1/29/14, "Liberals Unhappy with Diminished Obama," Rush Limbaugh
"You'd be amazed at the number of people on the Democrat side who were
flat-out disappointed and worried and panicked over that speech last
Ron Fournier, National Journal: Obama is a "diminished leader," and "Is this all there is?" He said this speech was the small-bore stuff he rejected in 2008....
But that speech last night, to me, was an indication that Obama and
the Democrats know (again) that they cannot be honest and sell it. They
have to sound like people they are not. They have to sound like they
believe things that they do not believe. They have to sound like they
are traditional Americans in many ways. That's why Fournier asks
(paraphrased), "What's this small bore stuff? This is the stuff you
rejected in 2008," and that's damn right.
Everything he claimed was working last night was what he has ripped
and criticized and impugned for five years. And then Fournier said,
"Obama may not have the skill, the will, or the time to" fix inequality,
mobility, and the economy. Not only that, Mr. Fournier, there isn't
anybody in government who can do that, except if they get out of the
way. But there isn't a government policy that will solve inequality....
There would be a
philosophy, actually, but there's not a policy that will fix mobility. The government "fixing" the economy? The only way that happens is when
government removes itself from as much of the economy as it can. But
these people still think that if you got the right liberal mad scientist
in there tinkering with the dials and the potentiometers and the gauges
and stuff, that they can fine-tune it into a well-oiled machine,
because the overriding belief is that you can't.
The overriding belief is you are incapable and incompetent and they
have to do it for you. Now Fournier says, "Obama may not have the
skill..." See, it's dawning on him. Folks, they've had a free run at it
for five years. They have had a Republican Party basically standing
aside. For the first two years, they had a Republican Party that
couldn't stop anything. They didn't have the votes. And then after the
2010 midterms, when the Tea Party won big, the Republicans didn't want
to be associated with that.
So they still didn't oppose Obama, and they're still not opposing
Obama. They're trying to help him get amnesty passed. They've had a
free run at it. They have done a lot of damage, don't misunderstand. My
head is not in the sand here. They have done a lot of damage that's
going to take a lot of time to reverse. But the true believers,
wherever you find them -- in the media, academia, Hollywood, elsewhere
-- expected the job to be done with no opposition....
And the Boston Globe says that speech was scaled back to the
diminished expectations of the moment. Meaning nothing grandiose, no
long term vision, nothing in that speech that is going to help Obama go
down as great. I heard a number of Democrats say that, too.
Washington Post editorial:
"We were told; look out for the presidential pen and the presidential
phone. ... Obama’s tone was relatively non-confrontational. And if his
proposals for executive action did not live up to the hype." So the
Washington Post was let down. They're upset that Obama's not gonna do
more as a dictator would. People on the left, I've watched the Luntz
focus group on Fox, Megyn Kelly's show, and a few of those people in the
Luntz group said that the president didn't have sufficient enthusiasm.
I didn't see that. I saw a lot of enthusiasm, but I thought it was
And more. Dana Milbank says Obama speaks of concrete proposals to speed
up growth, and then the first item cited was Michelle's anti-obesity
initiative? We haven't even opened that door yet, but that's another
thing that's got some let down." ...image above from RushLimbaugh.com