Obama’s hubris
Bookworm on Jun 18 2009 at 9:38 am | Filed under: Uncategorized
The Anchoress is really angry because all of the horrible things Obama has managed to do (both legally and illegally) in just 150 days. The same things that make her mad, however, actually cheer me up a bit. Here’s why: Hubris.
Hubris is the hook on which I’m hanging my hat. Had Obama been less hubristic, he would have acted more slowly and more stealthily, and flown below the radar. With stealth, he could really have sunk his tentacles into the American psyche and the American political process. As it is, his ego, Pelosi’s ego, Rahm’s ego, etc., have meant that they cast caution to the winds and thought they had carte blanche to do whatever the Hell they wanted to. We see 150 days of disaster, but we should also see 150 days of exposing the naked emperor to the American people.
Email This Post To A Friend
3 Responses to “Obama’s hubris”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I don’t think it’s hubris – I think it’s necessity. I think they knew that if they tried to act slowly and methodically they and their programs would be rejected. I think they know that the elections of 2010 are likely to go badly for them. So it had to be done quickly, and then – assuming the GOP unseats them as the majority party in 2010 – act as a blocking minority to changes that would undo the changes.
I guess we’ll see. I hope the GOP is learning not to be “polite and good sports” if they _do_ get the majority. If the GOP _does_ take back the majority, I’d sure like them to go after the Birth Certificate issue again. The fastest and most effect way to undo the damage done would be to prove that he was ineligible to be president – that way, everything he has done would be undone.
[...] … Speaker Nancy Pelosi limited debate on a bill, while House Republicans bravely protested Obama’s hubris – bookwormroom.com 06/18/2009 The Anchoress is really angry because all of the horrible things [...]
I think that you hit the nail on the head, BWR, though as Suek points out there is an element of necessity here, to which I would add oportunism. Regardless, the combination of the three is becoming evident in the polls.