The New York Times dared ask Dear Leader: "Are you a socialist as some people have suggested?" (Full disclosure: I am one of those people who have suggested). President Obama initially answered no, but then called the Times, incredulous. "It was hard for Me to believe that you were entirely serious about that socialist question," the President later explained. A combative Obama pointed out, "I did think it might be useful to point out that it wasn't under Me that we started buying a bunch of shares of banks. It wasn't on My watch. And it wasn't on My watch that we passed a massive new entitlement--the prescription drug plan--without a source of funding. And so I think it's important just to note when you start hearing folks throw these words around that we've actually been operating in a way that has been entirely consistent with free-market principles and that some of the same folks who are throwing the word 'socialist' around can't say the same." Indeed, it wasn't under Obama's watch that America creeped into socialism. It was under His predecessor, who Obama has repeatedly characterized as reckless and incompetent. This makes one wonder: why is Obama defending Himself by pointing out that He is only continuing the policies of the predecessor He has so frequently derided?

Obama will be the first president to resign the office by saying "I'm just not up to the job."

"why is Obama defending Himself by pointing out that He is only continuing the policies of the predecessor He has so frequently derided?"

Well, he has no other defense, does he? And he is not only continuing with those policies but expanding beyond them to the point where this country will have difficulty returning to a normal capitalist economy. Ultimately, he knows that Bush bashing will be popular for some time and that it will give him the cover he needs to push as much of his agenda as he can get away with before the country stands up and says no mas.

Is that Obama Derangement Syndrome and looking at the world through Elephant dung-colored glasses? If so, sign me up.

As has been said, he is not just a socialist, he’s a Marxist. With every policy since he’s been in office, he’s made it clear that he is for the eradication of Capitalism and for class warfare.

"Ultimately, he knows that Bush bashing will be popular for some time and that it will give him the cover he needs..."

Exactly. Esp. as long as GOPers with Elephant dung-colored glasses remain in denial about how all this was made possible by Bush -- both in starting the acceleration towards socialism himself, and in thus providing Obama's cover. The fact is that Obama in the quote above makes a great point (Dan has an even better one in response). The first step toward market recovery is to get past the denial phase and start calling Bush's economic policies what they were: centralized planning (via monetary system) and socialism (esp. re: prescription drugs and bailouts). Bush got us in this mess, acknowledge it. The only way to effectively counter Obama is to show how his medicine is much, much more of the same drug that got us in this mess to begin with.

Last, Obama is not a Marxist. I'm not sure how anyone thinks that charge will help the cause against him. I think it just turns people off who might otherwise listen.

The fact is that Obama is an extreme liberal, not an Marxist, and there is a difference. Marxists want to eliminate private enterprise, extreme liberals do not; rather, they want to control it for their own ends (and benefit). Like FDR, Obama wants to "fix" it and transform it to his ends. The most effective parasites don't kill their hosts, they just leech off it. Also, Marxists loathe the use of the U.S. military; extreme liberals love to use it for their internationalist purposes; indeed, Obama has committed us to Iraq effectively in pertuity, begun his own surge in Afghanistan, and threatened military action against Pakistan, or at least actively and opennly inside its sovereign borders.

Lots of people are instinctively wary of what Obama is doing. They are ready to listen to alternatives. But then some guy supposedly carrying the banner of conservatism rants to them that Obama is a closet Marxist, and they shake their head and move on. He lays into his policies, but conveniently neglects to mention that Bush did fundamentally the same things. They know better and dismiss this guy as a partisan hack. He blames the plunging stock market 100% on Obama, conveniently pushing the start of his presidency back two months to make the numbers as scary as possible. Yet these folks, in the market themselves, know the plunge began a year before the election, that the recession officially began first quarter of 2008, and walk away thinking this man must be blind, stupid, or both. Missed opportunity. Chalk it up to Obama Derangement Syndrome.

It appears that for many people, current events are chalked it up to Bush Derangement Syndrome and looking at the world through Elephant dung-colored glasses.

Yes, maybe all of this was initially made possible by Bush policies. But (even though anybody paying attention knew it) our new leader didn’t have to take off running from that platform. However, he did. So why don’t we stop putting the blame squarely on Bush and concentrate not on the guy who is not in control of anything anymore, but on the guy who is currently making policy and working to Change (without the Hope) the face of what this country is.

To the extreme, everything this guy has done since he’s been in office has worked to remove free market decisions by business and replace them by putting control in the hands of the government. His economic policies, his social policies, his tax policies, etc., so far, have initiated a plan to not stimulate free market capitalism but slow it and left unchecked will ultimately murder it. He poses as a champion of the poor and downtrodden who will provide the socialized services that allow for a non-working class at the expense of an ever more burdened and disappearing middle class all while railing against the evil rich.

That’s sounds Marxist to me.

And, please stop with the Rush Limbaugh foolishness. Last time I looked, he isn’t running for office and he holds sway over no policies. That diversion is not working for Obama and it won’t work for people who recognize that our most current problems are a result of a confused and immature Democratic leadership. It’s not Bush, not Limbaugh and not the Easter Bunny that’s the problem.

No events are chalked up to such; just the highly selective and irrational emanations of many GOP hacks (and Dem hacks on the other side. On the other hand, some of us out here have been quite consistent calling a spade a spade, regardless of what party label it wears. And some of us are actually doing something about it.

You obviously don't understand Marxism, what it is. There is no private property, no private enterprise in Marxism. That is not at all what Obama is doing. What he is doing is quite disastrous enough without descending into hysterics and illegitimate labels. Obama's agenda is far Left. It is extreme liberalism. It is socialism, in a western european way. It is counterproductive to call it what it is not, as I explained above.

When the teleprompter stops: "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDJSVPAx8xc"

Now, I have no problem with the use of teleprompters - lots of politicians have used and do use them. Some have their speech on paper, or just go off note cards. I have found for me, in the occasional speech I give, that I like to write my speech out and have it with me, but practice it enough beforehand that it is only there just in case I lose my spot or train of thought. What I don't care for much is show boating and the making of every public appearance a carefully orchestrated show, a la Liddy Dole in 1996. Obama is like that, but amplified 50 times. So, I enjoyed the fact that his show was so derailed in the clip above. Live by technology and glitz, die by the same.

Wait a minute. Isn’t he a really, really, really, really, really, really, REALLY smart guy? I mean we know he can read. And we know he’s a great orator (as long as he can read) and looks great in a suit (but so did Adolf Schickelgruber).

But we have no record of measure of his mediocrity or excellence either way.

He’s gone out of his way to have sealed all documentation of his academic life and beyond. Nothing is known of his performance from his private high school, Occidental, Columbia or Harvard. The only things we do know about his abilities are his failures as a community organizer and his successes as a campaigner and when running for public office.

So far, he seems to be intellectually light. The bigger problem is his daily demonstration that the job is too big for him and that his supposed charm and baritone oration may not be enough.

Someone once asked Ludwig von Mises what was it that separated a capitalist economy from a socialist one. Mises admitted that there was a continuum and a lot of gray area but if he could choose just one thing it would be the existence of a stock market. In other words, any country that a stock market is more on the capitalist side than a socialist one. Now, I haven't heard Obama suggest that he wants to outlaw the stock market, so by the standards of Ludwig von Mises Obama isn't a socialist.

Government control of private industry, yet industry is still in private hands. Don't they call that fascism?

Good observation, Webster. It seems to me that fascism and socialism are really just two sides of the same coin; both involve massive interventionism in the economy.

The difference is (on a purely economical scale) that socialism involves direct redistributionism from the "haves" to the "have nots". There can be redistributionism involved with fascism, but it is usually less direct and, generally-speaking, runs the other direction. More directly, it involves protecting favored corporations from competition, both foreign and domestic, corporate welfare, corporate bailouts, etc. Both can and do involve massive regulations of the economy, though often to different ends. (Fascism usually also entails an extensive police state and disregard for civil liberties. In this it is similar to an element of Marxism in practice).

Clearly, America today has rampant aspects of both fascism and socialism, and both Bush and Obama push(ed) agendas replete with both features.

I think Bush, as a nonconservative supported by conservatives, can best be explained by "us vs. them" syndrome. My god, I actually found myself voting for McCain! We just need to beware of the syndrome and demand a lot better "us."

I think that what we’re seeing more now is a clear distinction (and separation) being made between Conservatives and Republicans. It’s no surprise that many true Conservatives these days do not or can not identify themselves with the GOP. And many in the party don’t get it. Or, maybe they do and think that they can add to the party roles by going moderate on our a$$es. So far, this seems to be backfiring.

Many true Conservatives are taking a stand and thinking more third party because they have had it with the candidates who the party has foisted on them for so many years.

It was interesting to me yesterday morning to hear Meghan McCain rail against Ann Coulter, about how shrill and divisive she is and how she does not represent the true Republican Party. Well, yuh! Maybe her Father does but thank the Lord that many of the Conservative stalwarts don’t.

"Obama signs 'imperfect' ($410 billion) bill, lays out rules for future earmarks."

O says...

"Next, any earmark for a for-profit private company should be subject to the same competitive bidding requirements as other federal contracts. The awarding of earmarks to private companies is the single most corrupting element of this practice, as witnessed by some of the indictments and convictions we have seen. Private companies differ from the public entities that Americans rely on every day -- schools and police stations and fire departments. ... When they're private entities, then I believe they have to be evaluated at a higher level of scrutiny."

Hmmmm. Private companies have to be scrutinized to prevent corruption; Public companies, good and relied on every day. Comrade.

I can thank Dan's article on TakiMag for breaking the Republican spell. I was talking up Rudy--freakin'--Giuliani because he said that he would put the right kind of judges in there. And then, I did the same thing when it narrowed down to McCain.

I realized that I put all my hopes on the judge appointments, and the GOP has paid off on that about as many times as states pay off on putting lottery revenues toward education.

Before calling myself a Republican, I was a posturing "Independent". (It sounds so open-minded of me!) Now, I'm just a conservative (for the most part).

The breaking point for me has come and gone.

For anybody who mildly studied what the opposition would likely bring, for me, the $hit sandwich that the GOP offered was more edible than the alternative. At least that's what I believed then and believe now.

But I won't get fooled again and unless the Republican Party stops the foolishness (and I don't think they will) with regard to putting up moderate or not at all conservative candidates, I won’t be going that way.

The only thing good that can come out of this is that, maybe, the Conservative folks who refused to vote for McAmnesty will be right and Obama will be so freaking bad that there will be a Ronald Reagan type moment come 2012.