Thoughts on Obama’s failing credibility:
On a deeper level, Obama habitually says untrue things because he has never been called on them before. He has been able throughout his career to appear iconic to his auditors. In the crudity of liberals like Harry Reid and Joe Biden, Obama ancestry and diction gave reassurance that he was not representative of the black lower classes and thus was the receptacle of all sorts of liberal dreams and investments. According to certain liberals, he was like a god, our smartest president, and of such exquisite sartorial taste that he must become a successful president. In other words, on the superficial basis of looks, dress, and patois, Obama was reassuring to a particular class of white guilt-ridden grandees and to such a degree that what he actually had done in the past or promised to do in the future was of no particular importance.
Then there is the media, the supposed public watchdog that keeps our politicians honest. In truth, Obama winks and nods to journalists, in the sense that as a good progressive Obama is about as liberal a president as we have ever had — or will have. Obama sees cross-examination as a sort of betrayal from journalists, who, for reasons of some abstract adherence to “journalistic integrity,” would by their own reporting subvert a rare chance of a progressive agenda. Obama’s anger is not just directed at Fox News and talk radio, but rather reflects a sense of betrayal that even slight fact checking by liberal journalists exists: why must Obama tell the truth when he never had to in any of his earlier incarnations?
In A Face in the Crowd, the charismatic Andy Griffith character could more or less get anything he wished by saying anything he wanted, largely because he said it mellifluously and in cracker-barrel fashion of an us-versus-them populism. His admirers knew that they were being lied to, but also knew that Lonesome knew that they did not mind. Lonesome had contempt for hoi polloi, largely because of his own easy ability to manipulate them for whatever particular careerist cause he embraced.
So Obama has disdain for those who passed out at his lectures, who put up the Greek columns at his speeches, who came up with his Latin mottoes, and who gushed at his teleprompted eloquence. He knows that we know he is not telling the truth, but likewise he knows that we don’t care all that much — at least until now. The secret to Lonesome’s success was to hide his contempt for those he lied to. When he is caught ridiculing his clueless listeners, he finally crashes and burns — sort of like Barack Obama serially vacationing with the 1% whom he so publicly scorns, or golfing in the aristocratic fashion of those who, he assures us, did not build their businesses.
It’s a little appalling, and frightening, that almost 40% still take him seriously.
“So Obama has disdain for those who passed out at his lectures, who put up the Greek columns at his speeches, who came up with his Latin mottoes, and who gushed at his teleprompted eloquence.”
So do I.
I think the 40 percent who take him seriously are racists.
As has been stated frequently, the problem is not so much with Obama being President, but with the voters who placed him into office. These are people who would “cut off the nose to spite the face”. That is where the real danger lies.
I don’t know if I harbor such a negative opinion about Mr. Obama.
CNN’s Web site was covering a Missouri Congressman (R) (natch), who was criticizing the President for being so forthright about “not committing combat troops to Iraq.” The suggestion is that the President should “never say never” in such a situation.
One of the commenters ranted, (about the supposed advocacy of combat troops into Iraq), “Oh yeah, I don’t see you or your sons volunteering. We need to bring back the draft so guys like you shut up their (mouth)”, blah, blah.
Another commenter, closer to my take on the situation allowed that Mr. Obama has a reputation for, let’s say, shading the truth, which in this situation is a Good Thing(tm). By declaring that he is ruling out troops, he is catching ISIS off guard, he is practicing deception in the best Sun Tzu tradition of being a military leader, and we may already have a lot more of our people “on the ground” that is being let on.
Along the lines of “what our Mr. Obama has to deal with from his (lunatic) base”, I was in the hospital cafeteria, the best place to eat at “the U”, where the CNN talking heads on the TV were repeating the President’s denials that the US did not have or plan to have “combat troops” in Iraq. Something tells me that here in the People’s Republic, a white dude thusly offended by Mr. Obama is a flaming liberal because we conservatives try to maintain our deep cover. `
I was tempted, I was really tempted to turn to the black man sitting across from me and speak out just about normal conversational volume, “Did I just hear someone disrespect President Obama?” But I just ate my food and left . . .
“By declaring that he is ruling out troops, he is catching ISIS off guard, he is practicing deception in the best Sun Tzu tradition of being a military leader, and we may already have a lot more of our people “on the ground” that is being let on.”
Lol, no.
Obama isn’t a military genius. He is no Sun Tzu. Spinning Obama’s ambivalence and political inability to engage in Iraq openly as secret grand strategy to eliminate ISIS is a farce. I am sure we do have more people on the ground than Obama will admit to but it isn’t because he is trying to trick ISIS, he is trying to trick his base.
“Another commenter, closer to my take on the situation allowed that Mr. Obama has a reputation for, let’s say, shading the truth, which in this situation is a Good Thing(tm). By declaring that he is ruling out troops, he is catching ISIS off guard, he is practicing deception in the best Sun Tzu tradition of being a military leader, and we may already have a lot more of our people “on the ground” that is being let on.”
Oh please. Keep polishing……..that sneaker will shine in some millenia.
There’s absolutely no past history that would suggest Obama is capable of such things let alone smart enough to execute on them. And he certainly isn’t catching anyone off guard.
If you mention Sun Tzu to Obama he’ll ask if that comes with General Gao’s chicken.
In editing my comment, I missed a point, that in a mixed-race public setting, a (liberal) white dude rather angrily called out Bravo Sierra to the television screeen when a White House spokesperson was repeating the President’s denial regarding “combat troops” in Iraq.
40% is disheartening.
I don’t know if I harbor such a negative opinion about Mr. Obama.
Paul, that is sad (and quite a squishy statement to boot.)
You are actually trying to turn his lying slandering ways into an attribute?
…and Satan is just misunderstood???
Also, I’m not buying this ‘white guilt’ claim anymore. The fact is those 40% are simply demented. They don’t have the sense, values or maturity to reach the right conclusion. Anything higher than a single digit percentage there is frightening.
The sad thing is that the 40% could be anywhere between 30% to 60% and I’m suspecting the higher number. Of course, I live in loony California where the environment is more like 85% to 95% Obama apologists so my perspective on this might be a bit skewed.
Was it not Winston Churchill who said that if the Devil were opposed to that certain Austrian corporal, he would put in a good word in the House of Commons for the Devil?
ISIS is that bad. Were Mr. Obama to “wag the dog” at this point and keep “control of the Senate” in trade for defeating ISIS, I would accept that trade. Were Mr. Obama to actually defeat ISIS maintaining his anti-ground-troop, Nobel Peace Prize-laureate mojo (with the Kurds doing the heavy lifting without getting credit), I would accept that trade.
Were people around here to call me a sad squish, to accuse me of siding with our Usual Suspects, and ISIS were defeated, I would accept that trade.
“Were Mr. Obama to actually defeat ISIS maintaining his anti-ground-troop, Nobel Peace Prize-laureate mojo (with the Kurds doing the heavy lifting without getting credit), I would accept that trade.”
Obama has no intention of defeating ISIS. Defeat is not a word in Obama’s vocabulary, that is unless it applies to us. He views defeating a country or group as impossible except that the USA is uniquely defeatable.
At best, Obama will help with limited air strikes in Iraq but ISIS is in Syria and other countries and Obama will not go to war in Syria so ISIS will continue to exist. I am happy that Obama is taking some actions to help our allies but I don’t see ISIS being wiped out as a consequence of those actions.
Part of the problem is that our leaders are not defining the problem we face accurately, at least not publicly. Obama says ISIS is motivated by their desire for better political representation. So, he thinks a group based in Syria and engaged in a war there to over throw the government and install an Islamic Caliphate will be appeased by greater representation of ISIS in Iraqi government. But they will not be happy with controlling part of the Iraqi government or Iraq, they want it all. They will also not be satisfied with Iraq because they want to exceed the territory claimed in historical Muslim conquests.
In order to solve a problem, you must first identify what the problem is. On this, Obama is way off.
No.
ISIS seems pretty savvy about managing perceptions, and being hucksters themselves they know that Obama is an empty shirt whose tough talk is safely ignored, and whose cleverness is most admired by those who don’t know what the word means.
ISIS seems pretty savvy about managing perceptions by, say, chopping the head off anyone getting in their way.
They are not any more savvy than anyone else in resisting bombs being dropped on their heads, in desert country without much cover or concealment to be had. Apart from their brutality, I don’t know if they can stand up to the Kurds, when supplied with enough ammo, or the Iraqi forces, supplied with the encouragement of coordinated air cover.
When we say “Obama”, we mean not only Mr. Obama but the whole West Wing. What if with Mr. Obama on vacation someone locked Valerie Jarrett in a closet and if the people who have staged this recent coup in the Administration know what they are doing and are achieving a great victory in Iraq?
What if Mr. Obama finally had an “Oscar Sierra” moment and greenlighted our military to do what they had to do, with orders to “just don’t do anything to make me look bad.” I saw the President on the tee-vee where yes, he was proclaiming Mission Accomplished, but he was gushing with praise for our military, with his eyes misting over, as if to say, “Dudes, you don’t know what those guys and gals just accomplished that just saved my sorry (backside).”
This might be like the proverb of the most sad-sack private in the Army who found himself surrounded by the enemy and wiped out their machine gun squad in his panic to escape, saving his own guys. Set aside your criticism for one moment and pin a medal on they guy.
What if he suddenly grew wings and could perform “alicorn” magic?
“Set aside your criticism for one moment and pin a medal on they guy.”
It is great that Obama has reengaged in Iraq not just with the military but with diplomacy. He pretty much cut all ties with Iraq and dropped all efforts to influence them diplomatically. One reason he had so little influence, was that Obama made it very clear that the USA would have no long term relationship with Iraq. He didn’t want them as a friend or an ally. He didn’t care what happened in the country after we left or what could happen ten, twenty, or a hundred years from now. Iraq got the message and Maliki sided with Iran and without American diplomats working to bring Iraqi factions together as Iraqi, they acted in their own self interests to preserve their people.
This has had ripple effects in Europe and Asia. Countries know that we can not be counted on even if we make explicit promises to help when needed. This has been bad for Obama’s foreign policy because so much of it relies on assurances of American action if our allies make concessions to their opponents. Obama claims he has +20 diplomacy but in reality he sucks at it. ISIS isn’t just our problem it is a global problem. What would Reagan, Bush, Clinton, or Bush do in a situation like this?
They would marshal Europeans, freed soviet states, Africans, and Arabs to address the problem together. Part would be military and other aspects of any solution will have to address the funding and cultural support these Islamic militants receive. This is a diplomatic problem. Where is our diplomat President?
I guess some people are not familiar with NATO and ATC phraseology . . .