Victor Davis Hanson said this morning that "the Obamians need to get a life and govern the country, rather than blaming their gaffes on Bush, Rush, life, etc. . . "
How many times have we heard Obama blame our situation on the "failed policies of the past eight years"? He's a tad disingenuous in trying to lay all of our current crisis off on the shoulders of George W. Bush. We've had a Democratic Congress for the past two years; that is to say that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have been pretty much calling the shots as of late.
Let's be clear, however. The Republicans are not blameless. And there's no need at this point in rehashing the cause of the housing crisis (been there, done that) or any other "failed policy" by Republicans OR Democrats that has put us in the position in which we now find ourselves. The point is that it's time for Obama to quit laying blame for it and actually do something about it.
That being said, some would contend that Obama IS doing something. Well, I agree he's doing something, but I just don't think it's the RIGHT something. Again, specifics on that have already been hashed out here.
In a response to VDH this morning, Mark Steyn says that he had no real hopes for Obama's competency but he did hope Obama would surround himself with competent folks. Consider the British Gift Gaffe, the multiple failed appointments, and the mutliple stumbles and bumbles that lead one to believe that the entire administration is something akin to children playing at being president.
To be fair, nobody comes into the presidency with experience at the job, but we do hope that you've had experience in running SOMETHING if you're going to try to run the country. The dangerous times in which we live do not afford us the luxury of on the job training for the highest office in the land.
More to the point, consider Obama's phone call to the NYTimes regarding their "Are you a socialist" question. He thought they were kidding and blew them off. But, on second thought, he decides he better call them back. So he makes the call. Andy McCarthy calls the phone conversation "cringe-making stuff" and inded, it is.
McCarthy: "To me, what is most startling about the phenomenon VDH and Mark describe is actually listening to the president stuttering and bumbling his way through that follow-up call to the NYTimes. (The recording can be heard by clicking on an MP3 link in this Times story.) It's cringe-making stuff — the poor delivery, the claim that Bush is the real socialist and Obama the free-marketeer."
McCarthy concludes: "If Obama had haltingly spouted this nonsense off-the-cuff at a press conference, that would have been bad enough. But he (or someone) actually decided this would be a good call to make — and they had 90 minutes to think about what he was going to say. That's not just bad, it's scary bad." [Emphasis mine].
Does this alone make Obama incompetent? No, it doesn't. But in combination with all of the other things we've covered, well, it looks a little scary. Hanson called it "that classically unfortunate combination of hubris and inexperience." I wold add to that a total lack of class.
I believe that it displays a lack of class to bash your predecessor at every opportunity. Does Mr. Obama hope to improve his standing by criticizing Mr. Bush? Besides the "failed policies..." that he utters at every turn, he takes shots in press releases and statements, signing ceremonies, etc. You will never raise your own reputation by bringing down someone else's.
Charles Krauthammer said it best last night when he was explaing his decision to decline an invitation to the signing ceremony of stem cell order. He said "...[Obama] had a memorandum which he signed in which he talks about restoring the scientific integrity in government decisions, which is an outrageous attack on Bush."
Robert Stacy McCain, in commenting on the reversal of our Cuban foreign policy, said "When they start trying to change U.S. foreign policy with the fine print of an appropriations bill, you know the Democrats have developed contempt for the voters."
Contempt indeed. Obama and the Democrats seem to hold the voters with the same contempt they hold for the British. I'll be waiting for my DVD set, Mr. President. And I actually have an American DVD player on which I can watch them!
Update: (3/11/09) Camille Paglia is sort of on the same wavelength. Sort of.
1 comment:
I'm sure its not pleasant for conservatives, in general, and contributors to the National Review to consistently hear about Bush and his incompetency. Being that he was the Republican candidate and representative of the neo-conservative movement over the past 8 years. I'd be a little defensive also.
It might not be pleasant, but upon whom else would one place the criticism? If we're still suffering through a lingering recession in 4 years, Obama will surely get the blame from conservatives. In fact, its already begun. Its a complete no-win situation for the Obama, as the most staunch conservatives will never support him and his policies (see Rush Limbaugh). They are waiting for him to fail so they can criticize, and if he succeeds, they'll just claim that his policies are "wrong".
The real question is, from where do these people (Rush and the far-right) draw their apparent sense of expertise? Why would anyone turn to the neo-conservatives for their thoughts on foreign, domestic, or economic policy, when the implementation of their beliefs for 8 years has proven an utter disaster? Rather than pounding everyone to death with the same tired quotes of "small government, less pork, lower taxes, etc.", wouldn't it behoove the conservative movement to take stock of their values and maybe make some real adjustments to the various policies which have PROVEN themselves flawed? No, instead they continue to regurgitate the same mantras, essentially saying "what we've been preaching for 8 years hasn't been working, but we should keep on doing it!". It just doesn't make any sense.
If one believes polls, there are still about 30% of people who supported Bush til the end. That probably aligns fairly closely with the demographic who listen to Rush and/or consider themselves very-conservative. If the Republican party is smart, they'll recognize that that's not a base, that's an extreme faction; one that MOST of America doesn't relate to or agree with.
Post a Comment