Personal or Business?
Doug Ross @ Journal has an article up titled “Forever Six” which argues with some modicum of plausibility that poor President Obama is a victim of arrested development. It’s an entertaining essay and might even be true. It lays out the six characteristics of a narcissist and follows each with numerous examples from the president’s own behavior, taken from press reports or books.
This is an example of what might be called arguing from a character defect. Since Obama is ‘defective’ then he is unqualified to be president. Okay.
Four years ago a similar argument about the President was made from the other direction. It might be called ‘arguing from self-evident superlative genius.’.
Interestingly enough many of those who advocated the election of Obama in 2008 did so not for reasons of experience or qualification, but because they believed he possessed some transcendental quality. Confronted with his blank track record his advocates pointed to the success of his campaign as the proof of his competence. It was a classic case of begging the question which went unremarked because his personal genius was supposedly so self-evident that he could learn anything on the job.
Historian Michael Bechloss said in 2008 that “whatever one’s partisan views this is a guy whose IQ is off the charts … he’s probably the smartest guy ever to become President.” Nor was he alone. In the same year a Yahoo posting board concluded that he was the smartest President since Thomas Jefferson. Journalist Andrea Mitchell believed his administration consisted of an “all star” cabinet.
In hindsight many of those who claimed to be dazzled by his light will wish they had never said that. If Obama proves less stellar than commonly thought he may also prove less defective than many now think. We will know all the answers — eventually.
These approaches stand in contrast to what might be called the Clint Eastwood school of thought. In the famous speech he gave at the Republican national convention Eastwood said who Obama was did not count for much. It didn’t matter whether he dressed well, spoke eloquently or communicated nightly with the spirits. What counted was how Obama did his job. Here’s how Eastwood put it:
I would just like to say something, ladies and gentlemen.
Something that I think is very important. It is that, you, we — we own this country.
We — we own it. It is not you owning it, and not politicians owning it. Politicians are employees of ours.
And — so — they are just going to come around and beg for votes every few years. It is the same old deal. But I just think it is important that you realize , that you’re the best in the world. Whether you are a Democrat or Republican or whether you’re libertarian or whatever, you are the best. And we should not ever forget that. And when somebody does not do the job, we got to let them go.
Okay, just remember that. And I’m speaking out for everybody out there. It doesn’t hurt, we don’t have to be.
Funny thing, I have argued with Obamatrons the converse —
Do you think it would ever make sense for a CEO to say, “I’m going to hire Jones to head up the Far-Eastern division. Have you ever met the guy? I gotta tell you… I don’t much like him. He’s got a real stick up his (behind), and can be a real jerk, but I think he’s the right guy for that job.”
How about a general choosing the right colonel to command an under-performing base or division? “That Col. Davies is a stone SOB, but I think we need a stone SOB over there.”
The answer (assuming they argue in good faith, a big assumption), is “Of course that can make sense. Nothing really out of the ordinary about that, that’s even smart leadership!”
Yet with a President…. “Oh, he has to feel my pain (UGH!!), I have to “wanna have a beer with him”, and of course, “He’s just too ‘square’ or whatever, that other guy is SO cool, didja see him on Letterman? (or Arsenio?)”
Patently, totally, and utterly asinine and juvenile, and welcome to our world, where Big Bird and contraception for 30 year old grad students are the primary issues of the day.
Mr. Obama is the result of a century-long effort to substitute the blind worship of credentials and resumes and simplistic litmus tests of ideological fealty that are portrayed as evidence of “free thought” …
… an effort to substitute these for a healthy respect of intellect and wisdom that is based upon the quality of the ideas, regardless of the source – and that recognizes the limits of human perception, staying well away from advocating the total submission of one man’s destiny to another’s alleged intellectual superiority.
What is the sound of one man with no name rapping ? >:)
Wretchard, no one, but no one, had ANY excuse for not knowing EXACTLY who and what Barack Hussein Obama was and is in 2008. He was a community rights activist (a polite way of saying legalized exortionist); a beneficiary of affirmative action in education and employment – and a man who spent 20 years in the church of Reverend Wright. No military, executive, business or administrative experience whatsoever. As for intelligence – a truly intelligent man would not need to conceal his school records. As for his character, giving someone “the finger” on national television tells anyone paying attention all they need to know.
I do not believe for one moment that the people who voted for Obama did not know who and what they were voting for. Some may have voted on the promise of power, others for government loot, but “dazzled by the light”, no. No one is dazzled by anything unless they want to be. Deception, even self-deception only goes so far. At some point everyone had to know who Obama was and what he stood for – and they voted for him anyway and most likely will do so again.
Note also Roger Simon’s hot thread here on PJM:
http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2012/10/06/the-real-debate
And some similar pocket analysis over on Taranto @ WSJ.
Other than that, I think Doug Ross insults the average six year old, who may be going through a stage but is not narcissistic so much as not yet engaged with the world, not actively shutting it out the way an adult must. Ross gives excellent descriptions of narcissism, but not so much the examples. Accurate pop psychology isn’t quite as easy as it looks.
Eastwood seems to have hit a nerve, hasn’t he?
Who’s turn is it to tell Democrats we don’t like them laughing at our mule?
I think that you have it exactly backwards. Obama is not now and never was super intelligent. In fact, he is a below average intellect and lazy thinker.
What is true is that a great many voters were fooled by their own intellectual laziness into thinking that they could gamble on a complete unknown for president, and that nothing very bad would come of it even if they guessed wrong. I guarantee you that these same people would never be so cavalier about choosing their heart surgeon.
Now that the cathartic, guilt-assuaging vote is behind us, I hope that voters will take this election more seriously.
Obama is a man of limited abilities and brittle character who believes in a bunch of economic and social falsehoods. Unfortunately for him he has been propelled into a job that he is incapable of doing. It’s comparable to the weekend Sierra Club hiker being suddenly forced to lead a climb of the Eiger’s North Wall.
Leading the President’s Route is beyond him technically, physically and mentally. He can’t function when exposed. I expect he quakes in his boots every time he is unprotected and has to execute exposed moves without assistance. No wonder he kept lifting his leg during the first debate – a literal signal that he needed a leg up.
Obama told everyone the truth in 2008. He described himself as being everyone’s wishes projected on him.
From Berlin and the 2008 speech:
“Interviewing the people who came out to listen to Obama speak, you could really feel a sense of excitement, and it seemed as if people were projecting their own personal hopes and wishes onto Obama. I think the atmosphere would be much less euphoric if Obama came to Berlin now.”
Yup
There were a lot of people who were shocked by the debate. I did not see it live, but saw it after everyone told me what a blowout it was. What I saw was not shocking, not because Obama didn’t lose the debate, badly, but because the two men we saw on stage were exactly as I knew them. There was nothing at all shocking about their performance. Obama was not on drugs or suffering from altitude sickness, he was the same Obama we had seen many times before. Obama is a declaimer, not a debater. Give him a speechwriter and a TelePrompTer and he’ll rabble rouse with the best of them. Speaking improvisationally, he’s gaffe prone (“You didn’t build that”) and literally gets lost in his sentences. This is evident in his press conferences in which he filibusters the compliant White House press corps in order to run out the clock from even the puff ball questions he gets asked. He has a supply of talking points and he repeats them during his public appearances. His comfort zone is limited to those talking points and he will not get beyond them.
Eastwood’s latest movie “Trouble With the Curve” has pulled in $24 Million so far. Acceptable but not exceptional.
A voter saying that you did not know that Obama was a Confidence Man is like a banker saying that they did not know that Greece was going to cheat. It is like the guy who cries in his beer that he didn’t know about the girl. Oh come on now. Your friends knew, your family knew, your neighbors knew, your dog knew.
There are people, one comments here, who knew young Obama. There are people, including yours truly, who either knew Obama or the people around him at Chicago. Any of them can and have almost universally proclaimed that they would not hire him to manage a candy store or supervise a 10 person office.
What we have is something simple. The Gatekeepers failed to act. Key elements in the Constitutional Republic’s process failed to function. At every stage responsible people, without regard to their ideological principles, should have looked at Obama or vetted him, and said “No way.”
The Republicans have floated up duds too. Spiro Agnew was over promoted when he was a cheap date dishonest zoning commissioner in Maryland. Dan Quayle was correct about Murphy Brown but not the right man for the job.
We need to make Federalism and Republicanism (in the constitutional sense of delegated representative government) work. We need candidates screened. We need an Electoral College that serves the public interest.
[godwin alert]
Obambus is in Los Angeles today messing up traffic, hosting a 6,000 audience private concert of Hollywood stars, followed by 150 person dinner for high rollers.
Was anything more grotesque ever seen in the Third Reich?
[/godwin alert]
I don’t think so Josh 13. Hollywood had to invent the final scene in Inglorious Basterds and didn’t even come close to the number of notorious under one tent.
As for traffic jams, don’t overlook the fact that he has caused them without even flying into town. His stimulus packages have provided money to union labor to tear up working freeways to create alterations that have questionable value. Carmageddon number 2 was last weekend. It’s probably just a coincidence that he’s here this weekend. OTOH, maybe it’s so we get used to the trouble he’s causing one way or the other.
11. Moneyrunner
There were a lot of people who were shocked by the debate. I did not see it live, but saw it after everyone told me what a blowout it was. What I saw was not shocking, not because Obama didn’t lose the debate, badly, but because the two men we saw on stage were exactly as I knew them.
…………….
Yeah, this is the way I thought too. What was most surprising to me was the reaction of the liberal media.
TomA …
What is true is that a great many voters were fooled by their own intellectual laziness into thinking that they could gamble on a complete unknown for president, and that nothing very bad would come of it even if they guessed wrong.
I think they were also driven by the desire to elect a “cool kid” … not only because they think that supporting his coolness makes them cool and accepted (like they thought back in high school), but because they felt that “cool” wouldn’t harsh their mellow about their own choices in life, the way a conservative fuddy-dud might with talk of things like “responsibility” for more than just the deep-pocketed.
BattleofthePyramids is correct that in 2008 Americans, including fatuous journalist Tom Brokaw simpering on national television, had no excuse for not knowing who Obama is. We disagree, however, that Americans did not care. Big Media betrayed the electorate with bromides, spouting the infantile Democrat party line, and a majority of voters were too complacent and lazy to inform themselves. Big Media sold out our country to a con-man.
But now we know who Comrade Zero is. There he stands in all his black-face glory, an ugly racist anti-Semite, a hate-America Communist and Muslim sympathizer slavering to “take revenge” on the white middle class. An ignorant, lazy, entitled guttersnipe mental midget narcissist with no background, no pride, and no loyalty, ferocious to bite the hand that gave him everything. An advocate of killing new-born infants whose one “accomplishment” in office is a monstrous “health care” law worthy of a Nazi death camp. Now we know, and Obozo and his Clown Circus are not going to get away with it again.
Am I the only one who remembers this – “McCain Suspends Campaign, Shocks Republicans”
McCain Suspends Campaign, Shocks Republicans
McCain threw the election to ‘our-loser-in-chief’
http://www.usnews.com/news/campaign-2008/articles/2008/09/24/mccain-suspends-campaign-shocks-republicans
link didn’t copy
McCain Suspends Campaign, Shocks Republicans
http://www.usnews.com/news/campaign-2008/articles/2008/09/24/mccain-suspends-campaign-shocks-republicans
I saw the debate as well. I knew Romney won, I just didn’t realize how completely until I saw the reactions from the media. Even the hard core leftys bailed on him. They can try to recover but it looks bad for little ‘o’. The only thing that the media hates more than appearing to back a conservative is to appearing to back a loser. They smell defeat and are running from it as fast as they can.
Psychologists who have analyzed Obamas non teleprompter speeches rate his verbal IQ of 100-105. average IQ
As he has sealed his academic records we cannot asses his non-verbal and math IQ -but is appears to be low average.
There are 3 kids of sociopaths/narcissists
1-Violent sociopaths/narcissists
-who end up in Jail, gangs
- or they can be very successful in extreme combat situation-military discipline gives them an adaptive structure -and they can thrive later in civilian life because of that early military discipline
2-Inadequate sociopath/narcissists-who end up drug addicts, alcoholics and in jail or shelters.
3-Creative sociopaths/narcissists-who can be very successful in business, the arts, entertainment or politics
EG
Steve Jobs, Larry Ellison etc in business
Picasso, Warhol, Hemingway etc in arts
Clinton, Obama etc in politics
Clinton has much more IQ than Obama and he is a much better spontaneous actor.
The Achilles Heel of sociopaths/narcissists is ridicule, humor, irony and sarcasm-
-in response they will either violently explode-or shut down.
Steve Jobs used to alternate between violent explosion and shut down in the face of ridicule, humor, irony and sarcasm-
Obama shut down-in public-at the debate in the face of Romney s use of ridicule, humor, irony and sarcasm-
But he is seething to explode-he wants revenge
Fortunately Romney has dealt with enough creative narcissists in business and politics to tackle Obamas coming rage at his wounded narcissism.
If Obama explodes-he is toast
If Obama continues to shut down-he is toast
Romney needs to be relentless and ruthless in his campaign of logic, reason, narrative -and genuine empathy and warmth
Integrity, honesty, character,morality…..all traits that we profess to admire.
But what happens when we compromise some or all for a short term, ephemeral goal? Can we get them back? Are the gone forever?
Judas sold out Jesus for 30 pieces of silver. Out media mavens, cultural, social, educational figures all claimed that Obama was, as Wretchard reports that “genius…off the charts” – Beschloss, “A team of brilliant rivals” – Dolores Kearns Goodwin, “Brilliant legal original thinker” – Laurence Tribe, and on, and on, and on…….
Have they sold us out, did they ever really know what Obama was, or did they even care?
I think they knew that Obama was a little bit less that “all that”, but didn’t care, because it advanced the ‘inevitability’ of their political viewpoint. From their collective point of view, what Obama was, was the ideological vessel that confirmed their own intellectual prejudices and beliefs. And those ideas and prejudices confirmed that Obama was a genius because that’s what they believed. How could it be otherwise?
It’s all so circular, and a closed circle.
Reality is a harsher judge, and may decide differently.
I’ve seen leftist comments on YouTube that espouse the belief that the American President is no more than a figurehead having no real power to influence anything. These aren’t just intellectually lazy people – these are woefully uneducated people. Sadly, this is why many thought it safe to hire an inexperienced, unqualified person for the job. It also explains the difficulty of convincing many that Obama’s poor job performance requires us to fire him and hire another.
OT, On Chavez thread, results in. This is bad.
I expected Romney to do well in the debates but he did extraordinarily well in part by taking Lehrer out early. Obama who can deliver a set speech in front of a friendly crowd with a teleprompter or two as well as any politician in the country has never been very good off the cuff and has been gaffe prone. That said though I would not overestimate the importance of winning a debate. Most minds are already made up in this election and Romney needs to very nearly sweep the swing states to carry the electoral college and that is a tall order.
I also would not underestimate Joe Biden’s appeal. He has the IQ of a radish but the temperament of a Kelso Round Head and it is not east to argue with an idiot without looking like one yourself.
The next time Romney and Obama meet the ground and format will favor Obama and I belive you can count on him to be better prepared so this election is still very much Obama’s to lose. With expectations so high for Romney and so low for the president a draw would be heralded as a great comeback by the media.
The bottom line is Romney kept himself in the race nothing more.
I think Obama is a pretty smart guy and we shouldn’t kid ourselves about this. What is dangerous about him is his ideology: stateism, socialism and Islam appeasement. Let’s assume he had been brilliant in the debate. He would still be
dangerous to our country. It may make us feel good to note that he is not as smart as he has been portrayed. But let’s not get over confident.Let’s make sure we vote him out of office and get someone who loves our country, someone who will not try to undermine our system of private enterprise and our federalist republic and merit based society. It doesn’t matter if he is a genius or an idiot. He is dangerous either way.
Speaking of pyschoanalysing our Dear Leader, Jerome Corsi has a new tale to tell: ( from Illinois in Play)
“As a young single woman, Michelle Robinson was a fixture in the home of civil rights leader Jesse Jackson, who along with Rev. Jeremiah Wright ‘arranged’ her marriage to Barack Obama, according to sources in Chicago who know the couple.
‘If you want to understand Michelle Obama, you’ve got to go back to Jesse Jackson, a woman called “Robyn” for this article told WND.
Robyn, who spent several years working for Jackson’s Rainbow PUSH Coalition, explained to a WND investigator in Chicago that Michelle Obama ‘just about grew up in Jesse Jackson’s home.’
‘Jesse should have charged her rent and board for the amount of time she spent in his home instead of her own,’ she said.”
This article is the second in a series. In the first installment, Corsi claimed that Obama was part of an “underground subculture in the black community known as Down Low, comprised largely of men who secretly engage in homosexual activity while living ‘straight’ lives in public.” And, that Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s church was a facilitation center for this underground subculture.
Putting that assertion aside, the close relationship between Michelle Robinson and the Jackson family adds weight to IP2P’s suggestion that the newly elected President would have taken all necessary steps to protect J.J., Jr., who was not only the Co-Chair of his Presidential Campaign Committee, but also a member of a family with a long and close personal relationship with Michelle Obama.”
To get a flavor of what a self-important tool this mope is, read the story of the Bootlicker’s Banquet, a/k/a, Sycophant’s Supper.
“It was a private interlude in Barack Obama’s prime-time presidency. But the dinner he recently hosted at the White House for nine of America’s most distinguished historians and scholars provided rare insight into Obama’s intellectual curiosity, how he views his job, and, most important, his belief that he has a remarkable opportunity to bring transformational change to America.
For more than two hours on June 30, over lamb chops, salad, coffee, and dessert, the new president quizzed his guests on a wide range of topics in what was described as a sort of “history book club, with the president as the inquisitor.” Those attending were Michael Beschloss, H. W. Brands, Douglas Brinkley, Robert Caro, Robert Dallek, Doris Kearns Goodwin, David Kennedy, Kenneth Mack, and Garry Wills. Collectively, they represent one of the most stellar collections of presidential expertise ever assembled at the White House. Others at the gathering included White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and senior adviser Valerie Jarrett.
After the session, undisclosed until now, Dallek observed that Obama “understands the dimensions of the challenge. He isn’t bogged down in details. He sees the larger picture, and he sees the opportunity to do big things,” such as revamp the economy, overhaul the healthcare system, achieve more energy independence, and facilitate a permanent peace settlement between Israel and the Palestinians. Obama also recognizes that “this is a major moment in the country’s history,” adds Dallek, author of acclaimed books on John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Franklin Roosevelt, and other iconic figures.
The get-together with the historians was the latest effort by Obama to break out of what he calls the White House “bubble”—the rigidly controlled, isolated existence that presidents often endure inside the White House gates.
An Obama spokesman familiar with the dinner says, “Throughout the campaign, the president sought ideas from people who were not in his immediate circle,” a process that he is continuing. “This kind of opportunity gives him the chance to get opinions, ideas, and perspectives he would not ordinarily get from the people he works with every day,” the spokesman said, adding: “He certainly continues to reach out to people of all walks of life.”
Some of Obama’s predecessors also made intense efforts to stay connected to the intellectual world. Among them were Woodrow Wilson, the former president of Princeton University; Franklin Roosevelt; Theodore Roosevelt; and Kennedy. However, other presidents were less impressed with academe. Johnson, for example, didn’t trust the scholarly community, partly because so many professors and their students had turned against the Vietnam War and LBJ’s leadership. Ronald Reagan, whose philosophy was fully formed when he reached the White House, didn’t feel the need for Obama-style “salons.”
But Obama, a former teacher of constitutional law at the University of Chicago, clearly wants to remain immersed in the world of ideas. The dinner began with drinks with the historians, and then they all adjourned to a dining room where they sat at an oblong table, with the president at the center.
Obama asked each of his guests to talk about the presidents he or she had studied, with the goal of providing insights into the problems that Obama faces today. At one point, Obama volunteered that he finds it a special challenge to carve out enough free time to think, and he spends the three hours between 9 p.m. and midnight ruminating and reading.”
The article says Obama wanted to make this “roundtable-style” meeting a regular event. So far, there has not been another. Shocking, just shocking.
I’m reminded of this:
AUTHOR: Samuel Johnson (1709–1784)
QUOTATION: Sir, a woman preaching is like a dog’s walking on his hind legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all.
ATTRIBUTION: Life of Johnson (Boswell). 1 Vol. ii. Chap. ix. 1763.
Obama’s rapturous reception is a mirror of this attitude. IOW, they are so amazed that a black man is actually, to use Biden’s words, “clean and articulate,” that they instantly decide he’s a “sort of god.”
But maybe a better mirror is this: A Southerner who wrote for the NY Times said, “New Yorkers, especially Timesmen, think all Southerners are congenital idiots. But the moment you open your mouth and something reasonably erudite comes out, they decide you’re a f*cking genius!” (paraphrased from memory)
TomA : “a great many voters were fooled by their own intellectual laziness into thinking that they could gamble on a complete unknown for president, and that nothing very bad would come of it even if they guessed wrong.”
Mark Steyn once published an email from a correspondent which encapsulated that attitude perfectly: the person wrote that “We’re rich enough that we can afford to be stupid.” As Steyn said, after 4 years of Obama we’re not rich anymore, but people still think that they can go on being stupid just the same.
It seems like everybody (and I don’t just mean everybody on this thread, but people all throughout the media universe) is using Obama’s poor debate performance as the occasion they needed to finally air what they really think of the man. That is interesting. As Wretchard says, we will know the whole truth only in retrospect.
As odd as it may sound, I think there was a perfectly understandable reason why many youthful and naive voters were excited about Obama back in 2008. In the very, very early days of his first campaign (and here we are taking it back all the way to 2006), Obama seemd to represent an alternative to modernity. It’s not that he set out to do this; in fact, neither he nor most of his adoring supporters seemed to have any conscious notion of what the appeal was all about. James Howard Kunstler probably came closest to the mark when he described Obama as “a far-sighted man who had seen the tsunamis of history erase the village before, and knew that, eventually, the village would grown back,” or words to that effect. Obama’s early statements like “We’re not going to be able to eat as much as we want” resonated with that nascent sense of surfeitedness with a world of futureless excess.
Deep down, Americans are growing disgusted with the modern world. We would like a leader who will lead us out of it. Obama showed signs of being that man for a short time, but he turned out to be nothing of the kind. What we really need is the Roman Catholic faith, but most of us have been so cut off from the traditional cultural sources of truth that we are confused, and cannot see enough to begin.
I am prepared to believe that Obama is above average in IQ, but where is one shred of objective evidence that he is a genius (by some measures 140+, by my measure 160+)? Anyone “off the charts” is a very high order genius and I see no signs whatsoever of this in Obama (I have taught elite college kids for 30 years).
Best,
Richard
BO’s downfall foreseen.
“This is his sole legacy: a massive post-traumatic stress disorder.”
“Former Democrat campaigner Gerhardt is furious:
“I can’t tell you how betrayed I feel. The people on Wall Street who have wrecked our economy have been let off the hook, while if you’re caught with a gram of marijuana you’re sent to jail.”
…-
“For Barack Obama’s believers, it’s all been downhill since the inauguration”
“President Obama’s 2008 cheerleaders admit job woes, student debts and fury at Wall Street have sapped their optimism”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/07/us-election-2012-obama-believers
…-
“Barack Obama – Narcissist or Merely Narcissistic?
Sam Vaknin, Ph.D. – 8/13/2008″
“The “small people”, the “rank and file”, the “loyal soldiers” of the narcissist – his flock, his nation, his employees – they pay the price. The disillusionment and disenchantment are agonizing. The process of reconstruction, of rising from the ashes, of overcoming the trauma of having been deceived, exploited and manipulated – is drawn-out. It is difficult to trust again, to have faith, to love, to be led, to collaborate. Feelings of shame and guilt engulf the erstwhile followers of the narcissist. This is his sole legacy: a massive post-traumatic stress disorder.”
http://www.globalpolitician.com/25109-barack-obama-elections
There are many ways of teaching history. One style was “great men.” That’s no longer PC because historically men prevail. That’s too bad because we now have a generation that does not understand that leadership involves struggle and the ability to sacrifice self for a larger good. Always in great men history there’s a nod to the matter of character and a look at the great man’s personal crucible.
Obama can craft and deliver a better than average speach…provided it is to be delivered to idolizing followers. He’s glib and plays at professorial sophistocation. Everyone of his sound bites on the campaign trail is a glib syllogism. He’s not that smart. He was never a professor. His law review credentials are the gifts of university diversity. Nevermind, he was largely perceived as very, very smart when he was simply “word clever.”
Debating skill is not the real test of a president. Ironically far more important is the ability to pick a good team and to tell which team members to trust and which to jettison. I suppose by my standard you could have a great president who was mute.
I would not vote for a candidate simply based on his debating skills, but now we have received a surprise gift “the electorate realization that ‘word clever’ does not mean universally smart.” And what a surprise gift!
The press never vetted Obama. They never disclosed a single flaw. They never looked for a crucible because he’d have to be compared with great men who’d had experience.
Experience and character were not important, up to this week in this new century, experience and character were passe.
The debate, in disclosing a single weakness, has made acceptable the possibility of other weaknesses.
27. Unsk
I also read those two installments by Corsi. There was also mention of O’s recent ”body man”, a term I’d never heard before despite a life-long interest in politics. Turns out these ”body men” have more or less always been there, gofers basically, and never before getting any public attention.
But this guy did. Lots of mention how he left the White House to go to grad school, reappeared at the convention … all this attention over a guy who supposedly just runs errands, plays b-ball with the prez, etc.
As I said, I’d never heard of a body man and all of a sudden here’s this one special guy. Were the press noticing his comings and goings because of common inside knowledge he’s a special kind of body man?
General IQ for adults is meaningless. The only IQ that counts is that which your job or task requires, and one’s IQ for that purpose. Numerical IQ therefore, is not important-it’s one’s relative IQ to those in the same job or profession. Obama’s relative IQ is at the most, “room temperature” and would likely prevent his execution if he committed capital murder.
There is a tight focus on the upcoming election as a make-or-break moment, and the blogosphere is weighing in with strong analysis/commentary in the hope that a Reagan-like turnaround will ensue. However, hope is not a contingency plan.
r @ 32: I am prepared to believe that Obama is above average in IQ, but where is one shred of objective evidence that he is a genius (by some measures 140+, by my measure 160+)? Anyone “off the charts” is a very high order genius and I see no signs whatsoever of this in Obama (I have taught elite college kids for 30 years).
Oh, I agree. He has a fairly high verbal capability, but I can hardly guess what that would even be on the “verbal” side of the SAT, what with his “corpseman” bit maybe 650-ish at very best. Math clearly under 500, likely under 400. Because his math is so bad his IQ test would suffer and he is not going to clear 120 by any means, and if he showed up like at the debate the other day he might not clear 100.
But then you give him his affirmative action points, and away we go, and voila he’s President of the United States and a Nobel Peace Prize winner.
Obama recites dogma, he doesn’t see through it as a “genius” will. Now, I just heard a little radio interview with our Governor Moonbeam regarding the California gasoline fiasco. Moonbeam certainly had a high IQ, nobody doubts that, though I don’t recall any official numbers. OTOH he sounded his age, he is not as sharp as he was twenty years ago, some of his stories didn’t really hold together. But Brown, I mean Moonbeam, is always the iconoclast, he puts together new stuff all day long, fwiw, and generally it’s more than any of his interlocutors can deal with. Of course that’s an awfully low bar anymore.
ps – I wouldn’t expect Mitt’s combined SAT score to be much above 1100, either, nor his IQ more than a few points different than Obama’s. But Mitt looks to be a much more pleasant and productive person to work around.
Mitt’s foreign policy speech from just now, do you think he wrote a word of it? I don’t.
http://www.businessinsider.com/mitt-romney-foreign-policy-speech-vmi-obama-virginia-military-institute-libya-2012-10
It sounds much more for domestic, political consumption than about any larger issues. Gentleman’s C, which isn’t much considering it was written by a professional staff. Do they write down for him?
IQ, for the most part, is a measure of math and language acuity in a vacuum. Such measures translate poorly into the rugged demands of the real world where the rubber meets the road, and the road is seeded with IEDs.
Obama may well be a “genius,” but there’s no evidence of this claim. Not only can he not reason his way out of a paper bag, he appears incapable of comprehending practical realities: how money works in the economy; the difference between 200,000 new teaching jobs and 12 million private sector jobs; why a tax credit is not the same as a tax cut; why Cash for Clunkers was world-class stupid; and so on, ad infinitum.
Is Romney a genius? Who cares? He understands money, the economy and jobs. He knows how to manage. He’s used to leading. He understands the synergistic effect of tax cuts on a floundering economy. He has executed successful turnarounds in the past, and believes he can do it again. He’s experienced the effects of over-regulation from both sides. From both business and politics, he understands weakness is an invitation for outside forces to attack.
The dichotomy is so stark and clear, there’s truly no basis for comparison.
There is no evidence Obama is a genius, and I tend to agree with folks who think he’s probably not much above average. The only reason there were people calling him a genius is that he parrotted back their own selfish beliefs from first the campaign stump, and then the Oval Office. He very ably represents the party of self-love, of self-admiration, and the key to the hearts of people like Chris Matthews is to agree with them. If you think you’re a towering intellect yourself, then anybody who agrees with you must be pretty sharp, n’est pas?
It’s what Richie the Riviter said up in #2 above, the result of credentialism. The basic mechanism of a credentialist subculture is self-congratulation and the elevation of membership above all other virtues. Obama was only ever a “genius” to the like minded people walled into the liberal garden, but it’s really no great distinction, since they most all think of themselves as geniuses too. He was just one of the boys in that club.
Limpet6 got at the same underlying truth with the observation that Obama’s speeches only worked for “idolizing followers.” I never thought he was a good speaker. He could deliver a cadence on occasion, when he’d had plenty of time to practice, but the words seemed about as inspired as a mid 90′s pop song. Oh baby, oh baby… And off-script, he made Biden sound like the soul of propriety. Maybe that explains the choice, ol’ Gaff-O-Matic Joe didn’t seem all that gaff prone to people who’d been around an off-prompter Obama for some time.
GDI-#39
Terrific analysis. One quibble: Romney is a genius in that he did his Harvard MBA and Harvard Law degrees
simultaneously. Subsequently, he is has applied his knowledge to the benefit of his investors and to
the general population.
Romney is not too smart to be President but Obama may be too lacking in IQ to be President.
When a Michael Bechloss says Obama is “probably the smartest guy ever to become President,” what he really means is “I’m the smartest guy ever because I can recognize greatness others cannot see.”
Michael Bechloss can also, one assumes, see unicorns.
Obama is a cypher, no doubt including to himself to some degree. He is such good bullshitter that, evidently, reality floats away from him at times. Perhaps more often than not.
Such people become the stuff of their stories, yet many of them deploy this skill to become outsized achievers. I have known one such fellow since childhood. He is a social butterfly, has bedded over a thousand women, and has designed some of the world’s most famous hotels and resorts. And yet, after knowing him for over thirty years, I have no inkling who he really is.
It seems incredible to say that Obama has achieved–earned–very little in his lifetime, and yet here he is: the President of the United States of America. Has any other man ever been as astoundingly rewarded for ambition–and not much else?
Has any other man ever been as astoundingly rewarded for ambition–and not much else?
Obama’s experience is the culmination of the ideology that gave us affirmative action, self-esteem affirmation, and grade inflation. We, as an aggregate, have chosen to punish ourselves for the sin of carrying, aiding, and abetting mediocrity But did we ever imagine that our folly would cause this much damage?
Even the phenomenon of reality shows is part of that chain of events. Americans entranced by flawed mediocrities parading themselves for our “entertainment.” Peeping Toms all. An activity that would get us hauled to court in the past is now engaged in by millions.
Michael Bechloss can also, one assumes, see unicorns.
And he’s a “historian?”
Wow. The Western world is led by dunces and clowns, isn’t it?