Archive for January, 2009
The Key To Success: Failure
Sunday, January 25th, 2009A Sunday night inspiration. By now, I should be a bigger success, if failure is the key.
As an aside, it makes me sad that American engineers aren’t the ones coming up with the most innovative car engines anymore.
Mark Steyn:
Sunday, January 25th, 2009United States of Emergency
Declaring an emergency to get money to Obama inauguration.
Boring Bush and Obama Drama–UPDATED
Sunday, January 25th, 2009Back in the old days, President George W. Bush woke up early, put on a suit with jacket, got his briefings, had his meetings, made tough decisions–many of which ticked off the left and the press, exercised, ate peanut butter and jelly sandwiches for snacks and went to bed at a reasonable time. He would meet privately with soldier’s families, write them letters, agonize with their loss and express gratitude for sacrifice. He would stumble with his words and not let the discontent of those with less information at their disposal to sway him from decisions that he thought best for the country. He made a lot of people angry–both friend and foe alike. He disappointed people. Still, he was a grown-up. Adult.
I don’t know if Barack Obama will be an adult at the helm or not. It’s too soon to tell. But this much is already clear: there has been a lot of drama surrounding President Obama’s “associations” and “friends” and now staff and even, himself. So much so that had President Bush had the same sort of drama, I think that his head would already be on a pike. For example:
Rod “Blago” Blagojevich and Rahm Emmanuel Senate seat-for-sale deal in Chicago.
Obama buddy and spurned Kennedy, Caroline:
New York magazine on Paterson: “His style of governance, a dizzy mix of ingratiation and trickeration, has turned what could have been a moment of triumph — a powerful new ally in the Senate, a relationship with President Obama — into a slapstick fiasco, a fitting sequel to the way Paterson got the job in the first place.”
Why would President Obama think it is a good idea to get into a fight with Rush Limbaugh? First, Rush is a talk show host. Can you imagine GW calling out Keith Olbermann? Keith Olbermann is beneath President Bush and beneath being addressed. It would make Bush look small to even acknowledge Olbermann’s loony ravings. Ostensibly, President Barack Obama view Rush Limabaugh’s views as “loony ravings”, no? And yet, it seems not. He takes Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh’s ideas personally. Is it ego? Is it that he simply cannot imagine that any thinking person wouldn’t agree with his magnificence? Or does he believe they touch the truth and it’s uncomfortable? Either way, he gives them power by acknowledging them. Robert Stacy McCain says:
In other words, by picking this fight, Obama is getting himself into a quagmire, giving publicity to the one person who knows best how to turn that publicity into an issue-focused argument highlighting the flaws of Obama’s economic plan which, as Rush says, “anyone with a brain knows” won’t work.
Maybe President Obama’s churlish outburst, “I won” was a reinforcing statement. Evidently he needs to remind himself that he’s actually the President.
When you’re President, your advisers and associations and how you manage power matter. When you’re President, the press’s job isn’t to be your cheering section, it’s to ask questions and keep you honest (well, a few aren’t anyway). When you’re President, people will oppose you for policy reasons (shocking, in this case, but true). The force of even President Obama’s wonderful personalityishness does not equate into pink marshmallows being pooped out of unicorn butts into your Starbuck’s hot chocolate, as someone noted on Twitter.
So far, there has been a fair amount of Obama Drama. It’s not surprising, really. He has surrounded himself with the same old Democratic operatives who created a fair amount of drama the last time they skulked the hallowed halls. But more than his staff, it is Him.
Barack Obama won the Presidency not on the strength of his policies but the force of his personality. He created a cult of personality and has many devoted followers.
He managed to seem to be on all sides of an issue, so much so that super conservative evangelical friends of mine believed that Barack Obama was against abortion when every single decision he made in his past indicated exactly his current actions. Can you imagine? What a come down for all the people on all sides when they realize he was willing to say anything and allow misconceptions to stand to become President. So now, he is bound to disappoint–if only because a President has to be a grown up and choose and live with the choices.
NeoNeocon talks extensively about how the hatred for Bush comes from the same place that the loving adoration comes for Obama. She says (please read the whole piece, it is excellent):
In Tina Brown’s essay on Obama, she uses a word that struck me initially as very odd. I have highlighted it in bold in the following excerpt:
This was 9/11 in reverse. The last time I turned round and saw so many people behind me, it was that terrible day in New York when the twin towers burned and we poured out of our offices downtown and swarmed up Fifth Avenue. Then the faces were distraught. Now they were joyful. Then America had been assaulted by terror. Now it had been renewed by hope.
Ms. Brown is making the observation that the demeanor and emotional tenor of the two crowds are in contrast. Well, of course; why even bother to mention that? One was a group of people witness to a terrifying surprise attack in which thousands died; the other is watching a planned celebratory and ceremonial event.
If Brown had written “This was very different from 9/11″—indisputably true, but so what?—that statement would not have caught my attention. But the “reverse?” Did the three thousand dead spring to life? Did the planes fly out of the buildings, miraculously made whole, fires quenched? Have we returned to the innocent unawareness of 9/10?
For Brown, that return is a consummation devoutly to be wished. But Brown herself is not all that important, despite her status as a former star in the world of print journalism. The significance of her piece is that she has succinctly expressed what is behind much of the love for Obama: the depth of the need to undo 9/11 and its consequences, and to counter eight long years under the yoke of the dread and hated Bush.
Precisely. President Bush was boring old dad, the grown up. Barack Obama was new and young and fresh and different and didn’t give us bad news or tell us things we didn’t want to hear. He gives good face. He speaks smooth words. Obama is framed as being the dramatic lover. He is such a lovely rebellion–his middle name is even Hussein! How much fun is that to stick in the eye of stodgy old, boring, mean President Bush?
Time will tell if Barack Obama will end up being the President of the Left’s adolescent dreams. He will have to make decisions, after all. But don’t underestimate the desire of people to see what they want to see.
Today, the Anchoress has a must-read piece of the decisions President Barack Obama is making and what those decisions mean. That’s assuming anyone is paying attention and/or cares. Sometimes people just want a little drama to distract them from the reality of life. So far, President Obama is giving people exactly what they want.
UPDATED:
More on engaging Rush Limbaugh and the debacle of Republican leadership from The Radioequalizer:
After a rough start for the Obamists this week, the last thing they want is a viable, effective opposition movement. Rush, Sean and others provide hope that America can be saved from this budding dictator and his cultist followers.
But as the new regime oversteps its bounds, it is far more likely to elevate talk hosts to heights they’ve never before seen, proving Obama is truly a rank amateur.
Ann Althouse also notes Obama’s call-out calling it an “alpha” moment. Perhaps Rush thinks so too, judging by his response:
IN THE COMMENTS: Jason says:
The moment I heard Obama said those things about Limbaugh I went out and subscribed to Limbaugh’s 24/7 service (giving him money). And sometimes Limbaugh makes me angry, but now that the government is against him he has to be cool. Like cigarettes or machine guns or heck, even drugs.
AND: Limbaugh responds in writing, kind of screwing up the suspense…
[Obama] is hoping that these Republicans will also publicly denounce me and thus marginalize me…. To make the argument about me instead of his plan makes sense from his perspective. Obama’s plan would buy votes for the Democrat Party, in the same way FDR’s New Deal established majority power for 50 years of Democrat rule, and it would also simultaneously seriously damage any hope of future tax cuts….
Here is Rule 13 of Alinksy’s Rules for Radicals:
“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”
Oh, there will be fireworks, Monday, to be sure. But I think Robert Stacy McCain’s point still stands. It is a mistake to attempt to distract this way. The “war” will draw attention TO the very issue Obama is trying to obfuscate.
Yes, Obama calling out Rush is a mistake. It was just one of many misplays in his first week in office.
My City Stinks….
Sunday, January 25th, 2009Surely There Is Something Negative To Say About My Town
No one is saying it though.
Instapundit:
Sunday, January 25th, 2009Assassinators: John Wilkes Booth Has A Killing Gene?
Like father, like son.
Sore Winners: When Blowouts Are Morally Wrong
Friday, January 23rd, 2009Imagine a High School basketball team playing another team and winning 100-0. Imagine the beaten team was from a school that helps special needs kids. Imagine the coach of the winners doesn’t put the bench into the game until the 4th quarter. From MSNBC:
A Dallas school whose girl’s basketball team beat another team 100-0 has apologized, calling its win “shameful” and “a victory without honor.”
The Covenant School of Dallas also asked to forfeit the game against The Dallas Academy, a school that specializes in teaching children with learning problems.
What is the right thing to do?
Here’s the deal: A team of special needs kids shouldn’t even be playing in a league with regular kids. I mean why would their coach and school do that to them? By their coach’s own accord, the team hasn’t won a game in four years.
The team that achieved the blowout may have used the game for practice purposes. That is, the coach tried new plays and used the obviously lackluster defense as an opportunity for his team. There is a chance, after all, that putting the scrubs in earlier wouldn’t have mattered. It’s not like the losing team made any points in the fourth quarter, either.
Should the winning team just have given up and stopped?
I put the responsibility for this situation not on the blowout winners, but on the coach and school of the losing team. If your school is going to play in a certain league, then the players should be suitable for that league. And if that league is the only choice, well, the team has to face the fact that they’ll be losing a lot and that they are playing for the joy of playing and not necessarily winning.
Cross-posted at Right Wing News
Business Week:
Friday, January 23rd, 2009Why You’ll Work Through Your Retirement
Ya think? Better like your job.
