Gay Patriot Header Image

Obama’s Idealistic Supporters & His Administration’s Reality

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 3:07 am - March 28, 2009.
Filed under: Obamania

In commenting on an editorial in the Economist wondering where President Obama went wrong, the ever insightful Jennifer Rubin summarizes how this supposedly post-partisan leader has governed.

His mode of governance — denigrate the opposition, engage in ad hominem attacks, refuse to compromise on substantive policy, disguise radical policy intentions with a haze of meaningless rhetoric — bespeaks someone supremely confident in his ideological views and undaunted by fears (which are slowly creeping up on his Red state colleagues) of having overshot his mandate.

Her words call to mind a thought I had had earlier in the week as I pondered all those idealistic young people once so enthusiastic about Obama’s campaign, really believing that this charismatic man was, as he billed himself, a new kind of politician able to transcend partisan differences.

As they wake up to the reality of his “mode of governance,” how will they react?

The man who promised to transcend partisan differences exaggerates them.  The candidate who decried ever increasing federal deficits offers a budget which increases them even more.

Will his deceptions make them more cynical toward politics in general?  Will they treat him as does a woman who finds a man’s romantic blandishments were just his strategy to get her into bed?  Or will they chalk up their faith in him to their own youthful idealism?

How will they reconcile the idealism of his campaign with the reality of his Administration?

Share

69 Comments

  1. Boys! Boys! Some asshat tells you how smart he is anonymously in a forum… how can you do anything but laugh?

    What a hoot!

    Comment by MFS — March 28, 2009 @ 11:24 pm - March 28, 2009

  2. #47 V the K is certainly within bounds claiming to have invented wool. In fact, here is the actual trial sample V the K created. (The black haired guy’s name is bob.)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tCbMFp7eUo

    Comment by heliotrope — March 29, 2009 @ 12:20 am - March 29, 2009

  3. i assure you, v the k, i’m smarter than you.

    my punctuation is just fine, thanks. i’m a published author. what have you done w/ your life?

    i enjoy annihilating the idiots that post here.

    Your secrets are safe with you.

    considering that people with postgraduate degrees voted for obama by a nearly 20% margin over mccain.

    Since when did a postgraduate degree confer a damn lick of sense on anybody?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 29, 2009 @ 4:13 am - March 29, 2009

  4. bob, of all the major polls, CBS skews most to the left, favoring Democrats. If its poll has Obama at 64%, then his real approval is below 60, well below, right where Rasmussen has him. And that pollster most accurately forecast the results of the 2008 election. And the 2004 contest.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — March 29, 2009 @ 5:02 am - March 29, 2009

  5. ” might have been different if the gay establishment wasn’t on the record being so dismissive of the very aspects of marriage that made it a good idea for the state to sanction it in the first place…”

    i’m sorry, could you provide some evidence for this? of course not, because you’re talking out of your ass.

    “Heterosexual couples cheat on each other all the time, but mainstream society still condemns it as immoral.”

    hmm, so because they talk out of one side of their mouths and then go do otherwise, they’re somehow more worthy of rights? mainstream society still condemns gay infidelity too. every gay person i know would feel pretty damn bad if he cheated on his parter or was cheated on. and i’m sorry, but the term “open relationship” was not invented by gays. in fact, even facebook, hardly a gay social networking site, has “in an open relationship” as a relationship status option.

    while i do think allowing gays to marry will be better for society on the whole, i don’t think making this argument is necessary to deserve to be treated equally under the law. however, i disagree with your contention that leaders of gay organizations haven’t been talking about this kind of stuff. i’m a cable news junkie, and i’ve seen countless leaders of gay organizations talk about how gay marriage would be good for (or at least would not damage) heterosexual marriages, how gay couples have the same loving bond, etc. some dude wearing ass chaps doesn’t change any of this.

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 29, 2009 @ 8:32 am - March 29, 2009

  6. #20: “the cbs poll had obama’s approval rating at 64%.”

    That would be the CBS poll that sampled 35% more Dems than Repubs? They didn’t even poll “Likely Voters” or even “Registered Voters” but “random adults”. Read the internals on the last page and tell me if you think this poll was slanted or skewed in any way: http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/Mar09b-AIG.pdf

    Stick with Rassmussen–that one tends to be much more accurate.

    Comment by AF_Vet — March 29, 2009 @ 9:23 am - March 29, 2009

  7. Hmm, does writing on a blog count as published?

    Or how about being one of the 32 contenders in a writing contest (I can even claim to be peer reviewed. harshly peer reviewed)

    Or how about self publishing?

    Or Tuckerization? I have an entire Bloodname to claim.

    Being ‘published’ doesn’t mean much anymore.

    Comment by The_Livewire — March 29, 2009 @ 10:06 am - March 29, 2009

  8. Oh, I think bob represents a fourth group I missed.

    Denial, because it would lead to self questioning. “But but, I’m educated, and clean! And Articulate! And Published! I can’t be wrong about him.”

    Comment by The_Livewire — March 29, 2009 @ 10:08 am - March 29, 2009

  9. 21: What’s that say about the education they received? Probably in professions which require no work and more suckling from the hard working.

    P.S. My rabbit is very insulted by your description of Obama voters.

    Comment by Vanessa — March 29, 2009 @ 10:29 am - March 29, 2009

  10. i’m smarter than you

    If you have to say it, then it isn’t so.

    See bob, this is where your sockpuppets should come in. Bring back “DavidKR”. Have “him” assure us all of how smart you are, despite the evidence of our own eyes.

    my punctuation is just fine, thanks.

    “No… It isn’t.” (Serial Mom grabs blunt instrument from Juror #12’s hands, hits her across the mouth with it.)

    i’m a published author.

    If you have to say it – and, won’t also say what it is – then it isn’t so.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 29, 2009 @ 11:38 am - March 29, 2009

  11. “No… It isn’t.” (Serial Mom grabs blunt instrument from Juror #12’s hands, hits her across the mouth with it.)

    LOL.

    Since Amazon doesn’t list A Poorly Punctuated Book of Shopworn Leftist Cliches among its titles, I think we can consider the myth busted.

    Comment by V the K — March 29, 2009 @ 12:29 pm - March 29, 2009

  12. #58: “No… It isn’t.” (Serial Mom grabs blunt instrument from Juror #12’s hands, hits her across the mouth with it.)

    LOL here too.

    “No! Please! Fashion has changed!”

    “No. It hasn’t.”

    BAM!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rD4wPLE_Nq4

    Comment by Sean A — March 29, 2009 @ 12:56 pm - March 29, 2009

  13. Well, the point is, we can’t know, one way or the other. And in a blog discussion, when someone retreats into unverifiable boasting (“I’m smarter! My dad’s an architect! I knew all the names of McCarthy’s aides when I was a fourth-grader!”, it means they’ve lost.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 29, 2009 @ 12:58 pm - March 29, 2009

  14. Thanks for the clip, Sean A. 🙂 Correction to what I said: it was juror #8.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 29, 2009 @ 1:06 pm - March 29, 2009

  15. #´s 49 & 51, V the K´s comment is #48, not #47.

    Comment by Roberto — March 29, 2009 @ 1:22 pm - March 29, 2009

  16. i’m sorry, could you provide some evidence for this? of course not, because you’re talking out of your ass.

    Of course yes, boob.

    But emphasizing the moral or symbolic importance of the m-word could alienate some religious and unmarried families, both of which make up a large segment of potential voters. Discussing the latter group, Jean offered her own version of a response to the princess ad, to much laughter and applause:

    “Here’s the message I wanted to see. … ‘You’re right honey, you can marry a princess, and isn’t that wonderful? You can also marry someone of [a different] race. And you know what, you don’t have to get married; in fact I think you should consider whether you want to participate in that patriarchal institution.'”

    And who is this, boob? The Executive Committee of the No on 8 campaign — or the very people who were whining and screaming about the necessity of gay-sex marriage.

    So this is how gay-sex liberals like you work, boob; you claim you want marriage, but you won’t say that marriage has any values because you don’t want to alienate unmarried people. Meanwhile, you blab on in a public forum about how you think marriage is an evil oppressive “patriarchal” institution, and your fellow gay-sex liberals laugh and applaud you making this statement. You make it completely clear that you disdain marriage, that you don’t think marriage is worthwhile, that it’s an evil and oppressive “patriarchal” institution, and then you go out in the streets and scream and whine about how awful your life is without it and how society is hurting you.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 29, 2009 @ 2:18 pm - March 29, 2009

  17. No one of any intelligence is going to buy that. Bipartisanship is a two-way street, and while Obama can point to countless efforts to work with Republicans, the GOP can point to none.

    Comment by Levi — March 30, 2009 @ 12:20 pm - March 30, 2009

  18. Obama can point to countless efforts to work with Republicans

    You mean, the efforts where he dismissed Republican proposals by saying, “I won?”

    You mean Nancy Pelosi changing the rules of the House so Republicans can’t offer amendments to legislation? And shutting Republicans out completely when writing legislation?

    Yeah, Democrats are real bipartisan. Just like the New York Times is objective journalism.

    You mean Harry Reid refusing to allow any Republican amendments to pending legislation? You mean like Harry Reid looking for ways to pass legislation without any debate?

    Comment by V the K — March 30, 2009 @ 12:48 pm - March 30, 2009

  19. Wait, is Levi saying that the GOP can’t point to any instances of working with the GOP?

    Comment by The Livewire — March 30, 2009 @ 2:39 pm - March 30, 2009

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.