Obama Presidency at Year 2

I must say I am feeling pretty good about my comments from Inauguration Day two years ago.  Here is an excerpt of what I wrote:

Folks are excited about Obama because, in essence, they don't know what he stands for, and thus can read into him anything they want.  Not since the breathless coverage of Geraldo Rivera opening Al Capone's vault has there been so much attention to something where we had no idea of what was inside.  My bet is that the result with Obama will be the same as with the vault.There is some sort of weird mass self-hypnosis going on, made even odder by the fact that a lot of people seem to know they are hypnotized, at least at some level.  I keep getting shushed as I make fun of friends' cult behavior watching the proceedings today, as if by jiggling someone's elbow too hard I might break the spell.  Never have I seen, in my lifetime, so much emotion invested in a politician we know nothing about.   I guess I am just missing some gene that makes the rest of humanity receptive to this kind of stuff, but just for a minute snap your fingers in front of your face and say "do I really expect a fundamentally different approach from a politician who won his spurs in "¦. Chicago?  Do I really think the ultimate political outsider is going to be the guy who bested everyone at their own game in the Chicago political machine?"

Well, the spell will probably take a while to break in the press, if it ever does "” Time Magazine is currently considering whether it would be possible to put Obama on the cover of all 52 issues this year "” but thoughtful people already on day 1 should have evidence that things are the same as they ever were, just with better PR.   For God sakes, as his first expenditure of political capital, Obama is pushing for a trillion dollar government spending bill that is basically one big pork-fest that might make even Ted Stevens blush, a hodge-podge of every wish-list of leftish lobbyists that has been building up for eight years.  I will be suitably thrilled if the Obama administration renounces some of the creeping executive power grabs of the last 16 years, but he has been oddly silent about this.  It seems that creeping executive power is a lot more worrisome when someone else is in power.

To this last point, the recent recommendations by the Center for American Progress to Obama are pretty chilling.

[The] Center for American Progress today is releasing a report, "Power of the President," proposing 30 executive actions the president can take to advance progressive change in the areas of energy, the economy, health care, education, foreign policy, and national security. "The following authorities can be used to ensure progress on key issues facing the country today: Executive orders, Rulemaking, Agency management, Convening and creating public-private partnerships , Commanding the armed forces, Diplomacy.

The New York Times fleshes out these proposals with some suggestions about policy changes across the board. The ideology of George Soros shines through the Center's report as it justifies this forceful approach to circumvent Congress when it states that:

[The] legislative battles that Mr. Obama waged during his first two years "“ notably on health care and financial regulatory reform "“ have created a weariness among the general public with the process of making laws. And it hints it has not helped Mr. Obama politically in the process.

In other words, when Congress passed a variety of laws Americans became dismayed by the horse-trading and bribes that were resorted to by Democrats to impose these policies on us. Instead of compromise and listening to the American people, Soros counsels that more forceful measures should be used to override the will of the American people.


  1. Henry Bowman:

    The views of the Center for American Progress should be no big surprise. There are few things more beloved by leftists than dictators, as long as, of course, said dictator is the right kind of dictator.

  2. DensityDuck:

    I thought that when Nixon invoked "executive privelege" he was roundly damned. I guess that some animals are more equal than others.

  3. caseyboy:

    This is some really serious sh.. Soros and his ilk have no use for our quaint representative republic. They want control from the top down. And you are correct Henry, as long as they are on top. We won't even know the half of what Obama's administration is doing through the rule making process. The unaccountable Czars will have their fingers into everything.

    Warren, I wasn't following your blog when you wrote your first missive on Obama, but you were right on the mark.

  4. Fred from Canuckistan:

    Hmmmmmm wasn't your whole Revolution thingy because some dude across the pond was doing too much of the executive action/ignore stuff and ignoring the little people?

    Maybe somebody should tell Barry before he really goofs.

  5. Mesa Econoguy:

    Yes, the Center for Amerikanski Progressiveski is certainly vocal about how to continue their full-speed charge down the road to fascism and collectivism.

    That is why the battle for the country is now effectively being fought in the courts, not at the ballot box.

    As for Mr Soros, there are a number of much more forceful actions which can be taken against him.

  6. Andy:

    Just as Hayek predicted in the Road to Serfdom...

  7. MikeinAppalachia:


  8. markm:

    Fred, mad King George III made a good symbol, but the real conflict was with Parliament. Twice in the 17th Century, Parliament wielded the power to depose and select monarchs, and after that, Kings only had the authority Parliament allowed them to exercise. I think that by 1775, under ordinary circumstances[1], Kings weren't much more than a rubber stamp for the decisions of the Prime Minister's government = the leaders of whichever party controlled Parliament. To the American colonists, it really didn't matter which party was running things - they still weren't represented, and the fundamental policies didn't change.

    [1] I know of one significant remaining Royal power, which AFAIK was last used in 1940. When Chamberlain's government collapsed in disgrace, and the Germans didn't seem inclined to give the Brits time for an election, King George V picked a new Prime Minister (Churchill), and most of the factions in Parliament fell in line. In hindsight this might seem an obvious choice, but I don't think it was that clear at the time. Sure he'd been croaking warnings from the back bench almost forever, and they'd suddenly come true, but any nut can make prophecies until one of them comes true... Other than correctly calling Hitler's intentions and capabilities, Churchill's most notable previous accomplishment was taking the blame for the Gallipoli landings in WWI.

  9. Sam L.:

    Those leftists do love a dictator--and want to be one/them.