Right Wing Nut House



Filed under: Government, Politics — Rick Moran @ 9:28 am

I’m not even an Obama supporter and I found Mort Zuckerman’s towering rant yesterday against the president painful to read. I genuinely feel for this fellow, who by many reports has been one of the nice guys in the media over the last few decades. Editor in Chief of US News and World Report, as well as publisher of the New York Daily News, Zuckerman has been a moderate liberal voice in the Democratic party for a generation.

An early Obama supporter, and great admirer of the president still, Zuckerman went off on Obama’s policies and performance like there was no tomorrow in a piece entitled “He’s done Everything Wrong”:

Obama punted on the economy and reversed the fortunes of the Democrats in 365 days.

He’s misjudged the character of the country in his whole approach. There’s the saying, “It’s the economy, stupid.” He didn’t get it. He was determined somehow or other to adopt a whole new agenda. He didn’t address the main issue.

This health-care plan is going to be a fiscal disaster for the country. Most of the country wanted to deal with costs, not expansion of coverage. This is going to raise costs dramatically.

In the campaign, he said he would change politics as usual. He did change them. It’s now worse than it was. I’ve now seen the kind of buying off of politicians that I’ve never seen before. It’s politically corrupt and it’s starting at the top. It’s revolting.

Five states got deals on health care—one of them was Harry Reid’s. It is disgusting, just disgusting. I’ve never seen anything like it. The unions just got them to drop the tax on Cadillac plans in the health-care bill. It was pure union politics. They just went along with it. It’s a bizarre form of political corruption. It’s bribery. I suppose they could say, that’s the system. He was supposed to change it or try to change it.

I’ve been reading Zuckerman’s writings for nearly 30 years and the only other examples I can think of where his emotions pour forth in such a raw, uncorrelated way is when he talks of the dangers facing Israel. But this is truly remarkable. The entire article is, in internet parlance, a “screed.” It’s structure is haphazard. There is no attempt to clean up the rank emotionalism that dominates the piece. There isn’t much reason and less logic. It is the wailing lament of someone who obviously feels betrayed, or more relevantly, of a man who has had the scales fall from his eyes.

Obama’s ability to connect with voters is what launched him. But what has surprised me is how he has failed to connect with the voters since he’s been in office. He’s had so much overexposure. You have to be selective. He was doing five Sunday shows. How many press conferences? And now people stop listening to him. The fact is he had 49.5 million listeners to first speech on the economy. On Medicare, he had 24 million. He’s lost his audience. He has not rallied public opinion. He has plunged in the polls more than any other political figure since we’ve been using polls. He’s done everything wrong. Well, not everything, but the major things.

I don’t consider it a triumph. I consider it a disaster.

One business leader said to me, “In the Clinton administration, the policy people were at the center, and the political people were on the sideline. In the Obama administration, the political people are at the center, and the policy people are on the sidelines.”

I’m very disappointed. We endorsed him. I voted for him. I supported him publicly and privately.

Specifically, Zuckerman rails against the stim bill and health care reform as examples of what we on the right have been accusing Obama of for months; farming out the writing and shaping of major legislation to the Pelosi-Reid axis in Congress:

I hope there are changes. I think he’s already laid in huge problems for the country. The fiscal program was a disaster. You have to get the money as quickly as possible into the economy. They didn’t do that. By end of the first year, only one-third of the money was spent. Why is that?

He should have jammed a stimulus plan into Congress and said, “This is it. No changes. Don’t give me that bullshit. We have a national emergency.” Instead they turned it over to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi who can run circles around him.

It’s very sad. It’s really sad.

The final criticism is perhaps the most disturbing; despite being popular overseas, Obama is not respected:

He’s improved America’s image in the world. He absolutely did. But you have to translate that into something. Let me tell you what a major leader said to me recently. “We are convinced,” he said, “that he is not strong enough to confront his enemy. We are concerned,” he said “that he is not strong to support his friends.”

The political leadership of the world is very, very dismayed. He better turn it around. The Democrats are going to get killed in this election. Jesus, looks what’s happening in Massachusetts.

Mr. Zuckerman and other cold war liberals don’t get it. The president has made a deliberate decision to curtail American power and influence in the world, going so far as to say in Cairo that no one nation should dominate. The unipolar world is history - partly due to our own misguided attempts to influence events but also because the president sees us as equal partners with the UN. There is less emphasis on our alliances, a stepping back from some of our closer relationships as demonstrated by a pulling away from the “special” relationship we have had for 130 years with Great Britain.

It’s not as if the president was trying to hide his policies. In fact, this aspect of his presidency is one of the few that receives any support from his progressive base. If Zuckerman is just catching on to this now, he has only himself to blame for his myopia.

You can’t say that if Obama has lost Mort Zuckerman, he’s lost the center left of the Democratic party. But you can say that if he’s lost Paul Krugman, he’s lost an important voice among far left progressives:

Health care reform — which is crucial for millions of Americans — hangs in the balance. Progressives are desperately in need of leadership; more specifically, House Democrats need to be told to pass the Senate bill, which isn’t what they wanted but is vastly better than nothing.


Maybe House Democrats can pull this out, even with a gaping hole in White House leadership. Barney Frank seems to have thought better of his initial defeatism. But I have to say, I’m pretty close to giving up on Mr. Obama, who seems determined to confirm every doubt I and others ever had about whether he was ready to fight for what his supporters believed in.

“Fight for what his supporters believe in?” What about what the president believes in? Presidents don’t pick up the fallen standard of their fringe supporters and go into battle in order to commit suicide. That might be fine for the Krugmans of the Democratic party who don’t have skin in the game. The Times columnist isn’t running for anything, which gives him the luxury of cheering on the combatants from the safety of the peanut gallery.

And, of course, Krugman isn’t making any new charges against the president by the progressive wing of the party. His thoughts find an echo in many online activist’s critique of Obama and his administration.

But coming on the heels of Zuckerman’s tirade, and several other scathing criticisms of the president in other venues - all the result of the Massachusetts debacle - Krugman et al might legitimately ask, “What now, Mr. President?” Whither Obama? Where goes the left?

Some of this is certainly hand wringing by the usual suspects. Massachusetts was, after all, only one senate race although a great, big, red warning sign of a race for the president. But in the end - and I tried to make this point on my radio show on Tuesday night - there are other issues where one or two Republicans could be pried away from their caucus to support the administration. For example, a dramatically scaled back health care initiative would probably pick up close to a half dozen Republicans, including Snowe, Collins, Grassley, Graham, McCain, and probably Scott Brown himself. All have announced support for some of the goals of Obama’s health care reform and the right package could elicit what the president so dearly desires; a bi-partisan bill.

The Krugmans of the party would scream bloody murder and such a bill might not even fly in the House. But it is indicative of the fact that the Obama presidency is not over - if the president and his people would take what the Massachusetts voters were trying to say in a constructive manner and switch gears.

Not a turn to the right or a “pivot” necessarily. These are liberals after all and one shouldn’t expect the impossible. Recalculation might be a better term. More emphasis on the economy is good advice everyone is giving the president. Cutting the deficit substantially would ease a lot of fears among centrists. Modest health care reforms, an energy policy that makes sense, and perhaps a shot at reforming immigration are all on the table, and doable with the right kind of leadership.

In short, the situation is salvageable if there is a noticeable and substantive change in course. Low approval ratings are not set in stone, nor is the growing perception of his administration being incompetent.

I suppose I should be rooting for epic fail from this crew. Indeed, I cheer the demise - if true - of the monstrosity of Obamacare. But this country has big problems that must be addressed. Anyone who cares about America realizes this and hopes that the political leadership can get their act together in order to deal with them.

Politics may be a zero sum game but that’s no reason governance should be. Party men and ideologues will no doubt damn me for my apostasy, and there is little hope that the kind of government we need will arise from the ashes of the political wild fire that raced through Massachusetts.

But America is in crisis - economically and otherwise. While some see paralysis in government as a blessing, the only result of such will be the continued decline of our economic fortunes, and a lowering of our standard of living. That, and a people living in fear of the future is what awaits us without a dramatic change in Washington. Flipping the House and Senate will not be the answer. The same kind of obstructionism and partisan hatred will simply be transferred from the Republicans to the Democrats and still, nothing will get done.

Obama will never get my vote. But he can earn my respect by trying to deliver on his promise to change the political culture in Washington. So far, he hasn’t impressed me, Zuckerman, or Krugman for that matter.

We’ll see if he can change that.


  1. As far as what Zuckerman says about Obama dropping in the polls more than any other politician ever, it’s not necessarily a surprise.

    He campaigned on “Change,” and that is what we got. We got someone who had no experience and apparently didn’t know what he was doing.

    Now, I certainly don’t think we should have lifetime politicians and I certainly don’t think that they are the only type that should become President, but on the other hand we now see what happens when we elect a person with no experience and no respect for his country or the office he is running for.

    Comment by Scott — 1/21/2010 @ 11:12 am

  2. To suggest that a president, even this one, can change the political culture in Washington is well beneath your usual powers of thinking.

    Virtually everyone is on the take, many pols are pathological liars and serial adulterers, and now The Supreme Court Inc. with CEO John Roberts in the van has given moneyed interests carte blanche to buy their chosen handmaidens into office.

    The only thing that will change the political culture in Washington is a pandemic.

    Comment by shaun — 1/21/2010 @ 11:18 am

  3. The difference between Mort and Paul is, looking towards 2012, Krugman has noplace to go, other than to sit home — hypothetically, the Democratic left could field a primary candidate against Obama, the same way they tried to launch Teddy’s bid in 1979 when they thought Jimmy Carter’s problem was he wasn’t liberal enough.

    Zuckerman, on the other hand, already jumped ship from the Democrats in 2000 and 2004, when the Daily News endorsed George W. Bush over Al Gore and John Kerry. He and other moderate Democrats would have an option to their right, depending on what they think of the 2012 Republican nominee (and of course, what Obama does and which way he moves over the next 33 months).

    Comment by John — 1/21/2010 @ 11:19 am

  4. The question, then, is whether Obama is an ideologue or a pragmatist. My guess is the president is an ideologue, and will convince himself that his programs don’t sell because Americans don’t understand what he has attempted. Zuckerman, I think, also has drawn that conclusion. From appearances and utterances over the last few days, it appears Obama indeed is closer to Krugman than to Mort. People like Krugman, though, are never satisfied even with their most wild-eyed representatives.

    Comment by jackson1234 — 1/21/2010 @ 11:42 am

  5. I don’t agree with Shaun that Obama can’t change the political culture. I think he can. He can open up meetings and deliberations. He can release records. That means less capacity to wheel and deal. But I wonder if openness and political integrity aren’t more important than passing legislation right now.

    Cynicism is always with us, but it is more painful in the wake of raised hopes for something different. And cynicism eats away at real power. Obama should start by ordering full disclosure on all TARP documents, AIG, and Bush administration torture memos and reports as well.

    And from here going forward take the health care thing public — all of it. Stop feeding the paranoia and cynicism with back room deals for Nebraska. Risk failure for the sake of honesty because I think the greater risk is immobilization by sheer weight of cynicism.

    Comment by michael reynolds — 1/21/2010 @ 12:02 pm

  6. Rick

    The banks created the bubble economy that still threatens to destroy us. For 30 years Congress has abetted them. The last four administrations turned blind eyes (or worse). I believe the ugly facts were presented to President Obama after his election. Unfortunately, President Obama spent his first year shying away from solving the issue - in fact principal architects of the bubble - you can call them the foxes - were left to guard the henhouse. Geithner and company should never have been appointed and should have deparated long ago. It is understandable why President Obama was gun shy because the pain of bursting the bubble will be enormous. Unfortunately, ignoring it only makes it worse. He has frittered away the year with huge and expensive red herrings such as stimuli, bailouts, cash for clunkers and the health care bill. All were advertised as economy fixes. None of them worked. Most of his actions are perceived as failures. Now he is talking about taking on the banks - which should have been done on Day One. In other words, he is being forced to face the problem he and the foxes hoped to avoid. But he is now sailing into rough water with severely diminished political capital.And he is trying to fix the problem with Bernanke, Geithner and Summers still advising him. There are very rough times ahead.

    Comment by Jim — 1/21/2010 @ 12:48 pm

  7. “We are convinced that he is not strong enough to confront his enemy. We are concerned that he is not strong enough to support his friends.” Which major leader said this to you Mort? If you are going to criticize the Presidnet, at least have the deceny to tell the readers who actuall said this. Other wise shut up!!

    Given the massive deficits run up during the Bush years which seem to have been made worse under Obama’s term, the worn down nature of the military from ongoing operations aroud the world, and the military upgrades made by countries like Russia and China the “unipolar” world was over, assuming it actually existed in the first place. Obama’s policies simply attempted to reflect this reality.

    As for the “special relationship” with Britian, the British have been backing away from this for some time. It is hardly as if Obama initiated this or it operating in a vacum on this. The “special relationship” does not serve British interests. Why would they want to be closely related to a washed up has been world power. They need close relations with oil suppliers in the Middle East. Also, they need to have as cordial as possible relations with Russia. As a major oil supplier to Europe, it closer proximity to Britian than America, and the fact that Russia is far more powerful than America right now, the British need to have a working relationship of some type with the Russians. A “special relationship” with America does not benefit Britian and is, in fact, a liability. As such, it makes perfect sense for them to downgrade this relationship. In this area, Obama’s policies simply reflect the geo political realities of the situation. Why maintain a special relationship with someone who does not want it?

    What was supposed to happen when Obama changed the way America related to the world was other nations were supposed to pitch in and assist us in solving problems. So far this seems to have met with only limited success. Time will tell, if the Obama approach will work.

    Had I been present when the world leader made the quote Mr. Zukcerman says was made, I would have been asked this person are America’s friends strong enough to support America? If by “his enemy” we mean Islamic terrorism, a resurgent Russia, or an expanding China, then this is correct. America is not strong enough to confront these alone. We are going to need help from our friends. Instead of criticizing I would suggest this leader and others lend the Obama Administration and America a helphing hand here. We need their help.

    The new approach was supposed to help us enlist the assistance we need. Hopefully it will work but I’m not optimistic. Anti-Americanism simply runs to deep. To expect such assistance was going to be a long shot at best. I could have told Mr. Obama and his team this approach probably would not work.

    I would suggest a change in our foreign relations. I would suggest the following.

    1.)Remove all troops, military assets, and intellegence assets from Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere in the Middle East. This means ALL of it and it should be done as soon as our transport vehicles can get them out. Do it post haste. The same thing should be done every where there are Aemrican troops outside of the United States.

    2.)Redeploy these troops, intellegence assets, and military assets to defensible positions along the American borders. This makes more sense than wearing them down in fruitless efforts to do things like bring “democracy” to the Iraq or Afghanistan, halt Russian expansion, halt Chinese expansion, or the other missions they are being used on. Given that most of these men and women signed on to defend America, once this is done they will be doing what they signed up to do. I would expect morale to increase substantially.

    3.)Cancel all foreign aid to everyone for a minimum of three years. This means ALL foreign aid. A top down review of all foreign aid needs to be done to determine what serves our interests and what if any of it can we afford. Three years should be enough time.

    4.)Place a moratorium on immigration from all countries for a minimum of ten years. This will give us breathing space to fix our immigration system and it will give those already here time to assimiliate into American culture. The immigration moratorium on immigration from Islamic Middle
    Eastern countries should be indefinite. It makes little sense to invite people here who want to destroy America. If we need the expertise of foreigners in some areas, we can probably utilize some type of guest worker program. This seems to have worked well for some countries. Perhaps it can work for America.

    5.)Open up all of our own oil and gas reserves for domestic drilling. This means ALL of it. Build more refineries and make extensive use of coal to oil technologies. Doing this will give us more leverage when trying to negotiate with OPEC, with Venezeula, or any other oil producing country. Right now we have little leverage over any of them.

    Doing these 5 things alone will give us more leverage for our national security interests than any thing we are currently doing ever would have or likely ever could. Unfortunately I’m not expecting much, if any of this, to be implemented by either major political party in the United States

    Comment by B.Poster — 1/21/2010 @ 2:04 pm

  8. I think it would be a political mistake to re-approach health care reform at this point. It’s just too toxic right now. Obama needs to pick something smaller that’s winnable to move through Congress. That way he can gain some momentum. A football metaphor comes to mind, run off tackle to pick up 4 or 5 yards and start the drive.

    His main problem now, is that a majority of the American people don’t approve of his job performance. He needs to address that first.

    Comment by Allen — 1/21/2010 @ 2:19 pm

  9. [...] Filed under: Uncategorized — polisnark @ 8:50 pm Paul Krugman makes a modest demand on behalf of progressive purists to President Obama — commit political suicide by supporting our program no matter how unpopular it is.  Nice to [...]

    Pingback by Death March « PoliSnark — 1/21/2010 @ 2:50 pm

  10. B. Poster:

    So pull up the drawbridge? What is this, the 1930’s?

    Comment by michael reynolds — 1/21/2010 @ 3:53 pm

  11. Who said any thing about a drawbridge and no this isn’t the 1930s. The problems the country faces today are far more complicated than then, I think. What I propose gives us a reasonable chance of solving them. In any event, what I propose is far more likely to solve the country’s problems than any thing currently being done or proposed.

    It seems clear that we have no control over our borders and the immigration system is a mess. As I recall, at least two of the 911 hijackers were here on expired visas.

    We have little to no coherent energy policy. The only ones we have are beg OPEC and suck up to enviro-whackos.

    Our military is being worn down and is engaged in fruitless operations elsewhere that do virtually nothing to further American interests. Not only that but it risks unwinable conflicts with the two most powerful countries on earth which are Russia and China.

    Our deficit is massive and getting bigger. Opening up our oil and gas reserves for domestic drilling and building more refineries should create a large number of high paying jobs. Whats more, they would all be high paying union jobs.

    An additional step that I neglected to mention above, is to closely monitor the mosques. We know who the people most likely to be terrorists are. It makes perfect sense to watch the groups from where they are most likely to come more closely than say 60 year old Swedish women. It certainly makes more sense than positioning large numbers of troops and other equipment in the Middle East.

    What I propose, while it may not be perfect, has a much better chance of solving the nation’s problems than any thing being currently proposed.

    Rather than refer to draw bridges, what ever that is supposed to mean, it might be better to address the issues on their merits. Other countries protect their cultures. We should do the same. We have every right to do so. Also, by failing to protect your culture you lose respect. I think the policies I propose, in addition to considerably advancing our national security interests, would gain us considerable respect around the world.

    Finally, we need to begin to rebuild our manufacturing base. Right now we don’t even have the capacity to manufacture some of our most basic goods. Doing this would result in large numbers of jobs being created and they would likely be high paying union jobs. At least we hope so. In any event, it beats depending on China. Again, every thing I suggest is far better than what any of our politicians are suggesting.

    Comment by B.Poster — 1/21/2010 @ 4:12 pm

  12. I’ll address the most telling part of your comment:

    Other countries protect their cultures. We should do the same. We have every right to do so. Also, by failing to protect your culture you lose respect.

    We are far and away the world’s largest cultural exporter. Our culture is everywhere. Our movies, our TV, our books, our games, our software. We are the OPEC of culture.

    Not only have we successfully sold our culture everywhere, we’ve convinced the entire developed world — Europe, Japan, India, South America, and, increasingly China, that our economic system and our political system is the only workable one.

    Worrying that we aren’t protecting our culture is like absurd. We’re not only protecting it, we’re selling it to everyone on Earth.

    Comment by michael reynolds — 1/21/2010 @ 11:00 pm

  13. Michael,

    To imply that we are the OPEC of culture implies a power that does not exist for American culture. OPEC is able to dictate terms of trade. Countries don’t cooperate them and there are serious consequences for their economy. Failing to cooperate with American culture costs one nothing and in fact often results in net gain for the person or entity as they get a public relations boost or financial gain for “standing up to America” or something to that effect.

    With the examples you bring up “OPEC of culture” is not the best description. A better description would be that “other nations have adopted those aspects of American culture that serve their interests and that work for them while categorically rejeting those aspects of American culture that don’t work for them. Furthermore it is costing them very little to reject those aspects of American culture they choose to reject.”

    I’ll takke each of the regions you mention one at a time and discuss them briefly. Europe - It is being over run by Islamists and it is dependent upon Russian oil to make it go. It generally sees America as a strategic competitor and will stop at nothing to undermine America or its interests if it sees an opportunity to gain.

    Japan - We’ve adopted many things from them as well. One is example has been just in time inventory systems to make manufacturinng more efficient. At least this is when we used to actually manufacture things. Those of us over thirty were taught in public schools to be as industrious as the Japanese.

    Inida - We are increasingly dependent upon India for many back office functions within American business. They use this to their advantage in a number of ways. With our masive national debt, struggling economy, and worn down military we are going to be increasingly dependent upon countries like India in coming years.

    South America - Venezuela is the dominant country there now. Venezuela is backed up by Russia. As such, Russia is essentially the dominant country in this region. China is increasingly active in places like Panama. They have had a large presence in the Panama Canal region. Russia and China are the dominant countries in South America not the United States.

    China - This country has tremendous influence over America. As our countries largest bank, they are in a position to dictate terms to us any time they wish. As such, our political system and economic systems have drifted more towards them than they have drifted towards us.

    If our political system is the most workable one, which one would that be? We’ve become more like the rest of the world than they’ve become like us.

    “Worrying that we are not protecting our culture is like absurd.” No its not. When you invite vast hordes of people from other nations into your country who don’t hold your unique cultural values, you are inviting trouble. This is what has happened. As a result, our country and its unique heritage is being eaten up from within. Perhaps you don’t like our nation’s heritage that has been based to a degree on Judeo-Christian principles.

    “we’re selling it to everyone on earth.” To an extent, this is true. Other nations are selling their cultures to us as well. Other nations will purchase the aspects that work for them and serve their interests while rejecting the parts that don’t work for them. Due to certain tenets of political correctness we end up accepting aspects of the foreign cultures that might not be in our interests to accept. As a result of this and other factors, our culture is losing ground while others are gaining ground.

    To a large extent, we seem to lack the moral confidence in our culture to defend it. Unless this changes, we will continue to lose ground. Reversing this begins with realizing we have a culture that is worth defending and that we have at least as much a right to defend our culture as they have to defend their cultures.

    Comment by B.Poster — 1/21/2010 @ 11:55 pm

  14. Glad to know I wasn’t the only one who thought Zuckerman’s screed was pretty batty. As an Obama supporter, it seems to me as if Mort had throughly convinced himself that BO was somebody else, and now he’s crying out his lamentations out to the world. (Naturally all the while ignoring his self-deception!) Like too many smart people, he had to justify his non-vote for the McCain/Palin ticket with an imaginary projection of all he wanted in a POTUS candidate on a man who never subscribed to his wishes in the first place. Mr. Zuckerman deserves ridicule from the Left and Right for being so dishonest with himself. Kurgman by contrast has at least been consistent with his critiques of Obama, so nobody can say he’s gone suddenly ape-shit.

    Comment by Surabaya Stew — 1/22/2010 @ 3:21 am

  15. “There isn’t much reason and less logic.”

    Rick, you must be kidding! We have Republican Scott Brown taking the seat once occupied by Ted Kennedy, and he got there by campaigning as the 41st vote against health care reform. This is in true blue Massachusetts for crying out loud. And you think Obama hasn’t misjudged the character of the country?

    Zuckerman has nailed it. If Obama’s health care plan is passed it will undoubtedly be a fiscal disaster for the country. There is absolutely nothing in it that addresses the cost of health care.

    There are two things advertised as intended to control costs. One is the threat of a public option, which does not attempt to control health care costs, only insurance costs, supposedly by providing competition. In reality it will reduce it by eliminating small insurers. The other is the threat to reduce the medicare budget by $400 billion which, again, doesn’t control costs. It’s only a refusal to pay the costs.

    Will the plan allow competition across state lines? No. Will it address tort reform? No. Will it address the shortage of doctors and nurses? No.

    Although the kind of vote buying that has gone into pushing this health care mess forward is most assuredly legal, it is thoroughly corrupt. Zuckerman is right on the money when he says, “It’s revolting.”

    Obama, Reid, and Pelosi don’t know what will ultimately be in their health care plan and I don’t believe for a second that they actually care. For them the important thing is to make as much of the health care industry as possible, and as many people as possible, more beholden to government. The objective the health care plan is not to improve health care. The objective is to create conditions for an enduring progressive majority. It’s all politics. And as Zuckerman says, it’s revolting.

    Comment by Tom Bowler — 1/22/2010 @ 8:57 am

  16. Poster:

    Europe is overrun by Islamists? Have you ever been to Europe? Netherlands is overrun by tall, blond beauties on bikes. France is overrun with — and this is a shock — Frenchmen. Italy is filled to the brim with Italians — I just spent 8 months living there and trust me: Italians. There are a lot of immigrants in the UK but the bulk are not “Islamists” they are rather “Shopkeepers.” No one has been overrun.

    Your comments are simply at odds with reality. And too much at odds, in too many ways, for me to spend a long post in refutation.

    Your initial point was that we need to defend our culture. You’ve said nothing to support that paranoid claim.

    Comment by michael reynolds — 1/22/2010 @ 1:13 pm

  17. Michael,

    Parts of France especially are no go zones. Even the police don’t want to go there. As such, it is no surprise you would not be aware of it. Most Governments try to present a positive picture to the tourists, the residents, and the citizens.

    Far from being at odds with reality my comments are spot on. To ignore them is to ignore reality. Unfortunately I think the views you hold are simillar to those held by Mr. Obama, Mr. Bush, and their inner circles. We can ignore reality because facing up to it is inconvenient. Unfortunately reality has a way of catching up to us. By the time it does I pray it is not to late.

    Not only does our culture need defending but the lives of our citizens need to be vigorously defended as well. It makes no sense to invite people in here who wish to harm us and it seems clear the immigration system needs to be fixed. Also, there is the cost of social services for both legal and illegal residents that needs to be considered. A ten yeare moratorium on all immigration should give us sufficient time and breathing space to address these issues. If we need foreign laborers we can implement some type of guest worker program. It has worked well for other nations. I think it could work for us as well.

    Comment by B.Poster — 1/22/2010 @ 3:43 pm

  18. The following link illustrates what can happen when a nation is indiscriminate in who they let into their country. http://www.flynnfiles.com/archives/world_events2010/panic_room_indeed.html

    Comment by B.Poster — 1/22/2010 @ 3:53 pm

  19. I think Obama made his deal with the devils - Reid and Pelosi- he gets elected and they get to run policy.
    Of course now he can try to throw them under the bus

    Comment by Tom May — 1/27/2010 @ 8:21 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by WordPress