Monday, November 21, 2011

The Thrill is GONE, Baby

Chris Matthews breathlessly comes to the conclusion most of us came to two years ago.

Still, let's be fair: Mr. Matthews gets it right. Our President has zero interest in policy, or change, or addressing any serious problem. He likes to play golf, and he likes to speak to cheering crowds. Obama makes Carter look like Lyndon Johnson, when it comes to effectiveness. As Mr. Matthews put it, and he put it well: "When was the last time a member of Congress heard from him? ...He does not enjoy their COMPANY."

It was not always thus. Mr. Matthews, at one point not so long ago, had a good feeling in his tingly parts, and all the way down his leg, at the mere THOUGHT of putting the words "President" and "Obama" in the same sentence.

There was NEVER any reason to expect BHO to be an effective, or even engaged President. I admit, given the choice between Obama and McCain, again, I'd pick Obama, still. But it would be nice to have some better choices.

(Nod to the Blonde; BHO never sent a thrill up HER leg, either)


Pelsmin said...

I was with you until the end -- you'd still vote for Obama? There is almost no reason, with the benefit of hindsight, to be glad he beat McCain. Admittedly, McCain was a weak candidate, and would have probably made a poor president. He had done little to suggest he had what it took to lead America; sure, senior naval officer, courage under great trauma, turned around a troubled naval base, served with distinction in the senate for years, but I don't consider that enough to show Presidential chops. But compared to Obama, who had never held a real job, or succeeded at anything, professional, policy, academic or other? How could you still think he was a better choice?
The only rationale is that electing a died-in-the-wool leftie would snap America out of its slide into the abyss, whereas electing McCain would have fooled us into thinking things were back on track. But Obama's policies may not give us much chance to take our wake up call and do something about it.
Better than McCain?

Anonymous said...

Let me remind you that McCain was running with Sarah Palin as a VP. The poor judgment shown there and the risk of McCain croaking and leaving us with Prez Palin are all I need to confirm that Obama was the better choice. There is also the reduction in troops in unwinnable wars. And then there are Supreme Court nominations. I would like to have just a few civil rights. I don't ask for much.

dangph said...

But Sarah Palin would probably have been a better president than Obama. She had more experience, and she is a small-government type (or at least claims to be). And contrary to conventional wisdom, she is probably smarter than Obama. Obama really isn't that bright.

John Thacker said...


I don't see Palin as being worse than Joe "the PATRIOT Act was my bill" Biden. Palin was good as a governor; of course, after she was picked as VP she got embraced and attacked by two sets of crazies.

Obama has increased troops in Afghanistan, and only followed Bush's timetable in Iraq. I certainly can see how one might think in advance that Obama would be better on reducing troops, but in fact it just hasn't been so.

I would like to have just a few civil rights too-- do you not consider the Second Amendment among them?

GWB made terrible Supreme Court nominations-- but the Senate Dems also made clear (especially by who they opposed at the appellate level) that they'd much rather have a judicial conservative who believed in no civil rights than have anyone up there with any libertarian leanings.

Please, what are the ways that McCain is actually worse than Obama? Gays in the military, anything else? I can think of plenty of ways in which he's better, including his votes against the Energy Bills and Farm Bills (and against Medicare Part D).