The title of this post may come as a bit of a shock to some of you. After all, I've been relentlessly critical of Obama from the inception of this blog. I still think that his foreign policy, domestic policy, and national security policy are doing great damage to our country. I am in the process of writing a harsh critique of his State of the Union address.
However, I am starting to be bothered by an over-the-top tone to some of the recent attacks on Obama. A good example of this is the uproar over the following comments Obama made during a townhall meeting in New Hampshire a couple of days ago: “When times are tough, you tighten your belts. You don't go buying a boat when you can barely pay your mortgage. You don’t blow a bunch of cash in Vegas when you’re trying to save for college.” This comment is getting a lot of attention in some quarters. Several elected Nevada officials, including Senator Reid, have criticized Obama's comments as hurting Las Vegas's struggling economy, which is based heavily on tourism. The mayor of Las Vegas went even further, saying that Obama was not welcome in his city.
Now I can understand why Nevada politicians would be quick to defend their city. That's their job. But conservatives are making too big a deal out of this. I am a fan of Mark Levin, but he went way overboard on this during his radio show Tuesday evening. After playing Obama's comments, he ranted about how Las Vegas is the symbol of American capitalism and Obama hates Vegas because he hates capitalism and he hates for people to have fun and enjoy life. Come on. And this morning on the radio, they were still replaying Obama's comments and talking about them.
I think Obama's comments are pretty innocuous. He was making a point about how Americans know to cut back on their spending in tough economic times, and the government should do the same. Very reasonable point. (Too bad he isn't practicing what he preaches, unveiling another huge, bloated, $3.55 trillion budget this week.) He mentioned Sin City because it is a universally recognized destination for people who want to spend their money on non-essential entertainment. (He mentioned buying a boat too -- should boat manufacturers and sellers be outraged?) And give me a break, Vegas is not the symbol of American capitalism. In my opinion, it is more the symbol of American decadence and extravagance. (Although I'm not saying there aren't legitimate activities and reasons to go there.) Of course, in a free society people have the right to behave decadently and extravagantly if they choose. But nothing Obama said can be reasonably construed as counseling people not to visit Vegas.
So here's my point in talking about this. Do conservatives not have enough legitimate policy criticisms of Obama? There are so many more important things to be focusing on. If we're going to defeat the Democrats in November, we have to substantively show why the Democrats' ideas are so harmful to our country and present Americans with an alternative policy agenda that will make our country stronger. It's what we're trying to do on this blog. And it's what two recently successful Republicans did -- Bob McDonnell and Scott Brown. These candidates did not run as squishy moderates -- but they stayed focused on issues and refused to engage in harsh personal attacks like their opponents. And both were very successful with independent voters. As I said before, I like Mark Levin, but of late his radio shows have been sounding increasingly hysterical, with a lot of shouting and name-calling. I know he's upset with what the Democrats in Washington are doing, and so am I. But these antics just turn people off. We didn't like it when the left launched daily cheap shots against Bush. Let's not take petty cheap shots at Obama either.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I agree. I don't think Obama hates Las Vegas, as Mark Levin suggests. However, I am pleased to see that he is pissing off the constituents of Harry Reid, who will be up for reelection soon.
OK, NateDawg, since you mentioned the fact that Republicans need to stay focused on issues, I'm going to take the opportunity to ask some questions that have been bugging me -- maybe you or one of your followers could answer:
1. I keep trying to think of things that politicians could say that might help liberals understand how destructive Obama's policies are. I used to be a liberal, so I sort of understand what kind of approaches might help open their minds. The trouble is, since my education is mostly in math and science, I don't know that much about economics, which is where you might be able to help me. Most liberals are motivated by a pretty fundamental hatred of/disrespect for "big business" (even little business) -- they mostly grew up being taught that owners of businesses are cold, uncaring, selfish people who are out to rip off as many people as they can, etc. I wonder whether Palin or Scott Brown or others could talk about the fact that there ARE a lot of selfish, greedy, dishonest people in business; and that many of them have hurt others on their way to success. Then they could go on to say, BUT it's also a fact that the success of these people DOES create jobs for others and creates wealth in the community, which in turn provides a bigger tax base, etc. Maybe it could help, too, to throw this in: Every NFL, NBA, NHL, and MLB fan can think of some hot shot player that is totally obnoxious and is earning an obscene amount of money. But they realize that the player brings crowds, wins games, etc., which creates jobs and other good stuff in the community, so they don't talk about trying to get rid of that player (unless the bad behavior is totally extreme). I think this is an honest approach that could work with people. They might even buy the idea that there are just as many fat-cat, dishonest crooks in government as there are in the private sector.
It does bother me that most of our heroes (Rush, etc.) don't really acknowledge that there are evil, greedy people in the private sector.
The whole other side to this that isn't explained well enough (for those of us without economics backgrounds) is WHY government spending on infrastructure projects isn't as helpful to the economy as the same about of money would be in the form of tax cuts. What does it mean when people talk about certain actions "creating wealth"? It's mentioned so often without any explanation, it's like it's just assumed that everyone understands this idea. I'm pretty well educated, but don't know what they mean. Even Glenn Beck, who is such a good educator, doesn't seem to understand how few people understand this.
Since I'm stuck inside all weekend, I'm going to throw out another two questions:
1. What, exactly, will be likely to happen if the government keeps borrowing and borrowing? Do smart economists predict that we'll have to give our firstborn sons and/or California to China? I totally know that it's such a terrible idea to keep spending borrowed money, but I don't have any clear picture in my mind of what, specifically, would likely happen. Is there language in some debt-related contract that gives our debtors specific rights if we default?
2. If all of our dreams come true and politicians are elected who are serious about scaling back government, what will happen to all of the workers that will have to be laid off? Is there an historical model for this?
OK I understand if you don't have time to respond, but I've been dying to get all of this out and don't have time to call a talk radio show.
Martha C
Wow...great questions, Martha C! Thanks so much for your thoughtful comment. I think you're right that we as conservatives need to do a better job explaining our basic assumptions. I am not an expert in economics either, but I will try to address at least some of your questions in the coming days and weeks. In the meantime, I hope some of my readers and fellow bloggers will jump in with their ideas and answers. (Unfortunately, I still have to work Saturday despite the snow!)
Post a Comment