Intravenous Caffeine

Totally Unfair and Completely Unbalanced

The NEW Illustrated Guide to Mendacity and Folly in the 21st Century.

Why Get Upset–the Democrats couldn’t win anything even WITH a Supermajority

Posted on | January 21, 2010 | No Comments

Rahm Emanuel advises Obama to blame the Massachusetts senate seat loss on those divisive liberals ...

Or holding banks accountable for the recession or the Bush administration for war crimes or...

The American eagle is a funny bird–it’s been trying to fly with two right wings and no left–or rather, with a right wing and an even righter wing. It’s hard to fly anywhere like that, the best you can do is go around and around in circles–on the ground. In another display of incompetence, the modern Democratic party has managed to lose Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat, in the bluest of blue states, Massachusetts, to a Republican news anchor and the fingerpointing has begun. Letting aside for the moment the idiocy of Coakley, the Democratic nominee, taking a week’s vacation in the heat of the campaign, the Democratic moronocracy has begun to claim that the Republicans have been right and that Obama has been too radical, despite poll after poll showing that VOTERS think his problem has been not being radical ENOUGH. In this scenario, blame for any lack of success is placed squarely on the liberal and progressive blogosphere–which was to a large extent responsible for the Obama victory–who have been denigrated for divisiveness because of their expectation that Obama fulfill the promises he made the American people throughout the election. Chief among these is the President’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, whose chief duty seems to have so far been showing Barry the best way to go down with the ship.
Should we be worried that the Democrats no longer have a supermajority, despite the fact that they couldn’t get anything done uncompromised WITH ONE? Not if they get their collective “”"” together and act like an ALTERNATIVE to the eight years of the Bush Administration instead of their little brother. But in order to do that, a certain Chief Executive is going to have to act like a Leader instead of an Infomercial…that if he wants something done, he has to say what he wants and then stick to it, that he can’t just ask the finance industry to accept reform, he’s got to shove it down their throats, that if he wants health care reform, he can’t take his strongest bargaining chip off the table before negotiation even has started. And that the way to handle the opposition’s complaint that he’s being too radical is to show them what being radical really MEANS. But I’m afraid that kind of confrontationalism isn’t in Barry’s bones, because that requires a commitment instead of a compromise. I remember reading somewhere–and unfortunately I can’t remember where or I’d note it–that back when Obama was editor of the Harvard Law Review, contributors could never tell whether or not he actually agreed with their positions or not and that during his tenure, he himself only contributed one article–and it was published anonymously.
Anyway, the State of the Onion address is tonight and we’ll see if the Wall Street Journal is correct about Obama’s declaring he will take a hard line with the financial sector…or whether we’ll just get more words. TTFN! Oh, one final thing–today is Squirrel Appreciation Day–go out and scatter some nuts for our furry neighbors!

ANNOY YOUR FRIENDS! CONFOUND YOUR ENEMIES! PRESS ONE OF THESE BUTTONS--OR ELSE!
[del.icio.us] [Digg] [Facebook] [Mixx] [Reddit] [StumbleUpon] [Technorati] [Twitter] [Buzz] [Email]

Comments

Leave a Reply





© 2009-2017 Gregory Uchrin, Intravenous Caffeine All Rights Reserved -- Copyright notice by Blog Copyright