Congratulations, Barack Obama
Jonah Goldberg about sums it up for me (except for one small point).
Look, I expect to be one of the most severe critics of the Obama administration and the Democrats generally in the years ahead (though I sincerely hope I won’t find that necessary). But Obama ran a brilliant race and he should be congratulated for it. Moreover, during the debate over the financial crisis, Obama said that a president should be able to do more than one thing at a time. Well, I think we members of the loyal opposition should be able to make distinctions simultaneously. It is a wonderful thing to have the first African-American president. It is a wonderful thing that in a country where feelings are so intense that power can be transferred so peacefully. Let us hope that the Obama his most dedicated — and most sensible! — fans see turns out to be the real Obama. Let us hope that Obama succeeds and becomes a great president, for all the right reasons.
As for John McCain, he is an American hero and arguably the best candidate we could have fielded. I will in the days to come offer no small amount of criticism about his campaign. But where his campaign may have lacked qualities that would have helped it win, the candidate never lacked for honor and integrity. Thank you John McCain for your sacrifice, commitment, and honor.
God bless America, and may He guide Obama to be the best president possible.
I will add one thing and change one other, though. I expect that over the next couple of years there will be a plethora of stories about President Obama’s past that will pour forth from the fickle maw of the now-discredited MSM. They’ll start about a picosecond after Obama fails to deliver everything he’s promised and most of them will sound awfully familiar to readers of this blog. In fact, I will have written about, or linked to those who have written about, most of them over the past six months. We will wonder then exactly who it is we elected tonight.
The one thing I’d change about Goldberg’s post is that I don’t think you can make a credible argument that John McCain was the best candidate that the Republicans could have fielded. We saw at least two better, but Republicans decided to nitpick them out of the race fairly early on.
Related posts:
- Barack Obama Really Needs to Check His Package Right Now.
- CNN's Rick Sanchez: Throwing Away His Integrity for Barack Obama
- Obama's Better than McCain Because Republicans Will Oppose Obama
- Barack Obama's Response to Palin's Speech was Dumb When I Used it in Kindergarten
Category: Featured, Johnny Mac, The 2008 Horse Race, The Obamessiah
About the Author (Author Profile)
Subscribe
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
Work with us, please.
Sure fostert…It will be my pleasure to extend the same courtesy that you & the Democrats in congress have shown our current President through these struggles we've had for the last 8 years.
It depends on what you propose, tom. If President Obama and the Democratic Congress want to redistribute wealth, institute the Fairness Doctrine, take confidential elections away from would-be union members, and so on, then you know there's no way I can work with that.
But if the proposals are reasonable, favor individual rights, hold capitalism over centralized government control of the economy, and don't punish any economic group just because politicians think they make too much, then I'm right there with you.
I, for one, welcome our new Democratic overlords.
The Fairness Doctrine will not be reintroduced. Technology has made it a moot point. As for the redistribution of wealth, that's a guarantee. The very nature of government ensures the redistribution of wealth. If a government takes a penny in taxes and spends that penny, it redistributes that penny. If it does so with a trillion dollars, it will do the same. Ronald Reagan redistributed wealth, and so did Bill Clinton. The only issue is where does that wealth go. Republicans believe that wealth should be redistributed from the poor to the wealthy. Democrats believe the reverse. Obama wants it to go to the middle, and that's sensible. Depending on how successful I am, I am in real danger of facing a tax increase. But if I am so successful, I have no reason to fear. Let's face it, I already have extra money that I give away. Obama will make me give it to Americans, and I don't usually give my money to Americans.
But there's a real point here. We all have common interests. We will all benefit from an improved electrical grid. We will all benefit from better communications technology. We will all benefit from better roads. So let's do it. I'd propose this standard (the 7-7 plan): we should make sure we never get more than seven years behind Japan in communications and energy technology, and anything we do should help the next seven generations of people. We're a long way from that, but it should be a goal. I doubt that in the next eight years that we could become only seven years behind Japan in energy and communications. But it's a worthy goal. And the idea that America would even concern itself with the welfare of the next generation is probably unrealistic. But I still think we should try think about the next seven generations. And look, I really have no dog in this fight (or do I?), I have no children and I will die in ten years (yes, I will die at 50). But I still think we should leave the next people a better world. Unfortunately, I will be reborn in this world. I'd like that world to be better than the one I was born into this time. Yes, this life worked out better than the last one, but I'd like the next one to be even better. For me, Obama gives me hope that it can be that way.
Tom, you're mistaken about the redistribution issue. We've discussed that before and despite our discussions, you're still hung up on Republicans wanting to redistribute. They don't.
As for the Fairness Doctrine, you've obviously not been listening to Democratic members of Congress who say either that they are in favor of it and/or that we will see it introduced very soon.
As for everything else, well okay. I'm for keeping our infrstructure sound and only a fool would be against upgrading our energy and communications grid. Why, then, must we continue to tolerate pork-laden communications bills? Why, when a Republican suggested taking all the pork in the last Transportation bill and putting it into rebuilding our infrastructure, it was defeated on a straight party line vote?
When the Democrats get serious about things, so will I.
Hi Jim! Email me sometimes. And I will tell you that I'm scared to death. I hope my gut feelings are just emotionally charged — but you know my parents, I don't want them to live the rest of their lives in a country that is so much like what they left nearly 50 years ago. *hugs* hope all is good with you hon.
You're not using the term the same way Republicans do, so you aren't addressing the objection. The concern, as I understand it, isn't that the government will spend tax money–the concern is that that tax money will be wasted. The case you want to make is that giving tax dollars to the poor will help everyone. If you can't manage that, at least try to show that government will do the job more efficiently than charities do.
Oh, nice. You want Republicans to work with you, but you can't stop insulting them. I suspect this isn't going to end well.
Are you serious? Reincarnation? And, Obama gives you hope for the next time you are born? Have you heard of the Freedom of Choice Act that Obama says he'll sign the first day in office? The one that will nullify nearly every piece of state legislation regarding abortion? Including the partial birth abortion ban? Next time you are born, watch out for those scissors the abortion doctor is trying to stab into the back of your head in order to make a hole to suck your brains out before crushing your skull & tossing your remains in a trash can. This is not going to be a safer place….at least not for "re-entry" with blood thirsty marxist you voted to put in charge. Of course, don't despair too much on it though; not everyone will be sacrificing their babies for the good of the collective. Maybe you will be born to a conservative, pro-life Christian…
So much for your fake concern for the next 7 generations.
"Are you serious? Reincarnation?"
Yes, I am serious about that. If you want me to take your religious beliefs seriously, you must take mine seriously. And, yes, abortion is a real threat. But miscarriage is a far more real threat. And pollution is a major cause of it. You pro-life people should understand that.
"You want Republicans to work with you, but you can’t stop insulting them."
I'm sorry if you are insulted by that. But if you want me to not insult you, then stop sending me your money. You want to be poorer, and you want me to be richer. Fine. But I don't need your money. You'll give it to me anyway. Every time you fill your car with gas, I get your money. Every time you go to a hospital, I get your money. Every time you shop in a store, I get your money. Why do want to give me more? I'm fine being as rich as I am, I really don't need more. You do.
Now you're simply being deceitful. You've already said that you believe that Christians believe in genocide, which is light-years from taking the religion seriously. If you want me to take you seriously on that front, then make a serious offer.
You have to be kidding. I can not believe you just said that on this blog. Have you lost your mind, man?
Pollution is not a major cause of miscarriages. It's not a proven cause, but a possible one.
The more you weigh in on this part of the discussion, the more I realize two things. 1) You apparently don't know a damned thing about economics. 2) You could care less about your personal freedom if a Democrat takes it from you but you care a whole lot if there's even the ghost of a chance a Republican might. Your stance here is simply ridiculous and unsupported by anything even close to a fact or that wonderful world most of us call reality.
Oh, I'm not–I said you were insulting Republicans, not that you were insulting me. I presume anyone would be insulted by being told that they want to harm other people.
Now you've lost me. What's the connection? You get paid to insult people? Like Don Rickles, or that puppet dog?
There you go again. Nobody wants to be poorer. Some people care about whether you get richer, and others don't. Can you see the difference between that viewpoint and what you claim Republicans want?
The vital concept that's missing from your reasoning is that economics is not a zero-sum game. It's possible to get rich without making anyone else poorer. In fact, you can get rich and make other people richer at the same time. If you dispute that, you're going to have some trouble getting cooperation from Republicans.
Sometimes a question is just a question. Not many people believe in reincarnation. There is no evidence of its existence, and you come across as an atheist type who believes only in your own super human smartness and don't fall for foolish, faith-based religions. So, I was simply asking if you were serious. As for the next part, when did I ever ask you to take my beliefs seriously? I will gladly explain if you ask; I may refer to it in order to explain the why/how I come to certain conclusions about policies, but in no way do I expect you to take my beliefs or faith seriously. You've only demonstrated contempt so far…and that's fine with me.
So you acknowledgeing there is a problem with blatant disregard for a fetus? Thanks, got it. But I guess for liberals, fetuses dying is only a problem when it is caused by evil conservatives driving SUV's, eating meat & opposing public transportation….is that how it works?
It figures, there is really no comparison between a natural death miscarriage, caused either by environmental or nutritional issues, and a very unnatural death that occurs via a medical procedure that rips a perfectly healthy baby out of the mother's womb, piece by piece. But leave it to a liberal to find the moral equivalance in there somewhere.
You are an obnoxious moron. I usually try to exercise restraint in my posts but you obviously don't, so I'm taking the gloves off for just a minute… Your smarmy arrogance is annoying, but insulting? I would have to care what you think. And you seem to enjoy it too much for me to take your apology seriously..
And I am beginning to think you are just lying your butt off about all the wealth you are getting off of all the little people. It is rude & presumptuous the way you mention ALL THE TIME your massive riches; and it's arrogant to assume that the rest of us have no capital investments & are too stupid to know what you are talking about.
As a savvy investor, you must know that plenty of working stiffs have stock investments, or at the very least 401k's. I am in no way rich, but I'm squared away. My mother took early retirement from the phone company & she sits home doing day trading; making enough to pay her bills without drawing on her retirement. I used to manage payroll for a small branch of a company that employed minimum-wage, security guards; even they had 401k's. You don't need superior intelligence to do this, just discipline. Oh, and you need a congress, the president & pretentious jerks to keep their greedy, dirty hands out of your pocket & let you keep the money you earned.
I AM the middle class and they are already planning to take my 401K & give me a substandard savings account that I don't want & won't get nearly the return on. They're going to edge my mother out of the stock market & eat into her retirement stash with their capital gains punitive tax. Under Obama's plan, my mother is going to be forced to get out of retirement & go back to work for several more years (past normal retirement age) just to pay for these taxes Obama is supposedly only placing on the "rich". So thanks dude for f-ing up my middle class life. My mom thanks you & Obama too; her health is already declining, now she's going to see if she can find a full time job at 63.
So don't sit here & act like Obama's plan is for my own good & I'm just too stupid to know what's good for me. I already know the score. I'm going to be bankrupted…and on purpose I might add. For justice; and to be taught sacrifice. For the good of the collective. Forgive me for not willingly going along with the charade.