Tony. You are a liberal troll sent out by whatever dipshit left wing site gives you your instructions to come in and screw up the debate on this site. You never post anything but leftwing propaganda and talking points. It is easy to tell what you are because you never take any kind of a surprising or contrary position. I don't know who you think you are fooling. Whoever it is, it is no one on this board. You would be better off posting somewhere new where they haven't yet figured out who you are. Or at least try to bring your trolling skills up to at least some rudimentary level.

  • Joe M||

    You don't know who Sean Hannity is? Come come, that's just ridiculous.

  • ||

    Seriously. Who is he? I know he is some kind of conseravtive talking head, but I couldn't pick him out of a lineup? Does he do radio or TV? Or both?

  • oh no not this again||

    I know it's been awhile, but is someone pretending to be John? This is hilarious.

  • Tony||

    John, I don't acknowledge your authority to speak for all the real libertarians here, because you're a right-wing hack.

  • Tony||

    And you're either lying about not knowing who Sean Hannity is or you're so cut off from the outside world that it's little wonder you have the opinions you do.

  • ||

    On other words Tony, I pegged exactly what you are and have no idea how to respond. And if you had the ability to read, you would know that I, while not a libertarian, take all sorts of contrary positions. I am very anti-cop and war on drugs. I am a lot of things, but mindlessly right wing is not one of them.

    I can excuse the fact that you are stupid. You can't help that. But, what is inexcusable is your unwillingness to even try. You have never posted anything on here that isn't straight out of whatever talking points are running around the leftwing blogsphere that day. You just cut and paste the same bullshit day after day. Anonymity bot is more creative and interesting than you are.

  • ||

    I don't listen to Sean Hannity and I am frankly not sure who he is.

    He's kind of a low-budget Rush Limbaugh. Not as skilled at emotional appeals, and he seems to think of himself as a latter-day William Buckley.

    -jcr

  • ||

    I googled him. He is apparently on Fox. I never watch the TV news scream fests, so I haven't ever listened to him. I have to laugh everytime a liberal accuses me of parroting Rush Limbaugh. I haven't listened to Rush Limbaugh since the Clinton administration. He is on during the day. Unless you are in your car all day or don't have a job, how are you supposed to listen to him?

  • Tony||

    I presume you're more of a right-wing blog kind of guy. It's hard to tell since all the right-wing propagandists have all the same opinions about everything (since it all comes straight from the GOP).

  • ||

    Project much there Tony?

  • MNG||

    "I don't listen to Sean Hannity and I am frankly not sure who he is."

    Hahaha, is this because of some recent amnesia? Come on John, I stop playing in the snow long enough to come in and check H&R and this is the biggest pile of shit from you I have ever seen.

    And that's saying something!

  • ||

    Fuck off MNG. Sorry to break your stereotypes. I don't know who the guy is. I don't watch cable news. Why the hell would I watch the scream fests on cable news? I know you think everyone who disagrees with you doesn't think for themselves and gets all of their ideas from whatever media bogeyman you choose, but it doesn't work that way.

  • ||

    Because its sooooo fucking unbelievable that some of us don't watch television "news".

    I MIGHT be able to pick Hannity out of a lineup, but i think that's because i've seen him on the daily show or vids on this site.

    And if presented with a pic of Rush Limbaugh and a pic of an SNL cast member impersonating him, i would probably choose the imposter.

    I haven't had a cable "news" outlet grace my screen since the number of channels grew so large that channel surfing was no longer practical.

  • K-Y||

    I haven't had cable in 5 years, but I know that blood puppet Hannity.

  • ||

    Good for you. But I have better things to do than obsess over talking heads.

  • ||

    Unless the name is Palin.

  • ||

    Tony... a liberal troll? Who woulda thunk!

  • ||

    I seem to remember an H&R thread where Obamanauts got upset at Reason commenters who took Obama's-- and I quote-- "rhetorical flourishes" seriously?

    Those threads also contained the early "Parsin' President" posts, pointing out that when you boiled it down, he wasn't really saying anything, but that if you took it at face value, he was making completely nutso promises.

    If you voted for him because you believed him, you were twice a fool, once for believing him, and again for thinking that what he was saying he would do was the least bit realistic.

    If you voted for him because you didn't believe him, well, what the fuck are you doing voting for someone who you know is lying to you?

  • Tony||

    Isn't preventing the moose queen from getting anywhere near the oval office reason enough?

  • FrenchHash||

    racist....

  • Xmas||

    No. Especially when the entire election was a rebuke of Bush's excesses and a sure Democratic victory, they went for someone with flash and charisma. More troubling is that the Democrats let Obama surround himself with Chicago cronies and sycophants after the election when he really, really needs politically intelligent power-brokers that want to work for him (in other words, not Hillary Clinton).

  • kinnath||

    I'd even take Zombie Nixon back from the grave over a continued Obama presidency

  • Ska||

    But not Robot Nixon.

  • ||

    I'd vote for Robot Nixon. Imagine what he could accomplish in China now, with that shiny metal ass.

  • ||

    Yeah....Zombie Nixon would be cool!

  • T||

    But Robot Nixon has better posters.

  • The Art-P.O.G.||

    Robot Nixon is a dick, but a magnificent badass.

  • Paul||

    No one eats their own like the Democratic Party.

    Matt, did you crib this quote from someone who said the same thing about the GOP back in the 90's? I swear I remember somebody saying this about Republicans during the Clinton years.

  • Paul||

    the brazen refusal to acknowledge broken promises

    Obama is just being 'presidential'.

  • ||

    Liberals are turning on Obama because they are idiotic children.

    How the hell can you say such a thing???? Why my girlfriend's then 19 year old daughter told me the reason she was voting for Obama was becuase, "Obama is exciting!"

    We certainly are living in exciting times.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: GoNavy,

    How the hell can you say such a thing [that liberals are turning to Obama because they are like idiotic children}???? Why my girlfriend's then 19 year old daughter told me the reason she was voting for Obama was bec{au]se, "Obama is exciting!"

    Well, innocence and naivette are not exclusive of young minds - perfectly intelligent women keep themselves married to scumbags because "He was so nice to me!"

    I call it the "Battered Democrat Syndrome" - they always come ack for more.

  • Will||

    I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!

  • Old Mexican||

    Boy, this "Obama Derangement Syndrome" really has gotten out of hand. Why, just this past week the decreasingly popular president has been called a "bald-faced liar," "an executive who can't bring himself to lead," and even an "Uncle Tom."

    And that's just by liberals.

    The rats are jumping off the ship...

  • HeadTater||

    Wait a second, Joe Wilson calls Obama out for being a liar. All he says it "you lie!"

    Ralph Nadar calls Obama an Uncle Tom. How is that not racist? I guess it is impossible for liberals to be racists.

  • Old Mexican||

    I guess it is impossible for liberals to be racists.

    Of course not - by virtue of them calling themselves "liberals". It's that easy!

    Same way one cannot be a mass murderer by virtue of calling oneself a "President."

  • Tony||

    Ralph Nader is one of the most hated people in the world by liberals. Who gives a fuck what he says?

    Interestingly, Nader is also a perfect example of the dangers liberals face in demanding too much all at once.

  • ||

    Interestingly, Nader is also a perfect example of the dangers liberals face in demanding too much all at once.

    And finally it is revealed.....liberal democracy as practiced today = give me all the shit I demand and you fuckers can pay for it.

    Nice.

  • Old Mexican||

    Ralph Nader is one of the most hated people in the world by liberals.

    That is such a cop-out. So, is he persona non grata now that he is so inconvenient for liberals?

  • Tony||

    He's persona non grata because he was instrumental in George W. Bush getting elected. That was inconvenient for the country. You'll have to look hard to find a liberal who's willing to defend something that comes from Nader's mouth.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony,

    He's persona non grata because he was instrumental in George W. Bush getting elected.

    Next thing you will say is that Nader was the second gunman in the Grassy Knoll...

    This is preposterous. He was no more instrumental in getting GWB in power than Al Gore's sweeping personality and charm.

  • Tony||

    I'm not saying it's fair to blame him for W., and Nader has been good for liberal causes, but that doesn't mean I don't wish he'd never been born so that we might have been spared the last 8 years of clusterfuckery.

  • Old Mexican||

    I don't believe Al Gore would have been any better than GWB. Both were progressives with their own flavor. Really, I would much have prefered Nader as President than any of those two clowns.

  • ||

    Ralph Nader is one of the most hated people in the world by liberals.

    No, real liberals love him. He's only hated by Democratic party hacks.

    -jcr

  • MNG||

    This is true. Liberals have hated Nader for a long time. Since at least 2000.

  • Paul||

  • Paul||

    You have said that my aphorism "Robbing Peter to pay Paul does not give either Peter nor Paul any economic security"

    And I would still like to point out, despite this being said thousands of time on thousands of threads, I've yet to see a dime.

  • Ebeneezer Scrooge||

    Because you're not that Paul.

  • Flush Obama||

    Sen. McCaskill Joker posters emerge in St. Louis:

    http://thedanashow.wordpress.c.....kill-vote/

  • ||

    What?? That looks like her normal makeup.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony,

    It is not some radical new socialist theory that deficit spending is necessary in a recession. It's mainstream economics, and it seems to have been vindicated.

    It may be as mainstream as the belief in phlogiston. The hypothesis behind it makes no sense: That spending is what drives the economy, but that's a total misundertanding of economics. It is Production which drives the economy, not spending.

    You care about deficits because critics of Obama know they can turn it into a weakness.

    I care about deficits because they are nothing more than generational theft - robbing the future fruits of productive people to pay for goodies now. Don't pretend to know why I hold my beliefs, Tony - you would do better to ask first.

    Were you such a hysterical deficit hawk when Republicans were running them up in the first place?

    I don't answer loaded questions. I am certainly NOT hysterical when pointing out the basic economics fallacies behind deficit spending, regardless of which fascist is running the country - be it Republi-rat or Dem-agogue.

    No, it's definitely not liberals fault that a conservative minority don't believe in science.

    I don't know about that since I am not a conservative (I am an anarcho-capitalist). And it is due to my love for science that I found the hysterical predictions from the Warmist camp to be rooted in pseudo-scientific claptrap - was was proven recently.

  • ||

    Of course the Democrats controlled Congress and thus the budget for the last two years of the Bush deficits. But don't bother Tony with facts or anything. He has boilerplate to post.

  • ||

    Sure, but those budgets couldn't get passed without Bush's signature.

    By the same standard, the current health care plan belongs to Congress, not Obama, but for some reason you call it Obama care and Obama hasn't even signed it.

  • Old Mexican||

    Obama made it his candidacy banner. That's why people call it "Obamacare."

    Hey, Arthur C. Clark did not build nor launch the first working satellite, but since he was the one that described one first (how it would work, etc), everyboedy [ok, the nerds] calls him the father of the satellite.

  • ||

    John was making the point that what Congress creates, it owns. Which I think is fair although I beleve the President owns it on the executive level when he signs it.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: TrickyVic,

    John was making the point that what Congress creates, it owns.

    I subscribe to the same notion. However, as I wrote above, Obamacare does not come from Congress, since Congress does not have even a fleeting idea of what the bill they're voting on says or means. It was offered by Obama as part of his campaign promises, along with Cap-And-Rape.

  • JoshInHB||

    "Congress does not have even a fleeting idea of what the bill they're voting on says or means."

    The real problem is that Obama doesn't either.
    So where the fuck did this monstrosiy come from? Harry Reed's staffers?

  • Tony||

    The whole point of deficit spending during a recession is to prevent even more losses as a result of the recession. But this is a libertarian site so I know I'm not going to get very far defending Keynesian economics.

    But you really tip your hand with the anti-science bullshit. Global warming is a fact and you aren't going to change that no matter how many right-wing blogs you read on the subject. Sorry, this is the line. Believe all the economic fairy tales you want, but tossing out hard science for ideological reasons is not acceptable for serious people.

  • ||

    Tony if you even knew what Keynesian economics was, you might do a better job of defending it. Of course, if you knew anything about it, you would know that what is happening now doesn't qualify as Keynsian.

  • ||

    But this is a libertarian site so I know I'm not going to get very far defending Keynesian economics.

    You're not going to get very far defending Lysenkoism, either.

    -jcr

  • T||

    Although that would be mildly entertaining to watch.

  • ||

    When you think about it, how is "green jobs" and "renewable economy" any different than Lysenkoism?

  • ||

    More efficient energy management and more renewable energy sources are bad for the economy now?

  • ||

    When their implementation is done in a brute-force manner instead of letting it happening when it's convenient for businesses to do so, then yes, it is bad for the economy.

    And I'd say that a recession is a pretty damn inconvenient time to work on your energy efficiency.

  • ||

    They are different kinds of hogwash. Lysenkoism pretends to be biology. "Green jobs" and "renewable economy" pretends to be validated by economics.

    -jcr

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony,

    The whole point of deficit spending during a recession is to prevent even more losses as a result of the recession.

    Tony, that's circular thinking. What makes you believe the losses are not going to happen anyway? Deficit spending is akin to digging a hole below the ground where the guy with the non-working parachute is falling, just so he can avoid hitting the ground for a little longer. The guy WILL hit the ground, the hole will not stop that, it will simply make the hit much worse.

    But this is a libertarian site so I know I'm not going to get very far defending Keynesian economics.

    Not really, not far. Read The failure of the "new economics": an analysis of the Keynesian fallacies‎ by Henry Hazlitt. It is a sentence by sentence refutation of Keynes. You can find it for free at www.fee.org

    But you really tip your hand with the anti-science bullshit.

    Being skeptical of AGW is not being anti-science, Tony.

    Global warming is a fact

    Oh, GW IS a fact (the Earth has gone through periods of warming and cooling.) It is just that AGW is NOT a fact.

    Believe all the economic fairy tales you want, but tossing out hard science for ideological reasons is not acceptable for serious people.

    And nobody is as serious as you are, right?

  • ||

    Great Skydiving Metaphor.

    I bow to your superior Meta-Fu Skills.

  • ||

    Tony, that's circular thinking.

    Correction: that's rationalization, not thinking.

    -jcr

  • FrenchHash||

    LOL. I have to hand it to you Tony, you are very entertaining. Not very smart, but entertaining nonetheless. How would spending more= preventing losses? Its a circular argument. No, you wont get very far with your spend= save keynesian crap.

    GW sure is happening. But not all scientists agree that it is man-made, many think it is a natural warming/cooling period. I'm not sure whats right, I'm no scientist, but i sure as hell dont want some fuckers in Copenhagen forcing me to live in their socially engineered society because of some shit they saw in Gores flic. Green facists make me sick, they wont allow any scientific dissent to be even mentioned.

  • ||

    Thanks, but I'd rather become extinct than have a second rate hack like you defend me.

  • ||

    Obama loving Lil' sis is popping through town tonight. Should I take my usual tact that Obama is too far left and wants to destroy capitalism, or should I mix it up a little and focus on all of the disappointments he is foisting upon her?

  • ||

    Hit her over the head with the whole "hypocrisy about the war" thing. It's really fun to watch lefties try to defend him on that.

    -jcr

  • ||

    Yeah, Obama's actually fulfilling his campaign promises!
    Let's get that lying son of a bitch...wait, what?

  • ||

    Yeah, Obama's actually fulfilling his campaign promises!

    Nope.

    -jcr

  • ||

    But it's a "just war" if a democrat does it.

  • ||

    JCR has the right track. The war thing is really fun. Just talk about how the Republicans were so wrong about Obama. About how he is doing the right thing and continueing all of the Bush policies of unlimited detention and warrentless surveilence. And then say how much safer you feel with Obama going after Pakistan and using those drones to kill so many bad guys like he has.

  • ||

    Just talk about how the Republicans were so wrong about Obama. About how he is doing the right thing and continueing all of the Bush policies of unlimited detention and warrentless surveilence.

    Hell, he's upped the ante, by giving the detainees kangaroo court trials that are guaran-fucking-teed to deliver guilty verdicts.

  • ||

    Its the Chicago way. Little did Al Quada know that he was going to go gangsta on them.

  • ||

    To be fair, goin gangsta on terrorism is probably a lot scarier for the terrosists than when Bush went cowboy on their asses.

    I mean, cmon, cowboys are a fucking joke.

  • ||

    The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly type cowboys? Or Blazing Saddles type cowboys?

  • ||

    Give credit where it's due. Bush would have already had them in a kangaroo court if it weren't for those meddling Supreme Court justices.

  • JoshInHB||

    KSM has already plead guilty and was awaiting semtencing. Which surely would be the death penalty.

    http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/T.....amp;page=1

  • Flush Obama||

    Can you beleive this shit???

    LIBTALKER SCHULTZ: WHITE HOUSE DIRECTLY COMMUNICATES WITH MSNBC DURING SHOW:

    http://www.breitbart.tv/schult.....g-program/

  • LarryA||

    Besides, the sooner the whole country learns the rhetorical tricks of this president—the false "false choices," the phony economic consensuses, the brazen refusal to acknowledge broken promises—the better we'll all be at assessing the wisdom of his policies.

    To be fair President Obama would have kept a lot more of his promises if so many of the new Democratic members of Congress weren't considerably more conservative than he and the party base are. If he had a dozen more truly liberal Representatives and half-a-dozen like-minded Senators, we’d have had socialized medicine last March.

    Look at gun rights. Obama was promising an "assault weapons" ban and gun show restrictions. Instead one-third of the Democrats are voting with the majority of members for national park carry, restricting D.C. firearm regulations, national reciprocity, and transporting firearms on Amtrak. Anti-gun legislation is DOA in this Congress.

    That isn’t President Obama’s choice; it’s the reality he has to deal with. Of course I’m not sure he understands any more than liberals or conservatives do.

  • ||

    No, Obama's team wanted to make sure the Pharmaceutical and Insurance industries weren't going to make him look like an idiot, the way Hilary looked like an idiot back in the 90s. A more liberal Congress would have made his life even more difficult. Obama is all about appearances - he wants a health care bill passed, the details aren't that important.

  • ||

    The problem for Conservatives trying to engage in Schadenfreude is that liberals have always turned on their leaders, so the left wing disappointment in Obama is hardly surprising. By their nature right wingers follow their leaders in lock step, liberals all think they're too smart to be led by anyone else and so immediately fracture as soon as one of theirs takes power. The left was pissed at Clinton right up until the Lewinsky scandal made them circle the wagons. I remember sitting in coffee shops in Cambridge during the 90s hearing about what a sell out Bill Clinton was, I'm sure the same guys, or their younger brothers are even now sipping lattes and happily pontificating about poseur Obama's corporate backers.

  • jpocali||

    Ralph Nader last week to call Obama "an Uncle Tom groveling before the demands of the corporations that are running our country."

    I knew that Nader had, in the words of Pink Floyd "truly gone fishing", but wow... that is just sad.

  • alan||

    You doctrinaire right-wing hack. What could Obama do that you would aprove of? Fuck you.

    Poorly worded, but not really a bad question coming from you, Edward, old buddy.

    Just today Obama said something agreeable. That being perhaps the pendulum has swung too hard left in favor of intrusive regulation in the banking industry (to paraphrase).

    However, it is besides the point. Obama has so poisoned the well with lies, bad faith, and disingenuous accusations of bad faith turned to the likes of me who happen to be absolutely immaculate in the purity of my political and economic rationale that no matter what he did at this point, I could not support the man.

    I gave him a chance and he failed miserably.

  • ||

    - "My wife and I had maxed out in donations for him. Our children had been ardent for his cause," Wills wrote. "And now he betrays us."

    I always laugh when I hear people talk this way. 18 months ago nobody knew who Obama was, and now this guy sounds like he's been stabbed in the back by a dear friend. Obama is nothing but a bumper sticker - that's all he ever was and the most he'll ever be. Maybe Mr. Wills will donate that money to charity next time rather than putting all his eggs in the MTV pop-culture flavor-of-the-year basket.

  • Ebeneezer Scrooge||

    What does it mean when progressives turn against the president?

    Not a fucking thing. They're bitching, but they aren't turning on him.

    When "the progressives" kill this hellcare "reform" bill, then you can say they're turning on Obama. Until then it's just another smoke screen.

    They aren't going to kill ObamaCare, or anything else on Obama's agenda.

  • SFC MAC||

    They served as an Obama campaign wing. They got him elected based on his radical socialist agenda and that “change” they desperately wanted. He’s grabbing private industry, corporations, and banks in accordance with his socialist policies. Isn’t that what they wanted? A government crackdown on ‘evil captialists’? Instead of letting the free market determine who was financially fit to stay in business, they wanted a dictator to take control of even the most unworthy—as long as it benefit the disenfranchized poor—in the name of ’social justice’. He’s shredded the Constitution without so much as a peep out of the Left.

    They wanted a ‘president’ that would improve America’s ‘image’ by presenting a conciliatory posture towards the offended world; for all past transgessions, real or imagined.

    He schmoozed with Hugo Chavez, Daniel Ortega, and Evo Morales on his Latin-America apology tour, only to get lectured on American “imperialism”. He’s trying to ‘make up’ for the Great Satan’s insolent reprisals for the atrocities commited by Islamofascist countries on our soil. He bowed to the Saudi king and plays patty-cake with Iran, which might content his adoring hometown crowd, but the goons in the Middle East aren’t satisfied yet.

    He did backtrack on GITMO. Even an idiot like Obama has second thoughts about releasing unremorseful jihadist cutthoats back out into society. He’s also reneged on the “immediate pullout” from Iraq and Afghanistan, because he doesn’t want to fold the winning hand passed to him by George Bush.
    And for that, the Left is perfunctorily outraged.

    He ran as the ‘people’s candidate’; a ‘community organizer’ with a Leninist ’spread the wealth’ agenda. Having that kind of political package wrapped in dark skin was a plus for the fawning Left.

    On the other hand, Republicans prefer substance over pigment.

    Save for a few glitches, the Left basically got what they demanded. They have a majority in Congress and Senate, as well as an apparatchik in the White House.

    I said at the beginning of Obama’s regime that they will only get their panties in a wad if he doesn’t fulfill their leftwing expectations. All of them.

    We have about 3 years remaining to see how many more of Obama’s worshipers turn apostate.

  • ||

    This notion of progressive anger at President Obama is a lie concocted by spin doctors and communications strategists in the West Wing. The far left - heretofore comprised of all of the President's most kiss-ass supporters - is constructing a false left flank to provide cover for the media and the President, who can now get in front of the teleprompter and spout his "some on the right" and "some on the left" constructions and (falsely) appear to occupy the sensible middle. Progressive anger is a lie and a sham. Don't believe the hype.

  • ||

    Don't believe me? Watch them close ranks now that CBS is sniffing around the vote-buying corruption associated with this monstrosity of a nation-killing health bill.

  • ||

    Bullshit. Backlash my ass. They're all still kissing his every which way but upside down hanging from the jungle gym.

  • Dan Reeder||

    Obama haters are giddy about the self-destruction of the Democrats over health care reform. Of course any thinking person knows that the real reason important parts of the Senate health care bill were stripped away in favor of the pharmaceutical and insurance industry interests is because not one Republican, not one, felt the need to support ANY health care reform. Party loyalty trumped concern for the citizens of the United States. At least the majority of the Democrats in Congress were willing to put up a fight for the American people. Republicans on the other hand fought any and every reform idea. Fact is, no matter what the Republican leadership says, they have always been about killing any health care bill. To a person, Republicans in Congress are owned by insurance and pharmaceutical lobbyists. We desperately need health care reform in this country. And we know who really killed it.

  • ||

    "H.L. Mencken wannabe Matt Taibbi" is the best put-down I've read of Taibbi! I'm a Mark Ames type of guy, anyway...

  • abercrombie milano||

    My only point is that if you take the Bible straight, as I'm sure many of Reasons readers do, you will see a lot of the Old Testament stuff as absolutely insane. Even some cursory knowledge of Hebrew and doing some mathematics and logic will tell you that you really won't get the full deal by just doing regular skill english reading for those books. In other words, there's more to the books of the Bible than most will ever grasp. I'm not concerned that Mr. Crumb will go to hell or anything crazy like that! It's just that he, like many types of religionists, seems to take it literally, take it straight...the Bible's books were not written by straight laced divinity students in 3 piece suits who white wash religious beliefs as if God made them with clothes on..

  • nike shox||

    is good

  • قبلة الوداع||

    ThaNk U

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement