"Obama’s toughest political problem may not be coping with the increasingly marginalized G.O.P. but with an America-in-denial that must hear warning signs repeatedly, for months and sometimes years, before believing the wolf is actually at the door."
_______________________

Why do you think that so many Americans are totally disinclined in facing up to reality, but instead, just pretend that everything is fine. Is this the legacy of religious teachings that teach them to live in fantasy and teach negative hatred toward Democrats, not to be strong positive citizens?

Hellooo

Americans have a rich heritage of individual rights from English common law and rugged individualism, which I suppose results from the pioneers of settling in this place. "The uniquely American morals and opinions, Tocqueville argued, lay in the origins of American society and derived from the peculiar social conditions that had welcomed colonists in prior centuries. Unlike Europe, venturers to America found a vast expanse of open land. Any and all who arrived could own their own land and cultivate an independent life. Sparse elites and a number of landed aristocrats existed, but, according to Tocqueville, these few stood no chance against the rapidly developing values bred by such vast land ownership. With such an open society, layered with so much opportunity, men of all sorts began working their way up in the world: industriousness became a dominant ethic, and "middling" values began taking root." Alexis de Tocqueville - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexis_de_Tocqueville)
Just curious, how do you define a "strong positive citizens"?

George that was the old America. The post WWII America ;instead of rejecting the worse of European society seems to be drifting closer to it. If you took the word America out of the quote and replaced it with Europe ,no one would blink an eye... head in the sand Europe is undeniable.

The quote in the posting is cited from Frank Rich of the NY Slimes.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/22/opinion/22rich.html

Frank chicken-little Rich sees the economy as an apocaliyptic occurrence.From that perspective anyone not running around in a panic must be in denial .I think the biggest danger is government over reaction creating the possibility of extending the economic downturn .

Rich, besides being the doom-monger he is, is also covering for Obama's switch from hopenchange to politics of fear. So instead of the public expecting the "leader of the free world" to play the part of national cheerleader - or just being a leader - we're "in denial." It must miserable being a liberal if Rich is any indication.

Why do you think that so many Americans are totally disinclined in facing up to reality, but instead, just pretend that everything is fine. Hello Choux:

Even though the right wing has been marginalized, they still have very big mouths. The leader of the Republican party, the limp one, has a HUGE radio audience.

You can see it at work here where the righty's are complaining that campaign mode hopeandchange, turned into presidential reality.

Right now, the Republicans have successfully renamed the recovery package into a spending package.

He'll get it back.

excon

Hello Choux:

Even though the right wing has been marginalized, they still have very big mouths. The leader of the Republican party, the limp one, has a HUGE radio audience.

Yeah, ain't free speech great?


You can see it at work here where the righty's are complaining that campaign mode hopeandchange, turned into presidential reality.

Kind of like the left has turned Rush into "The leader of the Republican party."


Right now, the Republicans have successfully renamed the recovery package into a spending package.

It isn't a spending package?

It isn't a spending package?Hello Steve:

Sure, but it's not about what the law DOES. It's about what you CALL it. If you want to win, people will call it what you want them to. If you lose, people will call it what you don't.

Like the Patriot Act. It wasn't about patriotism at all.

Besides, the left hasn't turned the limp dude into the pub leader. I DID - and I ain't the left.

excon

Still, no definition of "strong, positive citizen"? I'll bet there were lots of them in 1930's Germany, Italy, and Japan. And in 1960-70's North Vietnam; Mao's China; Iran, and evidently in present-day Russia. I suppose a 'weak, negative citizen' in modern China might find himself being re-educated.
Obama's toughest problem is to lead his country. "Leadership ... makes (followers) want to achieve high goals, rather than simply bossing people around." Concepts of Leadership (http://www.skagitwatershed.org/~donclark/leader/leadcon.html)
There is an election coming in just over 20 months; I suspect Obama has his eye on the ball; after all, political gain is the basis of his life up to this point. He knows what happened to the Clintonoids in 1994.

Check this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZNsEsKRqUs&feature=haxa_popt00us03

The President knows no other way but the perpetual campaign. That has been his m.o. That is why he has spent so much time on the road in his 1st month.

Sure, but it's not about what the law DOES. It's about what you CALL it. If you want to win, people will call it what you want them to. If you lose, people will call it what you don't.

Like the Patriot Act. It wasn't about patriotism at all.

Sure, like Schmucky Schumer (http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0209/Schumer_People_dont_care_about_porky_bills.html) did. He called them "little, tiny...porky amendments" that "the American people really don't care about."


Besides, the left hasn't turned the limp dude into the pub leader. I DID - and I ain't the left.

Oh now, that's been the liberal line (http://www.usnews.com/blogs/washington-whispers/2009/2/3/pro-obama-group-expands-rush-limbaugh-bashing-campaign.html) since Obama mentioned Rush and even long before that. Heck, I've been reading letters to our paper from favorite local libs calling him that for years.

Oh now, that's been since Obama mentioned Rush and even long before that. Heck, I've been reading letters to our paper from favorite local libs calling him that for years.Hello again, Steve:

M, kay. Instead of telling me the limp dude ISN'T your leader, tell me who is.


The President knows no other way but the perpetual campaign. That has been his m.o. That is why he has spent so much time on the road in his 1st month.And tom, he does pretty good in campaign mode. I don't know why he shouldn't LEAD from Air force 1 and/or Padukah, Ky? Why not?

Who says he has to stay inside the beltway and get beaten up all the time? That's change I can believe in.

excon

Hello again, Steve:

M, kay. Instead of telling me the limp dude ISN'T your leader, tell me who is.

Honestly, I wish I could.

Conservatives are in the wilderness doing penitence.
Meanwhile: "Clinton's mockery of Obama proves true" ," "The sky will open. The lights will come down. Celestial choirs will be singing and everyone will know we should do the right thing and the world will be perfect!" Clinton bellowed." Clinton's mockery of Obama proves true - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/22/obama.so.far/index.html)

Conservative leaders.
One will emerge Likely candidates are Governors Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Haley Barbour of Mississippi, Mark Sanford of South Carolina ,Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota ,Sarah Palin of Alaska .

In Congress I think Mike Pence will emerge as the leader eventually . Others are Roy Blunt. But there are others I have high hope for also .

Obama's Biggest Political Challenge

Time to do his work, as all of a sudden everyone has their own ideas how to solve a problem that's been around for a lot longer than a year, and he has barely been President a month! A freaking month! Whatever happen to the first 100 days before we lower the boom on the newbie.

Where was the concern the last 8 years?

Where was the concern the last 8 years??

That's been expressed quite vociferously and relentlessly in every medium including this one.

That's been expressed quite vociferously and relentlessly in every medium including this one.
Obviously that didn't work.

...Whatever happen to the first 100 days before we lower the boom on the newbie....?
Fortunately, or unfortunately, Obama cashed-in the honeymoon with the Stimulus Porkage; there was nothing 'bi-partisan' about it; hence, the partisanship. Furthermore, from the same article cited above: "...Washington could not be more divided on Obama's initial weeks in the Oval Office and the policies he has put in place." http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/22/obama.so.far/index.html

Obviously that didn't work.

No? Who won the election?

No? Who won the election?
The American people!

Fortunately, or unfortunately, Obama cashed-in the honeymoon with the Stimulus Porkage; there was nothing 'bi-partisan' about it; hence, the partisanship. Furthermore, from the same article cited above: "...Washington could not be more divided on Obama's initial weeks in the Oval Office and the policies he has put in place." Analysis: Clinton's mockery of Obama proves true - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/22/obama.so.far/index.html)
Republicans are making there own choices, that how the system works, but they are not in a position to do anything but oppose, as they cannot rule. The people have spoken!!

_______________________

Why do you think that so many Americans are totally disinclined in facing up to reality, but instead, just pretend that everything is fine...."

"House Democrats unveiled a $410 billion spending bill on Monday to keep the government running through the end of the fiscal year, setting up the second political struggle over federal funds in less than a month with Republicans.

"The measure includes thousands of earmarks, the pet projects favored by lawmakers but often criticized by the public in opinion polls. There was no official total of the bill's earmarks, which accounted for at least $3.8 billion... "
House Democrats propose $410B spending bill - Yahoo! Finance (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/House-Democrats-propose-410B-apf-14450221.html)

We were discussing "Americans totally disinclined in facing up to reality"?

LOL George!!

The President Saturday proposed an increase in taxes on rich (as defined by anyone or family or small business earning $250K+ ) .He assumes a recovery by 2011 ;so he boldly claims that this will halve the national debt in time for his reelection.

He will address Congress tonight where he will propose even more spending above what is mentioned . [Already there are rumors of over 9,000 separate ear-marks in the bill being proposed.]
Nouriel Roubini in the WSJ said :

"Between guarantees, liquidity support, and capitalization, the government has provided between $7 trillion to $9 trillion of help to the financial system. De facto, the government is already controlling a good chunk of the banking system. The question is: Do you want to move to the de jure step."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123517380343437079.html?mod=article-outset-box

Given that these number represents about 2/3 the typical national GDP does he not mean the de jure government control of the entire American economy ?

"There was no official total of the bill's earmarks"

Now that's a shocking surprise.

Obama: "You are on a need to know basis. I won."

"And when I'm president, I will go line by line ...yada yada " Obama Sept 2008

Obama's greatest political challenge could be fending off states asserting their 10th amendment rights (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=30807). I doubt it, but I'm behind them 100 percent.

_______________________

Why do you think that so many Americans are totally disinclined in facing up to reality, but instead, just pretend that everything is fine.

Further: "...liberalism, as practiced since 1964,... has been shown to be nothing less than an unending series of public policy disasters. From the Great Society's misspent trillions to the bankruptcy of Social Security, Medicare and now Wall Street and the U.S. housing, banking, and credit systems. From school busing to Vietnam to the Detroit public schools to the entire recession-drenched state of Michigan, the policies that Goldwater -- and later Reagan -- warned about have proven themselves over and over again to be little short of unmitigated disasters." The American Spectator : The Goldwater Lesson (http://spectator.org/archives/2009/02/24/the-goldwater-lesson)

Look up the transcripts of Meet the Press . Jindal gives compelling reasons to reject temporary Fed $$ in return to permanent changes in the state social safety net that would not be funded by the Feds in the future.

I am a believer in Federalism but I don't think this comes close to either the nullification crisis or the events leading up to the Civil War. Refusing Federal Aid has always been an option because of the strings attached. One of the more recent examples was the tying Fed Highway funds to the drinking age. The Feds were not going to force the states to comply... just make it worth their while .

Here is the transcript.

Feb. 22: Jindal, Crist, roundtable - Meet the Press, online at MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29331527/print/1/displaymode/1098/)

It is great stuff. Jindal will give the Republican reply to the President tonight.

Here my favorite part . Gregory grilled him about refusing the unemployment part of the bail out . He used Sen Landrau's assertion about putting a sunset clause on any new State law

GOV. JINDAL: That's great, except the federal law, if you actually read the bill--and I know it was 1,000 pages, and I know they got it, you know, at midnight, or hours before they voted on it--if you actually read the bill, there's one problem with that. The word permanent is in the bill. It requires the state to make a permanent change in our law. Law B--our employer group agrees with me. They say, "Yes, this will result an increase in taxes on our businesses, this will result in a permanent obligation on the state of Louisiana." It would be like spending $1 to get a dime. Why would we take temporary federal dollars if we're going to end up having a permanent program?
And here's the problem. So many of these things that are called temporary programs end up being permanent government programs. But this one's crystal clear, black and white letter law. The federal stimulus bill says it has to be a permanent change in state law if you take this state money. And so within three years the federal money's gone, we've got now a permanent change in our laws, we have to pay for it, our businesses pay for it. I don't think it makes sense to be raising taxes on Louisiana businesses during these economically challenging times. And what it shows is what we're going to do in the stimulus is we're going to look at every program, every dollar. If it makes sense for Louisiana, makes sense for our taxpayers, we'll use those programs and dollars. If it doesn't, like on Friday we said, "This doesn't make sense for us. This is not a good deal for us." It makes--my job is to represent Louisiana's taxpayers. Makes no sense for us to take temporary federal dollars and create permanent state obligations

I wonder how many "permanent" obligations are in the stimulus bill.