I agree with Kathryn Lopez that Americans are looking for a "sign of life". h/t Instapundit She's channeling Bill Clinton when he says Obama isn't bringing the hope. Still, that's even too kind given the way Obama campaigned. Wasn't "hope" one of the pillars of his campaign? Personally I don't look for a politician to give me hope, though I imagine there are circumstances in which we could all find ourselves doing that, even post-Cold War.
Whatever the case, Obama did seem to convince many people he represented some kind of hope. And all he's done since entering office is talk financial pain and gloom. Somehow there's something a little dishonest and even a bit disgraceful in that. And it wouldn't take much to convince me that, while he may be exceptionally bright, somewhere down inside, the man just isn't up to the job.
I think people are hungry for someone who is fed up with the way things are and who seem to believe in something enough to know there in an alternative worth fighting for. Some of the voices may be far from perfect, but Americans are looking for signs of the life of an alternative. And so if a representative pops up — someone who appears to have roots and energy, folks will cheer them on in the hopes there's a candidate here. Maybe not a presidential candidate, but a leader of some sort. Someone who can offer a vision of something other than a culture of bailout.
Today, Rick Santelli was that sign of life.
I never really expected Obama to be actually serious about the "hope and change" mantra because Bill Clinton used it in 1992 -- and even Carter has a little bit of it in his campaign. I am amused, with some cynicism, that it's worked like a charm every time to get Democrats elected to the presidency. Maybe the GOP should come up with an optimistic catch phrase that makes people feel good...but if so, it needs to actually practice what it preaches!
Posted by: Mark Turner | Friday, February 20, 2009 at 03:57 AM
In your "Obama isn't bringing hope" link, I noted that Clinton mentioned in the article that it would be good to paint the GOP as the party of "No".
I noticed that some of the Obama apologists are already making comments to that effect - the GOP being the party of "No" - on various blogs throughout the internet.
They are swallowing their rhetoric well and disseminating it as instructed. The GOP should be aware of this little "party of No" phrase and be able to deflect it intelligently.
Posted by: Mark Turner | Friday, February 20, 2009 at 04:06 AM
The party of No: No more billions down the rat hole! No more bailing out failing corporations! No more desperate attempts to keep people in homes they can't afford! No more protection of the unions! No more doom and gloom! No more new social programs! No more expansion of government regulatory agencies! No more stocking-footed travelers at the airport!
Hey, this "party of No" stuff is good. I say let's go for it.
Posted by: Jeanie | Friday, February 20, 2009 at 10:34 AM
No more paying for Europe's defense.
No more paying for GM bailout in the USA while they operate profitably in Brazil.
No more allowing Barney Frank and Chris Dodd to get away with grand larceny while being in the media as the champions of ethics in the banking and mortgage bailout crusades currently underway.
Orange jumpsuits for both of those swine.
Say YES to that.
And say YES to the FACT that BHo was elected to be the hapless Muslim lamb to preside over the dismemberment of US economic sovereignty.
Say goodnite, America.
Congratulations on the fastest decline into second class citizenry in the global marketplace, even outpacing the Soviet Union and Napoleon's France.
We, the People, let it happen.
Now, about this NO business.
NO more trips to Italy for Pelosi Galore.
NO more allowing Iran to get the bomb...now that the leprous UN has admitted they got one.
NO more mainstream media fanning of war crimes trials for GWB...despite seven years of no attacks.
NO more allowing the oil companies of the US to sit on our own oil reserves in order to speculate as futures traders on the global market.
NO more allowing BHo's WeatherUnderground Butt Buddy Bill Ayres walk around free.
NO more ACORN--- period.
NO more Harry Reid--- period.
NO more Al Sharpton's Gas--- period.
NO more Arnold SchwarzenKennedy--- period.
NO more CAIR--- period.
NO more Madrassas in the USA--- period.
NO more accomodations for Islam in USA public facilities.
NO more illegals in USA prisons--- death penalty for illegals committing felonies in the USA, and C-47 transport air drops without parachutes for misdemeanors.
NO more taxpayer funded anti-smoking ads on the TV. If i want to smoke and get lung cancer and die that is my choice.
NO more taxpayer funded abortion of human fetuses.
NO more Gay and Lesbian and Transgendered "inspired" curriculum in the elementary schools that are public.
NO more tax audit free living for any and all public officials at local, state and federal levels.
NO more borrowing for the Federal Government.
NO more deficit spending for the Federal Government.
NO more Federal Reserve Bank.
NO more fiat currency.
NO more homeless allowed to beg for money on city streets.
NO more free school lunches.
NO more "dual immersion" language programs in elementary school.
NO more illegal alien kids in USA public schools.
NO more citizenship for illegal aliens kids born in the USA.
NO more military aid to Mexico until the Mexican government allows US troops to take out the narco-trafficantes operating with impunity in Mexico proper.
NO more Hillary or Bill Clinton making foreign policy deals with their friends.
NO more BHo as president until he proves his citizenship as USA born.
Vote them out of existence or sue them out of existence under RICOH statutes.
Posted by: bear1909 | Friday, February 20, 2009 at 11:18 AM
"...BHo was elected to be the hapless Muslim lamb..."
Sorry--can't agree with the sentiment there. I didn't like it when the leftwing used stuff like "BusHitler," and I don't like it when you use things like "BHo." Why not try civil discourse?
I don't care if Obama is Christian, Muslim or something else--so you don't win points with me by calling him Muslim and thinking I'll be just as frightened by that as you are. It is his governmental plans, policies, and practices that I disagree with.
Posted by: Jeanie | Friday, February 20, 2009 at 02:23 PM
bear1909...is there something wrong with being Muslim? Why do people speak about it as if it is something terrible. You wouldn't mention his religion if he were Christian...oh wait...he is Christian and not Muslim!! I agree with some of the things you said and I am an Obama supporter! However, instead of blaming everything on President Obama...not BHO...at least give him more than 1 month and 3 days to do something.
Rome wasn't built in a day and you can't please all of the people all of the time.
Posted by: Karen | Friday, February 20, 2009 at 04:29 PM
What in blazes is wrong with BHO? Do you also find FDR, JFK, and LBJ offensive? Does Obama get some special protection against people using his own initials? Silly.
Posted by: CaptainVictory | Saturday, February 21, 2009 at 08:03 AM
bear1909, you need to chill out. Seriously. C-47 transport without a parachute for misdemeanors? Death penalty for all illegal aliens who commit a felony? Do you care about justice at all?
Captain Victory - I think that what people think is wrong with BHo is the fact that the "O" is not capitalized, which suggests a certain pronunciation - and that this acronym is not on a par with FDR, JFK, and LBJ. Besides, BHO hardly rolls off the tongue the way that they do. B H O! No - it sounds awkward and has an uncomfortable similarity to "B.O."
Posted by: Gadfly | Saturday, February 21, 2009 at 08:32 AM
"at least give him more than 1 month and 3 days to do something."
He's done something. $800 billion worth of something. $800 Billion worth of pork. He's proposing billions more on top of that. He has signed legislation vastly expanding federal control of the healthcare industry. He has signed legislation kneecapping the inspector generals. He has slowed or stopped increasing domestic oil production.
He has burned through the benefit of the doubt.
Socialism is not hope.
Posted by: Stephen Macklin | Saturday, February 21, 2009 at 08:35 AM
Why not try civil discourse? Well, that certainly worked well for the last 8 years, and produced great results in the last election, no? And of course our Leftist betters are being oh-so-civil now that they're in power, right?
I'm pretty well convinced that in this day and age, civil discourse is for chumps.
Posted by: DSmith | Saturday, February 21, 2009 at 08:38 AM
O is setting himself up for a big fall in 2010 if he keeps this up. While I don't think that the Repub's will take back either house, large gains in either (or both) the House and Senate will serve as a direct repudiation of O's policies and the Dems governance. O's was considered to be the second coming for the Dems and was expected to work miracles (tongue in cheek of course but many voters fall into this column). And based upon what I've seen so far, I don't think that O (or his admin) can take much direct criticism and remain presidential. They'll react ot it the same way that reacted to Joe the Plumber, Rick Santelli; that is to say POORLY. Clinton doesn't pop off at the mouth for no reason, he sees that O is screwing up so he gave the young lad a bit of advice.
Posted by: volfan | Saturday, February 21, 2009 at 08:55 AM
" Clinton doesn't pop off at the mouth for no reason, he sees that O is screwing up so he gave the young lad a bit of advice."
Advice he won't listen to. Obama is a narcissistic megalomaniac. Besides, there will not be an election in 2010, at least not ones we used to know. There will be totalitarian style ones ala 1930's Germany. Obama taking over the census combined with massive voter fraud and intimidation will ensure that the Democrats will remain in power no matter how the majority votes.
Read this...
Understanding Obama: The Making of a Fuehrer
http://www.faithfreedom.org/obama.html
Posted by: Ennis | Saturday, February 21, 2009 at 10:01 AM
The Hope and Change themes were Axelrod's doing. You'll notice that he'd employed a similar appeal when advising Deval Patrick.
I suspect that what we're now witnessing is Obama's genuine temperament. It's likely that he's a pessimistic, condemnatory, and highly partisan persona by nature.
Posted by: Barry Hussein Obama | Saturday, February 21, 2009 at 10:04 AM
All this great news already and the "weakness" wars have not even started yet. Truly, Democracies self destruct.
Posted by: ohwell | Saturday, February 21, 2009 at 10:26 AM
That Obama doesn't have a clue is becoming obvious to everyone - even Obama.
Posted by: Bandit | Saturday, February 21, 2009 at 11:12 AM
All of those Democrats who signed a $800 Billion Dollar Bill with out reading it; they have to pay at the next election.
Posted by: Ron Nord | Saturday, February 21, 2009 at 11:24 AM
Hey, speaking of who's saying what: did Gibbs really say as one response to Santinelli that "...[Santinelli] hasn't read the bill"?
Sheesh. No one in Congress read it before voting on it.
...and from the president's speech this morning, it's obvious the White House still hasn't read it.
Fail.
Posted by: davis,br | Saturday, February 21, 2009 at 12:00 PM
Hey gadfly -- Sorry dude, you are way off the mark.
Please read Karen's post again: "President Obama...not BHO... ." All caps. She's not complaining about capitalization. She's complaining about using the letters "BHO." All caps.
You say BHO "has an uncomfortable similarity to 'B.O.'" Who are you -- the language police? We didn't pick his initials, his parents did. Sorry if it makes you "uncomfortable" when people actually use them.
And "rolling off the tongue"? That's just lame. Not to mention inaccurate.
This is exactly the kind of silliness I'm talking about. BHO should not get to live by special rules. Why do you seem to think otherwise?
Posted by: CaptainVictory | Saturday, February 21, 2009 at 09:31 PM