Led by a Follower: The Danger of a Weak President
Remember when U.S. presidents were regarded as the “leader of the free world”? They earned that moniker. FDR spoke of a day of infamy and rallied our nation to fight the Nazi threat to global freedom. JFK stood strong in the face of the Cuban Missile Crisis. And Ronald Reagan recognized the strength of America and stood up to one of the most deadly totalitarian regimes in human history.
Now we have President Obama.
He’s the one — we were told — who would restore our credibility in capitals around the globe. He was to reassert our moral authority: the nation that stands for basic human rights and the dignity of the individual. We were told that his intellect alone could bring tyrants to heel — Obama infamously expressed a desire to meet with dictators, never minding that such meetings would elevate despotic regimes by offering the prestige of the American presidency.
As has come to pass: emboldened by a weak or non-existent foreign policy, buoyed by the confidence that Obama’s White House is unwilling to act, and inspired by strongmen that openly defy the president’s wishes, thugs of all shapes, sizes, and degrees of brutality are challenging the United States.
Those challenges are met with silence, when condemnation is required. They are greeted with ambivalence, when the world cries for decisiveness. The world begs the U.S. to lead, and the “leader of the free world” is content to go with the flow.
Vice President Joe Biden said Obama would be tested, and he has been tested several times over. Each instance seemed a surprise, a distraction to the president. He appeared bothered that each crisis took him away from his stated goal of remaking America. Unfortunately, the rogue elements of the world were not inclined to give the president time to learn on the job. They, unlike Mr. Obama’s devout followers, were not fainting in the aisles after his inauguration. In fact, the despots felt just the opposite: they were reinvigorated. They smelled blood in the water.
In May of 2009, the dictator of North Korea tested a nuclear weapon that was rumored to have been as powerful as the device used over Hiroshima. The nuclear test was a clear violation of multiple United Nations Security Council resolutions and international agreements. President Obama’s response was less than inspirational: he declared that North Korea’s actions were “directly and recklessly challenging the international community,” and that “such provocations will only serve to deepen North Korea’s isolation.” Susan Rice, Mr. Obama’s ambassador to the U.N., reinforced the president’s stance, saying Pyongyang will “pay a price for the path that they’re on if they don’t reverse.” To date, nothing of substance has been done, and this lack of American leadership may have emboldened the communist nation. North Korea has since attacked and sunk a South Korean ship, killing 34 people, and the North launched a deadly shelling on South Korea in November 2010. Obama’s White House called for an end to the North’s “belligerent action.”
The weakness projected by President Obama on North Korea is bad enough. But the president’s timidity elsewhere on the world stage has led to far greater consequences and loss of life.
In the summer of 2009, Iranian citizens took to the streets of Tehran to protest “questionable” election results. The bloodshed that followed was horrific. The Iranian theocracy clamped down on freedom seekers with iron-fisted ruthlessness. The Telegraph, hardly conservative, summed up the White House response as “cowardly, lily-livered and wrong.” That was one of the more flattering accounts of the president’s policy toward Iran, or lack thereof.
It’s not like we weren’t warned of Mr. Obama’s predilections towards appeasement. All of his opponents in the 2008 election cycle, including his current secretary of state, warned that Mr. Obama’s desire to “sit down” with Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without preconditions would lead to disaster. It was Mr. Obama’s naive notion of talking with such a morally bankrupt regime that, many speculated, led to days of terror for the Iranian people with no opposition from the so-called “leader of the free world.”
In the beginning days of the protest, the administration — through VP Biden and Secretary Clinton — conveyed President Obama’s position: “We’re going to withhold comment…. I mean we’re just waiting to see,” Biden said. Clinton declared in a statement: “The United States has refrained from commenting on the election in Iran.”
Is that leadership?
What we are seeing from Obama and his lieutenants on the international front is, if David Stockman won’t mind my borrowing the title of his political autobiography, the triumph of politics.
Internationally, Obama has always seen his mission as winning the affections of those who detest America. That wasn’t a goal founded on objective requirements of the American interest; it was Obama’s need to prove himself a world-historical figure, wholly deserving of the wildly cheering throngs, the fainting women, the fawning media, the Greek temple, the Oval Office, and the Nobel Peace Prize. If it required him to push a number of long-time allies and friends away, so be it; he was and remains determined to prove that his personal charisma can trump any animosity of any degree or longevity.
Domestically, preserving the coalition that swept him and the Democrats to power required Obama to retain the allegiance of two highly disparate groups: his far-left “base,” which demands that the United States lower its head internationally to the point of apologizing even for its most heroic and self-sacrificial deeds; and the mass of independents which, though they voted him into office supposedly out of weariness with the Bush Administration’s wars and international intiaitives, expected that he would promote American interests with all the candor and vigor of an FDR, disdaining no tool applicable to the task. Obama conceived of a strategy that amounted to a coward’s version of the Islamic two-step: speak as though filled with Kennedyesque resolve to “pay any price, bear any burden,” but withhold substantive action of any kind. He hoped his rhetoric would placate the independents and moderates, but his practical inanition would satisfy his far-left “base.”
It’s all politics. Objectively, it can have no other driver. At least, a president who judges the tree by its fruit would have realized he’d erred grievously a long time ago. This president is either satisfied with the results of his strategy, or too stupid to note the evidence of its failures. Take your pick.
Outstanding observation.
He hoped his rhetoric would placate the independents and moderates, but his practical inanition would satisfy his far-left “base.”
“Inanition”??
You had me going there for a minute. I thought that was a typo but couldn’t figure out what you meant to say. Then I googled it and learned that it is a real word, meaning “Lack of mental or spiritual vigor and enthusiasm”. Whether Obama actually suffers from inanition though is an open question. Some people clearly feel that he is an incompetent buffoon, lurching from one crisis to the next with no idea of what he is doing. Others seem to feel that he is doing exactly what his statist co-conspirators want him to do, namely crippling America from within.
It’s certainly arguable, nor can it be settled objectively. In the practical realm, what matters is that he won’t move against the enemies of the United States. Indeed, he won’t even take a position verbally that he can’t weasel-word his way out of later, if the need should arise.
Obama is “pure politician.” There’s nothing else to him. He puts me in mind of what Barbara Tuchman said about Czar Nicholas II of Russia: he has “a mind so shallow as to be all surface.” His sole skills are at charming crowds sufficiently to get elected. Whether it’s from will-lessness or from malice, his international posture is a good fit to his sore lack of competence at anything but winning high office.
Yes! And he is satisfied with the results of his strategy as he seeks to destroy the United States, which he has always hated. His mama, a communist/atheist, hated the US and our values. His daddy, a moslem and a promoter of Sharia also hated the US for our values His mentors, Ayers, Wright, et al, hated the USA and attacked us every way they could.
Oscumbag and wifey burned our flag on several occasions,and he has subsequently taken one action after another to destroy our military, our economy and our polity.
His quality of character is shown by killing babies, promoting homosexuality, expanding government, inflating our economy to the point of bankruptcy, ignoring the militarism of Iran and North Korea, etc., ad nauseum.
True, he is not the brightest light in the marquee,(one of the several reasons for concealing his college transcripts), but he is not totally stupid, either; though a moral quadraplegic. He acts deliberately; a megalomaniac sociopath,(click on antisocial personality and see the perfect fit). He intends to destroy us and many, some ignorant, some stupid, some malicious, some emotionally disturbed, inted to support him in his endeavor.
Do not be surprised when he wins again in 2012, with the concurrence of rollover republicans, who will pose no greater threat to his satanic activities than they did in 2008. They will run the dimwit alaskan housewife, or one of the religious-nutcake governors or a mealy mouthed Bob Dole type; one like Oscambo, a minion of the Central Bankers.
If you went to a cafe where they had but two entrees: garbage and manure, might you not opt for another restaurant?
Honestly, if someone pulled out a burned piece of toast from my garbage can right now and ran it against Obama in 2012, I’d probably vote for it.
By dimwit Alaskan housewife,” do you mean the succesful, effective, and popular Alaskan governor, releelcted to her second term, a career woman and politcal leader who happens to have 5 children? Is Mitt Romney a dim-witted Massachusetts househusband, because he has several children, is also religous, and a former governor? Or is that type of insult, even on PJ, reserved for female conservatives?
Yes, some of us are getting touchy about the tossed-off, careless insults usually by the males in our own party. You may not like her policies (tho’ for a conservative, I don’t know what
s not to like) or her lifestyle, but to call an elected official with exective experience and an 80% positive rating who know energy and has battled big oil and the good ol’ boys in her own party — besides galvanizing millions and putting McCain ahead until Soros’s mysterious financial collapse– doesn’t seem like smart policy when we are looking for someone tough enough to withstand the flames thrown at whomever chooses to run against the messiah.
I do get so tired of petty, ad hominem attackes toward female conservatives, usually demeaning their intellgence despite. solid, conservatuve records, when male conservatives are discussed as to their policies and past successes. And I’m not even mentioning how she rates in toughness, persistence, outspokenness and charisma when compared to Daniels or Pawlenty… (who never get called names) or in family values compared to Newt Gingrich…or excitement when it comes to Huckabee. Why isn’t HE a dimwit but Palin is? Because Katie Couric thinks so?
Don’t let the media choose our candidates. The left is terrified of her for a reason. Palin/West or West/Palin — two candidates so tested by fire that they’d throw the media garbage right back in their faces rathee than backing down like Mccain did.
Right now, they are the only two who could demolish Obama and who would have the guts to do so. Wanna see Obama called out for who he really is and what he’s done to the country? Either of these two would relish the challange and the unbridlged pride that comes from saving your country. It’s be like Reasgan following Carter. Damn, I’d crawl over glass to vote for this ticket. And it’d be the most exciting and satisfying election ever.
Okat campaign ad over. But if we don’t put these two up, we deserve what we get.
By dimwit Alaskan housewife,” do you mean the succesful, effective, and popular Alaskan governor, releelcted to her second term, a career woman and politcal leader who happens to have 5 children? Is Mitt Romney a dim-witted Massachusetts househusband, because he has several children, is also religous, and a former governor? Or is that type of insult, even on PJ, reserved for female conservatives?
Yes, some of us are getting touchy about the tossed-off, careless insults usually by the males in our own party. You may not like her policies (tho’ for a conservative, I don’t know what
s not to like) or her lifestyle, but to call an elected official with exective experience and an 80% positive rating who know energy and has battled big oil and the good ol’ boys in her own party — besides galvanizing millions and putting McCain ahead until Soros’s mysterious financial collapse– doesn’t seem like smart policy when we are looking for someone tough enough to withstand the flames thrown at whomever chooses to run against the messiah.
I do get so tired of petty, ad hominem attackes toward female conservatives, usually demeaning their intellgence despite. solid, conservatuve records, when male conservatives are discussed as to their policies and past successes. And I’m not even mentioning how she rates in toughness, persistence, outspokenness and charisma when compared to Daniels or Pawlenty… (who never get called names) or in family values compared to Newt Gingrich…or excitement when it comes to Huckabee. Why isn’t HE a dimwit but Palin is? Because Katie Couric thinks so?
Don’t let the media choose our candidates. The left is terrified of her for a reason. Palin/West or West/Palin — two candidates so tested by fire that they’d throw the media garbage right back in their faces rathee than backing down like Mccain did.
Right now, they are the only two who could demolish Obama and who would have the guts to do so. Wanna see Obama called out for who he really is and what he’s done to the country? Either of these two would relish the challange and the unbridlged pride that comes from saving your country. It’s be like Reasgan following Carter. Damn, I’d crawl over glass to vote for this ticket. And it’d be the most exciting and satisfying election ever.
Okat campaign ad over. But if we don’t put these two up, we deserve what we get. (P.S. John Bolton for Secretary of State)
By dimwit Alaskan housewife,” do you mean the succesful, effective, and popular Alaskan governor, releelcted to her second term, a career woman and politcal leader who happens to have 5 children? Is Mitt Romney a dim-witted Massachusetts househusband, because he has several children, is also religous, and a former governor? Or is that type of insult, even on PJ, reserved for female conservatives?
Yes, some of us are getting touchy about the tossed-off, careless insults usually by the males in our own party. You may not like her policies (tho’ for a conservative, I don’t know what
s not to like) or her lifestyle, but to call an elected official with exective experience and an 80% positive rating who know energy and has battled big oil and the good ol’ boys in her own party — besides galvanizing millions and putting McCain ahead until Soros’s mysterious financial collapse– doesn’t seem like smart policy when we are looking for someone tough enough to withstand the flames thrown at whomever chooses to run against the messiah.
I do get so tired of petty, ad hominem attackes toward female conservatives, usually demeaning their intellgence despite. solid, conservatuve records, when male conservatives are discussed as to their policies and past successes. And I’m not even mentioning how she rates in toughness, persistence, outspokenness and charisma when compared to Daniels or Pawlenty… (who never get called names) or in family values compared to Newt Gingrich…or excitement when it comes to Huckabee. Why isn’t HE a dimwit but Palin is? Because Katie Couric thinks so?
Don’t let the media choose our candidates. The left is terrified of her for a reason. Palin/West or West/Palin — two candidates so tested by fire that they’d throw the media garbage right back in their faces rathee than backing down like Mccain did.
Right now, they are the only two who could demolish Obama and who would have the guts to do so. Wanna see Obama called out for who he really is and what he’s done to the country? Either of these two would relish the challange and the unbridlged pride that comes from saving your country. It’s be like Reasgan following Carter. Damn, I’d crawl over broken glass to vote for this ticket, and I know I’m not the only one. And it’d be the most exciting and satisfying election ever.
Okat campaign ad over. But if we don’t put these two up, we deserve what we get. (P.S. John Bolton for Secretary of State)
I would like to see the evidence of the “severe tongue lashing” you mention in this article.
Might I suggest the scolding he gave Mubarak after ‘MuBarack’ had already stepped down. And of course we could add to this his recent condemnation of Gaddafi even before Gaddafi has stepped down but probably will soon.
As noted before Obama jumps in to grab the Hero’s brass ring and present self serving scolds once he knows the outcome or is at least 99.9% sure of same. Our boy hero.
Iran which is boiling over from comments on Pajama’s isn’t even on is radar yet. Ah but Wisconsin is, those damned GOP cheeze heads are the true enemy in the lilliputian world of Obama.
He is a contemptible human being and he is our president.
Do we not know that Obama’s ‘pastor’, Jeremiah Wright, and his neighbor, Louis Farakhan, are buddies of Libyan despot Qadaffi? Do we not know that Obama’s people in Congress, the Congressional Black Congress, are pals of Cuba’s despot Castro? Do we not know that Obama’s biggest fans in Hollywood are best friends of the despot Chavez of Venezuela?
If one knows these things, why would one be mystified by Obama’s reluctance to diss despots and despotism?
The smell of western blood is most acute in the region where I live-Israel.EVERY day the Islamic beast encircles, knowing full well that under Obama’s reign the US will vote ‘present’.Nothing more.
Therefore, it behooves Israel’s leadership to start disobeying their Washington master, understanding full well that not only is Obama turning his back on allies, but is VERY eager to ‘watch’ unfolding events.IF this were not the case, he would task the mighty US forces to FINALLY deal with the head of the Islamic snake-Iran.
Thus, Israel’s leaders would do well to strike out on their own,at the time of their choosing, regardless of what Washington wants.After all, isn’t that EXACTLY what the Iranian Hitler and his surrogates are doing?
In light of the many horrific tragedies that have befallen the Jewish people in the last century can you as an Isreali shed some light on why 79% of American Jews voted for Barack Obama and many appear to be more supportive of their Progressive/Marxism then of the survival of the Isreali nation?
I think the lack of loyalty for Isreal is very troubling in this President but am dumbfounded as a father of three young men, one an active duty military officer, who might well have to be part of paying for the defense of Isreal, how so many Jewish Americans fail to see this threat and continue to support this Administration.
One might as well ask how could Christians have voted for Hitler.
Or jews.
Fool.
Nikel;
RE: “In light of the many horrific tragedies that have befallen the Jewish people in the last century can you as an Isreali shed some light on why 79% of American Jews voted for Barack Obama and many appear to be more supportive of their Progressive/Marxism then of the survival of the Isreali nation?”
Living in SoCal, with some Israeli blood married into the family, I’ve asked pretty much the same question time and again.
The way it’s been explained to me, primarily by some changing and getting far more Conservative, is many American Jews feel themselves a ‘minority’ and exposed to a large about of ‘prejudiced’ people. Because of this said ‘racial discrimination’ they lean Democrat for voting purposes (this last move is backwards from the ‘Go’). Need I mention now deceased Sen Robert ‘KKK’ Byrd???
I understand the theory, I do NOT agree with the perverted-logic.
Above is from word of mouth discussion with those discarding the Liberal image of the American Jew.
There is change going on, but it’s a slow process, and normally a family issue (younger often more Conservative, older often more Liberal).
Thank you for your response. I still don’t get it,but from the lack of responses other than yours, I guess I am not alone.
The Jewish diaspora are (like other peoples) a very proud people who are not amused by having to admit to backing the wrong horse. Look at the sometimes pained demeanor of John Stewart when feeling forced – at times comically – to defending the policies of Obama.
I have several Jewish conservative friends who while sometimes socially liberal would all fall into the Reaganesque spectrum on foreign policy, and who tell me that they often feel like lone voices in the wilderness even within their own families. But that is starting to change. As time goes on, there will be a tectonic shift in this country and many refexively leftist Jews, beginning with the intellectuals, will begin to see the light.
I disagree with the premise of your essay. Obama’s “weltanschauung” was formed and nurtured from an early age by Marxists, strident leftists and those who loathe the American ideal and yearn to see this nation brought to its knees. The very despots who now confront us are people that Obama and his ilk pander to and rush to defend time and again.
Jimmy Carter on the other hand was a weak president. He may have been Neville Chamberlain with a southern drawl, but he was not anti-American. He was willing to use force as a last resort, albeit with little resolve and ineffectually at best.
What we have now is not so much the world’s first post-American president as we have the world’s first ANTI-AMERICAN president. The sad truth is that despite the best efforts of the lackeys in the propagandist make-belive media to cover up 0bama’s background, all of this was well-documented for all to see years before November of 2008. One only had to open one’s eyes and ears. The Jeremiah Wright affair alone should have torpedoed this man’s political career then and there.
And we still have 687 days to go. G-d help us.
Un-American? Anti-American?
His actions are so antithetical to who Americans are that the only logical conclusion is that he is NOT American.
Where one fell out of the womb is not necessarily relevant (0bama’s continued concealment of his birth certificate notwithstanding). It’s what’s in one’s heart and mind that concerns me. My Hungarian-born relatives survived the death camps and their love of this country is unsurpassed.
The point being neither they or he is Constitutionally allowed to be President.
True, but it misses the point of this essay.
Married to a Hungarian, belong to their Magyar club, and have met many survivors of the revolution and gulags. No better Americans have I ever met. They despise Obama.
Amazing how immigrants (the real kind, not the border-jumpers) who fled totalitarian regimes abroad are the staunchest, most American of Americans. They are in total shock when they see how we are following the same road to destruction.
Pass the palacsintas, comrade…
Two years into this presidency and the occupant of the White House seems to get energized about golf, vacations, parties with musical guests, defending unions and friends who get arrested, hanging out with famous tech guys, expanding the federal government and spending money we don’t have. On broader topics, he talks about what his speechwriters care about.
Is his presidency “Where’s Waldo?” or “Waiting for Godot”, or Jimmy Carter’s 2nd term? I don’t know. What I will not miss about this president is his passivity, his slowness to respond, and his endless, non-specific rhetoric.
None of this is a surprise. We have been living this nightmare for over two years now and it only seems to be getting worse. The most recent events in Egypt and Libya are proof of that. And, in all of this turmoil in the Middle East, how do you think the Israelis feel? Did anyone in Washington bother looking at a map recently? Forget about stationing troops in Germany, where they literally are doing nothing. They should be stationed in Israel, where the next war is about to start within a year or so. Israel is now totally surrounded and isolated again. Once the Islamists take over Egypt and probably most of the other countries in the area, you could easily have another Yom Kippur War like the one they had in 1973.
But Obama really doesn’t care about any of this. He considers all foreign policy a “distraction” from his precious social-welfare programs that are bleeding this country dry. I’m sure that if Obama had his way, we would barely have a military at all and would be about as unprepared for the next war as FDR was for World War II. Didn’t Mark Twain say something like, “History doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme.” When Obama became president, TIME magazine had a painting of him looking like FDR. People will soon see how accurate that painting is. He has instituted massive new government spending (the likes of which even FDR never dreamed of), is gutting our military, and is turning more and more into an isolationist, relying on the United Nations to do nothing (just like we used to rely on the League of Nations to do nothing). This isn’t 2011 in Washington, it’s 1936.
Not one American soldier.
On the other hand we will take all the ordnance America can muster.
We will put it to very good use.
@ – “Forget about stationing troops in Germany, where they literally are doing nothing. They should be stationed in Israel, where the next war is about to start within a year or so.”
I hadn’t really thought of that myself but now that you mentioned it…Just think if Carter hadn’t given the Sinai Peninsula back to Egypt in 79, which Israel took over after the Yom kipper war, and occupied as a peace buffer zone, Gaza would now be a weapons free zone, Egypt would have great difficulty attacking Israel again, and the Sinai Peninsula would have been the perfect location for a humongous American military base perfectly centralized in the Middle East. Who knows it could have become the 51st State. Imagine the tourist slogans, “Come to America and scuba dive it the Red Sea.”
Oh well, hind-sight is always 20/20
In addition to my previous post:
Just think, there’s a very high probability that the muslim-brotherhood will soon control the Suez Canal. As crazy as my scenario might seem, wouldn’t it have been nice to have a little bit of muscle in the region to protect the interest of such and important waterway? Between Somali pirates and muslim-brotherhood controlling the Suez, I wouldn’t be surprised if most shipping companies just bite the bullet and go by the way of South Africa. Who knows, maybe South Africa will become a new Singapore.
Obama is the most juvenile president we’ve ever had. But what did the people who voted for him expect? He is exactly as paper-thin as he appeared while campaigning. Never tested, lauded for nothing, raised on Marxist pablum, and moved to the front of the line by his fellow travelers, the guilt-ridden, his fellow race-hustlers, and many many shallow but useful idiots. He came along at the exact right time to do the sort of damage that he all along intended.
How many millions of people around the world agree with Mr. Salcedo and decry the naivete/foolishness/corruption of those who voted M. Obama into his current — thankfully temporary — position?
The cost to America and the freedom-loving citizens of the world will only be apparent, much less put right, when the damage he’s brought about can be assessed from a distance.
It’s to be hoped we can survive until then and that the U.S. never faces the prospect of a third Carter presidency.
“The cost to America and the freedom-loving citizens of the world will only be apparent, much less put right, when the damage he’s brought about can be assessed from a distance.”
I wish that were true, Rick, but I fear that it is not. The hyenas are gathering and I suspect that they will make their moves in the Middle East, in Asia, and in Latin America while the former junior Senator from Illinois occupies the White House and they think they can get away with anything they want. I think that thousands of young American men and women in uniform are going to die because this foolish man will do nothing until it is too late, and then, like many another weak leaders caught in this situation, he will either dither and do too little or overreact to prove his macho bona fides. Either way, he will make a bad situation worse and there will be no way his enablers in the media will be able to hide the disaster. And then, as with Jimmy Carter, our posterity will wonder, as we do today with the likes of Franklin Pierce or James Buchanan, how did such a clearly unable man convince enough of the people to forego their usual sound common sense and vote him into the Presidency.
You have too much faith in the current electorate. American is demographically morphing into a third world country.
Weak president but at least he makes sure to protect us from domestic terrorists like home schoolers and FoxNews. d’_'b
Obama being elected President shows how inept or careless the American voter really is. I think another reason he was elected is that America was brow beaten so long over slavery and it was a feel good thing that has cost us dearly. In my lifetime I honestly have never seen a more inept and unsuitable President. America will not recover from Obama for years to come if ever.
Chris Salcedo, has President Obama done any constructive thing right? If the answer is no, what would lead you to believe this time would be different? In this case maybe less is actually more!
This is a man who was raised to show no love for the US. Who has only shown disdain for this country. Whose minister(?) poured 20 years of anti-american hatred into his ears. Who has surrounded himself with like-minded yes-men & yes-women and incompetents.
Why would you expect anything different?
The reason for Obama’s inability to lead, I suggest, is because he, as an individual, doesn’t engage in the risk-taking and individual actions of leadership. After all, leaders think through a situation in the real world, analyze it, and ‘dare to win’ and take action.
Obama, on the other hand, is a clinical narcissist. This is not your ordinary egotistical preening politician; this is a pathology that sets up a unique psychological state. Obama cannot deal with reality. He can’t analyze it, he can’t accept it as real, he can’t interaction with it.
He exists totally, in a ‘virtual world’ totally within his own making, within his total control. It’s a world that he authors, in his imagination, by his words. The function of this world-of-words is to control others. Obama must feel that he, by his words, can control how others deal with him. He probably moved into this state as a young boy.
Notice how Obama focuses only on rhetoric, whether it be that ipod of his speeches to the Queen, or his endless campaign speeches which are pure rhetoric, purely imaginary, non-factual and even false – untouched by the ‘slings and arrows’ of reality.
So, in this virtual world-of-words, which he, Obama, is in control of, he’ll lie to you, he’ll emotionally manipulate you…and if you still don’t become His Follower – then, he’ll accuse you of bias, bigotry, partisanship, racism.
And if you still resist him or if you are outside of his rhetorical reach then, for Obama, you simply do not exist. This is the sum total of Obama’s capacity for interaction with others and with the real world. It’s totally – within words.
Obama cannot deal with the facticity of reality. Reality, after all, doesn’t exist within your authorship; it flings its hard knocks at you and you must react. Obama can’t do that; he has to control the world and others. By his words alone.
So – other nations are outside of Obama’s virtual world, they are outside his control-by-words, their people don’t swoon over him but might be more interested in their own govt and economy…Therefore, to Obama, they do not exist. Literally. They do not exist. He can’t ‘grasp’ what is going on in that ‘outside world’ because it’s outside of his manipulative rhetorical reach.
That’s why all that Obama can do – is confined to situations where he can speak directly to and manipulate people. Community organizer; and campaigner. That’s it. Nothing more. He can’t deal with policies and programs because they are facts to be analyzed, not people to be manipulated. So, Obama leaves all policy and program devt to others.
On the campaign, his speeches are all about the virtual world…about the amorphous non-existent future. Hope and Change. Winning the Future. This is pure Obama in his virtual world! There’s no room in these imaginary words for reality, for facts, for others to intrude with real events!
Obama was, in foreign affairs, at first trying to continue on with his only mode of interaction: words. Endless ‘hope and change’ speeches. Our enemies laughed at him and strengthened themselves. He insulted all our allies and friends – because he, Obama, cannot interact with them as equals. He has to control them and show them that HE is dominant.
Now, since Obama’s Words have failed, he’s moved into his mode where the external world doesn’t exist. He has no interest in or involvement in it. All Obama does now, is read comments prepared by his staff to the press, he takes no leadership role. So, his staff, hardcore leftists, operating in the cultural relativism of ‘everyone else is OK’..dither, obfuscate and fall all over themselves.
Internally, Obama, as a socialist, with his staff, has only one agenda: control. To insert statism into the US and remove individual powers.
I wish I didn’t agree with you.
Now I’m all sad.
There are many really good comments about the failings of this president but the truth is that those who elected Obama still will vote for him – because he is black. Those individuals will cause the downfall of this country.
Fail
Now, let’s wait for the GOP to nominate a boring, non appealing, old guard “white male” against Obama in 2012. Obama will win reelection in a landslide.
PLEASE NO!!
If Allen West isn’t the next President he should at least be Vise-President.
I’m White…does that make me racist?
The whole concept of a ‘weak president’ is misleading.
He certainly is weak, but it’s a minor factor in his Middle East ‘policy’.
The policy is to use events in the Middle East as a distraction, when it’s convenient, and to ignore them when he doesn’t need a distraction.
For a community organizer, demonstrations, riots, and anger are ALWAYS a good thing. When they occur spontaneously, all it means is that the comunity organizer has more time to enjoy wagu beef and party. For little lenin, he would enjoy nothing more than a 24x7x365x2year series of crises in that part of the world. It might seem conterintuitive, but not if you realize that the hollow-cheeked press will spin those events any way little lenin wants. In fact, if the parties are too distracting, they win just work that much harder to spin them.
If some of those countries end up with better governments than they have today (not likely), then he will take credit for that. If instead, they sink further into the sewer of radical Islam, he will remind us of how he warned so many times about the end-game of bushhitler’s policies, policies so disastrous that even a godman has not been able to prevent.
It’s just a variation on the strategy of lying so artfully that no matter what happens, he can take credit; his only life skill. Concentrating on the proactive lying is much much easier than actually making a decision. Party on.
Hmm – interesting premise. You are, if I understand you correctly, saying that Obama actually has a ME policy! It is to use the events as a distraction and, otherwise, to ignore them. I am not convinced of the viability of this premise.
What is going on now in the ME and in the US – with the fights between the Democrats-Unions and the GOP-Tea Party – are actually preventing Obama from doing the only thing he is capable of: campaigning.
He comes out of hiding, from time to time, to give a pompous, self-asserting ‘press release’ on the ME or on the budget or on unions – all of which are written by the backroom staff, all of which are vacuous rhetoric and exist only as words that cannot move into acts…and then, he goes back to hide. And party.
Certainly, I agree that if things go well in the ME – and they eventually will – Obama will claim credit. But that’s vintage Obama; remember, he takes credit for the ‘oceans ceasing to rise’…and hides when the tide comes in.
So, I fully agree that his only life skill is – lying so artfully that he can take credit for any and all results. Heh – remember his comment when the unemployment was rising above his promised top level of 8.5..and he suggested we should be thankful it wasn’t 15%? (And it is in some areas).
He’s a sham, a used-car salesman and nothing more. He is embedded within the socialist mindset via his upbringing of his rabidly socialist father, mother, grandmother – and wife. And, he is embedded within the socialist poitical camp because he psychologically needs to operate within the socialist structure of Elite Rulers.
He is embedded in anti-Americanism from these same influences and is anti-white as well. That is, he is a racist.
He is also, interestingly, always under the thumb of some dominant woman, his mother, grandmother, wife – who supplies him with the ‘intellectual content’ of his socialism. Obama is not, himself, an intellectual, for he cannot deal with the objective nature of ‘facts and theories’. He is only able to interact with people – and these people must be submissive to him.
What will be interesting is – will the Democrats keep him for 2012? They lost badly in November 2010 because of him; they are denying this but it’s a fact.
The current undemocratic behavior of Democrats in various states — of leaving the legislature and rendering the legislature unable to democratically function is a violation of their duty as elected representatives of the people. The legislative process in a democracy means that there must be a full debate and vote. To prevent both by refusing to allow the legislature to function – is an open rejection of the rights of the people to the democratic process.
What are the Democrats going to do – with Obama, with their own role?
I’m absolutely with you on the campaigning. It goes hand and hand with the irresistable lying. He probably lies to his daughters, to his dog, to the toilet lid. He simply can’t help himself.
But we do differ a bit about his strategy. I agree he’s a super-nova narcissist and that his eqo dominates everything. But in my view, his default position is always his redistributionist agenda. This has been imprinted in his brain. It’s part of him. It isn’t quite as fundamental as his self love and the uncontrollable need to control every one else, but it’s still a major factor. Add to that default position his cabal of controllers and sychophants and you get a marxist rubber band that can bend a little here and there, but which always always snaps back to the default position: American success bad, handouts to “my people” good. So, I see him as a believer in addition to the self-love. It’s so ingrained that despite a lifetime of training, in ungaurded moments, it spurts out…like an alien in his stomach that knows it has to hide but sometimes it just has to, to GET OUT.
And he doesn’t give a rat’s ass about the Middle East (except Israel, which he obviously despises. Leftists are always vile anti-semites.), other than as a convenient source of chaos and distractions.
OK – I see your point about the default positions. I agree. They are ‘programmed defaults’.
That is, I strongly reject any notion that Obama is, himself, an intellectual. He hasn’t thought through any political or economic theory on his own. He’s utterly incapable of such an action for that requires that he view facts and theories as having an objective reality ‘in themselves’. As real outside of him. For Obama, if he can’t make something His – it doesn’t exist. His only tactic of achieving such totalitarian control is: lies and emotional manipulation.
I agree that his default positions are ingrained from his upbringing and the dominant figures in his background. So, his default is his socialist redistribution, his anti-Americanism, his anti-West views, his racism. He doesn’t even, as you say, think about these views; he defaults to them automatically.
The rabble socialist Democrats he’s gathered around him, who are all of this, but not by default but by fervent belief, provide him with a Sect of Believers for support.
What interests me is – what is the Democratic Party going to do? They have prevented new blood from coming in, whereas the GOP are revitalized by a host of newcomers with fresh approaches and so-far untarnished agendas. The Democrats staked everything on a Messianic approach, defining all others as followers. So, they have no-one to replace Obama! But, he’s proving to be disastrous.
The Democrats are reduced now to refusing to take part in the democratic process and indeed, preventing it from existence. Their flights from their states is not only an abrogation of their elected responsibility to sit and vote in the legislature, but, is a violation of their constitutional duty to uphold the democratic process that takes place in the legislature. They ought to be impeached for harming the legislative process.
What are the Democrats going to do? They have no new blood; they have a president who is intellectually empty and who hides from dealing with the realities of the world; all he can do is campaign in vacuous future-oriented rhetoric; they have nothing positive to campaign on….Quite the running over a cliff…
I think they have made a conscious decision to risk it all on a one-shot winner-take-all strategy. It appears to me they aren’t interested in half measures; they want the equivalent of a coup. Evidence:
- Obamacare in the teeth of enraged oppostition. The could have settled for far less and built on it for years
- Wisconsin. Similar. They didn’t need to wheel in the thugs.
- Ages of the Dem patriarchs. They all have a foot in the grave. It’s now or never for true believers who devoted their lives to achieving all-powerful statist socialism.
- Lawlessness. Chrysler bonds. Czars. Black Panthers. Gates. EPA. Obamacare. The ObamaCare process. The drilling ban. et al. These are not the actions of people convinced that their case can win the day. They are the actions of people desperate to grab the brass ring in one life or death push for glory.
- the invective. It was over the top before. Now it is galactic.
- the media. Their game is up as well. It’s closely parallel to the Socialists. It’s now or never for those dinasaurs as well.
- the unions. The third leg of the assault. But they are dying as well. Membership is way down and the public is now beginning to understand the corrosive alliance that has destoyed education in the US and corrupted an entire politial party.
This is the short list. There must be many thousands of individual examples. There is virtually no interest in persuasion. They are jamming it in, knowing the country doesn’t agree with them, and knowing that history is against them. All or nothing. They will use violence and be even more flagrant about breaking the law with no constraints whatsoever if 2012 begins to go strongly against them.
In reply to proreason 9:37am comment – yes, I agree that the Democratic strategy is ‘all or nothing’. After all, they have failed -well, they never attempted – to persuade the electorate by debate of the viability of their platform.
The Stimulus, which wasn’t about ‘shovel-ready infrastructure development’ but about saving public sector jobs in various states – wasn’t debated in Congress. It was pushed through in an Either-Or fashion by Obama. “Pass this bill instantly OR the US economy will collapse”. Hmm.
Notice how Obama views Congress – as an irrelevant ‘thing’ in His way. He wants no debate, no analysis. Just do as He says. That is, the bills are to be passed based on Trust-in-Obama. Not on the analysis of the viability of the Bill. I consider this to be clear evidence of Obama’s contempt for government, contempt for the people, contempt for democracy.
Congress IS the people. And Obama has shown, again and again, how he considers it irrelevant and time-wasting. That goes for EVERY bill – his health care, which is not about health but about statist control of 1/6th of the economy; etc. Remember Pelosi telling people that they’d understand the bill ‘later after it’s passed’. Heh.
The Democrats are not attempting to persuade but to Rule by Dictatorial Fiat. As you point out, their patriarchs are aged and dithering and they’ve adamantly kept out new blood. And they are getting increasingly lawless – including their violation of the constitution by refusing to allow various state governments to function by not showing up for legislative quorums. They are moving into actual physical violence by using the unions as such agencies. I don’t think it will work..
With all due respect to your always concise writings but….most are well aware of the evidence you present, along with so much more. In fact, such pertinent evidence has been regurgitated so much so, that its beginning to become a worn out record.
The rising of the Tea Party and its proclaimed success by its followers was to be that first step in taking back America. As you must know by now, that success, with the GOP in charge of the HOR and a sweep of GOP governors, little more has been initiated than to strategically shoot themselves in the foot at every opportunity….an all to familiar expertise of the GOP nowadays.
The GOP of the HOR has become so silent and non transparent that the pollsters haven’t even the need to do any polling on whatever they are doing. They should have come in with a precise and doable plan of execution and stayed in front of the national media with orgainzed press conferences at least three times a week. Health care?? Tax reform?? Spending cuts across both dicretionary and non discretionary liabilities??
Reducing the size of government?? 2012 budget proposal by the president?? What are they doing that the ‘people of the uprising’ can grasp and get behind or reject??
Then, don’t get me started on the moronic and strategic blunder Gov. Walker of WI has made. The one State where you are foolish to publically threaten the unions, private or public. The intelligent means would have been to follow what other states have done to accomplish the same thing….demand your GOP majority legislative body simply legislate and enact public bargining rights reform and then if not passed issue pink slips. Thats the constitutional process and would have created less national attention. The process he chose has backfired according to polling and galvanized the democrats [national] base and…..one heck of a lot of republican citizens who likewise, are unionists….though they may not be quite so out spoken publically.
When the days prize is being yanked from the from the tigers mouth he is likely to attack whether republican or democrat. Folks are party neutral when it comes to somebody messing with their jobs, income and benefits….union or non union! Its a human nature sort of thing.
It would have been simple for the legislative body to include in the bill such things as pay and benefits automatically equitable to the private sector indicies thus, the need for union bargining rights would have essentially been negated….and easier to accept. Unionists understand ‘fair social equity and justice’ as its one of the things they preach….right? Just saying there was a better and smarter way to approach the reform in WI of all States.
Correct me if I’m wrong.
I see your point but I question how Walker could ‘demand that his GOP legislative majority pass negotiation reforms – without supplying a reason for so doing. The reason is not whim but fiscal. And to, if the union makes a fuss, then ‘issue pink slips’ would also have to be based on that fiscal reasoning.
So, either approach – Walker’s upfront reason that ‘there is no money and therefore, bargaining reform is necessary’ or its opposite, ‘bargaining reform must be done (no reason provided?) or pink slips..’ would produce the SAME result: union hysteria.
Certainly, as Krauthammer points out, now, Walker should pass the non-fiscal legislation in the absence of the Democrats. He could have, as you suggest, have done it first but the result: union hysteria: would have been, I suggest, the same.
As for the GOP in the federal zone – I think they are doing OK. Obama has effectively disappeared and pops up only occasionally to read this handler’s memoes…and goes back into hiding. It is becoming more and more public that he is ‘present’ and has no leadership role. I think the time for the GOP to move more into the public eye is not before the Hidden Obama Image became obvious…but…to wait until it is very public.
TT, I think you assume that normal independent voters are as well-informed as commentors on PJM, and that is definitely not true.
I don’t even think that the conservative media agrees with the essential point of this thread, which is that the Republicans ought to hammer home the point that “if the liberal message is so wonderful, why must they continually break and bend the law to get their way?”. Who says that on a regular basis? Why isn’t it the first thing out of any pundits mouth? Americans simply don’t know it.
- why do dems flee the state to get their way. What about the election?
- why must 5% of the state conduct violent protests. What about the 95%?
- why the obvious double standard between thugs and peaceful citizens?
- why was obamacare passed at midnight before the Chrismas holiday break?
- why was the obamacare czar installed by executive fiat?
- why was Brown’s election ignored when Massachusetts message was clear?
- why have 700+ obamacare waivers been issued to obama cronies?
- and thousands of other whys
Americans simply do not know these things or understand that are being governed by trickery rather than open debate and reaching common ground.
It has to be said.
And your point about strategic errors in Wisconsin has not been proven by a long shot. The other states, as one example, have not been the ones topublicize the issue; Wisconsin has. It might be strategic brilliance rather than an error. Don’t assume that your generous attitude toward the Teachers Union is widely shared. Most of the country believes it is a Union problem, not a Teacher problem. They jury is still out on the unltimate disposition.
There is not much wrong about a president speaking softly, provided that he has and is prepared to use a big stick. A former “Progressive president,” Theodore Roosevelt, could speak softly and successfully in the interests of the United States because he had and was prepared to use a big stick. “Progressive,” of course, then had a different meaning from that now ascribed to it.
There are many examples, the Great White Fleet being one of the more symbolic.
I find any possibility that President Obama would remotely consider even that sort of symbolic gesture well beyond my powers of imagination. President Obama seems instead to be whittling away at what’s left of the big stick he has, while manifesting little interest in actually using it.
TR also earned the Nobel Peace Prize in 1906 for his work in negotiating the Russo-Japanese war.
Leaders can only lead successfully if they have a conception of a destination. If President Obama has such a destination in mind, it is either so amorphous as to be no destination at all or disastrous for the United States. Neither is acceptable.
Back in college we called a guy like Obama a “faceman” meaning he looked and sounded good, but there was nothing inside. That doesn’t mean Obama is dumb, but that he’s got no core. He was put in there by the Progressive establishment because they thought he was electible – and that they could manipulate him. They were right.
“Obama defers to the tyrants and the UN …”
===========
Considering how weak Obama is, I would write that phrase as “Obama defers to his betters and the UN” Where is Jimmy Carter when we need him?
Exactly right. He knows exactly what he is doing in his delayed and weak responses: purposely positioning us as a follower nation. Which, if you ask me, is completely against the wishes of the American people.
As far as I’m concerned, America has always been a leader, in fact has been a leader since before she was even founded. For the first time in history, a state was founded to serve the people, not the other way around. We led there. We led in the establishment of a wall between the state and religion. We led the way in innovation. We led the way in technology. We led the way in supporting other nations in war. We led when natural disasters devastated other countries, we led when people all over the world need help. As soon as we hear about it, we, the American people, step up, take action, open our wallets, do whatever needs to be done in order to help.
Not so Obama. He wants us as a follower nation, to let others step up first, to condemn first, to help first. He does not understand, or does not care, that WE do care. We the people don’t want to be followers, we want to remain a leader. So I’d argue that he’s not a good fit for the role, and needs to be fired, ASAP. Too bad we can’t let him go until 2012.
Obama’s new hobby–besides golf & endless parties on our taxpayer dime–is now making homemade beer:
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/03/04/good-news-obama-now-brewing-his-own-beer-at-the-white-house/
The college freshman, frat boy lives in the White House named Barack Hussein Obama. Priorities. The Infant Terrible likes his new toy.
You know, I think ‘President WTF’ is quite an apt description. Excellent invention, Ms. Palin.
d(^_^)b
http://libertyatstake.blogspot.com/
“Because the Only Good Progressive is a Failed Progressive”
Present. Now, can I just finish my waffle?
led by a follower? We’re not being “led”. We’re being alternately ignored or bullied. But we are definitely not being led. E
President Obama and the majority of the Democratic Party probably believe sincerely that the United States has much to be ashamed of and has been an influence for ill within its borders and in the world for many decades. They may hope to rein in American influence in the world and make reparations to those of its citizens who they believe have been harmed by the nation’s capitalistic economic system, its clearly competitive society, and the American people’s backward notion that the freedom and responsibility of individuals should be protected by the government instead of stymied in the interest of material equality.
What the majority of American people think of this American Hugo Chavez was demonstrated in the last election. Unfortunately he remains in office—an anti-American political boss who suffers from an oddly self-inflating cowardice and hopes to make impotent or buy off enough Americans to insure his re-election.
Obama cannot be the leader of the free world, because America and the rest of the free world (that is, the EU), no longer wish to be free. America has abandoned its freedoms for hate speech laws, affirmative action, studies programs, TSA, ATF, Romneycare and Obamacare, etc. Obama believes 100% in EUSSR-style tyranny. The American people choose him above all others to lead them on their chosen path; he won; and we and the world will be lead from freedom, not to it.
I noticed that he never takes a hard decision. Its always the easy one, with the least confrontation and the most deferal of conflict. I also noticed his emotionally immature Marxism, and his emotionally immature sympathy for Islam. It is strange to see those combined. There is something to think about in 14. ETAB above, explaining that he wants to dominate by hs words, “That’s why all that Obama can do – is confined to situations where he can speak directly to and manipulate people. Community organizer; and campaigner. That’s it. Nothing more. He can’t deal with policies and programs because they are facts to be analyzed, not people to be manipulated. So, Obama leaves all policy and program devt to others.” But there is also a pattern of anti-Americanism which pervades his Presidency. How many times has he supported anything that makes the USA a stronger, more competent nation? It is hard to think of one thing. He does Democrat party politics in practise and his “patriotic” words are less and less convincing with each week.
As for his victory in 2008 – I think he read “Learned Optimism” by Seligman and learned how to put references to “hope” in his speeches, either directly or indirectly. Seligman insists that is the difference between successful candidates for election and the failures.
After Obama is out of office, political analysts and historians are going to have a field day. When you stand back, and take a look at both this man’s words and actions, it is stunning to see what is going on. He is trying his best to weaken this country and actually, bring us to ruin. He was surrounded by people who hated America all of his formative years so it must be expected that he would feel this same way. Regardless of what political party you belong to, he is hurting OUR country.
Many excellent comments.
I can’t recall verbatim but this past week a spoke of Obam’s ‘silent’ decision making. Now I get it!
That must have been his ‘silent decision making’ process when he’d voted ‘Present’ 110 + times when Senator.
The cover for this empty suit’s TOTAL incompetence is beyond mind boggling.
While I agree with the dangers an Obama has exposed us to, what is it we can do to eliminate the possibility of his reelection by the same groups that fell for the Pied Piper the first time? We have the same complicit liberal media and university lead progressives poisoning the minds of those groups that seem to want an easier government supported life for themselves.
I wonder how low can America fall before these people see the truth of the value of our once honored work ethic and independence. That gave us our strength and that plus love of country, is what is sneered at by liberal leftists in all quarters.
I never expected anything from øbama, but that doesn’t prevent disappointment, he is even worse than I thought.
The main disappointment is in the American voters, who behaved like silly teens voting for some rock idol. While giving full credit to the MSM for their part, my confidence in America is shaken. If we are indeed a nation of spoiled children, as it appears, the outlook is dim.
For the past few decades, the politically correct have chastised students with the command, “You mustn’t judge!” Obama is so thoroughly steeped in this dogma he cannot judge and therefore he cannot make judgments.
Unfortunately, the essence of leadership is to view the available facts, make a judgment with respect to how those facts affect those you lead, make a decision, and then act in a way which will, presumably, result in an outcome favorable to those you lead.
Because Obama cannot or will not take the first step, he therefore cannot take the successive steps of leadership.
God save our Republic from this twit.
“The world’s despots seem reasonably assured that the most negative consequence for their mayhem is a severe tongue-lashing.”
Severe tongue-lashing? Who? When? Where? I missed it.
Obama reserves his ire and baseless “tough-guy” talk solely for Americans. Those of us who oppose his fecklessness are racist, bitter clingers, and the real enemy.
I can only hope he’s right, and he has more to fear from we the people than we have to fear from the violent forces exploding abroad. Heck, I’d charter the ferry for him, if he would just promise to step down tomorrow.
Why should we always be the ones spending treasure and lives to make the lives of foreigners better? Why should we care about Egypt……………..nothing will change there…..they are what they are.
If we really want to intervene……send our boys to Mexico. More death and corruption there than Libya & Egypt.