Last week, President Obama spoke to Wall Street and expounded — extemporaneously, it turns out — on his views on success. He told the money men and women that success is fine and good, but after a while there’s such a thing as “too much” success. To avoid that, they should at some point turn their energies away from further success and instead dedicate their efforts to the common good. He didn’t spell out just how much is “too much,” but if he’s like most people he very carefully sets the line of “the rich” to somewhere above his own status.
His apologists later “clarified” his remarks to say what he mean was reserved for those who had used questionable or unethical or illegal means to gain their wealth, but that wasn’t in the original remarks. I prefer to stick to the original material, thanks.
An interesting notion. Let’s see how that applies in other areas.
Hey, ACORN. You’ve done a fine job in registering voters and helping poor people get housing. But in a lot of those cases, you cut corners. In fact, it’s become clear that you’ve actually crossed the line on a consistent basis, boosting your numbers by committing voter registration fraud and helping people prepare fraudulent loan documents to get them into houses. You’ve been too successful, and you got that way by seriously improper means. It’s time you stopped working so hard at running up your numbers, by any means, and instead put some energy into improving the quality of our electorate. So I’m calling on you to go back to all the communities where you held voter registration drives and help those communities clean up their voter rolls. Get the lists of registered voters and verify each and every single one of them as still alive, still residing in their precincts, and still eligible to vote. Because every single flawed registration on the rolls dilutes the validity of the honest voters, and is an invitation to voter fraud.
Excuse me, Mr. President? You’ve made great strides in bringing more and more aspects of business into the government. You’ve bought GM and Chrysler outright. You’re planning on making health insurance companies creatures of the government in all but name. Now you’re looking at doing the same to the financial market. Why don’t you slow down a bit? Why don’t you demonstrate that you know how to actually run a business before you take on more? Why don’t you show us that you know how to take troubled businesses and help them stand on their own first, before you take on more? Get GM and Chrysler off the government’s balance sheets and surviving on their own, and then we’ll talk about your grandiose plans for other areas.
You know, this could work. I can see definite advantages to the Obama Principle. It has a “force the other side to live up to their own rule book” flavor that’s straight out of Alinsky, and there’s very little as satisfying or successful as using Alinsky’s rules against Alinsky followers who’ve managed to become the establishment.
Update:Damn, I can’t believe I forgot THIS example…
Mr. Obama, let’s take a look at your career. You were a State Senator for several years, but had very few achievements. Then you became a United States Senator, and you’ve achieved very little in that job. Now you want to run for another, higher office? Sir, you have yet to show what you can achieve in the positions you’ve already held. Why don’t you spend a little time in the Senate, give the people of Illinois at least one full term, show us that you actually understand and can perform the duties of that one, and then we’ll talk about a possible promotion.