House of Eratosthenes

For an interminable length of time — I have no idea how long it’s been, seems like forever — my name has been on the subscription list of the Obama campaign. I’m still bewildered and baffled by the thought process of the average Obama supporter. Can’t identify with them even a little bit. And, with the march of time, things seem to become only more confusing. In 2008, they were merely pie-eyed…so I thought…not thinking clearly, maybe indulging in some of what Michael Gerson once called “the soft bigotry of low expectations,” to wit: Oh look, Barack Obama, a black guy, just made it through a speech without breaking out into rap rhythm, or crapping His pants. Had no idea those people could do that! No other thought process explains how anyone could find Obama’s tedious speeches particularly remarkable…so, when they call the other side racists, it looks like yet another round of racists-calling-non-racists-racists. And so, we had all those people smiling and crying their tears of joy, in late 2008, relieved to discover America was not unready to elect a black guy as President after all. Then they apologized for ever thinking seriously that this might have been the case. Oh, wait, no they didn’t; with the election over, they busied themselves with accusing the other side of being racist all over again, as if the campaign was still ahead of them, oddly.

And now, Obama has finished off nearly one full term, clearly demonstrating the entire time that His brand of leadership is not what our economy needs. I said things are getting more confusing, and here is how murky and befuddling it is now: It is very, very, very important that Obama wins a second term this fall, because if He can’t do that, [blank].

What’s [blank]?

You figure out what that is, on Planet Obamafan…you drop me a line, okay? Because I’m completely lost here.

It is abundantly clear to me by now that they can’t say “If Obama is defeated, the economy is gonna tank.” They’d like to, but a statement of this sort would become such a parody of itself, instantaneously, that it might be tantamount to conceding the election. And so we get a bunch of silly stuff. Rumors that Gov. Romney hasn’t paid taxes over a ten-year period, entirely unsubstantiated, gossip really, and then some innuendo that since Romney isn’t releasing the tax returns the democrats want him to, he must be hiding something.

That is, for the most part, all the dirt the Obama campaign has been able to dish…so, a bit uncertain of these latest steps, I speculate that [blank] must be in there somewhere. The tax returns.

Vote Obama, so that we can have a President that provides paper documents on request…um…oh, dear, that’s a problem. We still can’t have the bin Laden death photo, the college transcripts, a bunch of other things…

And then, it gets weird. Obama has tax calculators that show Romney’s plans will gouge poor people so that rich people can make out like bandits.

So…

Vote Obama, or else the poor people will be gouged. Which means, under President Romney, the nation’s oceans and oceans of debt will become everybody’s headache, not just a problem shoved off onto the “millionaires and billionaires.”

That works about as well as anything else. But here it gets even weirder. We’re all part of the nation, so if the nation’s debt load is becoming so out-of-control, so crushing and so devastating, that should be everybody’s headache…right? Those who insist otherwise, must therefore be insisting that everyone, save for the detested rich, enjoys some “right” not to care.

But this would directly contradict what Vice President Biden said, remember that?

“Wealthy people are just as patriotic as middle-class people, as poor people, and they know they should be doing more,” Mr. Biden said at the town hall in Exeter, N.H. “We’re not supposed to have a system with one set of rules for the wealthy and one set of rules for everyone else.”
:
The vice president’s comments were reminiscent of the campaign for the White House in 2008, when Mr. Biden forecast that wealthier Americans would pay more under an Obama-Biden administration.

“It’s time to be patriotic … time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut,” he said at the time.

So we all have to jump in, be part of the deal, we’re not supposed to have one set of rules for the wealthy and one set of rules for everyone else.

Vote for Obama — so we can have that very thing. The poor and middle-class get to sit on the sidelines and not jump in…Obama will make sure it’s the rich that get America out of the rut, nobody else should break a sweat. One set of rules for one, a different set of rules for the other.

Or, maybe I’m reading it wrong. I probably am. But if I am, then the question remains unanswered. Obama must win, because otherwise [blank]. What is [blank]? It’s still blank!

Two possibilities exist: One, there is no answer. Obama, and those who campaign with Him, and those who sympathize with all those who campaign…desperate as they may be to come up with an answer, cannot come up with one. Two, there is an answer but they’re afraid to say what it is. And then, of course, there is Three: I already nailed it with the “two different sets of rules” thing. Spend spend spend, is the plan, and let the rich people worry about the bill because nobody else should have to. Well, if that’s the case, someone needs to clue in the Vice President, or his speech writers.

But either way, this is the unworkable Obama paradox. We’re supposed to be electing these leaders so that the leaders pass laws, including tax policies, and those laws are supposed to make us a better people somehow. Part of being a better person, toiling away under the requirement imposed on you by these laws that force you to be good, is paying lots of taxes, the more the better. And yet — vote for Obama, because if He loses, then everyone is going to have to do this thing…not just the very rich people, but everyone…will be required to pay more taxes…which…makes…everyone…better…

I’m going to stop now, because this stuff gives me a headache. Besides of which, I think I’ve thought this thing out past the point where they have, which makes the exercise something like figuring Pi to twenty digits beyond the decimal point, based on measurements that are good only to four or five digits…someplace beyond back-there-aways, we have begun to process gibberish and essentially just waste whatever time and effort we’re putting into it.

We have a President in charge right now, who writes to me several times a week begging for three dollars.

But He cannot explain why He should win His re-election. He cannot form a list of bullet points, or even a single bullet point, to explain how that helps anyone but Him, and, I suppose, the people who directly benefit from His victory. He’s in charge of America but He cannot explain why He is good for America.

You know, I don’t think that’s a good thing.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News and Washington Rebel.

Obama must win, because otherwise the virtue junkies have to look elsewhere for their daily fix.

Which creates Obama Paradox #2: these people are happier –insofar as they can really be happy, which is debatable — with a Republican in office.

Case in point: my neighborhood (near a college, natch), is the bluest of the blue. When George Bush was in, you’d never seen such civic participation. It would give Demosthenes wood. Rallies, meetings, sit-ins, teach-ins, awareness-raising sessions, free lectures, whole documentary series about the plight of ____, free down at the Y, bring your kids! And the t-shirts and the yard signs and the bumper stickers, oh lord, the bumper stickers. They were shooting up so often, they must’ve been down to injecting their eyelids.

But a curious thing, one which gave me great joy to point out to any Obamaton that was getting huffy (which of course meant every Obamaton back in those heady days): all those “support the troops, end the war” yard signs and bumper stickers came down on January 20, 2009. Seriously. They were handing them out free down at the co-op from 2001 -2008; can’t find one for love or money by Feb 1, 2009. And a curious hush descended over my neighborhood. Oh, sure, the true causeheads still tried to drum up some love for mentally ill homeless criminals and Palestinians (college nearby, remember), but for the most part all that free entertainment dried up. All of a sudden all the performance artists and other streetcorner radicals were back sacking groceries at Whole Foods and working on that degree in aromatherapy.

Which is, as you say, the Vampire Problem. Virtue junkies need us. We eeeeevil reich-wingers are their Drs. Feelgood. They don’t want to admit this, which is probably another reason why the “elect Obama or _____” statement is still blank.
- Severian | 08/10/2012 @ 04:41
mkfreeberg: I’m still bewildered and baffled by the thought process of the average Obama supporter.

Interesting. About half of the American people support Obama, and you haven’t a clue. That would seem to indicate an inability or unwillingness to cross the human divide.

Severian: all those “support the troops, end the war” yard signs and bumper stickers came down n January 20, 2009.

Don’t suppose it could be because of the U.S. withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq.
- Zachriel | 08/10/2012 @ 05:43
No, Zachriel, I’m sure it was because Guantanamo was closed. Oh, wait, that didn’t happen. Or maybe it was because we got out of Afghanistan…..no, well. I’m sure that Obama kept at least one of those campaign promises. Please explain to me why it is okay for Obama to decide he can kill American citizens via drones, without even bothering to get any sort of court approval. Hope and change for sure.
- teripittman | 08/10/2012 @ 07:07
Severian: all those “support the troops, end the war” yard signs and bumper stickers came down n January 20, 2009.

Don’t suppose it could be because of the U.S. withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq.

Really? US combat troops were withdrawn from Iraq on Jan 19, 2009? And when were they withdrawn from Afghanistan?

Do you even read the silliness you write?
- Severian | 08/10/2012 @ 08:30
About half of the American people support Obama, and you haven’t a clue. That would seem to indicate an inability or unwillingness to cross the human divide.

Could be that. Or, perhaps I am endeavoring to measure something in rational terms, that cannot be measured or understood in such a way.

It is rather striking how consistent this pattern is: Anyone and everyone who doesn’t march in lock-step with the modern liberal ethos, must have failed some crucial intellectual test — which, in turn, must remain shrouded in mystery, and cannot ever be described in clear terms. Reminds me of Ricky Van Shelton’s “I am a simple man,” except Van Shelton’s lyrics spell out clearly why it “don’t seem so hard for me to understand…”

Whereas, for reasons stated above, liberals are very, very hard to understand. Although the progress made in figuring it out, does slowly continue…
- mkfreeberg | 08/10/2012 @ 09:00
He’s in charge of America but He cannot explain why He is good for America.

I believe he is under the impression that as President, America is supposed to be good for him. Kinda begins and ends right there.
- Andy | 08/10/2012 @ 09:21
Severian: Really? US combat troops were withdrawn from Iraq on Jan 19, 2009?

Obama campaigned on a phased withdrawal from Iraq, repeated that policy statement within a month of his taking office. Full withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq occurred in 2011.

mkfreeberg: Or, perhaps I am endeavoring to measure something in rational terms, that cannot be measured or understood in such a way.

Perhaps.
- Zachriel | 08/10/2012 @ 09:41
“Obama campaigned on a phased withdrawal from Iraq, repeated that policy statement within a month of his taking office. Full withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq occurred in 2011.”

Conveniently forgetting that it was W’s “Surge”, that Obama was against, that made that happen. Why is it that Obama “inherited” a bad economy he can’t get turned around but yet he is responsible for victory in Iraq? Strange.

Well I say, help us all, Zach, “cross the human divide”. Why should Obama be reelected? So we can have…(blank)…Please fill in the blank(s).

As for the “half of America”, you do remember a time, in the not too distant past, when a certain president was elected, and reelected, and…I dunn’o, half of America didn’t like him. (And certainly by the end of his 8 years in office, the overwhelming majority of Americans didn’t like him.) Unless you were on the 50% side that favored him, something tells me you weren’t, you should be able to come to an understanding about how a president can retain an amount of favoritism, yet also how the other side is left feeling, “WTF do they see in that dude?”

At least those of us who favored Bush could, and will, tell you why we did. But as Morgan points outs, what is it you see and side with?

For comparison, of W & O, let’s do it. Let’s set the parameters, in no particular order –

A.) Economy (Includes unemployment, Gas prices, % on food stamps/public assistance)
B.) Spending/ Dept & Deficit
C.) Taxes
D.) Executive Privilege / Executive Orders
E.) “Illegal Wars” /Gitmo/ Collateral damage by the use of drones
F.) Bipartisanism
G.) International Diplomacy / “Standing in the world community”
H.) Race Relations
I.) Cronyism
J.) Transparency
K.) Hiring Lobbyists & Tax Cheats
L.) Vacations / Appearances on ESPN, Ophra, The View, Late night TV, etc. / Rounds of golf / First Lady opulence
M.) Intentionally allowing guns into Mexico
N.) Ignoring voter intimidation
P.) Instructing a city’s law enforcement to ignore the law so a bunch of law breaking, drug using, thieves, pedophiles and otherwise degenerates can occupy city land
Q.) Past drug usage / Friends, acquaintances (including those convicted of fraud/bribery& domestic terrorism)
R.) Disclosure of college records /Military service / Religious affiliation
S. ) TelePrompter usage/ Historical accuracies & inaccuracies/ Gaffes/ Factual & grammatical errors
T.) Vice President
U.) Reelection
- tim | 08/10/2012 @ 10:38
tim: Conveniently forgetting that it was W’s “Surge”, that Obama was against, that made that happen.

It is certainly possible that, absent the surge, Iraq may have fallen apart. Bush gets credit for doing everything he could to salvage the situation. It’s still to be seen whether Iraq will remain stable, but the longer it holds, the more likely it will become a viable state. (The Iraqi Kurds have been more-or-less independent since the Clinton Administration, when they broke away from Baghdad under cover of American air support. It’s hard to know how that will develop, with the situation in Syria and Turkey, when they eventually make their move for secession.)

tim: Why is it that Obama “inherited” a bad economy he can’t get turned around but yet he is responsible for victory in Iraq?

Who said anything about victory in Iraq? It was a debacle for the U.S., and an utter disaster for the Iraqis.

tim: “WTF do they see in that dude?”

Reasons vary as people do. Bush provided many people with a sense of patriotism. Others saw a like-minded Christian. Some hoped to regain the Republican glory of Reagan. The problem with the Bush Administration was combining ideological certainty with incompetence.
- Zachriel | 08/10/2012 @ 11:02
“Combining ideological certainty with incompetence” is pretty much a tag line for the Obama Administration.
- Rich Fader | 08/10/2012 @ 12:41
You just can’t help yourselves, can you?

Obama campaigned on a phased withdrawal from Iraq, repeated that policy statement within a month of his taking office. Full withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq occurred in 2011

Yes, and that’s why all the signs disappeared on January 20, 2009. Because of a campaign promise (how are those working out? have the oceans started receding yet?) and something he said a month later.

That’s pathetic, even for you lot.
- Severian | 08/10/2012 @ 14:12
Who said anything about victory in Iraq? It was a debacle for the U.S., and an utter disaster for the Iraqis.

Obama did.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/14/barack-obama-iraq-war-success

You’re a moron.
- cylarz | 08/10/2012 @ 23:20
Zachriel: Who said anything about victory in Iraq?

cylarz: Obama did.

From your citation: Obama’s studiously avoided declaring victory or the hubris of his predecessor, George Bush, who paraded under a banner proclaiming “Mission Accomplished” just as the worst of the killing in Iraq was about to begin. But the president said that the US has left Iraq better than it found it.
- Zachriel | 08/11/2012 @ 05:43
George W. Bush didn’t hang that sign.

Even if he had, it would have been fitting, as the regime had been changed.

I’ve always thought, the thing the libs really didn’t like about that sign was that it made reference to something getting accomplished. Sort of a continuation on the “You Didn’t Build That” theme…the mindset says nobody ever does anything unless it’s a government agency, a labor union or some democrat who’s achieved celeb status…
- mkfreeberg | 08/11/2012 @ 06:12
mkfreeberg: I’ve always thought, the thing the libs really didn’t like about that sign was that it made reference to something getting accomplished.

Liberation
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/07/liberation.html

Iraq is still politically unstable. In any case, we were responding to cylarz’s comment about declaring victory.
- Zachriel | 08/11/2012 @ 07:27
In the meantime….
So how are Glen Beck’s televised “chalk talk” predictive theses working out?
Nationally and internationally?
Economics, political propaganda, “welfare”, “unrest” (including “civil” and “terrorism”)
How about the “predictions” of those who struggled so desperately to silence him?
When did his show begin? Why did it end? What were the viewership “ratings”?
Why did a five person “The View” or “MSNBC” morning type panel to replace him?
- CaptDMO | 08/11/2012 @ 07:36
Z,

Are you arguing that the regime had not been changed by May 1, 2003?

It’s a simple yes or no. Either it had or it hadn’t.
- mkfreeberg | 08/11/2012 @ 07:37
mkfreeberg: Are you arguing that the regime had not been changed by May 1, 2003?

Of course it changed. At that point in time, the U.S. was the occupying power.

Tim had suggested that someone was arguing that Obama declared victory in Iraq. We hadn’t made any such comment.
- Zachriel | 08/11/2012 @ 08:52
small-tee tim quoted you:

Obama campaigned on a phased withdrawal from Iraq, repeated that policy statement within a month of his taking office. Full withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq occurred in 2011.

And replied with…

Conveniently forgetting that it was W’s “Surge”, that Obama was against, that made that happen. Why is it that Obama “inherited” a bad economy he can’t get turned around but yet he is responsible for victory in Iraq? Strange.

Someone in your crowd needs to school all the rest on this: You can’t pull the “I never said that” schtick when your opposition is quoting you.
- mkfreeberg | 08/11/2012 @ 09:18
mkfreeberg: Someone in your crowd needs to school all the rest on this

Tim’s rhetorical question “Why is it that Obama “inherited” a bad economy he can’t get turned around but yet he is responsible for victory in Iraq?” suggests that someone is making the claim that Obama is “responsible for victory in Iraq”. Who is making that claim? Zachriel didn’t. According cylarz’s citation, it wasn’t Obama.
- Zachriel | 08/11/2012 @ 11:34
Jesus, you really can’t help yourselves….

No, Obama technically didn’t “declare victory” in that Guardian article Cylarz cited (you know, the ones those jingoistic, war-loving presidents of the George W. Bush fan club at The Guardian titled “Barack Obama declares Iraq war a success”). He just said that it is “an extraordinary achievement” that should cause all American troops to leave with their “heads held high.”

“We knew this day would come. We’ve known it for some time. But still there is something profound about the end of a war that has lasted so long,” said Obama. “It’s harder to end a war than begin one. Everything that American troops have done in Iraq – all the fighting, all the dying, the bleeding and the building and the training and the partnering, all of it has landed to this moment of success.“

But I’m sure you’ll cut-and-paste five thousand words abut how a “moment of success” in a military operation that is “an extraordianry achievement” that causes troops to leave with their heads held high isn’t a victory, per se… more like a “phased readjustment of kinetic operations.”

This has gone beyond pathetic and is shading into DSM-V territory.
- Severian | 08/11/2012 @ 12:49
Z, I nailed you.

You
Lost
The
Argument.

Just admit it. On the Right, we respect people who admit when they’re wrong. We’re not like your liberal friends, the ones who never concede defeat because it would clearly mean their equipment is smaller, or something.
- cylarz | 08/11/2012 @ 12:54
[…] HT: Morgan […]
- Or, as we call it around my house, "The New American Freak Show" | FavStocks | 08/12/2012 @ 00:36
cylarz: No, Obama technically didn’t “declare victory”

That’s correct. According to your citation, he purposefully avoided doing so. It can certainly be said there has been some successes, but victory is rather difficult to credit when the cost were so high, and the minimal achievements still so tenuous. Ultimately, the Iraqi people have to forge their own futures.

cylarz: a military operation that is “an extraordianry achievement” that causes troops to leave with their heads held high isn’t a victory,

We must be very careful not to assign to this deliverance the attributes of a victory. Wars are not won by evacuations.
- Zachriel | 08/12/2012 @ 06:20
[…] Cross-posted at House of Eratosthenes. […]
- Memo For File CLXVI | Washington Rebel | 08/12/2012 @ 06:36
Ah yes, the phased withdrawal from Iraq. We had a president who planned such a thing, but it was his successor who was in office to make use of said plans. And then the successor took credit for his predecessor’s plans. Kind of par for the course, actually.

I look forward to one honest liberal admitting that Bush had a phased withdrawal from Iraq and that Barry implemented that plan. However, I’m certain that I cannot hold my breath long enough for that to happen.
- Physics Geek | 08/12/2012 @ 16:18
“Wars are not won by evacuations.”

The funny-hmmm thing is, the guy who originally said that was trying to win his war.
- Rich Fader | 08/13/2012 @ 13:19
Physics Geek: We had a president who planned such a thing, but it was his successor who was in office to make use of said plans.

The Bush Administration had negotiated a withdrawal date with the Iraqi government. Obama had campaigned on withdrawing the troops. The troops were withdrawn on schedule.

Physics Geek: And then the successor took credit for his predecessor’s plans.

Obama (to the soldiers at Fort Bragg): This is an extraordinary achievement, nearly nine years in the making. And today, we remember everything that you did to make it possible.

Rich Fader: The funny-hmmm thing is, the guy who originally said that was trying to win his war.

Actually, to “fight” and “outlive the menace of tyranny”. Churchill painted no illusions.
http://www.fiftiesweb.com/usa/winston-churchill-fight-beaches.htm
- Zachriel | 08/14/2012 @ 05:58
I found this guy’s take interesting:

http://blackquillandink.com/?page_id=12973
- TMI | 08/14/2012 @ 11:40
My point being that Churchill was trying to win his war, and Obama isn’t.
- Rich Fader | 08/14/2012 @ 13:45
I’ve found it entertaining this week to point out that Holder has decided not to prosecute anyone at Goldman Sachs. Anytime anyone talks about Romney favoring the rich, just ask them to explain why Holder can prosecute all sorts of minor financial dealings but can’t be bothered to tackle the big ones.

I swear, the general stupidity of Obama supporters this year is frightening. There is nothing scary to them than suggesting that they actually prove the stuff they say, or read real economic reports instead of just regurgitating the same tired stuff they’ve been fed. And now they’ve even managed to figure out a way to portray Ryan as dumb, because that’s the usual narrative.

I really hope we can make some progress towards school vouchers, because I can’t say I’m impressed with the education folks are getting these days. A little more time spent on real history would be useful.
- teripittman | 08/14/2012 @ 18:09

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Memo For File CLXVIThursday, August 9th, 2012

Memo For File CLXVI
Thursday, August 9th, 2012