PRESIDENT OBAMA'S SHORT-TERM MEMORY LOSS
July 12, 2011
The Far Left, starting with one of their converts, Ron Reagan, the Younger, has floated this insane idea that President Ronald Reagan was suffering from Alzheimer's Dementia as early as 1982 and continued to run the country for the ensuing six to seven years. Alzheimer's is that terrible disease which first robs one of short-term memory and then progresses onward to affect thinking and behavior.
Though there are some documented pieces of information showing that Reagan would forget where he laid his reading glasses or the color of the dress Nancy wore to dinner the night before (possibly the fifth ensemble change that day), there is no proof that he forgot the names of his staff or the members of his cabinet, much less the name of the attaché who carried the "football" containing the launch codes to our nuclear arsenal. In fact, his doctors say the first tell-tale sign of his Alzheimer's came some three-and-a-half years after he left office and two years later he was sure enough to inform the world.
Now, laying that argument aside, let's talk about President Obama's memory loss.
Obama inhabits a very special world. It's a world in which his entire slate of previous statements, policy preferences, and actions are apparently wiped clean every time he delivers a new speech or press statement. As FOX news political consultant Mary Katharine Ham likes to quip, what Obama said -- or did -- last week, last month, or last year is regarded as irrelevant, so long as he's making himself "crystal clear" today. Call it a transcendent belief in "the fierce urgency of now." I'll illustrate this phenomenon in a moment.
First, a few basic takeaways from Monday's lengthy presidential news conference, which made little actual news. The president said a debt deal is still a ways off, and stated that although he appreciates John Boehner's "good faith efforts" to help prevent a disastrous default, Republicans must "budge" on taxes for a workable compromise to materialize. He called on both sides to make concessions, arguing that it's time to "rip off the Bandaid" and "eat our peas."
He forswore short-term extensions, vowing to reject any 30-to-90 day debt ceiling patches. "This is the United States of America, and we don't manage our affairs in three-month increments," he asserted. (Except when we do, of course). He also flatly stated that an accord will be forged by the August 2nd deadline. "We're going to meet every day until we get this thing resolved," he said. Negotiations are ongoing.
Now, back to mystical Obamaland: The president talked quite a lot about the pressing and imperative need to strike a comprehensive debt deal this morning. Largely reprising his hectoring performance of June 29th, Obama called on both sides to sacrifice their respective sacred cows to facilitate an agreement post-haste.
Such a visionary pragmatist. Except...this latest incarnation of Barack Obama seems to have forgotten that a previous one was demanding a "clean" debt ceiling hike as recently as six weeks ago. Out: We must hike this debt ceiling without any grand deal immediately! In: We must reach a grand deal to hike the debt ceiling immediately! No matter; new day, new paradigm. Head spin.
To oppose a debt limit increase would be patently "irresponsible," today's Barack Obama intoned -- an apparent repudiation of 2006's Barack Obama, who did precisely that. "Revenue increases" are "fair" and essential, today's Barack Obama insisted -- contradicting 2009's Barack Obama, who noted that raising taxes is "the last thing you want to do" in a sluggish economy. Head spin.
The president also spoke passionately about the necessity of making tough choices to help control the swollen national debt. He assured us he's "willing to do hard things politically" to reach an agreement. What might those "hard things" be? He won't say.
It's as if today's Barack Obama has forgotten that when presented with an obvious opportunity to offer leadership on this front, February's Barack Obama introduced a budget that was universally panned for its inadequacy and utter refusal to propose any "hard things." And that April's Barack Obama discarded February's Barack Obama's budget in favor of a laughably non-specific "vision," which still hasn't been fleshed out. And that 2010's Barack Obama appointed a bipartisan debt commission to devise exactly the sort of comprehensive solution that today's Barack Obama demands -- but that February's Barack Obama completely disregarded its recommendations in crafting his (later abandoned) budget proposal.
Applying icing to his rhetorical cake, the president wrapped up his press conference by promising that his policies will help corral deficits and debt, eventually. Without missing a beat, he closed with an astonishing brainstorm: He encouraged Americans to envision a large-scale government program to spur job growth through major infrastructure projects as a solution to high unemployment.
Today's Barack Obama clearly didn't know or care that the large-scale government program to spur job growth through major infrastructure projects -- championed by 2009's Barack Obama, then mocked by June's Barack Obama -- didn't even come close to meeting the expectations and projections 2009's Barack Obama established. Head spin.
No worries, though. Today is a brand new day. Problem: Today's Barack Obama will soon become yesterday's Barack Obama -- whose stated policies and preferences are liable to slide into obsolescence as soon as tomorrow's Barack Obama opens his mouth. What comes next is anyone's guess.
If he were Ronald Reagan, the media and the left as a whole would say there is something wrong with his brain. Little Ronnie Reagan would say, "It's Alzheimer's."
But he's Barack Obama and the left says, "The President is merely being a pragmatist."
The truth is, he is living up to his old Alinskyite ways with its Hegelian Dialectical approach to reality: When something was good yesterday, but something else is better today, we'll give way to a synthesized approach and say we have a better approach today. And if we change that tomorrow then we were no more wrong yesterday than we will be tomorrow.
Confused? This cycle of presidential body-snatching may be a totally incoherent approach to governance, but it sure is exciting.
We believe that the Constitution of the United States speaks for itself. There is no need to rewrite, change or reinterpret it to suit the fancies of special interest groups or protected classes.