Remember the final Presidential debate? John McCain came out swinging, having decided that the place to hit Obama was on earmarks. He had a good argument, having accepted no earmarks himself, he pointed out that Obama was one of the top three pigs in the Senate pork pen.
Obama's defense was, let's face it, lame. He said, "well come on now guys... in the grand scheme of things, $8 billion dollars is nothing!!!"
Uh-huh... so now, why am I supposed to be impressed that he's going to cut 100 million from the budget in the next 90 days? Isn't that 1/80th of the number Obama already told us was "no big deal"... I mean I suck at math, but I know a turd when I see it.
Again, I'm not an Obama supporter, so perhaps my opinion doesn't matter. But you have to assume that some of the more middle-of-the-road marginal supporters out there are eventually going to notice that his presidential statements have absolutely no relationship to what he was telling us as a candidate.
A lot of people used the word "mandate" and "landslide" to describe Obama's victory last Novemeber, but the truth is that the result was a lot closer than Obama would like to consider, and I wonder how many moderate defections he can realistically withstand before his chances for re-election start to look murky?
UPDATE: Paul Krugman agrees with me.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I agree with you and so does Jake Tapper. Gibbs is terrible.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/04/todays-qs-for-4.html
As I've said before, if Obama ran on a platform of spending restraint and deficit control. Now that he's president, he's doing the exact opposite. If he had run on a platform of "I'm going to triple the national debt within my first 100 days of office," I think the election results would have been different. Only people who continue to drink the Obama kool-aid can look at these numbers with a straight face and say they look good.
Post a Comment