Posted by: Debby Durkee | February 18, 2010

Real meaning of Bayh’s resignation.

Debby's Web Finds
The real meaning of Bayh’s resignation.

Most of us not under the influence of the mainstream media or the left-wing bubble of Washington, D.C. see clearly why Indiana Senator Evan Bayh resigned. He’s not a man of the left, and he didn’t want to support the leftists who are currently in charge in Washington, D.C. The following is from an unsigned editorial from the Wall Street Journal:

The real story, of which Mr. Bayh’s frustration is merely the latest sign, is the failure once again of liberal governance.

For the fourth time since the 1960s, American voters in 2008 gave Democrats overwhelming control of both Congress and the White House. Republicans haven’t had such large majorities since the 1920s. Yet once again, Democratic leaders have tried to govern the country from the left, only to find that their policies have hit a wall of practical and popular resistance.

Democrats failed in the latter half of the 1960s, as the twin burdens of the Great Society and Vietnam ended the Kennedy boom and split their party. They failed again after Watergate, as Congress dragged Jimmy Carter to the left and liberals had no answer for stagflation. They failed a third time in the first two Bill Clinton years, as tax increases and HillaryCare led to the Gingrich Congress before Mr. Clinton salvaged his Presidency by tacking to the center. Snip –

Even as everyone from John Podesta, to Joe Biden, to Pelosi, Reid, liberal pundits and Obama and his Chicago politicos have tried to blame the “obstructionist” Republicans, the real truth is that Americans don’t want what the leftist Democrats are peddling, and they are saying it loudly and clearly for anyone who’s listening. But, when you have an agenda that you can almost feel is coming to fruition, the urge to force it on the country is difficult to resist. And, when you have someone (or some group) in power that can’t see past a single-minded attitude that they know best, they don’t care whether they drive the country off a cliff in pursuit of their dreams.

The real source of this mess is the agenda that Democrats have tried to ram through the political system. Far from offering new ideas to reform the welfare state or compete better against rising global powers, Democrats have with rare exception tried to impose the same spending, tax and regulatory agenda that failed in the 1960s, 1970s and 1990s. Mr. Obama was a new face promising new hope, but his ideas are as old as the average Congressional Chairman.

To fix the economy, Democrats sent federal spending to peacetime heights in the name of replacing private investment with “public demand.” But instead of spurring recovery, this spending spree has retarded it by frightening the public and business about future tax increases and the rising burden of public debt. The new jobs Democrats promised still haven’t arrived, and while the recovery should finally produce job growth this year, Americans know they have received little for their $862 billion in “stimulus.”

The rest of Mr. Obama’s liberal agenda has foundered on its own overreaching implausibility. To fight the speculative threat of global warming, Democrats have tried to impose vast new taxes to raise energy prices. To address rising health-care costs, they proposed huge new health subsidies and political control of medical decisions. Medicare is heading toward bankruptcy, yet Mr. Obama’s response is to make the entire health-care system like Medicare. And to fix the financial system, they have declared war on bankers while proposing reforms that would do little to prevent future bank bailouts.

The central contradiction in modern liberal politics is that Otto von Bismarck’s entitlement state for cradle to grave financial security is no longer affordable. The model has reached the limit of its ability to tax private income and still allow enough economic growth to finance its transfer payments.

You can see this in bankrupt Greece, where government spends 52% of GDP; or in California and New York, where the government-employee unions have pushed tax rates to punishing levels and the states still can’t pay their bills. Americans can see that this is where Mr. Obama’s agenda is also taking Washington, and this is why they are rejecting it.

Please read it all here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704804204575069520491303964.html

The only way I can explain the president and his cohorts’ decision to keep doing everything that we can plainly see is wrong for the country is that Obama sees himself as the photo negative of Ronald Reagan. The left can’t stand that Reagan brought down the USSR. Reagan stuck to his guns on what he knew was right for the country — lower taxes, a tough stance with the USSR, “Tear down this wall.” — He trusted his instincts and listened to the American people.

Obama will trust his own instincts no matter how out of line they are with the American people because he sees himself as a great man. He wants to fundamentally change the country. He can’t do that by just a fix to the health care problem or doing things the way Clinton did in order to put the country (and himself) on the right track. He wants to control health care, and he and the left want to bring down capitalism. This is Obama’s “tear down this wall” moment. His narcissism won’t allow him to be any less of a stalwart on this than Reagan was on that.

Reagan was for America and Americans. Obama is against America and Americans. He’s the exact opposite. He’s trying to tear down Reagan’s wall. I hope I’m wrong. Maybe he and the Democrats will finally learn something from Bayh’s abandonment of Washington and the party, however, if there are clearer heads surrounding the president, I certainly don’t see them.

And, as if to solidify my belief in what Obama’s goals are, I discovered an interview, conducted by Andrew Breitbart with Dr. John C. Drew, an acquaintance of Obama’s from his Occidental College days in 1980. Now a Republican who was a Marxist in college, Drew remembers young Barry as arguing a Marxist-Leninist view. He called young Barry Obama a “pure Marxist-socialist.”

“He definitely saw America as the enemy.” Obama believed a revolution would happen in the United States, and he believed the people would rise up to overthrow the wealthy. He believed the ruling elite rigged the economic system to keep people poor. Now you know why we have no record of Obama’s college days. You can hear the entire interview here:  http://www.breitbart.tv/college-acquaintance-young-obama-was-pure-marxist-socialist/

//

Bookmark and Share

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: