I don’t know whether or not this is true, but it certainly wouldn’t shock me if it were.
I disagree that he’s a lock to win in 2012, though. I think the magic is over. The rubes have caught on.
[Sunday morning update]
This post is about Sarah Palin, but I think that this part about the president is right:
Obama would be making a deadly mistake by calling out Sarah Palin for a political cage match. Let me put this bluntly: virtually no one in America gives a damn what Barack Obama says about anything at this point. What could be more predictable, and less interesting, than Obama’s opinion on any given subject? Who wants to contemplate the economic wisdom of a guy who looted the Treasury for a trillion dollars, with less benefit than we could have achieved by stuffing hundred dollar bills into random cereal boxes? Who’s excited to hear about the next plan to convert taxpayer dollars into Democrat campaign funds? Who’s hungry for another hour of tedious excuses about permanently broken markets and the titanic dead hand of George W. Bush? Who wants a lecture on ethical business practices from the titular head of the party that gave us Charlie Rangel and Maxine Waters? What use is another hollow foreign-policy speech from a man who sees no global adversary to rival the menace of Arizona? Even Obama’s supporters don’t hear anything he says any more. There’s nothing left to hear.
Unfortunately, speechifying on his radical agenda is all he’s ever had. As I said, the rubes have caught on. There aren’t enough marks left, any more.
A lock to win in 2012? Maybe, if the Republican establishment prevails against the TEA Parties and nominates another Bob Dole, John McCain, or Thomas Matula. But if Barry Dunham were to run unopposed, he’d lose.
I look for Hillary to resign as Sec State in the next couple of months. She will likely take the Dem nomination away from Obama for 2012
If true, that would be disturbing. I’d have to say though that it sounds here like Obama is suffering from some degree of depression. He wasn’t “lazy” when he was on the campaign trail. That still can be lethal when dealing with politicians and other leaders who ruthlessly exploit such weaknesses.
There are historical examples of this. For example, as I understand it, Woodrow Wilson (who not coincidentally is used as a comparison to Obama) single-handed attempted to negotiate key parts of the Treaty of Versailles with the leaders of France and the UK. These leaders eventually wore Wilson down (supposedly by tag teaming him, negotiating one after the other). And when Wilson picked up the 1918 influenza, some point in early 1919, his resistance to the harsh Treaty terms collapsed as well.
Aside from my bit of pop psych, it sounds to me like more evidence that Obama isn’t on his “A” game nor is his “A” game all that good to begin with.
I’d say many of Obama’s supporters are losing it as well. They are just outraged that Keynesian ideals don’t have the multiplication effect that they learned in school. Rather than question their poor education, they blame the masses for being too stupid to spend money during a recession.
“I look for Hillary to resign as Sec State in the next couple of months. She will likely take the Dem nomination away from Obama for 2012”
…..and Blacks to stay home in droves if she does.
The “white house insider” interviewee is unnamed, but who was the interviewer? The author of the article? If so, the whole thing is surely made up. The author only reveals his internet handle “Ulsterman”, not his full name. Ulsterman’s profile (http://www.triond.com/users/Ulsterman) is full of lightweight (at best) stories such as this one:
http://purpleslinky.com/offbeat/freak-favorite/ The photo is funny. Ulsterman’s comments, if meant seriously, seal my doubts about his credibility. I can hope Ulsterman is a crude humorist, and his comments are tongue-in-cheek.
I got to agree with Bob here. Why does a former insider talk to “Ulsterman”? I have to say that it smells fake to me.
I tried reading through the article, but once the annoying video takes up half my screen, I click back. Doesn’t really matter to me if it is true or false. Who ever wrote it doesn’t want it read, at least not on that website.
I “third” Bob-1’s skepticism, though Rand never claimed it was true, just that it wouldn’t shock him if it was.
It wouldn’t shock me, either, because I could have written this just by watching the news. Anyone who pays attention to human beings could have done it.
Let me elaborate. If say the NYT or Washington Post were to do such a story, they’d at least be putting their rep on the line. It could still be as phony as a three dollar bill (and this has happened before), but there would be repercussions that would hurt these businesses more than the gain they’d get from a fake scoop (for the most part, successfully hatching an October surprise might pay enough, especially, if it’s a poorly supervised, rogue reporter). If a mostly unknown journalist (as Ulsterman appears to be) without a rep fakes some interviews, he still might be able to pick up some good money before he’s caught (if ever).
Maybe “Fake But Accurate”? Ulsterman/Bill Burkett?
Kinda sucks when the shoe’s on the other foot huh lefties?
Yes, it may be fake.. but it sure sounds believable to me.
Let ME elaborate. Rand not only never claimed it was true, but stated up front that he didn’t know if it was.
MfK, that’s right. I don’t think anyone is criticizing Rand. The degree to which the interview really happened, and with who, if anyone, is to a different question (and to me, a more interesting one). Although I think it is likely that it is made up (explanation a), there are other explanations; b) it really happened, but Ulsterman wildly exagerated the importance of a, say, 19 year old who got an unimportant job on the transition team because his parents gave money to the campaign, c) someone pulled a fast one on a gullible interviewer, etc. I’m going with (a). But who cares?! It really would have been interesting to me if it had been in the New York Times.
They are just outraged that Keynesian ideals don’t have the multiplication effect that they learned in school.
Oh, it has a multiplier effect. Only, the multiplier is less than one.
He isn’t doing “Keynesian spending.” They keep claiming that it is, but it just isn’t. The entire foundation for having a “greater than one multiplier” is that the spending is supposed to provide two separate benefits to society simultaneously by carefully choosing what the money is actually spent on. It will have the first effect: paying the actual worker in most cases. The second effect is supposed to be the infrastructure effect – buying crap the populace will gain some long term benefit from. Hoover dam -> Keynesian. Museum to Bernie Sanders – not so much.
But since the focus is on raw spending instead of focused Keynesian spending, you’re necessarily getting much lower benefits than the already not-exceptional Keynesian results. “Yeah, we spent our money on computer upgrades.” Really? Congrats, you’ve spent it on something that isn’t even a capital improvement and the core of the cash went to people working overseas. So multiplying crappy return-on-investment with crappy number-of-American-workers-involved -> really crappy multiplier effect.
And shock, lots of shock, because it isn’t supposed to work this way. “I guess we need a bigger stimulous.” No, you need a clue first.
Dunno, maybe Mr. Obama simply gives “one speech”, and I am tired of the hearing of it.
It is kind of like an actor who knows how to play only one character, in one play, over and over and over again, milking the dramatic lines for the burst of applause from the audience.
It’s too good to be true, it reads like a laundry list of rightwing blog comments about obama. (I was buying it until the always watching sportcenter) maybe fake but accurate yet a little over the top.
Setting aside for a moment the verity of the interview, this quote caught my eye:
The jobs reports are always setting him off, and he is getting increasingly conspiratorial over the unemployment numbers. I never heard it myself, but was told that Obama thinks the banking system is out to get him now. That they and the big industries are making him pay for trying to regulate them more. That is the frame of mind the President is in these days. And you know what? Maybe he is right, who knows?
Glenn Reynolds points out the “unexpected” bad economic indicators (unemployment rate, mortgage defaults, etc) month after month after month, and it is no stretch to imagine the continual string of (unexpected!) bad news would upset the guy in the Oval Office.
There are two possibilities: either Obama actually believes that he is working for the good of the country and really doesn’t get why the economy sucks, or he is trying to bankrupt the USA. This is based not on the maybe-false article but on his continual support of policies driving the USA over a financial cliff.
I suspect the President is like many on the Left, and truly doesn’t understand why the whole idea of big government is terrible.
On the other hand, people who understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics have no trouble figuring out the effects of nationalizing automakers and the health-care industry and bailing out everyone in sight, all while introducing hefty new taxes and regulations.
Al, I agree that he’s not doing it right, but I’m not hearing his supporters claim that. Instead, they’ll argue that purchasing new roofs for every building at JSC will help the economy, as funding is cut next year and fewer people use those buildings.
I think it is interesting that Obama is described as being not intellectually curious. I thought he was supposed to be so much smarter than that ignorant cowboy Bush.
Like a lot of liberal slurs against Bush, the accusation that he wasn’t “intellectually curious” is mostly projection. Actually, from my memories of being in that milieu, it’s “liberals” who are intellectually incurious. What they mean by “intellectually curious” really means you read the correct books, that all the Cool People are reading, and know all the ideas the In Crowd is currently yakking about, and are also obsessed with pop culture. How we used to mock people that didn’t know or care who the latest indie band sensation was! How smug we were as we went to tiny theaters showing gay “art” films (which were just gay soaps filmed in black and white), while the mundanes were flocking to Big Cinema to see the latest Stallone flick. Etc. It’s a very stunted world view. If you got caught reading something unfashionable, like the Bible, you’d better have had a sarcastic quip ready (“I’m looking for all the sex scenes”) or risk being labelled… well, you know.
It’s actually conservatives who read to improve their minds and stretch their knowledge. They’ll even read that stuff that the New Yorker and other haute lib rags talk about, at least so they can see where their enemies are coming from. Liberals, on the other hand, avoid anything that disturbs their world view. They tell themselves they know everything important already. Then they make fun of someone like Glenn Beck for talking about American history on his show. Doesn’t he know that the only American history worth knowing ends in an X?
Even if it’s 100% wrong/made up, it fits WAY too well with the observed behavior/data that’s out there. 🙁
If this story is true, (a big if, since it does fit in too nicely with what the right wants to think about him) it explains why he signed off on his surprisingly market-oriented space plan. He simply wasn’t paying attention at the time.
Oh, I can easily see a scenario he gets reelected: the Kenyan branch of al Qaeda does him a solid, hijacking a flight from Mombassa to DC, flying it into the Capital building while congress is in session, giving him an excuse to declare a state of emergency, suspends habeas corpus, the 1st and 2nd amendments, limits on eminent domain, and goes about appointing his own congress from the membership of ACORN and CAP. The constitution says states have the power to appoint interim congresspersons you say? Well yes, but the constitution also says the president can only be a natural born citizen, and since his dad was never an American, Obama ain’t one….
@Ed Minchau: I agree where you say that Obama, and supporters like Chris G., “truly doesn’t understand why the whole idea of big government is terrible.”
I think they really are trying to help people, and they can’t understand why their actions are making things worse. “The Road to Hell,” etc.
Darkstar, that’s what makes them so frightening. I keep seeing this quote more and more these days:
“Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” — C.S.Lewis
Obama choosing not to run in 2012 would prove much of this article. In a few months, in a very somber speech, he says that he doesn’t have time to campaign because the country’s problems require all of his time. If he doesn’t run, he remains undefeated and goes on the international speech circuit for decades as a Nobel Laureate who tried to fix America, but just couldn’t convince the public that his prescription was the right one.
Hillary runs on a relatively moderate platform (won’t be hard!), the RepubliTea Party puts forward someone unremarkable (or The Tea Party has its own candidate, splitting support), and, well…
I have never been sure where the Obama reputation for erudition comes from. I remember watching him as he was sent to the Senate and wondering – why?? He is good on the campaign trail and he has some oratorical powers but I have never felt that either he or his wife had any particular smarts. Maybe I am misreading him but I don’t think so and his record as President seems to bear out my observations.
The article may or may not be true. I think it is slanted towards the “Deep Throat expose” style of writing but that’s OK since there is usually a kernel of truth in articles of that nature. Trouble is finding it.
If Obama is truly depressed clinically or paranoid or both then he has a pretty good health care plan! This begs the question though; “Is he medically fit enough to be the President?”. If not, do we really want Biden to take over – even for a short period?
Let’s just hope that the Republicans/Tea Party can get their act together and field a strong and tough opponent for the 2012 election. Signs are that everyone in the party wants the nomination though, so I don’t hold out much hope. The various factions have about 6 months to unite and move forward.
Reports like this are like intlligence ‘chater’, it may have some truth or it may be disinformation. The only thing you can do to evaluate it is to look for independent conformation or contradiction. Bill Clinton says he thinks losing the mid-term elections to the Republicans will be good for Obama, apparently believing that Obama will be able to traingulate the way Clinton did. But Obama does not have a Dick Morris to advise him, so the question becomes does Obama have a stratagy after Nancy Palosi? The truth will begin to be revealed on November 2, 2010.
Clinton also had something inn 96 Obama most likely won’t. A good economy to run for re-election on.
People always neglect that tiny detail.
Al Says:
September 18th, 2010 at 11:31 am
^^ Agree
Andrea Harris Says:
September 18th, 2010 at 6:06 pm
^^ Agree. Ever read Dr Sanity’s blog?
http://drsanity.blogspot.com/
If W was reelected Obama will be reelected as well. Voters are lazy.
The Democrats may lose their position in these midterm elections. However if they play their cards right their loss could be much smaller than is believed. They could even retain a small majority. It is common for a party currently in control to surge in the polls just prior to an election.
Also, contrary to what the Republicans believe, people will not vote for someone just because they are in the Republican ticket. Nor just because they are “new” faces to politics. Voters select candidates individually based on character and policies. I expect a less than stellar result for the Republican party in California for precisely this reason.
Oh and if Obama has a problem, in my opinion, is that he is not radical enough. He was elected on an agenda of change and vapor. People expected actual change. His mistake was in attempting to run a compromise government while having a majority in the House.
“People expected actual change.”
No they didn’t. That was the pretty lie they told themselves. People who voted for him expected the opposite of change: they wanted their September 10, 2001 life back, with the added bonus of finally fulfilling their fantasy of “overcoming racism” by elected a “black” president. Well that worked out well; relationships between the races have never been more harmonious — black, white, red and yellow are finally united in the unemployment line.
“If W was reelected Obama will be reelected as well. Voters are lazy.”
By that line of thought, Jimmy Carter should have won in a walk and George Bush Sr. should hve been elected Demi-God.
It is your analysis that is lazy.
1) W had a good economy and much lower unemployment when he was re-elected. Obama is likely to have a far higher unemployment rate and be at the other side of a double dip recession. There wil be a political price to be paid for that dip. Obama will not be more popular then than he is today and today he could not beat McCain in a re-match.
2) This is a center-right country. Obama has pushed himself too far to the left. Republicans have a bit of a built-in advantage that Democrats lack. Except for Bill Clinton, no Democrat has served two terms since FDR.
Wodun: yes, I have read Dr. Sanity’s blog. (Long didactic sentence because apparently two words are too short a comment.)
“Also, contrary to what the Republicans believe, people will not vote for someone just because they are in the Republican ticket. Nor just because they are “new” faces to politics. Voters select candidates individually based on character and policies. ”
But you seem to think they will do the opposite, which is exactly what they did two years ago.
“Oh and if Obama has a problem, in my opinion, is that he is not radical enough. He was elected on an agenda of change and vapor. People expected actual change. His mistake was in attempting to run a compromise government while having a majority in the House.”
If there is a better proof that you don’t know jack-shit about American politics than the above statement, I would like to see it because that one is about as devoid of thought as any you have re-gurgitated to date.
Seriously, dude, you don’t have a fucking clue.
The Democrats may lose their position in these midterm elections. However if they play their cards right their loss could be much smaller than is believed. They could even retain a small majority.
The Democrats are going to lose at least 70 seats in the House.