Wednesday, November 07, 2012
Time does not permit me to look at the news much this morning or, fortunately perhaps, to ruminate for too long on how a country -- Is this really America? -- could actually reelect such a horrendous president.
For now, I will share two post-election thoughts.
First, I take some comfort in James Taranto's latest column, which made a tongue-in-cheek case for reelecting Barack Obama, of which the following paragraph gives a taste:
If Obama is re-elected, he will inherit this mess from himself. There will be no blaming George W. Bush for a two-term Obama presidency. History will hold Obama accountable for the results, and the electorate will hold his party accountable in 2014 and 2016. As H.L. Mencken observed: "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.""This mess" includes onerous tax increases on "rich" people making more than two hundred fifty thousand a year that will automatically kick in at the end of the Bush "tax cuts", and ObamaCare's new taxes and regulations, which were designed to start during the presidential term after Obama's first. Of course, Obama's cheerleaders in the press will resolutely ignore (or at least refuse to connect) whatever dots they see, so it will fall to the "alternative" media to make sure the blame goes to where it belongs: to Obama, his party, and anyone else who feels that the needs of some justify theft from others.
The time horizon for pro-capitalists has quite likely gotten much shorter, but perhaps in this way, the task is easier.
Second, I see that Scott "Elizabeth Warren: Not Who She Says She Is" Brown lost. This is deservedly so, and good riddance to him. I didn't follow his campaign closely, but his obsession with Warren's disputable claims of Amerindian heritage caused him to end up sounding like he'd be first in line to vote for a real Elizabeth Warren. Memo to GOP: Learn from this. The way to defeat an opponent is to say something to the effect of, "My opponent is wrong. I am better, and this is why." Follow this with actual arguments.
Barack Obama did not win comfortably. He has no mandate. If America is so brain-dead as to actually want this non-entity for President again, our goose is cooked. But this "win" seemed more like something happening by default. Perhaps if voters had had a clearer and more inspiring choice, the result would have been different. Perhaps Scott Brown wasn't the only Republican who sounded too much like his opponent, but only the most obvious one. Obama -- or the man who first signed ObamaCare into law in his own state? A man who wants to run a massive welfare state somehow -- or one whose Vice President wants to save the massive welfare state by slowing its rate of growth? This wasn't really much of a choice, was it?
Today: Reworded a sentence.