Carville’s Panic Attack

Stepping up unmanned vehicle attacks in Pakistan is tough? Killing Bin Laden when we knew his exact whereabouts for a predictable period of time is tough? Essentially these are continuations of previous policy, so I guess to extent that Obama campaigned against them, and then decided to go along, yeah, I guess those were “tough” decisions.
Also, Carville didn’t mention that some of those indictments ought to include some Democrat stars like Barney Frank or Chris Dodd.

And it never dawns on that nasty old snapping turtle Carville that Obama’s in the trouble he’s in now because of how “well” Carville et al did then…

President Obamas biggest problem is that his life experience hasnt prepared him with the mechanisms for dealing with failure. Most people who reach the age of 50 have the benefit of scraping their knees on the hard realities of life. Most people learn not to take those things personally, but to recognize a failure when we see it, and do something about it ( first step – admit you have a problem!). Our President hasnt had the benefit of these character building events.

Before being President, he hadnt experienced failure. both of his autobiographies make it clear, that this is the mercurial career and life of a man in a hurry. The result of life pattern is that we now have a man who mistakes failures for personal attacks by his opponents. Rather than take corrective steps ( sometimes called in military strategy a ‘retreat’) he doubles down, because he cant accept the idea of the “other side winning”.

Where that puts us as a society is that we are in the position of being led by someone who simply cant back away from a bad idea because if he did, then someone might notice that he doesn’t know what he’s doing, and we simply cant have that now can we?

Carville is concerned about the “morality-fascinated.” Kind of says it all, doesn’t it? Those darn ideas of right and wrong always getting in the way of a good old cynical “by any means necessary” presidential campaign.

Panic is unhelpful when one is on fire, I doubt that it will prove a beneficial in any office environment, even the Oval Office. What Carville means of course is that it is time to do the hitherto unthinkable because that is precisely what has occurred, every day, every hour of the Obama administration as far as the Left, James Carville and Barack Obama can determine. That ain’t changin’ because their issues are not with Republicans and financial markets merely but foremost with Reality. Yeah, big R Reality. http://whenfallsthecoliseum.com/2011/09/14/the-plague-of-swans/

Understatement of the year: President Obama may have his shortcomings…

It looks to me that he’s saying “We need to keep doing what we’re doing, but louder and more combative.”

They will never learn.

I hate to belabor the point, but how the [heck] is the decision to get Bin Ladin “gutsy”? What was he going to say, no? Could you imagine the firestorm that would have ensued if it came out?

Similarly, his decision to do a surge in Afghanistan looks a lot less impressive when you consider the context. Coming off Bush’s successful Iraq surge, it’s a straightforward attempt to replicate his predecessor’s success– and even then the move was accompanied by months of hand-wringing and paralysis. Only when the criticism over Obama’s indecision reached a crescendo did he OK the surge– and even then it was smaller than requested and balanced by a self-defeating public commitment to withdraw from Afghanistan 18 months later (regardless of the situation on the ground). Obama’s decision came late and straddled the competing factions in his party and his own administration. He essentially punted.

Authorizing drone strikes in putative ally Pakistan (which he’d campaigned on) WAS a fairly daring move on his part. So I’ll grant you that.

Mr. Mead, apart from the prospect of some jail time, how would you attempt to instill some basic morality (and basic business sense) in those bankers who hold the world economy in the palms of their hands?

I’m not saying it’s impossible; I am genuinely interested to know how you would go about doing it, particularly in the near-term.

“…He has made decisions — on Afghanistan, on drone attacks in Pakistan and on the raid to get bin Laden — that were gutsy and hard, whether you agree or disagree with the choices he made…”

Do you actually believe that these decisions were gutsy and hard? Maybe you need a simple taste of military life or doing something really GUTSY or HARD in your life.

I swear to [goodness], Americans are getting to be [the kind of people who do not measure up to my idea of manliness].

“…creationism-loving, global-warming-denying, immigration-bashing, Social-Security-cutting, clean-air-hating, mortality-fascinated, Wall-Street-protecting Republicans…”

Translation:
1. “Creationism” — Bitter clingers to Biblical religion taken on faith
2. “Global Warming” — the proper liberal religion, also taken on faith
3. “Social Security cutting” — bankrupt Ponzi scheme falling in on itself by all measures
4. “clean-air-hating” — unending intrusive government regulations by unelected bureaucrats for everything anyone does anywhere
5. “mortality [sic]-fascinated” — (“morality”?) let Hollywood be our moral guide (see #1) and whatever happens, abortion is the answer
6. “Wall-Street-protecting” — Treasury Sec Tim Geithner: ultimate Wall Street insider

“He has made decisions — on Afghanistan, on drone attacks in Pakistan and on the raid to get bin Laden — that were gutsy and hard, whether you agree or disagree with the choices he made. ”

Mr Mead you should be a bit more forceful in stating that Obama has been successful only in the areas Obama has gotten in touch with his inner Bush.

Obama should pull and LBJ and leave with what little dignity he has left. But he won’t. He is like Carville, stuck on stupid. Hey Jimbo! Its the economy, stupid!

#5 Willy: I hate to be picky, but he actually said mortality-fascinated (as in death) not morality-fascinated. I think that statement is similarly revealing, but your criticism was off the mark.

“…I realize that we are on the brink of a crazy person running our nation.”

Mr Carville, we have a crazy person running our nation NOW.

I sit in front of the television and shudder at the thought of one of these creationism-loving, global-warming-denying, immigration-bashing, Social-Security-cutting, clean-air-hating, mortality-fascinated, Wall-Street-protecting Republicans running my country.

I tend to agree with ChazMartels.

It’s not just that Obama is wrong about regulation choking business, or job creation with the highest industrialized tax rate in the world, or the dangers of debt, or even the idiocy of placating tyrants with “dialogue.”

Obama’s troubles run much, much deeper than simply gross incompetence as CEO USA.

Because Obama has surrounded himself with men of like mind like James Carville – so utterly void of decency and light, that they are not just wrong about managing our government.

They are wrong about everything.

The takeaway message for conservatives from Cpl. Cueball’s panic attack:

• Don’t get cocky.
• Organize locally.
• Get out the vote in Nov 2012.
• But above all — don’t get cocky.

Based on his choice of slurs alone, Carville is either delusional (at best) or slanderous.

1) “creationism-loving”

Problem being? A creationist as president would mean absolutely nothing in terms of education at the local level. And there are plenty of Americans who believe in creation; the idea that they should never be represented by anyone is absurd.

2) “global-warming-denying”

Let’s pretend that data doesn’t actually show a cooling trend during the last decade. Let’s pretend the East Anglia malfeasance is irrelevant, as is its enormous impact on all of climate science since pretty much every study favoring AGW has been based on work that is now known to be fraudulent. Let’s ignore that recent CERN paper pointing out that we need to revise all our models to include cosmic rays, which points the finger straight back at the sun. Or let’s be rational instead. Nobody’s denying global warming is possible or even that CO2 plays a role, but the people suggesting the science is settled are zealots, political parasites, and those informed solely by soundbytes. The idea that a lot of caution and further study are required before crushing the economy under carbon-control regulations is hardly crazy.

3) “immigration-bashing”

Has Carville grown so used to repeating this slur that he’s come to internalize it, or is he simply that stupid? I can think of no Republican candidate, not one, who opposes immigration. What they oppose is illegal immigration. Does he not know there’s a difference?

4) “Social-Security-cutting”

Another slur. The idea that the program has to change or die isn’t radical–it’s common sense and inescapable reality. But no one has talked seriously about making changes for current or near-term beneficiaries, only for future generations. What do I care of Social Security makes some changes before I get into the system–it’s that or I never get into it at all!

5) “clean-air-hating”

Seriously, Jim? Nobody hates clean air, you idiot. But many, many people have reason to hate overly onerous government regulations on the subject, particularly if they benefit political cronies. Europe’s carbon-trading scheme is rife with fraud and abuse.

6) “mortality-fascinated”

Um… what? Is this some kind of sneaky way of saying all Republicans (or at least those running for president) want poor people to die? If not, I have no idea what he’s saying. But if that’s what he means, it’s just plain slander. Saying we can’t afford everyone’s medical bills is not equivalent to saying “Just die already”. If this is what he’s on about then he’s bashing not the candidates, but a grotesque caricature.

7) “Wall-Street-protecting”

Wall Street donated more heavily to Obama than to McCain. Big business loves excessive regulation and crony capitalism, and you don’t get any cronier than electing a Chicagocrat. It would be foolish to deny there are big-business interests on the Republican side too, but by and large the special interest groups have been voting in the D column for quite a long time now.

There is no political solution to an economic problem; Government needs to
take its over-controlling hands off the
wheel and let the economy straighten out
by itself.

Carville is a failed political career searching for a candidate. He is lost and irrelevant. His former macho is now minnie mouse-o.

Listening to the Republican debate, I remarked that democrats who are listening also must be sick at their stomach to see so much talent there and so many good programs discussed.

Carville proved that. He is terrified at people like US running HIS country but he is also repulsed at obama’s team. What is his preferred model?

Carville’s prescription reveals the thinking of the far left democrats. He hates the idea of cutting government spending, of fixing Social Security (There’s nothing wrong with it, he says!), of setting an energy policy that is not based on the theory (religion) of man made global warming, and of the government not being able to pick winners and losers on Wall Street. (Let’s frog march those we consider failures out in handcuffs!)

He’s supposed to be a very smart fellow, but when he cannot see how the Blue model is failing, it is instructive. There will be some panic mode actions taken by the Obamites and maybe some of them will follow Carville’s ideas. We live in interesting times.

Three years of Obama – the VERY BEST the Democrats have ever had to offer – has given us:

- $14 trillion deficit
- US in a depression
- ruined economy
- US credit rating downgraded

- ignores the War Powers Act
- gas/food/clothing prices skyrocketing
- 5 wars, one with a record death toll
- foreign policy disasters

- raiding the public pension fund to avoid the debt ceiling

- lost 800+ seats for his own party

- poll numbers in the toilet

- 44 million Americans on food stamps
- Over half the states suing to get out of Obamacare. 

- 1 in 4 mortgages under water

- ATF gunrunning scandal unfolding
- Solyndra scandal unfolding
ANYBODY BUT OBAMA!

If Obama decides not to run, who would the Democrats nominate?

I’d think Hillary Clinton is too tarnished by the Administration’s foreign affairs blunders and lack of support for Israel.

Who else? Evan Bayh maybe? Any other suggestions?

Carville is nothing if not entertaining. There is no way for Obama to fire or spin his way out of this mess. He outsourced his entire legislative program to the left/far left leaders of the Democratic party, as BHO is one of them.
Impossible for Obama to stand up and say my belief system is wrong, has failed and I will change.
Even worse for Obama is the protection from the MSM bubble that deflects any real criticism or self-analysis.
Dick Morris was correct when he said voters would realize that moderate Democrats no longer exist. 2012 will be defeat of many Red State Dem senators, a Republican President and the Democrats reduced to a power only in the North East, Left Coast and Illionis.

All Obama’s promises (and premises) come with an expiration date (and counting 10,9,8,7…)
He’d also have to fire the heads of Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac and investigate the previous heads, and Barney Frank and Chris Dodd…

NOTE: I have notified Attack Watch of this comment.

Actually, the federal government can be effective in economic matters, by ensuring, through regulation and enforcement, that companies have a level playing field on which to base their decisions.

If inside trading is punished effectively, there would be less temptation to indulge in it. If patent suits are settled quickly, there would be less incentive to launch them. If pollution controls are enforced, companies would be more willing to follow them (and pass the costs onto the customers).

Unfortunately, we have gangster government, in which certain industries are given benefits (ethanol and solar in particularly) and laws are enforced unevenly, if at all.

Wow! Can I get a job as a “political advisor” like Carville. Actually, any AP high school student could do better than this advice.

1. Fire people! Sounds like the political campaign equivalent of yelling fire in a crowded theater. Why fire the economic advisers? Because they applied obviously bankrupt neo-Keynesian nostrums or because they didn’t expand the money supply and public debt ENOUGH? Give us a hint, please.

2. Indict People! Again, for what? Correct me if I’m wrong but being “responsible for utterly ruining the economic fabric of our country” may indeed be a bad thing but it’s not an indictable offense. We know that fraud and abuse was committed in the mortgage loan implosion. But, after your administration (along with Bush) shoveled billions of unsupervised subsidies to TBTF banks how do you credibly put that toothpaste back in the tube?

3. Do It Like A Democrat! This statement means, to most people, tax and spend. And, those same most people are now tired of it and are far from convinced that stimulus on top of stimulus and debt on top of debt are going to accomplish anything positive for investment, production and job growth. I can’t imagine that having Teleprompter Barry do the talking will make much difference.

4. Hold Fast To An Explanation. Har, har! Unfortunately, telling people what happened and what is going to happen will elicit this response. “Well, how come you haven’t rolled out the “successful” policies in the last 3 years? And then he says don’t say that things are improving because they are obviously not. Really!?! You can’t make this stuff up!

If that’s the best the Dems have, it amounts to a 3 Card Monte confidence game, i.e. mislead and confuse the electorate. The campaign strategy well is truly dry.

Perhaps he should have made some useful suggestions rather than what amounts to more of the same but with gritted teeth and iron will. My own suggestion would be to learn from the mistakes and cut private business some slack by reducing red tape, promoting domestic energy, reforming the tax structure, curbing the union bosses and resubmitting ObamaCare legislation for a rewrite.

The “mortality-loving” goes hand-in-hand with “There were enough deaths at Stalingrad to make the entire tea party collectively orgasm.”

Carville is trying to riff on the Tea Party/CNN sponsored Republican debate when the crowd responded to the number of executions in Texas. So, in addition to branding the Tea Party as stupid, white and racist; they are also death-loving.

Good luck with that.

Hmmm…:”There are certain people in American finance who haven’t been held responsible for utterly ruining the economic fabric of our country. Demand from the attorney general a clear status of the state of investigation concerning these extraordinary injustices imposed upon the American people.”

Just like OJ searching for the real murderer..

Carville’s approach is simply Obama’s “it’s everyone’s fault but mine” tactic taken to the extreme. Carville admits we’re on the wrong path, but then agitates for more of the same on steroids. Obama looks sane by comparison. Maybe THAT’S his real strategy.

Looks as if chief of staff Bill Daley could be the designated scapegoat. Politico has a long story up about Daley’s shortcomings at the White House with anonymous backstabbing quotes from senior Obama aides (it is clear that the 2008 campaign crowd don’t like Daley and regard him as an outsider) and some nasty swipex that obviously came from Harry Reid’s office.

Daley is an obvious target for Dems looking for someone to blame but I still think that the campaign crowd — Plouffe, Axelrod, Messina, et al, — are the ones Obama should fire.

Carville is not altogether wrong. Economic theory points to the existence of huge market failures in the financial sector. Just look at the economic disasters that repeatedly emanate from this sector. Carefully designed but very tough regulation of this sector is therefore good economics. This is not a left versus right issue (See for example the tough regulation proposals just put forward in the U.K.).

And it is also exceptionally good politics. Just check out the opinion polls for the widespread and quite proper hostility in which the American public holds Wall Street – which is also an old tradition in our politics, as Prof. Mead well knows. Not only could Obama win by adopting a vigorous anti-Wall Street platform, so could the first Republican with the smarts and balls to adopt a right-wing populist anti-Wall Street platform.

Which raises the interesting question why neither party wants to go there. I can think of three reasons.

First, no doubt a large part of it is the simple corruption of our political class across the spectrum. Wall Street extracts monopoly rents through things like implicit government guarantees for Too Big To Fail banks, and those rents flow back into politics through myriad channels, harnessing the political system to the disasterous aims of the financial class.

Second, if Wall Street wants to harness politics, so does Politics want to harness Wall Street. As a lot of people are observing, crony capitalism is the inner essence of the Obama strategy, the grimy fingers of the Chicago machine smeared across the nation at large.

Third, perhaps in the end most important, is the intellectual feebleness of our elites. Not having bothered to look seriously into one [darn] thing, these people just just go along with the convenient idea that supporting a competitive free-market system is the same as cosying up to Big Business, Wall Strett in particular. It is not.

It is very sad that America is in the state that it is in right now… having chosen a person mostly on the basis of the color of his skin and his race to be the country’s next President, it is now faced with an imbecile charlatan of a politician who has no business running anything let alone being POTUS.

Just imagine – a 47 year old man who has held no private sector job worth talking about in his whole life(“community organizing” is not exactly a job) is suddenly elected as the chief executive of the world’s only super power only to prove how utterly out of depth he is…

Even God cannot save America at this point -and it pains me to say this.