Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Robert Samuelson: "Obama has inspired a collective fawning"
Washington Post econ columnist Robert J. Samuelson, citing this Pew Research Center survey, declares that the Fourth Estate's "Obama infatuation is a great unreported story of our time." As a result, Samuelson warns, "a great edifice of government may arise on the narrow foundation of Obama's personal popularity." Excerpt:
Are his proposals practical, even if desirable? Maybe they're neither? What might be the unintended consequences? All "reforms" do not succeed; some cause more problems than they solve. Johnson's economic policies, inherited from Kennedy, proved disastrous; they led to the 1970s' "stagflation." The "war on poverty" failed. The press should not be hostile, but it ought to be skeptical.
Mostly, it isn't. The idea of a "critical" Obama story is one about a tactical conflict with congressional Democrats or criticism from an important constituency. Larger issues are minimized, despite ample grounds for skepticism.
Obama's rhetoric brims with inconsistencies. In the campaign, he claimed he would de-emphasize partisanship -- and also enact a highly partisan agenda; both couldn't be true. He got a pass. Now, he claims he will control health-care spending even though he proposes more government spending. He promotes "fiscal responsibility" when projections show huge and continuous budget deficits. Journalists seem to take his pronouncements at face value even when many are two-faced.
Whole thing here.
Some relevant Obama-skeptic Reason links:
* Ronald Bailey on "Obama's Clean Car
Chimera," his "Fuel Economy
Follies" and "Cap and Trade
Delusions"...and how "alternative energy subsidies [are]
mak[ing] their biggest comeback
since Jimmy Carter."
* Jacob Sullum on "Obama's Green Snake
Oil" and "The New Era of
Irresponsibility."
* Veronique de Rugy on "The Age of Debt"
and "The Era
of Even Bigger Government"
* Me on "Obama's Double
Talk," "The Two Faces of
Barack Obama," and (with Nick Gillespie) "Obama's Vision
Deficit."
* Robert J. Samuelson himself on "Lessons from the
Great Inflation."
|6.1.09 @ 11:30AM|#
I'm a lovely cheerleader with beautiful eyes and great skin. Give me your comments on my photos. I am always showing up at WWW.INTERRACIALCHATS.COM, my username is "lovedream09". I'm waiting 4 u
|6.1.09 @ 11:30AM|#
Seems to me the writer brings up some very good ideas!
RT
www.online-privacy.vze.com
Fascitis Necrotizante|6.1.09 @ 11:35AM|#
This is nonsense. His policies will work spectacularly because
the right people are in charge.
So when Obama takes a head shot in a motorcade and we get Joe Biden
to carry on his legacy...
|6.1.09 @ 11:38AM|#
Look, Laura, you may believe that the cheap makeup you buy at Walgreen's hides all those zits and blackheads (and that hideous birthmark that looks like a cockroach), but I'm telling you, honey, you're not fooling anyone.
Shannon Love|6.1.09 @ 11:42AM|#
To many people have their personal identity, their sense of
personal morality, their social identity and their self-esteem tied
up in their political affiliations. It is the same psychology of
the deeply religious.
People with this mindset are incapable of dispassionately examining
facts. Instead, every analysis becomes a matter of defending their
emotional well being. They can't break out idea in isolation from
their overarching world views. To criticize anyone part of the
ideology is to bring the entire ideology into question.
This inability to question ideas get projected onto people who are
the most prominent flag carriers for those ideas. The afflicted
individual protects their own self-esteem by protecting the
reputation and public persona of the flag carrier. Pumping up the
flag carrier pumps up their own self-esteem and self-perception of
social status. It's akin to the way that children identify with
sports heros or the local sports team. A cult of personality
naturally follows.
Journalist are as a population urban, articulate-intellectuals.
They see Obama as one of them. Obama is the flag-carrier for the
political ideas that they use to define themselves. They can't
seriously question Obama without seriously undermining their own
sense of self-worth or rectitude.
phalkor|6.1.09 @ 11:48AM|#
My love of Barack Obama actually does seriously undermine my
sense of self-worth. Since I'm not a journalist or an
articulate-intellectual my love for Barack Obama is actually a
betrayal of my backwater clinging to guns and religion clan.
Love is hard.
phalkor\'s psychoanalyst|6.1.09 @ 11:51AM|#
(but secretly it's how he convinces himself that he's better than all the brain dead hicks around him... obama knows... obama understands... )
EJM|6.1.09 @ 11:55AM|#
So, when will the next official White House burger run be?
(In case you missed it, Friday's was to a Five Guys. I have a hunch that
there'll be at least one Counter location in the D.C.
area before the next election--although, alas, probably not a
Culver's.)
|6.1.09 @ 11:57AM|#
A good sollution to this kind of madness is humor. The worst thing you can do is take these people seriously, at least to their face. Privately, they should be taken deadly seriously. But public, the cult of Obama should always the subject of derrision and humor. Sadly, nearly all of our best known comedienes and filmmakers are too busy falaciating Obama to do anything. What this country needs is a movie that does to Obama and his cult followers what Airplane did to disaster movies. Make people embarassed and uncomfortable about their devotion at every opportunity.
|6.1.09 @ 12:02PM|#
"What this country needs is a movie that does to Obama and his
cult followers what Airplane did to disaster movies. Make people
embarassed and uncomfortable about their devotion at every
opportunity."
It'll never happen because Hollywood is so in the tank for him.
|6.1.09 @ 12:03PM|#
"It'll never happen because Hollywood is so in the tank for
him."
True, which is why we are fucked. When your entire society breaks
down, you start to get the leaders you deserve.
Fascitis Necrotizante|6.1.09 @ 12:04PM|#
falaciating
John, since a google search for "falaciating" is heavily populated
with comments of yours here and at althouse, did you also
contribute this defition of "vadonk" to urban dictionary?
While Susie was falaciating, Johny vadonks Susie in the face
for talking about his mother at the breakfast table.
Naga Sadow|6.1.09 @ 12:11PM|#
Well played, phalkor. Well played.
What's up with that picture? I want one. Bear wrestling unicorn
riding Obama pictures are priceless!
Xeones|6.1.09 @ 12:22PM|#
Yo, fuck Barack Obama's cult of personality and the rainbow-shitting unicorn it rode in on.
|6.1.09 @ 12:23PM|#
"John, since a google search for "falaciating" is heavily
populated with comments of yours here and at althouse, did you also
contribute this defition of "vadonk" to urban dictionary?"
I can't take credit for either. Someone on here, I forget who said
so and so was falaciating Obama. I wish I had thought of it first.
But I didn't.
|6.1.09 @ 12:32PM|#
I was wondering if the word was:
Facilitating,
or
fellating,
Either one makes his point I suppose, so either one works, as does
a word that morphs the two together.
So, I gotta give John points on that one.
Mike|6.1.09 @ 12:33PM|#
Nobody to the right of Fidel Castro denies that the MSM has a liberal bias anymore. This is why I am indifferent to soulful cries from people lamenting its demise.
Keith Oberman|6.1.09 @ 12:37PM|#
Robert Samuelson is the head of the GOP! We need a fairness doctrine for online publishing!
|6.1.09 @ 12:40PM|#
I thought "falaciating" meant "to engage in creating
fallacies."
Here's the deal. Citizens and, in particular, journalists should be
skeptical. Especially of government, but really of anyone with a
lot of power. Whether or not you agree with what they are doing
this week.
The most troubling aspect of our society is how much we rationalize
away bad behavior when it's expressed by someone on "our side." If
you're a liberal and not condemning Obama for a whole host of Bush
policy continuations, you're doing yourself and the rest of us a
disservice. Just like many Bush supporters did during his
administration. Of course, for libertarians, we get Bush pain with
new Obama pain mixed in.
Don\'t matter|6.1.09 @ 12:45PM|#
How quaint of Reason to post those articles written post-election. You guys were fellating the guy pre-election.
|6.1.09 @ 12:53PM|#
"The most troubling aspect of our society is how much we
rationalize away bad behavior when it's expressed by someone on
"our side." If you're a liberal and not condemning Obama for a
whole host of Bush policy continuations, you're doing yourself and
the rest of us a disservice. Just like many Bush supporters did
during his administration. Of course, for libertarians, we get Bush
pain with new Obama pain mixed in."
Hating something when Bush did it and then hating it again when
Obama does it, is certainly an intellectually honest response. But
it is not the only honest response. Another honest response would
be to rethink your views on the subject and admit that perhaps Bush
wasn't as bad as you said he was. Anyone who spent the last 8 years
screaming fascism has to now admit that they were wrong about Bush
or wrong about Obama. Regardless, both sides should worry more
about getting it right and having a thoughtful debate about it than
they do about scoring points.
Kunal|6.1.09 @ 12:55PM|#
It's getting so that it's impossible to make fun of H&R commenters for malapropisms anymore, because of the danger that it might be a meme here. You people take the fun out of being a spelling Nazi.
|6.1.09 @ 12:56PM|#
"You people take the fun out of being a spelling Nazi."
Well, at least one good thing has resulted in all the time I have
wasted on here.
|6.1.09 @ 1:02PM|#
I want that picture for my office. I want it in a large frame and in velvet. I wonder what people would say?
Federal Dog|6.1.09 @ 1:03PM|#
It's inaccurate to include those groveling in the category of
"journalists." They are pointedly not journalists; their intent is
not to relate current events accurately and dispassionately.
Quite the contrary: They are propagandists -- or, more neutrally,
media employees.
|6.1.09 @ 1:06PM|#
Regardless, both sides should worry more about getting it
right and having a thoughtful debate about it than they do about
scoring points.
See, this is a nice idea, but I always go back to my sisters-in-law
come election time. Not only do they not pay attention to who has
it right, they don't pay attention to who has the most points
scored since the last election. Or the last year. Or the last
month. When they vote, it is based solely on whoever scored the
most recent point that they paid attention to. And there are far,
far more of them in the world than there are you and I, John. And
that is why "getting it right" is a tertiary objective (at best)
for both the major parties.
|6.1.09 @ 1:06PM|#
"Quite the contrary: They are propagandists -- or, more
neutrally, media employees."
Post election "state media employees" is I think the more proper
term.
|6.1.09 @ 1:07PM|#
Another honest response would be to rethink your views on
the subject and admit that perhaps Bush wasn't as bad as you said
he was.
A third honest response would be that you don't really care about
anything other than the acquisition and exercise of power by your
side, so you don't really care that Obama has done a 180 on nearly
every issue related to national security.
You supported the anti-Bush rhetoric because it succeeded in
winning the election, and you support the continuation of Bush
policies because it is being done by your side.
|6.1.09 @ 1:10PM|#
That would be honest RC. But only in the sense that it would be an honest admission of dishonesty.
|6.1.09 @ 1:15PM|#
rethink your views on the subject and admit that perhaps
Bush wasn't as bad as you said he was.
He was worse.
|6.1.09 @ 1:17PM|#
"rethink your views on the subject and admit that perhaps Bush
wasn't as bad as you said he was.
He was worse."
Then so is Obama. Regardless he is not President anymore. Debates
about him are now about as revelent as debates about whether
Lincoln should have suspended habeaus.
|6.1.09 @ 1:18PM|#
Go read the Youtube posts underneath the new "V" series preview. Those guys think it's an angry right wing hit-piece against Obama because the evil aliens are promising hope and change for humanity. Their heads are so far up Obama's colon that they're suffocating. Were any Bushites ever this bad?
Gilbert Martin|6.1.09 @ 1:18PM|#
"It's inaccurate to include those groveling in the category of
"journalists."
What they are is part of the White House steno pool.
They merely take dictation from the White House and then
regurgitate it for publication.
|6.1.09 @ 1:20PM|#
"Go read the Youtube posts underneath the new "V" series
preview. Those guys think it's an angry right wing hit-piece
against Obama because the evil aliens are promising hope and change
for humanity. Their heads are so far up Obama's colon that they're
suffocating. Were any Bushites ever this bad?"
It is almost like the are sensitive about being compared to a cult.
Now, why would that be? Insults only hurt if there is an element of
truth to them.
Alan Vanneman|6.1.09 @ 1:23PM|#
I'm usually a big fan of Samuelson's columns, but this is just whining. This is the way liberals used to write about Reagan. You can't beat something with nothing, and right now the Republicans have got nothing--less than nothing, if you count Gingrich.
|6.1.09 @ 1:29PM|#
This infatuation and adoration was completely obvious during the
campaign, so I don't get how anyone could be surprised about it
now. Obama is/was the perfect combination of attributes and slogans
to turn all the liberals into mushy-headed worshipers, and it would
take a lot to get them off their knees at this point.
People who believe that having the right people in charge makes the
government work are already morons; give them a super-charismatic
Right Guy In Charge, and their brains just fully shut down.
|6.1.09 @ 1:31PM|#
"This is the way liberals used to write about Reagan. You can't
beat something with nothing, and right now the Republicans have got
nothing--less than nothing, if you count Gingrich."
Of course Reagan actually had a policy. It is not like Reagan
continued Carter's foreign policy and then was let off the hook for
doing so.
Venneman you seem to be one of those people who would rather snark
than offer sollutions. You can't really defend Obama but at some
level just can't bring yourself to give an unqualified criticism of
him. Who cares if the Republicans have nothing? That doesn't change
the fact that Obama's followers seem to have an uncrtical devotion
to him. But rather than just admit the valid criticism, you have to
throw in a dig at Republicans even though one has nothing to do
with the other.
|6.1.09 @ 1:48PM|#
"You can't beat something with nothing, and right now the
Republicans have got nothing--less than nothing, if you count
Gingrich."
So I guess it is okay for the Dems to fill the void with a cult?
Nothing to see here folks. Move along.
|6.1.09 @ 1:57PM|#
History will recall this period as the Bushama
years.
Virtually nothing Obama has done in the past four months would have
been possible without the groundwork laid by George W Peron.
|6.1.09 @ 2:01PM|#
Er, I asked this Big Picture question after Samuelson's piece
and nobody paid any attention to it. This bunch
may be different, so here goes: What the Hell is being taught in J
School these days about professionalism, scepticism, fairness,
balance, objectivity, responsibility, ethics, morality, You name
it??
Well, OK, that's not quite the way I worded it at Newsweek, but I
am over the edge now and wasn't then.
|6.1.09 @ 2:05PM|#
"Virtually nothing Obama has done in the past four months would
have been possible without the groundwork laid by George W
Peron."
And nothing Bush did could have been done without the ground work
of Clinton. Further, how about holding people responsible for their
actions? At some point when you use your hatred for one person to
excuse every action by everyone else, you just become a bitter old
fuck and cease to be worth listening to, which is a shame because
you used to be worth listening to.
|6.1.09 @ 2:06PM|#
What the Hell is being taught in J School these days about
professionalism, scepticism, fairness, balance, objectivity,
responsibility, ethics, morality, You name it??
That depends; do you actually want somebody to hire you, or
not?
|6.1.09 @ 2:10PM|#
"What the Hell is being taught in J School these days about
professionalism, scepticism, fairness, balance, objectivity,
responsibility, ethics, morality, You name it??"
That all of those things are either a) obsolete, or b) accomplished
by supporting liberal ideology.
And it's not just J-school. A few years ago I made a comment here
about expecting objectivity from journalist and was roundly
criticized for that expectation being completely unrealistic.
Journalists, I learned, cannot and should not be expected to rise
above their biases.
Shannon Love|6.1.09 @ 2:12PM|#
The other problem with the current media is that people who work
in the media no longer think of themselves as journalist first and
as individuals with personal views and biases second. Since the
sixties the left has advanced a morality in which an individual's
political beliefs come first and the responsibilities of their
profession come second at best.
Every job or role in society comes with a certain amount of power
to influence the world. That power was originally granted in return
for restrictions and obligations. Judges had sweeping powers in
return for subjugating their personal beliefs to the law. Academics
were given the freedom to think about anything in return for
honestly thinking about anything. Journalist were given the loudest
loudspeaker in society in return for using that loudspeaker to
publicize the follicles of everyone.
In the post-60's leftist's morality, a person's highest moral duty
is to advance the left's political agenda. If an individual has
power that comes from a job or social role, they have a moral duty
to use the power inherent in that role to advance leftist political
ideas. Judges, academics and journalist now use the power of these
roles while ignoring the obligations that come with those
powers.
In doing so, they are destroying the very institutions that give
them power because the power comes from the obligations. The media
is particularly vulnerable. People pay money for information. They
don't pay money to get lectured by their self-appointed betters.
When journalist began to advance their own interest instead of that
of their customers, they cut their own throat.
The media's Obama fawning is simply the death throes of dying
institutions. Nobody is going to pay the mainstream media to find
out what might be going wrong with Obama's administration because
they know the mainstream media won't provide that kind of
information.
hmm|6.1.09 @ 2:17PM|#
I for one welcome Kang and Kodos and find them strapping, intelligent, benevolent rulers. I look forward to groveling before them.
|6.1.09 @ 2:18PM|#
"Obama infatuation is a great unreported story of our
time."
"Unreported?" Really? So you're the first? Ahem, bravo.
Maybe under-reported (maybe) but I wouldn't even say that. This
error undermines an otherwise cogent arg, IMHO.
JB|6.1.09 @ 2:27PM|#
Yo, fuck Barack Obama's cult of personality and the
rainbow-shitting unicorn it rode in on.
I choose to read that as a knock against Boing Boing. Interesting
to compare their fascist comment policy with the one here at
reason.
Post anything critical of Obama and the Dems and Cory shits his
little-boy pants.
|6.1.09 @ 2:48PM|#
I submit a small, humble but I think necessary point: The term,
"Mainstream Media" is a misnomer of the first order. Orwellian,
even. There is nothing "mainstream" about it,of course, so why do
we persist in calling it that? I announce a contest to re-name the
liberal, fawning, boot licking, left bank, spittle dripping
advocacy group heretofore known as the Mainstream Media. It will be
called the Joe Klein Prize for Journalistic Integrity and
Objectivity.
Second prize is an all expense paid trip to Detroit to personally
observe the wonders of Obama and unalloyed Democratic civic
leadership at work. First prize: You don't have to go.
Gilbert Martin|6.1.09 @ 2:49PM|#
"The other problem with the current media is that people who
work in the media no longer think of themselves as journalist first
and as individuals with personal views and biases second."
A lot of the people who go to journalism school do so because they
want to "effect change in society" and go into it with the notion
that that is a primary objective of journalims rather than it being
a job that merely reports what is happening in the country and in
the world.
|6.1.09 @ 2:54PM|#
Journalist were given the loudest loudspeaker in society in
return for using that loudspeaker to publicize the
follicles of everyone.
Sweet, sweet, RC'z Law.
If that didn't make you think of Joe Biden's hairplugs, you just
aren't a political junky.
PC|6.1.09 @ 2:56PM|#
"P Brooks | June 1, 2009, 1:57pm | #
History will recall this period as the Bushama years."
History will pass on the ignorant dialogue similar to that which
currently passes for news. Don't forget that Hoover was against
government intervention in any way, shape, or form.
T|6.1.09 @ 2:58PM|#
Journalist were given the loudest loudspeaker in society in
return for using that loudspeaker to publicize the follicles of
everyone.
And People magazine is doing a fantastic job at it, too.
Also InStyle.
Seriously, journalists gave up on objectivity. It's one of the
reasons people are more and more giving up on traditional
journalism.
PC|6.1.09 @ 2:59PM|#
"The other problem with the current media is that people who
work in the media no longer think of themselves as journalist first
and as individuals with personal views and biases second."
No the problem with the current media is that it has more
competition. It was much easier when three networks could tell you
what is, a lot easier to coordinate the story.
strech|6.1.09 @ 2:59PM|#
"Obama infatuation is a great unreported story of our
time."
Um, what?
I was overexposed to reporting about Obama infatuation by January
2008. It gets reported constantly. It's a repeated and
regular argument on the right (Obamabots! The media is in the tank
for Obama! People voted for Obama because they were duped by the
media!) and has been since before he won even the Democratic
nomination.
So it'd be nice if Conservatives stopped pretending about mass
unknown conspiracies they've been telling us about for a year and a
half, and maybe leverage the difference between Obama's rhetoric
and what he does.
|6.1.09 @ 3:29PM|#
We seem to be seeing the COMMUNIST promise
made over 50 years ago: Premiere Nikita Khrushchev of the former
Communist Soviet Socialist "Republic" said: "We will destroy you
from within!" AND Bin Laden made the same promise to destroy the
country.
This administration and it's "useful idiots", as Stalin would have
called them, seem to be on a crash course to destroy the
country!
At best we're seeing gross incompetence at best and at worse we see
a deliberate systematic agenda to destroy this country.
Now that we have a Black Arab (not African-"AMERICAN") the dreams
of his Communist father are coming true.
Strange the media was too afraid look at his dads past as part of
his attempt to over throw Kenyan's government.
We have a president with communist parents, communist mentors, and
his Kenyan Black Arab roots go back to slave traders.
Then we have his Communist first cousin Odinga in the Kenyan
election using "change and hope" mantra.
|6.1.09 @ 3:31PM|#
I was overexposed to reporting about Obama infatuation by January 2008.
There is a difference between "reporting" and "opinion". While
there was been a shitload of opinions about the Obamallatio on
various blogs, there was been virtually no reporting of it in
mainstream newspapers, television or radio (news, not talk).
So it'd be nice if Conservatives stopped pretending about mass unknown conspiracies they've been telling us about for a year and a half, and maybe leverage the difference between Obama's rhetoric and what he does.
On this I will agree with you. The Republicans (and conservatives
in general) have been served a golden opportunity on a golden
platter with a golden carving knife, but they're ignoring it in
favor of pettiness on a paper plate.
|6.1.09 @ 3:34PM|#
The people that are in love with Obama don't seem to have a clue
about government, history or basic economics! The guy has what I
used to call a "waiter smile". His words do NOT match his
actions.
"If You Don't Stand for Something, You'll Fall for Anything" -
King
|6.1.09 @ 3:36PM|#
So it'd be nice if Conservatives stopped pretending about
mass unknown conspiracies they've been telling us about for a year
and a half, and maybe leverage the difference between Obama's
rhetoric and what he does.
I'll give Samuelson the benefit of the doubt and say that he
expected that once BHO got into office and had a couple months to
settle in to the usual power-abusing rhythm of White House
occupants, the Obama-Press Circle Jerk™ would end as they smelled
fresh meat on which to feast and sell soap. The press may largely
be sycophantic partisans, but they also have a job to do.
Needless to say, he completely underestimated Obama's
hypnotoad-like powers.
All hail the hypnotoad.
|6.1.09 @ 3:51PM|#
3 of the 4 major networks give Obama a pass on things that they
wouldn't have for Bush the lesser or Clinton.
The same can be said for the two largest news weeklies and the most
influential daily papers. I'll admit that the honeymoon is lasting
longer than I predicted. But all honeymoons end and this one is no
different. Soon the op-eds will start swinging from the common
"what is wrong with people who criticize Obama?" to "this is why
people are criticizing Obama".
The extreme left parts of the Obama cheerleading squad are already
starting to make noise, the merely left parts will be along
shortly.
|6.1.09 @ 4:02PM|#
"The extreme left parts of the Obama cheerleading squad are
already starting to make noise, the merely left parts will be along
shortly."
Murtha's patience is running out over Obama's foreign policy.
|6.1.09 @ 4:09PM|#
Soon the op-eds will start swinging from the common "what is
wrong with people who criticize Obama?" to "this is why people are
criticizing Obama".
I think it will take some kind of short, sharp shock, some scandal
or catastrophe that is mishandled by the amateur hour White House,
for that to happen.
As long as we continue our slow, gentle descent, the Obamatron
hypnosis will continue.
|6.1.09 @ 4:34PM|#
"There is a difference between "reporting" and "opinion."
Say what? Can you give me a source for that?
|6.1.09 @ 5:04PM|#
Question: What's the difference between an Obama-adoring
journalist and a carp?
Answer: One is a scum-sucking bottom-feeder, while the other is a
fish.
|6.1.09 @ 7:43PM|#
Epi sez Obama is/was the perfect combination of attributes
and slogans to turn all the liberals into mushy-headed worshipers,
and it would take a lot to get them off their knees at this
point.
The Hulu of politics?
johnny john john|6.1.09 @ 11:06PM|#
OMG MSM likes a charismatic, hip cool black president. No shit;
mainstream media is fucking retarded. Who the fuck cares what MSM
thinks? MSM was stupid in the Bush era, it should be no fucking
surprise MSM is stupid now.
Obama is NOT the liberal champion; Obama refuses to be even called
liberal, if Obama was hardcore liberal a lot more leftist policies
would have been implemented by now. Obama is a moderate. (BTW I
consider myself a liberal; I'll go by the definition from wikipedia
or a dictionary)
You know why MSM loves Obama so much? MSM likes winners.
Policy/politics/philosophy don't matter; Obama looks good on
camera. Obama is a smooth politician. Obama is good at what he
does. Whenever I hear/read one of his speeches, he always mentions
all the right words that "make sense" to the greatest majority of
people, me included.
The fact is, Obama's gonna have to really fuck it up for him to
lose support of people like me. So what if I don't support every
single policy he makes. At least it's a lot better than under Bush
(my generation came just to voting age when Bush came to power, and
Obama's definately a lot better at least getting some of what you
wanted in gov't policy than nothing).
So what if Obama's pro-drug war? Even if he was against it, there
would be little he could do against it, given the drug war's
popularity among voter and politician alike.
So what if he's Big-government spending? Most people like me really
aren't qualified to judge on economic issues; I don't know much
about economic theory but I do know that it's one of the most
complex phenomena in the world... and don't think you can explain
everything with "common sense" supply/demand invisible hand shit -
the world's not that simple. (The other 20 rich countries seem to
be doing alright with whatever non-completely libertarian economic
policies they use) With complex issues like these, most people let
the leaders handle it.
Trusting Obama on the economy and the war means that most people,
like me, realize that we are not qualified to make choices on the
economy and the military. We hope that the bigheads in Washington
might have a slightly better idea what's going on. That's what
they're there for anyways, to make decisions for us in times like
this.
And if you think you are smart enough to make those decisions for
us, then please, get the fuck to Washington and make a difference
(you can start first by convincing other people to follow your
ideas instead of making fun of them). Otherwise I don't know what
you're bitching for.
Yes. I am ignorant on many things the government does. But nobody
can ever learn everything. That's why people trust others to make
decisions for them. That's why people specialize in some areas but
not others. Right now I trust Obama in military/economic policy,
because I just don't know enough. When/if he fucks it up, then my
vote for him next term is gone.
|6.2.09 @ 7:00AM|#
Even if he was against it, there would be little he could do against it, given the drug war's popularity among voter and politician alike.
Horse pucky. It seems to be gradually losing popularity and support [citation needed].
johnny john john|6.2.09 @ 8:54AM|#
Art POG: And when the drug war does lose popularity, then it will be over. But it's up to us Americans to keep up the peer pressure, one bong hit/mushroom/cactus at a time.
|6.2.09 @ 12:40PM|#
Yes. I am ignorant on many things the government does. But
nobody can ever learn everything. That's why people trust others to
make decisions for them. That's why people specialize in some areas
but not others. Right now I trust Obama in military/economic
policy, because I just don't know enough.
Good grief, do I weep for the future.
|6.2.09 @ 12:43PM|#
At least it's a lot better than under Bush (my generation
came just to voting age when Bush came to power, and Obama's
definately a lot better at least getting some of what you wanted in
gov't policy than nothing).
Um, "under Bush" unemployment was at 4.5%, the federal deficit was
at $260 billion - while fighting a global conflict no less - and
the DOW (do you know what that is?) was over 12,000. And, the US
didn't own AIG, GM, Chrysler, etc.
You have nary a clue.
Right now I trust Obama in military/economic policy, because I
just don't know enough.
No kidding?
Sean W. Malone|6.8.09 @ 6:33PM|#
johnny john john:
Wow... No really. Wow.
I'm almost speechless. You've just brought sycophancy &
ignorance to a new high for the week.
Paraphrased JJJ: "Who gives a shit what Obama does? I don't
know anything about economics or political issues and he sounds
good. Oh, and the media likes him and makes him seem even more
awesome... And because I don't have a clue what's going on, I'm
just going to assume that the geniuses in Washington know what
they're doing..."
Had it occurred to you that maybe when you haven't the slightest
idea of what's going on in the world and lack the basic
understanding of the policies that affect you, that you are perhaps
not the right person to be electing anyone? Geesh...
Reading stuff like this always gives me a clearer understanding of
why our "representatives" are all mentally handicapped.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245