Archive for January 21, 2011

Tim Blair and Don Surber already talked about this now Victor Davis Hanson explains the why when it comes to the left’s “call for civility”

In other words, the calls for a general toning down of rhetoric translate far more into a toning down of both an effective media opposition and a rising political obstruction to the Obama agenda. “Can’t we all get along?” in essence means, “Can’t we all just keep quiet and keep going on with the big-government, agreed-on politics of the last fifty years?”

And why it will fail:

bipartisan friendly dialogue cannot and will not be adhered to by those now calling for its implementation, since divisive language often achieves what an unpersuasive ideology cannot.

And the end result?

I predict that 18 months from now the president himself will still be calling for a new civility in the manner of his speech at the 2004 Democratic convention — and will once again adopt the sorts of over-the-top metaphors, similes, allusions, and rough-stuff politics that got him elected senator in 2004 and president in 2008, and pushed his health-care legislation through in 2009. If anything, the language of division will be shriller even than in 2010, as the administration grasps that loaded language, coupled with calls for an end to rancor, must now do what a record of unpopular governance cannot.

As I’ve already said today predictions are tough even for a classical historian like Hanson, but go read it all and decide for yourself.

Advertisements

…asks a very relevant question.

I took a second look at Bill Whittle’s video (via Nice Deb) and there is a point to be made

I opposed 8 out of ten of the “goals” he failed to achieve so those are pluses to me. But consider this:

During his first two years he had an unstoppable majority in the house and during the first year of his presidency he had 60 votes in the senate and during the 2nd year he had 59.

One thing about pols they might not be able to add up the budget numbers but they know if something hurts their election chances. The fact that the president didn’t or couldn’t pass the things on that want list tell you a lot about more about the popularity of the liberal agenda with the people.

Today begins either the second half of the Obama presidency or the end of the first quarter of the Obama presidency.

There are people on the right and the left who think both ways in terms of what is going to happen. Given my years of blogging and following politics I can definitely say this:

Who knows?

Two years ago this president was riding above the clouds, two months ago his party got pounded at the polls. Consider:

We have no idea what new crises will arise.

We don’t know how the republican congress is going to govern.

We don’t know who will win the battle between the tea party wing and the establishment wing of the party.

We don’t know how the democratic senate will act.

We don’t know if Iran will get the bomb…

…or how Israel will react

We don’t know what North Korea will do…

…or China….

…or Russia..

We don’t know if the president will govern in order to get re-elected…

…or to advance his beliefs

We don’t know the results of the Economic crisis in Greece…

Or Spain…

Or Ireland…

Or Portugal.

And we don’t know how the war will go and if the president will continue to try to win it.

None of these things are known and in fact there wasn’t a lot we knew two years ago. So what DO we know?

Only two things really, one that we already did two years ago and one we did not:

We’ve always known you can’t outlaw the business cycle, you can only mess it up a bit. That is and always was true.

What we DO know now that we didn’t before is how the president governs and how he acts in a crisis.

Two years ago a vast majority of the public (and the Nobel committee) projected their hopes on this president based only on what they felt having no idea how he would govern.

Now we have seen him in action. We know exactly how he has governed in a crisis. No person making a judgment in a democratic primary or in the general election in 2012 has any excuse for deceiving themselves.

Well Maybe Andrew Sullivan, don’t forget he thought the president deserved the Nobel Peace Prize when he was awarded it.

Past performance is not guarantee of future actions but it’s what we have, and we should judge accordingly.

Oh and one final thing we do know, the next two years won’t be boring.

Update: I hope you didn’t miss this at Nice Deb

Update 2: Stacy gives another example of how things can change in year.

Update 3: Instalanche via update! Thanks Glenn. Ironically this ‘Lanche brings to mind a post from December 2009 when Charles Johnson was 233 Instalanche’s up on me. It really illustrates Stacy’s point on how things change.