Image 01 Image 03

“from the very beginning, Obama was playing a long game”

“from the very beginning, Obama was playing a long game”

The inflammatory Newsweek cover, and the heaping of praise on Obama by Andrew Sullivan, distract from the most important point of Sullivan’s article at The Daily Beast, quoted in the title above.

Obama has accomplished a lot for the Left in America.  He wants to accomplish a lot more.  Given time, he will.

Failing to recognize this long game is one of the dumbest mistakes we can make.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.



Hire a Congress which can and will stop him.

“Obama has accomplished a lot for the Left in America. He wants to accomplish a lot more. Given time, he will.”

I agree (thanks for the link, btw), with one quibble: Obama is betting that the changes already made (massive debt financing, ObamaCare, a vastly increased federal bureaucracy) won’t be undone, even if he is not reelected. He’s counting on bureaucratic inertia and the tendency of Congress to take the current situation as a starting point to stymie any real effort to undo what he and the progressives have done. I recommend Stanley Kurtz’s “Radical in Chief,” a political biography of Obama and American Socialism from the 70s on, to understand what is going on here. It’s a great book.

If we’re to have any chance to prove Obama’s bet wrong, he has to be defeated in this election.

    For me, the ultimate question is “what happens when the current model collapses?”

    Sooner or later, gravity wins out. We can entertain delusions for a while, but eventually, we’re going to have to face up to facts – we can’t afford all the goodies we’ve promised to each other. We’re either going to accept reality or be dragged, kicking & screaming, back to it, but it’s going to happen.

    The left’s project ultimately fails because it doesn’t work.

Donald Douglas | January 16, 2012 at 5:23 pm

I just can’t stand Andrew Sullivan. And the whole thing reminds us of how bad mainstream journalism has become. My comments on this, with heavy debunking: ‘Here’s Andrew Sullivan’s ‘Why Are Obama’s Critics So Dumb?’ Piece at Newsweek’.

No doubt we have to get rid of Obama, that’s for sure.

I agree with the Professor’s assessment. However, I cringe when I see someone link Sullivan.

We certainly didn’t need that guy to tell us anything new-

Obama told us his plan–if you could find it before it was scrubbed from the internet.

@Phineas Fahrquar-

Yes, we all fear the tipping point. But, I’m tad more optimistic.

Unlike most other countries, The United States was born of individualism–self-reliance. Our laws, our form of government, reflect that.

Americans have never known another way. We have never been conquered, never occupied, never changed our form of government since it’s founding.

In short, Americans have never been “kept”. I trust they, as a people, never will.

Sure, like a lot of governing principles that work well on paper, creating a majority dependent class–use popular democracy (mob rule) to stifle then overrun the remaining independent majority–always fail to consider the human spirit.

As Americans, I like our chances.

And, I;ll say again–

The most dangerous word in America today is not “socialism”.

It is democracy.

Voting in a Congress with Conservative majorities in both houses will not stop Obama by it self. He’ll simply veto each act that seems to undo his Marxist policies and wait for the veto to be upheld when the super-majority doesn’t override his veto. Then our strategy would have to be that we keep Congress controlled after the 2014 elections; a very tough route to walk.

We need both Congressional houses in Conservative control and we need a Conservative president. Unfortunately, with Romney supposedly in the lead for the nomination and Ron Paul perhaps contending, we’re in trouble.

I’m hoping the so-called polls are wrong about Romney but we’ll find out soon.

As an aside… did Andrew Sullivan ever find out for sure whether Malia and Sasha are actually Barack’s daughters or not?

A calm, sane perspective of eloquently waiting to do things until someone else runs away with the ball. You see? It’s a nuanced and sophisticated long game. It’s just like Being There with Chauncy Gardener.

Obama has pretty much decided to take his ball and go home already. Imagine 4 years of Obama with a Republican controlled House and Senate.
Obama has to be careful not to show what this would be like, else a “do-thing Congress” could be replaced with a “Pigheaded President” as the problem to be solved by this election. His own meme could be turned on it’s head.
Many independents, who might vote for Obama otherwise, will not stand for 4 years of name-calling and finger-pointing.

I would argue the exact opposite. Obama may be “accomplishing a lot for the left” in terms of specific bullet points, but in doing so he is completely discrediting the blue social model on which he stands. The best thing for the Democratic party imo is for Obama to lose. A win would do much the same as Bushs re-election did for the GOP. I would take it a step further and say that Obama will destroy the Democratic party for a generation. Especially when people wake up and see the tab thats due as a result of this president’s policies.

    janitor in reply to Jaydee77. | January 16, 2012 at 7:21 pm

    I’m a lifelong active Republican. I am hugely disappointed at what is going on behind the scenes in the Republican establishment, blowing an opportunity to take back this country. Please forgive me, everyone for my bitterness over the past week. We already have an arrogant unqualified unprincipled individual in office with only one goal, to be the president.

    Today, from Allen West’s newsletter (his numbers are vastly different from the Newsweek article)m and perhaps someone could explain:

    …the President sent a letter to Congress requesting another $1.2 trillion line of credit by raising the debt ceiling… President Obama has accumulated more debt, just shy of $5 trillion, than all Presidents from President Washington to the conclusion of President Clinton’s eight years.

    President Obama once called President George W. Bush “unpatriotic” for accumulating $4 trillion of debt in eight years. One has to wonder, what does President Obama call himself?

    In the past three years, President Obama has supervised budget deficits of $1.42 trillion, $1.29 trillion, and $1.3 trillion. As a comparative analysis, President George W. Bush’s highest annual deficit was in 2008, his final year (Nancy Pelosi was Speaker of the House, Harry Reid was Senate Majority Leader) and it was $500 billion.

Americans are too busy watching TV shows and playing video games to pay any attention to what is going on under their noses. Then they vote for the most beautiful candidate preferably democrat since everyone know republicans don’t care about anybody but themselves. This country now worships beauty and does’t realize in voting for obama they are voting for their own death knell.

Well said. Beware the long game. Without the spectre of re-election hanging over his head, a 2nd term will be a leftist fantasy come true. And what makes anyone think Congress – or the Constitution for that matter – will slow him down much after what we’ve seem this term with reconciliation, “recess” appointments, Executive Orders, etc.

“from the very beginning, Obama was playing a long game” – yeah but this is mostly hindsight analysis which mixes hypotheticals with loose facts. kind of like whe they claimed the stimulus saved jobs after it was revealed said stimulus came nowhere near the effects promised.

i beleive orwell would call this “rectifying” history.

“first they ignore you, then they mock you, then they attack you, then you win” – Ghandi (this should be the motto of the tea party”