Politics

There's No Need to Get Personal

The GOP's misguided and unnecessary attacks on Obama

|

A few years ago, I asked a political operative what he did for a living—as the answer is often less obvious than you imagine.

"We isolate an issue," he explained. "Then we isolate the enemy and we try and destroy them."

If given a chance, politicos will almost always opt to personalize a debate. Case in point: the White House's nonstop efforts to convince voters that John Boehner is really some kind of Sith Lord. (As if we needed to be convinced.)

Sometimes, though, it can backfire. And if Republicans begin incorporating the festering obsession with President Barack Obama's birthplace, loyalties, origins, or religion into their official argument, they will have blown it.

Take the tortured contention of noted conservative author Dinesh D'Souza. In a recent Forbes cover story, "How Obama Thinks," he blames the president's "odd" blame-America-first, redistributionist behavior on his Kenyan father's long lost anti-colonial philosophy.

Conservatives have an opening to make an uncluttered argument—using the empirical data of a terrible economy—that less spending, less regulation, and less government is the way to create more prosperity. Dragging Third World colonialism into it—and I can say this with near certitude—is a bad idea on a number of levels.

To begin with, no decent TV-watching American has the faintest clue what you're talking about. And worse, the spurious claims about rampant right-wing racism will now gain fresh traction. That is, I'm afraid to say, the byproduct of bringing Kenyan politics into a perfectly constructive debate about how terrible this administration has been.

This fact is obvious to all Republicans, right?

"What if (Obama) is so outside our comprehension that only if you understand Kenyan anti-colonial behavior can you begin to piece together (his actions)?" Newt Gingrich, highly impressed by D'Souza's essay, explained to National Review Online. "That is the most accurate, predictive model for his behavior."

Is Obama really outside your sphere of comprehension? To say you need a predictor to decode Obama's next move is to say that the president is offering us something more than the hard-left agenda the Democratic Party had promised—rather unambiguously—when it came to power.

Obama's policies are no more exotic than those of the nearest progressive academic, the angry, union-shilling, purple-shirted sign waver or New York Times editorial board member. There is no whodunit when it comes to "fair trade" or "social justice." There is nothing novel about embracing illiberal "friends" abroad. Nothing unique about redistributive economics or regulatory dictatorships.

It's all standard. And until recently, much of it politically unpalatable.

What about the fellow travelers who voted lock step with the president? Obama didn't write policy that nationalizes health care or bails out states.

Has there been an outbreak of Kenyan anti-colonialist sentiment I'm unaware of?

To psychoanalyze the man's ideological origins and concoct theories is to attach much more credit to these policies than they deserve.

Maybe there is a more obvious answer. Obama's political behavior might be alien to common sense and good government, but it's not alien to the United States.

David Harsanyi is a columnist at The Denver Post and the author of Nanny State. Visit his website at www.DavidHarsanyi.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 THE DENVER POST
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

NEXT: So What Did Christine O'Donnell Run On?

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.

  1. And if Republicans begin incorporating the festering obsession with President Barack Obama’s birthplace, loyalties, origins, or religion into their official argument, they will have blown it.

    There’s a certain former challenger who did and ended up getting to be Secretary of State.

    1. Proof of Barry’s American birth:

      Hillary didn’t use it as a campaign issue.

      1. It’s evidence, but not proof.

        Hillary didn’t bring up the peculiar rantings of Obama’s mentor and pastor, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, either.

        It is beyond strange, utterly inexplicable, that the Clintons — the shrewest and savviest American politicians of our generation — failed to exploit Obama’s many faults during the primaries.

        1. One would figure they had the goods on John Edwards too. Perhaps HRC wanted to appear above a mudslinging campaign and her good intentions came back to bite her in her ass?

        2. the Clintons — the shrewest and savviest American politicians of our generation

          They’re rodents? Oh yeah…

          1. Hillary certainly is a shrew.

            1. Shrew racist.

        3. Or maybe the downfall of the GOP was its confusion between Obama’s faults and the faults of people around Obama.

        4. I would have lost to McCain, you fools underestimate me.

          Hillary 2012: I told you that communist inspired Frank Marshal Davis wannabe protege of Rev Wright Kenyan was not qualified to be POTUS.

        5. not inexplicable- they knew they’d be accused of racism

  2. “*BRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP*”

  3. Caption Contest: So’s your mamma!

    1. “Last week, I went to Philadelphia, but it was closed.”

  4. He has a point. Personalizing their attacks on Bush lead to crushing defeat for the Democrats in 2006 and 2008… yeah…

    1. Tactics that work for one don’t necessarily work for the other. Harsanyi is correct.

      It would also be a sign of social conservative resurgence over fiscal, a bad sign for libertarians.

      1. I’m not a fan of the tactic, but that’s (unfortunately) not the same as saying it doesn’t work. Especially when most of the sniping is coming from the sidelines.

      2. Tactics that work for one don’t necessarily work for the other. Harsanyi is correct.

        Why not?

    2. Don’t misunderstand him — Republicans would be ok using Obama as a figurehead and suggesting he blows as president. But Dems didn’t really make Bush’s personal life an issue — maybe the amount of vacations he took, though Obama is also vulnerable on the vacation issue.

      1. The vacations. The DUI. Asserting that he used a lot of drugs when he was younger. Supposedly skipping out on the draft. Yeah, they didn’t bring up any of his personal history the past decade.

        1. +10 for your handle.

        2. Not to mention constant ridicule of his daughters.

          1. I remember a week of news reports about what a doofus he must be for inhaling a fragment of pretzel. Yeah but no, we didn’t touch anything but his stance on the issues, mirite, libs?

      2. You are quite naive for somebody named “cynical!”

  5. Case in point: the White House’s nonstop efforts to convince voters that John Boehner is really some kind of Sith Lord. (As if we needed to be convinced.)

    Judging by his tan, he looks more like an Oompa Loompa. Orange spray tan: ok if you’re a cast member of the Jersey Shore, not ok if you’re a Congressman.

    Note: This will no longer apply in 2028 when Staten Island will elect Rep. The Situation (L-NY)

    1. In 2028 Staten Island will be under water.

      1. Good.

      2. Let’s hope so!

    2. Really? I think he looks more like a pumpkin.

  6. The article was too short to be of much use.

  7. This tactic will fail because it relies on academic elitism while denouncing academic elitism. Predictive model, my ass.

  8. One man trying to tell you how another man thinks is a little dubious to begin with……, “don’t you think.” How many people do you know that can tell me how you think? Dinesh D’Souza’ interpretation of President Obama’s communication with his deceast father strikes me as a bit odd. If we were at a carnival and D’Souza was reading tea leaves or entrails, he might enjoy better credibility.

  9. Personal attacks on someone who is actually pretty likable tend to fail. See, e.g., Clinton.

    Personal attacks on someone who rubs people the wrong way tend to succeed. See, e.g., Bush II.

    Now, which do you think Obama is – pretty likable, really, or someone who rubs people the wrong way? I tend to the latter, myself, but I’m not the best person to consult on this.

    1. Maybe I’m not either, because I never felt that Clinton – either one of them – was likable. More like slimy.

      And Obama – feh.

      1. I was always amazed to see people shake Clinton’s hand. You don’t know where that things been!

    2. I think if I were to spend more than five minutes with Obama, I would be struggling not to punch him in the balls. No homo.

    3. Personal attacks on someone who rubs people the wrong way tend to succeed. See, e.g., Bush II.

      Yeah, that’s why he was a one-term presid……oh, never mind….

      1. Only because the Democrats nominated somebody supremely unlikable to run against him, and even then it was pretty close.

    4. Rubs WHO the wrong way? Bush only rubbed certain people the wrong way. The people who scribble for a living, for instance.

  10. I agree with the author only in one respect. The Left through the MSM still defines the news cycle. Their bully pulpit is far more effective than the Right.

    So when the Right attacks character, the MSM can paint their opponents as racists far more effectively than the Right can.

    Gingrich made a silly and stupid move to bring up Kenya, not only because it sullies the economic argument. It leaves him open to the racism argument which the MSM owns in regards to its effectiveness.

    Character assassination isn’t just a straw man. It’s a game only the Left can play until the Right does a better job at defining the news.

    1. You actually think the MSM is left wing?

      1. You don’t realize that they are?

        1. Let’s see. We have Fox News. We have a supposed left wing cable network that happens to be owned by a giant conglomerate who, amoung other things, happens to be a military contractor.

          The MSM is mostly pro-corporate, pro-establishment, and pro-lazy in their reporting. All of these tend to help the Republican Party.

          1. Rofl for the reality fail.

          2. If Fox News is the only cable news network you watch, you really need to broaden your horizons.

          3. Depends on whether you mean the print or TV.

            Print journalism is overwhelmingly left-wing.

            Television is merely influenced by this … and ratings.

  11. I think that some of the attacks are spurious and false.

    But they seem to be working so far.

    If we’re talking about sheer effectiveness, every last bit of libertarian rhetoric about the growth of the state has been less effective than a single chain email about how the dude is a secret Muslim.

    The only place where policy critiques have meant anything at all is on the left-civil-liberties front. The left libertarians undermining the guy with his own base helped to blunt his initial momentum. Once he was stationary and wasn’t Mr. Hopey-Changey any more because he had fucked his own people and betrayed his promises, the right wing attacks really started to wear him down, regardless of the merit of any individual attack.

    1. +1, Insightful.

    2. +1, Insightful.

    3. “If we’re talking about sheer effectiveness, every last bit of libertarian rhetoric about the growth of the state has been less effective than a single chain email about how the dude is a secret Muslim.”

      I completely disagree. Such accusations don’t convince anyone who isn’t already voting against Obama. The accusations that matter are the ones which show how his previous election persona was an invention.

      Effective ads would run clips of his blaming Bush for the economic collapse, then contrast it to the poised reaction he killed McCain with. Or clips of him demagogueing everyone with a different opinion, and follow it with 2008 clips of his decrying attack politics. Or clips of him (or his surrogates) mocking those who want to hold him to his campaign promises (like transparency).

      There are so many ways to attack Obama I couldn’t list them all in an hour. If Republicans insist on Gingrich’s attack, or birtherism, or “he’s a Muslim” it will be the worst political decision I’ve ever seen. These attacks have negative results as they repel more potential voters than they attract.

      1. I agree with general concept; however, the unfortunate reality is that so many people, once they’ve adopted a favored position or opinion, will not allow themselves to be swayed from it, no matter how much objective, demonstrable fact is shown to them.

        You can run those videos showing Candidate Obama and everything he said 2 years ago and directly contrasting it with everything President Obama has said for the past 18 months, and the Obama sycophants and apologists will defend him and come up with some way to explain away the glaring inconsistencies and blatant falsehoods.

        It’s pretty much the same type of cognitive dissonance that gun control advocates have – you show them Chicago’s and D.C.’s gun bans and the murder rate by firearm, compared to the rate in Vermont, Virginia, Texas or Alaska, and they’ll still stick with the argument that all guns should be banned to make society “safe.”

        1. Which reminds me. Did they close the GITMO detention center yet?

          1. Congress won’t let him. They won’t give him any funding to find an alternate site to house them in the US mainland.

            And he would be crucified if he did what he really should do-release, on the United States mainland (since their home countries won’t take them or they would be tortured there), people who are probably terrorists but could not be convicted of such in a court of law (the evidence against them was illegally obtained under Bush or circumstantial or top secret).

            1. Did these problems not exist when he made his promise to close Gitmo? Or did he have no idea what he was promising? Or was it always a promise he never intended to keep?

              Most importantly how many independents do you think care which of the above is true? I’m going with zero.

            2. Really? But… he made it sound so easy.

              Didn’t Bush face the same problems?

            3. and the Obama sycophants and apologists will defend him and come up with some way to explain away the glaring inconsistencies

              I think I see what you mean…

    4. I think you’re largely right. Had Obama not betrayed his attack dogs by failing to reverse Guantanamo, the Patriot Act and our overseas adventurism, the Right would have had more difficulty, because Obama’s supporters would be far more loyal than they are now – since he showed up in office and continued all the Bush policies they hated. He has also compromised greatly on all the desired programs of the far Left. They’ll still support him over the GOP anyday, but their lackluster feelings towards his administration has undercut any serious grassroots response from the Left to the tea parties because they are forced to either stay home or defend the indefensible hypocritically.

      1. Which is why Hillary Clinton will be the democrat nominee in 2012. Obama is going to want to spend more time with his family and finish the third book he’s contracted to write.

    5. It’s just a subtle form of racism, which works in a lot of cases still. A 21st century version of the Southern Strategy.

      1. LMAO. You’re serious, right??

        1. Yep. He’s serious.

        2. You’re saying falsely attacking the president for supposedly being born in Africa (you know, where all those black people live) and/or supposedly being Muslim (like all those Arabs who hate America) isn’t racist?

          1. His grammy Obama claims he was born there and by Muslim tradition he is a Muslim because his father was. Just sayin!

          2. Believe it or not, I actually heard wild rumors that Bush was a secret Muslim.

            All that Michael Moore-esque talk about his close relationship with the Saudis. How they grew up playing together as kids, etc.etc. And then some sinister innuendo about why the Saudis would allow Bush I to station troops in Iraq, and whrther the bush family had some kind of secret oil-based pact with the House of Saud. All implying that the Bush family secretly converted to Islam in order to smooth dealings in the peninsula.

      2. It works if you want to get Republican voters. Obviously, they already have them. The GOP needs to keep Independent voters though, and racism doesn’t play that well with them.

      3. You been hanging around “frog in a pot” or something?

  12. As others have pointed out, Obama wrote perhaps the most open and honest autobiography any president has ever written. People who claim to find his past mysterious need to figure out how to read.

    1. Two of them!

    2. I suppose one potential answer is that it was, in fact, an AUTObiography. We’re supposed to believe what he says about who he is and where he comes from?

      This is not an objective analysis of his true background; rather, it’s just another part of him inventing his public persona.

      It also reinforces the conclusion that he is a world-class narcissist – he wrote his autobiography before he was president – he decided people should be interested in who he is, so he needed to write a book about himself.

      I’m sure if G.W. Bush had published an autobiography, the left would have totally demolished it and disregarded it as self-serving hogwash.

      The right is simply doing the same with Obama’s biography. Sure he wrote a book claiming to explain who he is, but what matters more is what he DID NOT explain in his book – the secret facts we know to be true!!

      1. Bush is writing a book to be published this year… and it is certain to have a thousand times more whitewashing than Obama’s, in which, if you’ll recall, he admitted to drug use. It’s hardly a book meant to paint him as the ideal presidential candidate.

        1. “whitewashing” Racist!

    3. Re: Tony,

      As others have pointed out, Obama wrote perhaps the most open and honest autobiography any president has ever written.

      No good deed goes unpunished, eh? Despite all the hints and clues he gave, people still voted him to office. The poor bastard…

    4. “honest and open”…strange how some of the stories in his book cannot actually be traced back to his life, but in one instance of a supposed girlfriend bears a great similarity to one that Bill Ayers had.

      Also strange is how he actually failed to write a book the first time contracted to do so,and was forgiven the money advanced to him for it, but the second time he was still unable to produce until he brought Ayers in. Autobiography my farm animal.

      1. Now that’s how it’s done! Isolate, and destroy! Good job, Len.

      2. “honest and open”…strange how some of the stories in his book cannot actually be traced back to his life, but in one instance of a supposed girlfriend bears a great similarity to one that Bill Ayers had.

        No kidding, since in the beginning of Dreams from my Father he acknowledges the existance of composite characters, streamlined dialogue and altered chronology. He’s not Samuel Pepys, and doesn’t pretend to be.

        Lens’ Razor: the most convoluted explanation is always the best.

        1. At least he was honest about his parents marching in Selma then time traveling into the past 4 years to conceive him.

    5. The words “open” and “honest” does not belong in any sentence that has 0bama in it.

      1. That is, the phrase. The phrase “open and honest” does not belong in any sentence that has 0bama in it.

        1. “Open” in isolation, however, can be used in phrases such as “and then Obama opened his sublimely creased pantlegs.”

  13. Alt text: “Hey ABBOTT!”

  14. Again, Newt’s behavior is in no way shocking. The man is an amoral, narcicistic douche.

    1. He’s like Clinton, with cruelty instead of charisma.

  15. obama is no different than any other progressive politician, except for his skin color, and the first 1/4th of his life.

    he is certainly not mysterious.

    and his biography was just as self-serving as all the others; he just realized that the small confessions he made (formerly being mad at whitey, smoking some pot) were great little things that could give him the angle of being a “new” kind of politician who is honest about himself.
    even though he clearly lied about his religious beliefs, (rev wright was a shameful episode. though i dont think he agreed with wright, he just used religion to increase his appeal because he doesnt want to admit he is an atheist who looks down on believers)

    also, who wrote 2 autobiographies before he became president? its a lot easier to avoid revisionist history before you have a record you want to defend.

    1. he clearly lied about his religious beliefs

      [citation needed]

      1. Citation
        I. Any sane observation of his past behaviour and rhetoric.

        1. How would the behavior of a liberal Christian differ from that of a secular humanist in any publicly observable way?

          Well, I would say that the former would probably go to church, and make statements about God in public from time. Sounds like Obama to me.

          1. “How would the behavior of a liberal Christian differ from that of a secular humanist in any publicly observable way?”

            The first lacks the animosity to Christianity. As in ‘they’re bitter and cling to their religion to get over…’

      2. In the eyes of your typical African American (who hadn’t seen the particular “Goddamn America” sermon), Wright would seem to be a typical, probably above average, inner city pastor.

    2. “(rev wright was a shameful episode. though i dont think he agreed with wright, he just used religion to increase his appeal because he doesnt want to admit he is an atheist who looks down on believers)”

      I think this makes a funny conundrum for believers. Would you rather Obama was an earnest Christian embracing the crackpot black liberation theology of Rev. Wright, or would you rather he be an atheist?

      1. False dichotomy. Liberation Theology (of any stripe) is Communist, not Christian.

        Of course, Atheism is a religion too, with Communism being one of its more extreme forms. It also has heresies, such… Liberation Theology (which acknowledges the existence of God, but only as a prop for the Communist agenda).

        1. Uhhhhh….
          ?!?!

          1. I second this “Wah?” face.

        2. Laughing My Ass Off…someone should come up with an abreviation for Laughing My Ass Off!!!

        3. “Of course, Atheism is a religion too, with Communism being one of its more extreme forms”

          Really? What are some other forms of Atheism? Is being a pirate a form of atheism? Is athletes foot one of the less extreme forms of atheism? Or does atheism just refer to not having faith in the supernatural?

        4. Jesus was a Communist.

          1. “I have come not to bring peace, but a sword.” On second thought, that’s pretty much the essence of Communism, so I guess you’re right.

        5. And did you know that all religions are 99.9% Atheist? Yup, almost completely Atheist with once tiny exception. One god of out potential billions.

          P.S.
          Durpa Durp

        6. Even Ratzinger in his previous career wouldn’t go as far as you’ve gone:

          Liberation theology is a phenomenon with an extraordinary number of layers. There is a whole spectrum from radically marxist positions, on the one hand, to the efforts which are being made within the framework of a correct and ecclesial theology, on the other hand, a theology which stresses the responsibility which Christians necessarily hear for the poor and oppressed, such as we see in the documents of the Latin American Bishops’ Conference (CELAM) from Medellin to Puebla. In what follows, the concept of liberation theology will be understood in a narrower sense: it will refer only to those theologies which, in one way or another, have embraced the marxist fundamental option. Here too there are many individual differences, which cannot be dealt with in a general discussion of this kind. All I can do is attempt to illuminate certain trends which, notwithstanding the different nuances they exhibit, are widespread and exert a certain influence even where liberation theology in this more restricted sense does not exist.

          Liberation theology is clearly influenced by Marxism in that it interprets the meaning of “the poor” as they are referenced in the bible to be the oppressed in the Marxist dialectic of history, but this does not make all liberation theology communist, firstly because the term “liberation theology” is too broad, and secondly, because Communism requires more than just a dialectical view of history. From your perspective, anything with four legs is a horse.

        7. Spot on the liberation theology Fptoeg, see Sandinistas late 50s early 60s has Kremlin Jesus written all over it and its no coincidence that not unlike communist agitprop LT is based in envy. Envy is a big no no in the Bible, Hugo Chavez and Rev Wright must have missed it when reading the Bible.

          And yes, some atheist can be rather dogmatic in their religion bashing.

      2. “Would you rather Obama was an earnest Christian embracing the crackpot black liberation theology of Rev. Wright, or would you rather he be an atheist?”

        Anything is fine, as long as you drop the hatred for everyone else. Atheists are as bad as any other group in the number of offensive jackasses included.

  16. But as David Harsanyi writes, if they [Republicans] begin incorporating the festering obsession with Obama’s birthplace, loyalties, origins, or religion into their official argument, they will have blown it.

    “Official argument”? What’s that? Can there be then an “unofficial” argument?

    And here I thought that ARGUMENTS oould be either sound or unsound, but I guess they can also be “official” and “something else.”

  17. The GOP’s misguided and unnecessary attacks on Obama

    Don’t forget counterproductive. Nobody who thinks Obama is Kenyan terrorist sleeper agent was going to vote against the GOP anyway. This stuff plays terribly with swing voters.

    1. +1

      The GOP’s strategy of firing up its base in general elections has always had an expiration date.

      1. But it’s okay when MY party does it.

  18. Obama’s policies are no more exotic than those of the nearest progressive academic, the angry, union-shilling, purple-shirted sign waver or New York Times editorial board member.

    Well, certainly, but that’s like saying Elton John is no more gay-er than Liberace . . . which is not saying anything at all. There’s a frame-of-reference problem here, ya know.

    1. Not really, I think you’re reading “exotic” as a synonym for “shitty”.

  19. Particularly in an off year election, is it really more important for Republicans to turn people off to Obama personally, or turn them off to Democrats?

    And it does seem like a big, fat softball for those predisposed to cry racism at the drop of a hat.

  20. “Obama’s policies are no more exotic than those of the nearest progressive academic, the angry, union-shilling, purple-shirted sign waver or New York Times editorial board member.”

    This is kinda their point, isn’t it? Yes, it’s standard for the Grey Lady. That doesn’t mean it’s standard for presidents.

    1. Pretty standard for Democratic presidents…which is why the Republicans should be making the connection between Obama’s policies and liberal economics, not pretending Obama’s policies originated in Kenya instead of the Democratic Party.

  21. You think that if the leaders of the Republican party had half a brain-cell they’d be trying to figure out how to get the youth vote that the Democrats threatened to run away with in 2008. Stuff about colonialism isn’t going to get people born after 1980 voting for GOP candidates.

    1. Maybe comparing him to Jimmy Carter will work!

      1. America’s youth will be too busy looking for a job to vote this year.

        1. How does looking for a job take more time than actually working at a job?

          This is why elections should be on weekends with an Internet voting option. I’m tired of idle old farts deciding elections.

          1. You don’t want that, Tony.

            You really don’t.

            1. Yes, he would. You’d be amazed at how many dead people have internet connections.

          2. “How does looking for a job take more time than actually working at a job?”

            If one is not not getting a welfare check, you’d be amazed how much time people will invest in looking for a job.

      2. Maybe comparing him to Jimmy Carter will work!

        The disaster of a Bush/Nixon Presidency gave use Obama/Carter which only lasted 4 years, when he was was replaced by ???/Reagan who promised to shrink government but instead expanded it.

        Yeah. Seems to be the trend we’re following.

        1. Most of Reagan’s expansion was the military that Carter and dems sliced and diced.

          Other than Reagan expanding the war on drugs with no exit strategy I have no problem with him driving a stake through the heart of the evil empire. And you might be surprised by some of the gadgets common today that came from that open checkbook to science called Star Wars.

  22. Alright, goddamnit, does Harsanyi have some stipulation in his contract that his columns have to appear on two pages?

  23. “…that less spending, less regulation, and less government is [sic] the way to create more prosperity.”

    A highly debatable contention, Harsnayi, you right-wing Zionist fuck. Ask Paul Krugman.

  24. Found this quote today, from a Fortune 500 CEO. It sums up Republicans soooo nicely.

    “Frankly, when free markets prevail, we have to shut down factories and replace overseas in places like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Russia, Brazil, Thailand, China and Oman, where governments lock in energy availability, guarantee prices and de-risk our investment”

    Yep. The “free market” somehow involves “de-risking” all his companies investments. *facepalm*

    And this guy makes millions?

    1. It seems that CEO is unaware of what the term “free market” means. If some government can give you energy and guarantee prices, the market is not free.

    2. Republicans? The guy is Australian. And you clearly misunderstood what he was saying. His point was that where the free market prevails, such as in the US (meaning free relative to other countries, of course), they end up moving out because the price of energy is not guaranteed by the government. In other words, the Saudis will tell them, build your factory here, and we’ll guarantee your oil prices will not be higher than $xxx.xx a barrel over the next 10 years. That’s the “de-risking.” In a free market economy, the government cannot make that promise.

      1. Hey, any chance I get to disparage capitalism, I’m on it.

  25. My theory is that Obama is just doing a very long-running Sidney Poitier impression.

  26. Everyone is trying to figure out why Obama seems to be completely ignorant of anything to with the United States, its history, and its foundational principles and documents. This is not a trivial issue since so much is at stake.

    No one is going to make it a big campaign issue but it is certainly worth examining.

    1. Or maybe it’s you, not the former constitutional law professor and current president, who is ignorant of the country’s history? Maybe you’ve been fed a line of bullshit by fat conservative talking heads and you are the dumb one. Ever consider that?

      1. Okay, Tony… how much respect does Obama give to the Tenth Amendment, or for the concept of enumerated powers?

        Yeah, that’s what I thought you’d say.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.