Monday, August 17, 2009

The Telegraph's Gerald Warner slams Obama

Telegraph columnist Gerald Warner has penned a scathing broadside against Barack Obama, calling him "President Pantywaist" and saying that the president "hoists the white flag over Stalinist health care proposals." Here's an excerpt:
Obama has no interest in genuine health care reform: as a Senator he voted against all the moderate, achievable measures that were proposed. So far as he was concerned, the worse things got for 48 million uninsured Americans the better: it might persuade them to buy into his socialist scheme, the primary objective of which was not relief of suffering but expansion of Big Government.

Now that is in tatters. Politically, it is interesting to analyse why. Obama has no notion of cautious, consensual reform: he wants a Union of Soviet States of America and he wants it now. A realist would have taken up the existing reform proposals, perhaps radicalised them a little, and tried to take them forward. Above all, he would not have alienated the pro-life lobby by rolling abortion into the plan. But not Obama. He brings to the White House the abilities and experience of a Chicago community organiser. As Sarah Palin witheringly said:
"I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a 'community organiser' except that you have actual responsibilities."
Increasingly, Sarah Palin's words from the 2008 campaign are coming back to roost on the president's ears. Didn't the liberals tell us that Obama, in contrast to the supposed buffoon George Bush, would "win back" the respect of Europeans for the American presidency? Looks like the clown shoes are now on a different foot.

Related: RCP's Jay Cost says that Obama misread his mandate.

- JP

1 comment:

  1. Heh. Actually I think Gerald Warner has been calling Our Feckless Leader "President Pantywaist" for a while, at least as far back as "DVDgate"* and probably before.

    *(By "DVDgate" I mean the political faux pas where Obama gave the Prime Minister a set of 25 DVDs -- REGION ONE DVDs, no less, that would play on American players but not on British players.)

    ReplyDelete