Jonah Goldberg at NRO (or in this case the L.A. Times) faces down the Obama election positioning with great aplomb, in a terrific op-ed, that if distilled to these three paragraphs, encapsulates the absurdity that is the White House.
One (actually, I'll add a second for bonus context) (emphasis added):
The president, we are told, is a pragmatist for wanting a "fair and balanced" budget deal. What that means is tax increases must accompany spending cuts. Any significant spending cuts would be way in the future. The tax increases would begin right after Obama is reelected.Now keep in mind that tax hikes (or what the administration calls "revenue increases") are Obama's idee fixe. He campaigned on raising taxes for millionaires and billionaires (defined in the small print as people making more than $200,000 a year or couples making $250,000).
Two (again, for context, a preceding paragraph) (again, emphasis added):
Obama says that Republicans are rigid ideologues because they won't put "everything on the table." Specifically, they won't consider tax hikes, even though polls suggest Americans wouldn't mind soaking "the rich," "big oil" and "corporate jet owners."But Obama hasn't put everything on the table either. He's walled off "Obamacare" and the rest of his "winning the future" agenda.
Three:
Republicans won a historic election last November campaigning against the spending, borrowing, tax hikes and Obamacare. Yet Obama's position is that the Republicans are deranged dogmatists because they don't want to raise taxes or borrow more money to pay for spending they opposed. And Obama is flexible because he refuses to revisit a program that has never been popular.
Who is the ideologue here? Republicans? As Jonah Goldberg points out, it's really the president. There's more, and it's a great piece, I urge you to read it and pass it on to those who might be open to changing their vote from Obama, or aren't paying close attention to the state of the union right now.
As I wrote myself, "Taking Obama at his word that elections have consequences, I'd like to point out to the Liberals that the most recent election, and the one that most closely tells you where the country is on this, was in 2010, and 'We won.'"
ReplyDeleteI'm also very happy to be approaching millionairehood!
http://sleepyeyedwhiners.blogspot.com/2011/07/debt-ceiling-dont-call-his-bluff-or.html
That's a good point Jay. I like the throwing his own words back at him. I think the important thing though is to ensure that the Obama thing is not to let the Obama take on the issue to take hold in people's minds.
ReplyDeleteWe won, is an important part of that positioning.
And congratulations on the millionairehood! You're way ahead of me.
I'm using the Dems definition. You know, a millionaire is anyone who makes more money than you.
ReplyDeleteIn my book then, you'd probably still be a millionaire. Unlike a Democrat though, I don't begrudge you any success - relative or actual.
ReplyDeleteSpread your wealth around however you deem best. But do it before the Democrats come after it.