Pragmatist = liar. (My Daily Rant)

Is has been recently reported that President Obama is a pragmatist. I agree if the definition of pragmatist is liar.

Obama’s “pragmatism” began early in his bid for president. He originally agreed to limit his campaign funds to public donations. Obama became pragmatic when he figured out that he could raise more money than McCain. I guess the fact that he became pragmatic overshadowed the fact that he was breaking a pledge to the American people.

Obama pledged to change the way Washington worked, no more lobbyist no more corruption. Obama became pragmatic when he realized that the people he wanted to fill his cabinet and important posts were tax cheats and lobbyist. Geitner was too important to exclude for his tax errors and Dashcle for the same reason. The only reason Geitner is in and Dashcle is not; the furor over these indiscretions was at a crescendo by the time Dashcle was nominated. This seems to be a cornerstone of Obama’s form of pragmatism. If no one notices it’s all right. That is most certainly pragmatic.

There is a laundry list of pragmatic decisions that Obama has made. His pledge to withdraw troops from Iraq in 16 months has evolved a little due to pragmatic considerations (like the truth). His decision to be against bonuses at AIG that his administration has known about from the start but only recently decried (see last 2 sentences in previous paragraph for clarification). Lobbyist, tax cheats war policy domestic spending all seem to have taken on a very flexible, dynamic and pragmatic texture. (See last 2 sentences in previous paragraph for clarification).

Maybe if we cast aside the currently accepted definition of pragmatic for the archaic one things make more sense:

Pragmatic –
a) busy; active. I’ll buy that; its hard work constantly contradicting yourself.
b) officious; meddlesome; interfering. I like this a lot. This particular one seems to fit not only Obama but the entire Democratic Party.
c) dogmatic; opinionated. Well what more needs to be said. Maybe Obama is using a really old dictionary.


  1. another you said ...if you don't scream... and the drive-by media do not pick it up (imagine could they miss something that big? oh yeah...forgot about the contracts at aig...) He is being pragmatic...I got elected and I had to pay the election bill nausium...huuurl!!!

  2. "Just once, I wish we could have a debate over an important political issue that wasn’t entirely shaped and determined by sheer stupidity and ignorance from the right wing."

  3. Ph'nglui mglw'nafh C'thulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn

  4. Well said. Now where are my pants?

  5. This is also, apparently, where conservatives come to see one of the worst-designed sites on the internet.

    Having said that, too many people bought into the saint-like hysteria surrounding Obama, forgetting that he's a politician. He's trying, but to get things done, deals have to be made.

    Here's hoping he succeeds in some way in changing how things are done. Washington hasn't represented "the people' in years, and it may be time for another tea party. It won't be Republicans or Democrats who change things — it will be the people.

  6. Annonymous, how do you figure everything is "entirely shaped and determined" by the right wing? Just because you have a different idea of how to handle a situation than we do, doesn't mean WE have shaped it! LOL You libs crack me up! YOU are in power! YOU control the White House, and for all practical purposes (with the help of some liberal Republicans) the Congress. YOU can do whatever you want -- and you act like it's un-American for the conservatives to voice their opinion that YOU are wrong! What would it take for the left to stop that constant whining? I am just wondering -- I thought you guys would be dancing in the streets but you still sound like a bunch of losers!

    (with apologies to the owner of this blog for adding a personal rant)

  7. Democrats≠liberals, Republicans≠conservatives, so just get off that bandwagon for starters. Democrats are certainly in power, but they can't do whatever they want, in particular in the senate where the majority is thin. Cloture requires 60, and Democrats don't have 60.

    At the moment nothing is being shaped by Republicans (or conservatives or the right-wing) because all they're contributing is "NO!" How about proposing some actual solutions to the problem? OH I know, because the solutions for the past 8 years had sucked so bad there's simply no credibility right now. OK, fine, just keep on saying no.

    Take a smattering of liberal sites like Crooks & Liars, Daily Kos, etc. and you will find PLENTY of criticism in there for Obama. Huffington Post has run a set of stories highly critical of Geithner. Why? Because they're intellectually honest, unlike the majority of conservative blogs which are *still* in denial over the illegalities of the previous administration.

    When liberals complained about the march to war with Iraq, torture, Guantanamo, domestic spying, most conservatives did accuse complainers of being un-American, and un-patriotic.

    Now since when is being flexible to the realities of politics make someone a liar? Hmmm, let's see, George said nation building would not be part of his foreign policy. Oh I see, but 9/11 changed all that, but nation building in Iraq, and giving all Iraqis 100% healthcare is OK and doesn't make George a liar. But it does make your argument incoherent and ridiculous.

    Oh, and do you think you could find a way to border the remaining 33% of this web site with more flags on the top and the bottom? 24 flags is insufficient.

  8. Chris, I have visited the some of the sites you mention above. The one thing I found lacking was any type of honesty intellectual or otherwise. I made the mistake of indetifying myself as a conservative and was greated with profanity laced tirades that had nothing to do with issue I was posting on. I encourage honest discussion. I am not a republican I am a conservative. My values are my values and far too few politicians share my values. I was posting about one of those politicians. If you found my post offensive, good, maybe that will lead to an honest discussion.

  9. There can be no honest discussion when there isn't honesty. You can't say you've visited sites and state the singular item you could not locate in their vastness was intellectual honesty, and as your source reference to blathering commentary rather than the primary article itself. You will find much posturing, but I've found these liberal sites to be surprisingly willing to criticize the mistakes of the current administration.

    You will find very few mainstream conservative blogs that have that same kind of integrity. Of the few there are, American Conservative Magazine is a standout, and then also which is rather libertarian rather than merely conservative. But there is a distinct lack of introspection, identification and analysis of error on the part of the conservative movement. It isn't non-existent, but it's virtually non-existent.

    Perhaps you can wade through your own postings on this site much easier than I can, and locate your accusation that George Bush was also a liar, as he too claimed pragmatism in the form of being the uniter rather than a divider. Yet from day one claimed mandate despite having a minority of the popular vote, absolutely refused compromise with the minority party, and indeed was quite successful at getting his policies enacted.

    If you don't have any posts of equivalency charging the previous president of being a liar, then it's just ideological hypocrisy to propose this is a unique feature of the current president as you have done. And then to proceed from here requires a mea culpa of ideological slant, error, a momentary lapse in judgment, or emotional outburst to move beyond the ridiculous and onto something of substance.

  10. This comment has been removed by the author.

  11. You are putting me into a position to defend Bush which is where you want me. I am not, was not and will not be a fan of George Bush. He sold out conservative principles and grew the federal government with things like the Medicare legislation, which was co-sponsored by Ted Kennedy by the way, and usurped rights with the patriot act. I am a conservative not a republican when my party is wrong I will be happy to criticize it. That does not mean I am going to fall down and pray at the Obama altar either. Obama is worse than Bush as it relates to growing the government. Bush may have started tarp and bailouts, which I absolutely railed against, but Obama has gleefully picked up where he left off and run like the wind. I was not blogging when Bush was in office so you will only find ancillary mentions of his tenure as they apply to our current state of existence. I was bluntly told on Crooks and Liars that it was a liberal site and given profane treatment accordingly, this is a conservative site I will treat you with respect but I have nothing to justify or prove to anyone. Nothing in the world is forcing you to read or post on this site. If you have something important to add feel free, but at least take the time to read my posts and understand my position before spouting off about that which you are obviously ignorant.

  12. What a crappy point of view from a quasi-nazi author. Didn't you conservatives screw the world enough?

  13. I don't want you in any position: either for or against George. I simply asked what the position was, to see if you're being consistent. You haven't defended George, but you also haven't accused him of being a blatant liar either.

    Thus far, a statement that Obama is worse as it relates to growing the government isn't founded in facts. George increased social spending greater than any president since FDR and in terms of purchasing power even exceeded him with the medicare drug plan.

    A traditional small-government conservative would have advocated higher taxes under good economic conditions to pay down the national debt, rather that to call it "the taxpayer's money". Even conservative economists consider in bad economic times the role of government is to spend money, and to have the political wherewithal to engage in government contraction in good economic times. The government did in fact get smaller (both as a percent and in number of employees) under Clinton, and taxes also went up under Clinton. That is a conservative economic position. Higher taxes, smaller government during good economic times. Lower taxes, bigger programs and spending when the economy weakens. The role of government in a modern economy is to moderate the ups and downs of the economy.

    TARP was a huge error in implementation, but something almost certainly needed to be done unless you believe in unbridled consequences of free markets, which can be absolutely hideously destructive. It's unclear most "free-market" proponents understand the sheer quantity of asset destruction that would occur, and tend to discount irrationality in free-markets or the appropriateness of moderating irrationality. So while I agree that TARP is/was a huge problem, and I didn't agree with it on the details, in principle something had to be done. We needed a hammer and bought a lawnmower.

    And just to throw some spaghetti to see what sticks here, I'd like to disparage the clueless "free-market" concept of deregulation of banks and finance. Banking is an inherently insolvent business granted a license to operate by government, with considerable subsidization of the venture by government. In a free-market such things would not exist in their present form. So the idea of not seriously (reasonably, strongly, effectively, efficiently) regulating inherently insolvent and marginally fraudulent business practices is idiotic. Not all regulation and government is bad.

  14. Pragmatic. That defines all of politics. All politicians. Everywhere. Obama plays the same game that Clinton, Kennedy, Reagan played. Why verbally punish just ONE player?


Be respectful or be deleted. Your choice.