What is really driving Zakaria’s commentary, I suspect, is what often happens when liberals are elected and fail: their supporters begin to lay blame on the American system of government. Jimmy Carter’s advisers did the same thing. It turned out the problem then, as now, wasn’t the American system of government; it was the American president. The failures of Obama cannot be laid at the feet of Madison. And if the public is wise, they will do to Obama in 2012 what they did to Carter in 1980.That's from Peter Wehner at Commentary - I mean, it's an accruate statement and all, but mainly I like someone calling out Fareed Zakaria for what he is: a putatively 'objective' intellectual who was actually a shameless Obama promoter in 2008 and is now zealously morphing into a shameless Obama apologist as we head into 2012. We're seeing a lot of this - cadres rewriting history to suit the changing narrative of Dear Leader - Jon Stewart, another who shilled shamelessly for Obama in both primary and general elections, is now showcasing his objectivity by actually criticizing liberals as if to say 'no, it wasn't obsequious ideological blindness that caused me to blindly worship Obama - I honestly thought it was a reasonable idea to make a guy with no resume and few accomplishments president simply because he was black and gave nice speeches' - of course this is Stewart coming off his previous ploy of trying to convince people that Obama wasn't stumbling because of a too liberal agenda, but by not being liberal enough - this too is Krugman's life boat of choice: 'the stimulus plan should have been three times bigger!' - Krugman actually suggested a few days ago that WWII pulled us out of the last great contraction so something like that might be a good thing now - I don't think he was actually calling for a world wide military conflagration to save Dear Leader and the cherished illusions of the liberal agenda [boy, ironic doesn't even come close to capturing the twisted thinking there] but neither can I absolutely guarantee that he might not be willing to sacrifice a few million people in order to see the integrity of his uber lefty thinking redeemed. Hell, Mao had no problem killing about 50 million of his own people in order to preserve the sanctity of an idea [did I just compare Nobelist Paul Krugman to Mao? That can't be right]
[although, in fairness, seeing how much scorn I'm directing at Obama et al, in fairness I must say that republicans are idiots too - specifically I'm talking here about Gov Perry questioning the validity of the theory of evolution because, ya know, it's only a theory - I mean, these people can really put one in a foul mood - I still believe that great, powerful countries like America can only be governed successfully from the right, that enervation and decline, as we see presently playing out in Europe, are the natural consequences of leftist agendas - still, I'm not a fool - it often, way too often becomes a rock and a hard place conundrum trying to figure between republicans and democrats who's being the least annoying and idiotic in what they say - related: haven't paid much attention to Huntsman's campaign for the nomination cause I figure he has no chance, and given the tactic he's taken up of criticizing his opponents with dead on assaults - for instance he faulted Perry on evolution silliness and Bachman on her ridiculous claim she'd lower gas to $2 a gallon - that have thrilled democratic pundits he indeed does not stand a chance - but I caught a few interviews of his and I gotta say I came away somewhat impressed - which got me thinking: is it possible he's angling for an independent run? He's definitely got the money for it and the strategy he's employing may be suicide for a GOP primary but is probably perfect for an independent run - he seems too smart not to realize that what he's doing now can't succeed and therefore... - now, doubt he'd go with an independent run if Romney's the candidate since one Mormon is gonna be a tough enough sell for voters - but if Romney doesn't get the nod I dunno, how else explain what he's doing? I mean, he's been a successful governor, a businessman, as former ambassador to China he's got more foreign policy mojo than anyone else in the race - he speaks Mandarin for christ sake - did I say he's rich? I dunno - like I said, how else explain his strategy since one assume he's not an idiot]
