Another Knock On Sullivan… The Long Term View?

Share Button

In this defense of Obama, Andrew quotes Obama explaining his presidential philosophy:

Something that I have learned over the last couple of years is that I have to make decisions based on the long view. And I have to suppress my own desire for a short-term fix if I’m going to be able to lead the country effectively over the long term… I will keep on making that case, and I think that to point — to quote my vice president — I believe that voters are going to stop comparing me to the Almighty and compare me to the alternative.

Andrew concludes “We’re lucky to have him”.

Hello… McFly!

Are you kidding.

Do you think that Obama is somehow unique in this regard? Do really you think that most other past Presidents did not think in the long term? (OK, maybe you can exclude Clinton) Every Presidential race is a contest to see who will win the opportunity to leave a legacy, to be looked at as a President held in high regard due to the changes or decisions he made while in office, to forever be remembered as a great leader of men. The invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq are nothing if not decisions based on long term projections and expectations, to create and foster democracies in the Middle East. By bettering the lives of those peoples in the region you stave off the impulse to become an extremist and become a terrorist! That sounds pretty long view to me. It’s one of the reasons you originally supported the Global War On Terror in the first place. You dropped your support once you realized the long term goals were not compatible with the developing reality on the ground.

The problem with exclusive long term thinking, is that much of the time, you never consider the consequences if you’re wrong, or if maybe some short term solutions wouldn’t actually help advance the long term goals. That’s called pragmatism. And sorry, despite your assertion to the contrary, he’s demonstrated that he doesn’t have it. Despite the short term inconvenience it might have created, he and Nancy Pelosi’s Congress never really tried to get Republicans substantially involved in the health care process. The result? They rebelled, and the final bill is a partisan piece of crap that is probably unconstitutional. Sure, Obama may be thinking long term, but, for two years, from appointing several officials who didn’t file their taxes correctly, to the appointment of a bazillion Czars, to “Beergate”, to the health care fiasco, to passing a trillion dollars worth of stimulus that, in real non-modeled terms, didn’t seem to do anything, to flailing on the Gitmo and detainee situation, to deriding the Supreme Court in his SOTU address, to the lame attempt to take credit for the BP spill fix and clean-up, to the decision to keep fighting DADT in court, he’s demonstrated noting but horrifically poor judgment in his long term thinking. And the results? He’s literally handed the House, and maybe the Senate back to the Republicans. He’s operating in an egotistic vacuum, devoid of any input from the real world outside it. And you can’t make good long term decisions from that place.

Oh, and BTW, it doesn’t show good judgment to use a quote from a Vice President to bolster your case that the majority of Americans think is a complete boob.

New Song Lyric?

Share Button

In the race against time, you’ll always fail
But still we try
Sometimes it’s like watching a dog chase its own tail
Oh well
Carry on my friends
Carry on.

Sullivan vs Sullivan vs Sullivan.

Share Button

It’s sometimes like watching a dog chase its own tail!

On Obama’s stance on Same Sex Marriage?

He’s being pragmatic!

On Obama’s stance on DADT?

Perplexed.

And, just moments ago?

We’re lucky to have him!

Kyoto Treaty Success In Europe? Nope! Just More Enron Type Fraud!

Share Button

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!

We skeptics were right!

Worse yet for the Greens, this means that George W Bush, often referred to by libs as a dummy, was smarter than them and refused to sign on. Good show!

…a couple of recent studies now seem to show that Kyoto was as big a fraud as the most militant enviro-skeptics ever suspected. And it looks as if the 95 American senators were 100 percent right: the much heralded Protocol was a singularly stupid piece of counterproductive social engineering that encouraged the migration of good jobs to China and other low wage countries — without helping the environment at all.

The left leaning Guardian newspaper in Britain let the cat out of the bag yesterday, reporting that while the EU’s emission of CO2 declined by 17% between 1990 and 2010, this apparent progress was bogus. If you add up the CO2 released by the goods and services Europeans consumed, as opposed to the CO2 thrown off by the goods and services they produced, the EU was responsible for 40% more CO2 in 2010 than in 1990. The EU, as the Guardian puts it, has been outsourcing pollution — and jobs — rather than cutting back on greenhouse gasses.

So the 1995 Senate, the one that Al Gore presided over, saw right through this dren and shot it down with a 95% vote count. But this was a time when you were still allowed to vote against your party. Obama has not come close to that kind of bi-partisan unity in his first two years.

(Note – there is another skpetic article I want to post, but I have to find it and don’t have time. will post later)