Wednesday, February 8, 2012

Obama: Hypocrite, Realist or Other?

I am short on time, so I'll ask what are your thoughts regarding Obama's most recent reversal.  Is he learning as he goes and adjusting?  Or is he just wishy washy?  Or something else?

I thought of the Untouchables movie as a I considered any Politician turning down all that funding when their opponents are accessing and using it...  Apparently both sides are willing to have the special interests drive our society.

HP Obama Reversal
Reuters In shift, Obama
WP Obama Broken Promise
Untouchables: Knife to a Gun Fight

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. The only stir created appears to be among leftist circles, and I don't go any place covered by a Dante travelogue.

I found this quote highly amusing: "At what point are Obama and his supporters comfortable with political pragmatism trumping policy principles?" As I have said many times, a hypocrite is someone whose actions or statements are contradictory to his supposedly deeply-held principles. Since leftists have no principles whatsoever, they cannot be called hypocrites. Political pragmatists is one way to phrase it, though I think "how can we fool them today" is the more apt description.

J. Ewing

Anonymous said...

You have to play by the rules as they are. I, personally, believe that it is unfair and discriminatory that in baseball a pitcher gets four balls, and a hitter only three strikes. But when it's my guy on the mound, and the hitter strikes out, hypocrite that I don't ask him to stay for one more pitch.

Pundits are really stupid, and it's important to understand that fact, when trying to understand that. Once you do, you find that it explains a lot. One of the things pundits don't understand is that there is a difference between tax policy, and paying taxes. Or a difference between election law, and actually running for election. With respect to campaign financing, we must run in the world we live in, you know the one with actual voters, not the world as we would like it to be.

--Hiram

John said...

It looks like Foxnews is covering it pretty consistently, with their own spin. Fox News Carney Stumbles

I keep thinking of the British General's that kept thinking that marching in rows and exchanging volleys was the only honorable way to fight. They stayed true while their army was being decimated by more guerilla like fighting methods. That made no sense, nor would Obama tying the hands of his soldiers. FoxNews Super PAC

I'd like it if both parties would agree to stop the big spending by special interest groups. Especially on the negative ads that we will be buried under this Fall. Good thing I don't watch much TV...

John said...

Then again... Maybe it is an excellent "make work" and "wealth redistribution" policy. Better invest in printers, ad agencies, TV / Radio stations, etc.

Remember my friend in China who could not understand why we spend many many millions of dollars on elections. He said he thought it was much more effective and efficient in China.

Anonymous said...

I'd like it if both parties would agree to stop the big spending by special interest groups.

In Massachusetts, both senatorial candidates have asked the superPacs to stay out. I would like that to happen here. But that's a truce that in practical terms, I think, is nearly impossible to keep, in Massachusetts, and here.

In Britain they ban tv political advertising altogether, and that nation seems to survive, if not prosper.

--Hiram

Anonymous said...

In Britain the campaigns last about four weeks. Of course the practical reality is more complicated then that, but in general, I think the British system of governance is better than the American.

We have a system of limited government because some of the founders were concerned that a federal government in which the slave states didn't have at least a veto power, could end the institution of slavery through legislative action. That is, in fact, what happened in the British Empire. The rationale for that is gone now, but we are left with it's organizational remnants, particularly the senate.

Congress is perhaps the most unpopular governmental institution in America. Like the weather, that's something people comment upon, but never seem to do anything about. Now that slavery is gone, the protection of which was the only rationale I know of for having a senate, I think we should do is take away the power of the senate. Make it sort of honorary institution with lifetime appointments, and no power at all. Sort of like the British House of Lords, except to caution and to whine.

--Hiram