The Audacity of Cynicism

The Audacity of Cynicism

spectator.org

In Barack Obama the Democrats have a communicator to nearly match the great communicator himself. Like Ronald Reagan, Obama's body language is non-threatening. His rhetoric reassures with its reasonableness and comforting cadence.

The difference is that with Reagan, America got policies and initiatives that accurately matched his words. With Obama, his words in no way match his actions. His lips say moderation, his actions say spend, tax and expand government.

It's understandable that most pundits marvel at his mastery of delivery, but few seem to note how remarkably comfortable Obama is with his own hypocrisy.

Consider his convincing calls for fiscal restraint coupled with his authorship of massive new spending? While it makes for great rhetoric, Obama's duplicity on the economy will have major negative consequences for Democrats in the 2010 mid-term election

(visit the link for the full news article)



Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Submit General News

This is an interesting article...please read!! Caution to the people on the left...this is obviously a conservative opinionated article.

I find it amazing that over the past month, the amount of references between Reagan and Obama.

This article is more of the same but outlines the major differences between the two of them.

I have to agree with the article in the fact that his words at the podium and what he does between closed doors are two very different things.

spectator.org
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 4-3-2009 by wolf241e]

Ah yes I wondered when any media outlet anywhere would start bringing up Obama's campaign rhetoric to freeze spending and go through the budget line by line. That and all the lobbyists and tax crooks in his cabinet are just the beginning.

I was waiting for lightning to strike him in his speech the other night when the words "fiscal responsibility" actually came out of his mouth.

What I find annoying is when a President speaks as though they're in charge of Congress.

Legislation begins within Congress, and they are responsible for initiating and forming the actual specifics. The President's 'proposals' are just that.

There's a thundering silence from Congress on the issues, except as reactive posturing. We do have separation of powers in the government for a reason, and everyone treating the President as an all-powerful leader doesn't support that.

reply to post by wolf241e

Hope for Change!

*retch* What a bunch of junk. I once started to track BHO rhetoric v. action, but got tired and bored at how easy it was to find contradictions.
(How do you know when Obama is lying? His lips are moving.)

It's like trying to figure out a magic trick by watching the magician. The decption is there in front of you, but you miss it because of the distraction, UNTIL the "reveal" and you see how you were fooled.

I doubt the liberal/progressive/Democrat mindset will ever acknowledge the "reveal" or the deception.

Until it's too late; and then, it will be called conservatives' and Bush's fault(s).


Deny ignorance.

jw

reply to post by jjkenobi
Today, Obama has the opportunity to review the "Omnibus" $400 billion spending bill.

During his capmaign, he promised a line-by-line review and rejection of all "earmarks."

Time will tell, but I'm not holding my breath on this "promise" either.

Rahm Emannuel has already gone on record saying BHO's promises "are last year's business!"


deny ignorance


jw

I never paid attention to Obama during the primaries or during his campaign speeches. I was obsessed and I somewhat still am obsessed with Ron Paul.

Why are people saying Obama's promised too many things? I can say that I've never seen him speak much. So please fill me in on his promises... and how they don't match up with what he's doing. I figured that since he's a Democrat he'll do things the Democratic party does.

reply to post by Frankidealist35
Sorry, but you need to do your own research. Most of us here at ATS take the time to listen to speeches, do the reading, google the candidates, and make a decision. I was in favor of Ron Paul, but knew he had absolutely no chance. I also knew that Obama was dangerous, so I listened to his speeches, and even put myself through the tedium of reading both his books.
In short, Obama promised us the moon. What he is doing now is shooting us the moon.

[edit on 4-3-2009 by kettlebellysmith]

reply to post by kettlebellysmith


I don't take the time to listen to many politician's speeches because I view them as mostly feel good kind of speeches... after all why would I want to listen to the lies of a politician? I view politicians as all controlled by basically the same group and special interests so I see no reason to see their speeches. Perhaps I should start doing that.

I read about his policies so I know what they are but I don't know what he promised. I know A BIT of what he promised but not that much.

[edit on 4-3-2009 by Frankidealist35]

[edit on 4-3-2009 by Frankidealist35]

reply to post by jdub297

Rahm Emannuel has already gone on record saying BHO's promises "are last year's business!"

Did he say that?

I'll tell you this Rahm guy is a real piece of work, Obama's best buddy may be a huge part of the problem.

reply to post by Frankidealist35


Ironically, the only way to know what a particular politician's stance happens to be is by actually researching their policies, speeches and conferences. After all, that is where everyone else gleans their information. Don't expect everyone else to do your homework for you.

As for the article, I believe it is still much to early to attempt to paint adequate comparisons between Obama and Reagan just yet. The man has barely been in office a scant month. After a year or so, then such an attempt would be a bit more justified.

I was a Ron Paul supporter from the get go. And yes, I wrote him in. But back in the campaign, when he was laying out the entire scenario that has unfolded before us, the vast majority of people --- including so many of you here who post thread after thread attacking Obama --- thought Ron Paul was just a weird old coot and didn't know what he was talking about.

I'm not here to defend Obama or anyone else. But what I find utterly amazing is how so many people here talk as if the solution to this historically unprecedented problem is just a Presidential signature away. A common theme I find here on ATS and in discussions in the 'real world' is the obsurdly simplistic views some people have about some of these uber-complex issues. These problems didn't happen over night. And they aren't the result of the 'housing bubble'. They are the result of a financial system that has been allowed to run amok.

Do you really, truly believe that the current situation would be one bit different if the Republicans had won? If John McCain was at the tiller? Do you backbiters honestly believe that the RNC is sitting on the magic cure-all to all this?

That's crap. This situation is unraveling by the day. Some people here believe we should just let everything fall down. Let the banking, insurance and major corporations fail. Put everyone out of work and then build it all back up. Really? It's that simple is it?

This is a global problem. Even IF someone could devise a solution for the domestic part of the problem that doesn't insulate us from the foreign effects. In 1985 we transitioned from the world's largest creditor nation into a debtor nation. The rules changed then.

Getting the current situation under control is like trying to nail jello to the wall. It's a problem that is changing shape constantly and, quite frankly, it would seem that many of the people at the root of the problem aren't helping matters and in some cases seem antagonistic to ANY kind of broader solution that doesn't benefit them personally.

Years ago I worked in medicine. I had several occasions to be close-by when a 'code' was called on a patient (when someone was dying and heroic measures needed to be taken to save them). The scene was always the same: 2 or three people would rush in to take charge of the situation and attempt to save the patient. And a small crowd would gather in the doorway shouting what they would do or critiquing the response in progress. But I noticed it was almost always the same people actually getting involved. And almost always the same people in the doorway.

Some people died. But if left to the doorway people they all would have died. Maybe Obama's approach (keeping in mind that it is an approach devised by a group of people) will work. Maybe it won't. Maybe it will make things better. Maybe it won't. But NONE of you. Not a single one is in a position to say with complete certainty that YOU have a plan that is guaranteed to work. Not one.

A person might behave very differently under special circumstances than they would normally. I normally am very frugal, and I believe strongly in spending money wisely and not wasting it. But if I moved into a house and it started to fall down on me, I would be willing put forth a great deal of money to fix up my house and make it stable again. That doesn't mean that I'm no longer a frugal person. It means I came across special and dangerous circumstances and had to handle it by spending a lot of money.

Obama did say he believes in restraint and moderation. That's before the ship started sinking. A president might fully believe in being conservative under normal circumstances, but these are far from normal circumstances. That's why I think he's doing what he's doing. To save a sinking ship. Of course, he can't "save' anything, but he can use the power of the government to make the effects of this coming recession a little less painful.

reply to post by Frankidealist35


You're right. Most campaign speeches are spoken to "sell one's self" and Obama's were no different. As a conscientious voter, I pored over his voting records to see where he really stands.

Here's a site you might be interested in. Obama's Promises

I'm with maria stardust (what a cool name). I will judge Obama by his results. And it's far too soon to see any results.

That "last year's business" budget contains a lot of items that were written last year by Bush's Congress, and is for the fiscal year of 2008.

reply to post by wolf241e


I do not believe the article's author is correct in the claim that with Reagan, we got policies that matched his speech.

As I recall, Reagan promised smaller government and fiscal responsibility.

What we got was a substantial increase in the size of the federal government compared to the Nixon / Ford / Carter years, and the first of the modern massive federal deficits that are now choking the life out of the US.

Reagan's name is often cited as a model of small government and fiscal responsibility. The facts do not back up these claims.

The Myth of Small Government

[edit on 4-3-2009 by Open_Minded Skeptic]

Regan is often viewed as a demi-god. I never got that. He looked like a President. He talked like a President but not everything was all butterflies and zebras during the Regan era:

As President Reagan entered office in 1981 he repeatedly called for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, yet never submitted a balanced budget himself[7]. Many on the right reflexively blame the Democratically controlled Congress for the “big spending” during his administration, even though Republicans controlled the Senate for the first six years of his two terms. Only during the last two years of the Reagan administration was the Congress completely controlled by Democrats, and the records show that the growth of the debt slowed during this period. It appears that the frequently referenced Reagan’s Conservative mythology is contrary to the truth, he was an award winning, record setting liberal spender and government grower.



The fact is that Reagan was able to push his tax cuts through both Houses of Congress, but he never pushed through any reduced spending programs. His weak leadership in this area makes him directly responsible for the unprecedented rise in borrowing during his time in office, an average of 13.8% per year. The increase in total debt during Reagan’s two terms was larger than all the debt accumulated by all the presidents before him combined. From 1983 through 1985, with a Republican Senate, the debt was increasing at over 17% per year. While Mr. Reagan was in office this nation’s debt went from just under 1 trillion dollars to over 2.6 trillion dollars, a 200% increase. The sad part about this increase is that it was not to educate our children, or to improve our infrastructure, or to help the poor, or even to finance a war. Reagan’s enormous increase in the national debt was not to pay for any noble cause at all; his primary unapologetic goal was to pad the pockets of the rich. The huge national debt we have today is a living legacy to his failed Neo-Conservative economic policies. Reagan’s legacy is a heavy financial weight that continues to apply an unrelenting drag on this nation’s economic resources.

There are alot of interesting, but to some inconvenient, facts in this article:

The U.S. Debt

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Its good that you would fix your house, but let me ask this. Is your house a buisness? You buy the house knowing that you will have to fix everything eventually, so no suprise when something breaks. You also fix it knowing that you will have to replace it again. Thats the way those things work. Wood, shingles and plaster don't last forever.

When you do fix your house do you ask the government to give you a hand in the cost? If so let me know when I can use my time share my tax dollars bought at your house (hope you have a lake).

Nobody gets into a buisness if they know it will fail. Throwing money at it is all fine and good. What happens though when they print so much money inflation makes it worthless?

My definition of someone who is relaxed, and comfortable with their own hypocrisy:

Compulsive Sociopathic liar.

However. Seeing the pork inflated, gigantic, spending bills tells me one other thing. That Obama is not in charge, that Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi are running this show. I think that was the deal that was made.
Reid's entire family endorsed Obama (including his lobbyist sons).
Pelosi, who seemed reluctant at first, eventually supported BO too, maybe in a more lukewarm manner. But it was enough.

This legislation happened So fast, that I'd be willing to bet that a lot of it was already in draft form, well before the election.

Originally posted by jd140
Its good that you would fix your house, but let me ask this. Is your house a buisness?

No. It's a house.

The government isn't a business, either and Obama didn't "buy" it. He offered to fix thing to the best of his ability and he was hired to do it.

When you do fix your house do you ask the government to give you a hand in the cost?

No. Remember? I'm frugal and because of that, I have enough money saved to take care of things.

The money was gone when Obama arrived and found the country broke. The coffers were empty. Till=Nill. He HAD to borrow it. Because those before him wasted and spent all the money on war, corporate interests and no-bid contracts in Iraq - and their buddies, the bankers, were scheming without regulation to feed their own greed. So, in effect, the money has been sent around the world and redistributed to the wealthiest people in this country.

Part of the job of our government is to make sure the economy moves smoothly. When Obama arrived, it was c-r-a-s-h-e-d.

Nobody gets into a buisness if they know it will fail.

That's true, but the government isn't a business and Obama didn't "get into" is as in pay for it. He offered to help the country get out of the mess. And we said "yes".

What happens though when they print so much money inflation makes it worthless?

I don't know. But that would have happened anyway. This economy is crashing. We have known about it for 3 years now. It actually crashed in September of last year. Whomever had been elected, and no matter what they would have done, our economy was going to crash further. So, I don't know what's ahead. No one does.

Sorry this is a bit off topic.

Originally posted by spacedoubt
My definition of someone who is relaxed, and comfortable with their own hypocrisy:

Compulsive Sociopathic liar.

However. Seeing the pork inflated, gigantic, spending bills tells me one other thing. That Obama is not in charge, that Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi are running this show. I think that was the deal that was made.
Reid's entire family endorsed Obama (including his lobbyist sons).
Pelosi, who seemed reluctant at first, eventually supported BO too, maybe in a more lukewarm manner. But it was enough.

This legislation happened So fast, that I'd be willing to bet that a lot of it was already in draft form, well before the election.

Hey there Space, good evening.

I like your thought process on this. I can see a deal being made before the election as well. We all know that BO have very little experience and needed to surround himself with people that have it.
I'm a firm believer that Hillary Clinton post to SecState was a deal that was made to give him and the party unity. Then she got to bring all of her old pals into the key staff positions to run the White House.

I think that Mr. Obama is a talented speaker and nothing else. He is a novice and it shows more by the day.

One thing that I am noticing is that the misdirection campiagn is fully under way in Washington.

At a time of unprecedented threats to the United States, a time of financial collapse, bank failures and record layoffs, at a time when the credit crisis has not been solved, and the stock market is in free fall, at a time of stagnating wars, rising terrorism in Pakistan and growing nuclear potential in Iran, the White House has done quite simply the easiest thing.

It has asked the American people to focus their attention not on the White House's lack of solving the problems, but on a conservative talk show host in Florida. This may be a good politics to make the Obamaton's look the other way, but most of us know better.