Skip to content

FWIW: Fox Butterfield, is that you?


Chris Fountain chimes in on Pinky Sulzberger’s Daily Rag:  Fox Butterfield, is that you?

Quoth Chris:  “President Obama will be remembered as a thoughtful and dignified president who led a scrupulously honest administration [sic]  that achieved major changes.”  [Sic indeed!]

“People argue over whether his impatience with politicians and Republican intransigence denied him bigger accomplishments, but that argument is beside the point: He rescued an economy in crisis and passed the recovery program, pulled America back from its military overreach, passed the Affordable Care Act and committed the nation to addressing climate change. To be truly transformative in the way he wanted, however, his success had to translate into electoral gains for those who shared his vision and wanted to reform government. On that count, Mr. Obama failed.

“His legacy regrettably includes the more than 1,000 Democrats who lost their elections during his two terms. Republicans now have total control in half of America’s states.”

Alas.  The Won didn’t rescue an economy in crisis but rather added more to the debt, saw half of households on “assistance” and 95 million citizens off the work rolls. If President Obama pulled us back from military over-reach, it came at the cost of destabilizing the entire planet and at a shockingly high toll in American lives. The ACA, passed via parliamentary trickery has proven to not be, in fact, “affordable” and neither are Mr. Obama’s fatuous, crony missteps at addressing AGW. As one wag put it, Jack Kennedy put a man on the moon, Barack Obama put men in girls’ bathrooms. (There is a joke in there somewhere about golfing and putts.)

“Thoughtful and dignified”? As in, “My Administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks!”? Such noblesse! Such gravitas!

“Scrupulously honest”?  President Obama’s entire Presidency was a farce a la Cage aux Folles, and the Grey Lady has paid heavily for it’s part in his dishonesty and his failures with lost revenues, tanking subscriptions and a completely vanquished reputation.

Neither will be missed.

18 Comments leave one →
  1. 2016/12/25 17:47

    I think Fountain’s work would be characterized as a hagiography at best. Obama was the fabian president or what I call the passive-aggressive president. The economy never boomed under him, we’ve had record numbers of people not working and the national debt doubled in spite of record revenue by the IRS. The congress/senate has to take some responsibility for the debt and tax burden. The only undeniable advances Obama made were with LGBT rights. Everything else was mediocre or failure, especially foreign policy. One pines for the anodyne days of the Carter administration.

    • 2016/12/25 21:36

      Chris was quoting the NY Times… but your hagiography point stands.

      I’d challenge the LGBT “rights” gains, however. They seem to come always at the expense of others. Granting men access to little girls’ privies is no advance in liberty. Gays and trannies in front-line military assignments helps whom, exactly? Redefining ‘marriage’ is an advance in what, exactly? Prediction: Like every other “liberal” agenda, LGBT “rights” legislation will in the long-term serve to do more harm to lesbians, gays, bi-sexuals and thespians. (Yes, thespian. So much drama, so few letters of the alphabet.)

      • 2016/12/25 21:45

        It’s not only the question of whom benefits, but if someone is infringed against. Honestly, I don’t see the infringement that caused HB2. When I need to take a piss or a poop, I am not visually/mentally inspecting who is in the bathroom per se as far as gender. It’s to get in and out. I think that the problem is change and that’s the matter of progressives. Conservatives don’t like change. My question would be, why is the government getting involved in this? Let culture settle itself without having an official arbiter, which is to say religion. As far as harm goes, NC has lost plenty. More than it gained. Seems to be a theme with the south. Double down on what doesn’t work, like defending owning people. To put it another way, the right to take a swing at me ends at the tip of my nose. No one has hit me, so all is good, at least when the government keeps out of it. Seems that they have more important things to do than check someone’s gender for bathroom usage and to put it another way, either side is of the same coin: Using the government, meaning authority from the barrel of a gun to get it’s way.

      • [Not] Walt. permalink
        2017/04/19 18:09

        Gays and trannies in front-line military assignments helps whom, exactly?

        More than a bit late to the party here, but just think about it! It CLEARLY benefits our side. It’s intended to distract the deeply closeted enemy with the true objects of their desire. Its why they veil their women after all. 😉 ;), say no more.

      • 2017/04/19 20:23

        Heh!! Here I was, thinking that the answer was goats.

        There is something to the argument about latent homosexuality is the root of patriarchical thinking. Ditto matriarchal types. When gender becomes a primary issue, it tends to come at the expense of the “other” – but when I argued that as a kid, the femo types insisted matriarchy would be superior, therefor desirable.

      • 2017/04/19 19:42

        The only litmus test is competency. Today we have the mouth breathers getting their underwear in a twist because god forbid a sikh wears a beard in the military. At one time facial hair was de facto required in the military before WWI. Poison gas changed that. Now the idiots du jour take as de rigueur. One of the curses of the human race is musterbation, which breaks down thusly: I must behave a certain way to be acceptable to others, others must behave a certain way to be acceptable to me and the world must be a certain way to an individual or group to be acceptable. Most musterbation fails when deconstructed. Musterbation is near the root of most of our problems.

      • 2017/04/19 20:16

        I think the term is related to fustercluck. (Something like that.) But, yeah.

      • 2017/04/19 21:08

        Humans are perception and learning machines or intelligence and between the perception of self through one’s own eyes and learning what works and what doesn’t, the individual develops a auto-centric view of the world where they think they are right in most circumstances, at least ones they’ve had experience with, so, if one if X, X must be best, because that’s all they know. It’s part of the problem with being different vis a vis race, gender sex: From one’s own limited perspective, one may not know what’s it’s like to be the other person, SO, based on social constructs, either one is unempathetic or in some places judgmental to the point of ostracizing people and/or treating them as less than human or doing unto them which you wouldn’t do to yourself or your own. This limitation can only be overcome through expansive experience and research if you will so as to try to get a better opinion if you will of what is being observed. People often, mostly default to social programming they’ve learned by 6 or 7 years old and never question it. This leads to all sorts of problems…See musterbating.

    • 2016/12/25 21:42

      Happy Christmas!! (Curmudgeon stuff can wait a few days.) Cheers and a few rounds of smooooth bourbon!

      • 2016/12/25 21:53

        Or to put it another way yet, should we want the government to regulate and limit rights and public access? Where does it stop? At three sets of bathrooms ok? Different fountains? How about which seats on the bus? The vast majority of people go about their lives in anonymity and want to be left alone. Even you and I. If I really thought it was a safety issue, I wouldn’t go this route, but socially, I think some places are in the dark ages and have to cherry pick the steganographic texts to justify their thinking. Anyplace that excludes limits the positive possibilities and it’s been proven time and time again that that parochial mentality doesn’t work, whether it’s in NC, South Korea(you think some people are racist here, check out the Koreans. It’s legal there too). Or the Japanese. It’s a big tent in the US. It has been for some time.

      • 2016/12/25 23:25

        And Happy Hanukkah! Light a candle for me.

      • 2016/12/25 23:32

        Thanks! You bet! We light with olive oil. Set up right, it’s beautiful!

  2. 2016/12/25 22:30

    “Conservatives don’t like change.” Sure, depending upon what it is that one wishes to be conserved. “Progress” too, may mean conservation of something timeless in a sea of “change.” It may mean a needed fix. Thus, conservation of what, exactly, and progress towards what, exactly? At what costs?

    I’d argue that there are times and places for exclusion. For example, straight out of the box, private property rights. What about freedom of association? Sanctity of religion? Integrity of the family? National borders? The Bible set-up “cities of refuge” to protect those guilty of inadvertent manslaughter from revenge killings. In other words, exclusivity, like just about everything else, has an appropriate time and place, provided that it is employed wisely. We’ve flipped it on it’s head to mean places of free hunting for killers and rapists, provided they are foreigners who have broken immigration law.

    Racism may be the most stupid invention of mankind, but failure to discriminate wisely follows a close second, I’d think.

    • 2016/12/25 22:54

      We would probably agree on much of it, but to what extent? Integrity of the family can’t and shouldn’t be legislated. Sanctity of religion? Sure, you can believe whatever you like, as long as it’s not policy or law, that’s fine. What we agree on transcends religion, what doesn’t is the sticky points. Mormons wear funny underwear and don’t drink alcohol, should that apply to everyone? Same with Halal and Kosher. I think we would agree there. If someone doesn’t want to bake a cake because the customer is gay, fine, but the business owner should take any brunt, like in NC. Businesses and individuals should be able to do business with whom they like. Borders? Sure. Lets have them, but there are some things that are just straw men designed to gin up support, most likely for money. Look at the last eight years for the NRA. Record revenue and membership because O’Stymie was going to take away our guns. Now we see the left screaming the sky is falling because Trump is going to take away LGBT rights. Cui bono? The non profits, PACs and political parties that take donations to defend XY and Z. I just think the truth or even facts require perspective, which requires taking several steps back and reexamining things. Trump hasn’t been sworn in yet and he’s the devil. It was the same with Obama. Now there are things I’ll agree with regarding him, but even he was limited by the courts, constitution and a weak congress. Trump will have no less and if they actually looked at his background, Trump doesn’t care about LGBT rights in the sense he wants to take them away. If Pence was president, I could see the worry, but he isn’t. The other thing is that any overreach will be met with an overcorrection. Look at what happened to the house after the ACA passed. If the GOP was smart, they’d stay away from divisive and meaningless shit and actually did something constructive, like stem illegal immigration, somehow pay down the debt and get spending under control. Simplify the tax laws and regulation too. Do those and he’s a winner. Go into the culture war BS and it’s a loser. People care about feeding and sheltering their families first. I hope he knows that and remembers it.

      • 2016/12/25 23:30

        Yipes! Good stuff and a whole post in there.

        Another good point you allude to concerning Mr. Trump: He won’t be free to get away with much, now that the Press has suddenly rediscovered their roles as Loyal Opposition and Speakers of Truth to Power. Heh! I welcome it. There won’t be a whole lot of love coming to him from Congress, either. Good!! Competition and grid lock has it’s place, too.

      • 2016/12/25 23:33

        Now we have Fake News. Who gets to decide? Snopes? Please. Tolstoy said that history would be a wonderful thing if only it were true or something to that effect. I would apply that to news. A lot of garbage out there.

      • 2016/12/25 23:41

        …and those bastards apply historical revisionism in real-time. Who needs historians when we already have hysterics?

      • 2016/12/26 00:03

        I wonder what they’ll say 100-200 years from now?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s