I don’t like to make predictions because I hate being proven wrong. But I can’t help but climb out on a limb and predict that we are about to witness a process that will lead to the country’s plunge off the “fiscal cliff.”
If you saw Obama’s first post-election public event yesterday, you should be afraid. Billed as a speech about the above mentioned crisis, the setting was clearly a campaign rally with an audience of Democratic Party hacks complete with the usual “diverse” group of adoring party zombies providing the backdrop.
True, Obama avoided the poisonous scorched-earth rhetoric he has been excreting over the past 4 years, but it’s hard not to conclude that he’s teeing the Republicans up to take the fall.
Expect the same strategy and tactics he employed to kill a bargain before the election to be deployed now: He will keep demanding more in tax increases until he reaches the point where the Republicans are faced with an offer they cannot accept. Obama will immediately begin touring the country in campaign mode, blaming the Republicans for throwing the country into the recession everyone has predicted will happen in the absence of an agreement.
In other words, he has already started campaigning for the 2014 midterm election of a Democratic House and a filibuster proof Senate. This is what Paul Krugman urged Obama to do in his most recent column. Was it Stalin who said, “You have to break a few eggs to make an omelette”?
Obama is not a consensus politician like Bill Clinton; he’s a revolutionist. He really does want to obliterate the opposition and transform the country into a European-style, massive government welfare state. And he has the psycho-pathological confidence in his ability to mobilize his Red Guard style supporters to get the job done. Who among his supporters cares if unemployment skyrockets as long as the Chinese subsidized checks keep coming? With more unemployment, he’ll just get more government dependent supporters. And he knows the press will run interference for him.
Speaking of Bill Clinton, I was wondering why CIA Director David Petraeus had to resign merely because he had an extra-marital affair. The reason, we are told, is that someone in such a sensitive national security job may not lead a double life because it exposes him to blackmail which threatens national security.
But isn’t the same true of the President?! Clinton’s mouthpieces argued that he shouldn’t have to resign or be impeached because, after all, the Lewinsky affair was only about sex. I don’t remember any of them bringing up national security and blackmail. Is the Presidency less “sensitive” than CIA Director? I’m only asking.
I considered Clinton to be a lowlife, but I prefer his political pragmatism (remember “triangulation”?) to Obama’s ruthless Alinskyism.