[Swiftwater Gazette] Blank Screen

[elle]

I'm thinking the races in Va & NJ are an early referendum on O'Baby....if the Republicans  prevail some Dems may back up a bit on their support of some of these wild policies. being promoted to 'save' America.
 
 Russian helicopters???Did I hear correctly?? When our economy  & umemployment are on the skids???)
 
elle
 
 
--- On Sun, 10/18/09, Brad Haslett <flybrad at gmail.com> wrote:


From: Brad Haslett <flybrad at gmail.com>
Subject: [Swiftwater Gazette] Blank Screen
To: "Letters to the Editor" <swiftwatergazette at mailman.theswiftwatergazette.com>
Date: Sunday, October 18, 2009, 8:09 AM


O's 'blank screen'

By LYNN FORESTER DE ROTHSCHILD

Last Updated: 4:37 AM, October 17, 2009

Posted: 12:14 AM, October 17, 2009

IN "The Audacity of Hope," Barack Obama described himself as "a blank
screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project
their own views." This is a powerful tool in elections and explains
why liberals, moderates, Democrats, Independents and Republicans
joined together to give him 53 percent of the vote last November.

Since his election, this "blank screen" has been an asset, allowing
the new president to maintain an illusion of progress, even as he has
avoided the hard choices necessary for progress. But, as Americans
ponder the unavoidable consequences of the president's policies --
particularly health-care reform -- the illusion is wearing thin.

The government has spent $3 trillion to prop up Wall Street and take
over the big insurance and auto industries -- yet the middle class and
small businesses continue to suffer. Fifteen million workers remain
without jobs; 32 percent of Americans' homes are worth less than their
mortgages -- and a whopping 61 percent of Americans are living from
paycheck to paycheck.

For these reasons, the American people have begun to judge President
Obama on his record, not his rhetoric; on his policies, not his
narrative -- and on his ability to govern, not on his campaign
machine.

The cool and reasonable candidate who gave hope to his voters, who
promised to rise above the ugly politics and big money of Washington,
is turning out to be as conventional a politician as any other.
Indeed, as he runs a permanent campaign from the White House, he is
proving to be more committed to protecting the vested interests of his
party than standing up for actual change.

A gentleman I met recently in Washington, DC, could well be the poster
child for Obama's problems. Like many Americans, he greeted Obama's
entry to the White House with high expectations. But increasingly, he
finds himself at odds with the president. He came to the United States
from Haiti in the '80s with nothing; he was able to learn English, get
a job as a driver and put two children through college.

I asked him if he would not have preferred if our country had
guaranteed him a job, a pension, health care and a college education
for his children. He told me no -- and gave three reasons.

First, he said, he takes pride in knowing what he has done for his
family. Second, he knows that the government does not, cannot, know
what he wants for himself and his family. Third, he knows that what
government gives, it can take away.

Having lived the American dream, he realizes that the individualism at
the heart of American democracy is what is actually at stake in the
present debates over the president's many policies.

Immigrant or native-born, it's written in the American DNA: A
paternalistic government threatens our independence, our individuality
and our right to self-determination. It's why Jefferson sang praise to
the yeoman farmer and Jackson to the common man. It's the principle
that Reagan placed at the heart of his presidency, and that Clinton
built on by advancing policies that empowered individuals -- not
policies that made individuals beholden to the state.

In contrast, President Obama's praise for the free market and
individual liberty just doesn't ring true -- because his record does
not reflect his rhetoric. His actions show a fundamental disconnect
with American values -- a disconnect that won't be dispelled with
captivating speeches, no matter how masterfully delivered.

It is for this reason that so many Americans are uneasy about Obama's
health-care plan. The promised benefits don't add up. It's just not
possible for the government to simultaneously a) provide care for 30
million more people, b) not increase the budget deficit and c) allow
anyone who is satisfied with their health care package to experience
no change.

In repeatedly insisting that he'll deliver all three results at once,
Obama has lost credibility: 80 percent of Americans polled said that
his health-care reform will raise costs or diminish quality of care.

On the back of total federal debt that is already over 70 percent of
our total GDP, and in light of $34 trillion of existing unfunded
liabilities in Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, the president's
lack of actual, as opposed to rhetorical, fiscal discipline further
erodes his authority.

In light of all the political capital that true and sensible
health-care reform would cost him, it is most likely that President
Obama will accept legislation that fails in all but name. In such a
case, the president will claim victory -- but not solve our
health-care problems. It will be another empty triumph of his "blank
screen" politics.

And voters will find that they elected not another FDR, but another
Jimmy Carter.

Lynn Forester de Rothschild is CEO of E.L. Rothschild Ltd. and founder
of Together4Us.com, a political Web site.
_______________________________________________
SwiftwaterGazette mailing list
SwiftwaterGazette at mailman.theswiftwatergazette.com
http://mailman.theswiftwatergazette.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/swiftwatergazette



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.theswiftwatergazette.com/pipermail/swiftwatergazette/attachments/20091018/7756da83/attachment.html