Those of us with ears to hear and eyes to see know what Obama is.
Being a cerebral sort, when I ponder President Obama's seduction of America, I think of the story of the snake and the duck. To be brief, the snake wants the duck to take him to the other side of a creek, but the duck is reluctant. He says, "But when we get there, you'll bite me." The snake is very persuasive, however, and convinces the duck he wouldn't do such a thing. He just wants help and would have the utmost appreciation. Well, I think you know what happened upon concluding their little crossing. Bam! The snake bit the foolish bird, who then started stammering, "Bu-bu-bu-but you said . . ." The snake just replied, "Hey, you knew what I was when you picked me up." I suppose the duck just wanted to give the serpent a chance.
That certainly is what many want us to give Barack Obama. Criticize the President and you're admonished for being unfair and partisan. "Give the man a chance!" hiss the critics. Or is it that they quack? Whatever.
I could be snide and just say that I'll give the President every bit the chance the Left gave George Bush. With him they certainly did hiss, and spew venom, attacking him viciously and relentlessly for eight years starting with the oath of office. The man could do nothing right in their eyes, even when spending like any liberal Democrat, even when supporting amnesty for illegals, even when lavishing tax money on Africa, even when signing the prescription drug benefit. He was a "fundamentalist," a "right-wing zealot" and wholly incapable of even one good intention. That is the irrationality of the prejudiced, of people who see a red-state politician and only see red.
But I won't take that leaf out of the Left's book. I'm not a child and don't play tit-for-tat. If Obama is right about something, I'll acknowledge it and just chalk it up to the inevitable twice-per-diem correctness of a broken clock. What I also won't do, however, is "give Obama a chance." I'll explain why with a couple of analogies.
Imagine there is a businessman who manages a small fast-food restaurant in Illinois. His record is one of virtually always embracing the wrong policies and making bad decisions. Nevertheless, he is offered a position overseeing operations on a statewide level, wherein he once again pursues the same bad policies and makes the same bad decisions. Will you now propose making him the CEO of the company?
Or, let's say there is a lawyer with a small practice, oh, as it happens, also in Illinois. He continually commits misfeasance but nevertheless is appointed state attorney general. He then continues to commit misfeasance. Will you next consider making him Attorney General of the United States? If not, why not? Sure, he never demonstrated competence in law before, but, come on, U.S. Attorney General is a different position. Give 'im a chance.
Maybe even ducks get the point.
There is an old saying, "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." Contrary to the Republican campaign mantra about Obama having no experience, quite the opposite was true. He had tremendous experience doing the wrong thing, more than enough to paint a picture of what kind of animal he might be. The picture may seem like a resplendent deity to followers or a repugnant demon to foes, but it existed. And if you didn't see it, it wasn't because Obama hadn't done enough but because you didn't know enough.
In reality, Obama has had chance after chance after chance after chance, in the Illinois and U.S. Senates and as a community agita . . . uh, I mean, organizer. If you don't believe me, simply peruse the section dedicated to him at OntheIssues.org. It provides 37 pages and more than 14,000 words on his votes, positions and pronouncements, all compiled prior to the election. And, largely drawing from that site, here is a synopsis of Obama the Chanceless' words and deeds (every quotation except the one indicated by the asterisk is from OntheIssues.org):
- He voted for illegal-alien amnesty, "YES on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security" and "YES on continuing federal funds for declared 'sanctuary cities.'"
- He said that his policies would bankrupt the coal industry.
- He said, "*You need to make sure your child can speak Spanish" and that it's "OK to provide government services in Spanish." He also "voted NO on declaring English as the official language of the US government."
- He opposes so-called "racial profiling," which is actually just an element of proper, comprehensive profiling.
- He received an 89 percent rating from the NAACP, "indicating that he supports affirmative action."
- In the Illinois and national Senates, Obama was Planned Parenthood's poster boy, supporting the murder of not just the unborn but also the born, through his opposition to the Born Alive Infants Protection Act.
- He voted against prohibiting minors from crossing state lines for abortion and notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions.
- He has the worst possible rating – 0 percent – by the National Right to Life Committee.
- He opposed school vouchers.
- He voted YES on factoring mythical anthropogenic global warming into federal project planning.
- He has supported "age-appropriate" sex education for kindergartners, as if there is such a thing.
- While Obama has said he doesn't believe in faux marriage, he opposed California's Proposition 8, the one-man-one-woman marriage amendment, and voted against the constitutional ban on faux marriage.
- He called homosexuality "no more immoral than heterosexuality" and said it's "OK to expose 6-year-olds to gay couples."
- He "cast 130 'present' votes in the Illinois Senate," indicating an unwillingness to step up to the plate.
- He "sponsored resolution rejecting photo ID for voting."
- He endorsed an Illinois handgun ban, advocated banning semi-automatics (weapons firing one shot every time the trigger is pulled), and voted against prohibiting the frivolous lawsuits designed to destroy gun manufacturers.
- He supports nationalized medicine, and said that he wanted to insure the 47 million people without health insurance, a figure that includes illegal aliens.
All this, not to mention his associations with raving racist Reverend Wright, avowed "small-c communist" and ex-Weathermen bomber Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko and the socialist New Party of Chicago.
For you leftists who would go off half-cocked and defend the above, save your breath. My goal isn't to convince you to change your ideology. That is impossible. You can agree with Obama, you can disagree with him, but the point is that when viewing his record in its totality, no rational person will conclude that the few missing pieces in the change-unity-hope jigsaw puzzle prevent us from perceiving the big picture. An editor may not know my feelings on blueberry cupcakes or Allen wrenches, but, if he scours my work, he will find enough relevant information to know whether or not I'm suited to his publication. Likewise, those of us with ears to hear and eyes to see know what Obama is. We're not ducks.
Of course, to some, the give-'im-a-chance plea is a ploy, a political artifice used by snakes to silence critics. But these folks really aren't all that interesting. The ducks are more so, as what often drives them is man's lamentable propensity for rationalization.
Generally speaking, people have trouble facing hard truths; they live with many fears and want to believe the sun will come out tomorrow. They want to hope that Obama will really be that moderate, really be that liberal Utopian of their dreams, really be a pragmatist when push comes to shove, really make things better after all. Thus, what many are actually saying is, "Give my hope a chance! How dare you crush my dreams well before dawn! Do not deny me a few months of delusion." The problem is that this doesn't work for those of us who prefer to stare reality straight in the face. We know that, as a book title says, "Hope is not a strategy." Moreover, what you call giving Obama his (umpteenth) chance, we call driving the last nail into America's coffin.
Whatever the ducks' motivation, what they essentially suggest is comical. To wit: "A doctor who committed malpractice when operating on your toe, hand, leg and stomach should be allowed to operate on your brain because, by gum, he hasn't had a chance to work above the neck yet." Well, what can I say? If you would make such a decision, it probably couldn't do any harm, anyway. But the problem is that these owners of misfiring neurons have given Obama the chance to take the scalpel to the whole nation. And while I accept that people get the government they deserve, the problem is that I'm going to get the government they deserve.
The issue is not that Obama isn't being given a chance; it's that he has been given too many. But this is a persistent problem in our nation; in fact, we live in a second-chance society. Children are given too many chances to misbehave. Miscreants are given too many chances to commit crime. And, worst of all, the ducks are given too many chances to vote.
And the end result is that America just may have run out of chances.







































Yes, it was the Frog and the Scorpion when I heard it. There is nothing at all surprising about this guy. After the last 2 years of talking us into a ressession so that he could get elected we now have 7365 and falling.
How many chances do you thing the conservative republicans or all republican should have. Take responsibility for the train wreck that your majority created and grow up
weldon99
I’ll take as many as we got after the “Train Wreck” called Jimma Carter. I hope that “Hope and Change” Obama is not as bad as Jimma, but so far it looks like he will be. That does not mean I was happy with McCain or George 43. Both were too liberal for me.
Down to 7114 now. How low can you go?
“I could be snide and just say that I’ll give the President every bit the chance the Left gave George Bush. … The issue is not that Obama isn’t being given a chance; it’s that he has been given too many.”
So why be magnanimous? “Bush” him.
The market has spoken the Omessiah is a failure!
It was in the interest of fair-play that I said (post-election) I’d allow Obama a grace period to the nation ahead of politics, and on condition he didn’t threaten our security or start spending like a drunken Democrat.
That lasted less than a week.
In that time span he began dialogs with two state-sponsors of terrorism (Syria & Iran), endorsed Project Labor Agreements favoring union contractors as will drive up costs (PLAs struck down by 2002 federal court), closed Guantanamo and released a bevy of terrorists not cleared of charges (2/3 of whom have gone right back to prior activities – Media Matters whines this is unconfirmed, but the only confirmation we’ll get is when they’re recaptured or someone dies; we do know they intentionally vanished into the woodwork and if they are anything like Palestinian parolees will strike again), reversed Bush E.O.13258 & E.O.13422, and whined repeatedly of ‘Republican partisanship’ for having the temerity of wanting to read and debate his plans before voting them (Hey Bama, ‘bipartisan’ means you meet us half way, not we kiss your …). Since then he has gone on to stick us with the biggest bar tab in the whole long history of Democrat bar tabs. Well, it’s not like we didn’t expect it.
Obama revoked Bush E.O.13258 and E.O.3422 streamlining regulatory planning and review; which, in turn, amended Clinton E.O. 12866 but which Democrats accuse of politicizing the regulatory process (hey Dems, it’s regulation that politicizes commerce – doh!), depriving the V.P. of his token regulatory role (I don’t recall Chaney complaining), preventing agencies from setting new standards (this is a bad thing?), and of White House meddling (that would be like, what? – providing the missing oversight of agencies regularly making rules [i.e., laws] without any reference to Congress?).
And, that’s just his warm up pitch!
Bob Stapler:
Re: “Obama revoked Bush E.O.13258 and E.O.3422…”
I thought a president had to get congressional approval to revoke a prior president’s EO. Did I miss something?
Sedonaman,
Minor technicality. Technically: Obama ‘amended’ Bush just as Bush ‘amended’ Clinton. All three E.O.s are still on the books, but only the last one matters. My assumption is these particular E.O.s are applicable only to a President’s own administration and only applicable to the next guy to the degree he chooses to continue them. Bush decided his administration would provide oversight Congress neglected to provide. I recall there was some public outcry at the time demanding it, mostly coming from the left. There is no way Obama can reverse the effects of this earlier oversight. He also can’t rescind the principle or responsibility for executive oversight. So, why bother? Why not just quietly let it be known oversight will be lax. Obama is effectively saying oversight stands in the way of ‘our’ bureaucrats (who vote and think overwhelmingly Democrat) exploiting government contracts to fit the liberal social agenda. So, he is ‘suspending’ the oversight (at least while he’s in charge) that the earlier E.O. grants him, giving the green-light to fellow liberals to cause mischief.
What I found more interesting about the Obama E.O. is it conflicts with the federal appeals ruling. Possibly he (or one of his colleagues) made the change in innocent ignorance of the ruling. Possibly not, and they seriously contemplate a push to the next court level. If so, no sooner will some non-union contractor bring a suit then liberal forces can rally to have the lower court overturned. In that case, Obama may be acting hastily by not having first secured a more liberal SCOTUS. Possibly, he judges his big election numbers sufficient to guarantee popular support for it; effectively discouraging contractor redress. It is up to us then to frame that opinion more than they do; so, we better get busy. Likewise, we need to identify other surprises he has up his sleeve and get to shaping those also.
People (and liberals) should be asking: if there is nothing wrong in government agencies withholding contracts on the basis they aren’t unionized, why the slick maneuver to officially ‘look the other way’ without appearing to? Does government have a right to pressure private enterprise into unionizing? Is it proper or improper? For more than half a century, Congress, the courts, and a great many Americans have held it an abuse of power. Quite possibly that attitude has changed, at least among ordinary citizens (though I doubt it). Obama isn’t explicitly ordering an illegal behavior (has deniability) so much as opening a door. He leaves it to underlings to do that. Yet, he has to know he is encouraging those under him to violate a high-court ruling (i.e., law-breaking) of which they are unlikely unaware but which governs their behavior more than he does. Somehow, I doubt even most liberals had this in mind when they voted him in.
Possibly, someone else will read the order (see http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/ExecutiveOrderUseofProjectLaborAgreementsforFederalConstructionProjects/ ) and can tell me I’m misreading this (I’m sure some liberal will); which should prove interesting. ;-)
Bob Stapler:
I got a headache.