Neoneocon has some thoughts:
Barnett noticed—as many had, even at the time—the enormous difference in articulateness between Teleprompter-Obama and Obama unplugged (the latter is the title of Barnett’s article). That was the easy part. The more discriminating observation Barnett made was between the message of Teleprompter Obama and the message of ad-lib Obama. The two were not just different in degree—they were profoundly opposite in tone and essence. Ad-lib Obama was far more angry and more radical—indeed, although Barnett doesn’t mention it, this Obama resembled the angrier and more radical Michelle Obama, in her earlier campaign remarks that drew so much controversy.
Obama is addicted to his Teleprompter not only because he knows he sounds better—smoother and smarter—with it than without. The deeper reason for his reliance on it may just be that he differs so profoundly from the persona he wishes to convey that he quite literally cannot trust himself to speak without it. Shorn of the Teleprompter, he not only runs the risk of revealing a disfluency that could rival (or even exceed?) that of his reviled predecessor George Bush—he may reveal who he truly is, an angry man with a profoundly radical agenda for America.
No surprise to those of us who paid attention all last year.
I didn’t watch any of Obama’s speeches during the campaign – I knew I wouldn’t be voting for him. So I’ve only recently watched a few and noticed this:
Obama never looks straight ahead when using dual prompters. He is constantly shifting from left to right to left but not directly forward which is where the camera usually is. Therefore he never looks at the majority of his audience.
Ha ha, as soon as I read that excerpt I thought bet that was written by a therapist, and so it was. You get a little cynical in that field, in a certain peculiar way, about the efforts people make to distract you by their speech from what they are doing, what they’re actually like.
Intriguing thought, isn’t it? I wouldn’t draw too much from it. I agree Oprompta is not at all what he presents himself as — indeed, I recall observing his smooth chameleon duplicity last November — but I don’t think underneath the mask of normalcy lies a Dr. Evil bent on conquering the world for the forces of Darkness. I think he’s just too lazy. He likes power, he likes success, and all that, but he really likes it, if you know what I mean. He probably spends his first 10 minutes of each day spinning around on the chair in the Oval Office, going w00t! Made it, me! Top o’ the World, Ma! Who’s The Man now, huh? Yaaaaaah!
In short, I think he lacks the mental focus and energy to be a serious hidden plotter. What of his ambition has “slipped” out in the last 3 months is that he pretty much is OK with letting every goofball leftist interest group in the Democratic Party have their way. Indeed, the biggest danger to his popularity right now might be his tendency to just go along with whatever they all want. AIG is evil, tax the bastards to death! Well, sure, Nancy, Chris. I’m outraged, too. Really outraged, honest. Wait a minute…we need those people, damn it, or my Toxic Ass. Prog. is DOA with the private money we need. Oh yeah, yeah, Tim, don’t worry — we’re cool. I’m cool. AIG is cool, too. Relax. Hey — didja see me on Leno last night?
“I think he lacks the mental focus and energy to be a serious hidden plotter.”
I’m not concerned whether Bambi/ is plotting anything other than his next photo-op.
I’m concerned about the plotter behind this Manchurian Candidate.
I guaran-damn-tee you Bambi isn’t writing that stuff he reads off the ‘prompters – it’s too unlike him and his perpetual (if well-hidden most of the time) anger – so who is writing his stuff? And what’s his real agenda? (I think I know, and it ain’t pretty.) 🙁
This is silly. I saw Obama speak 5 times before the NH primary. He never used a teleprompter, and never had any trouble expressing himself, interacting with the crowd, or answering questions from voters. My wife and a half-dozen other local voters spent 90 minutes having breakfast with him and talking about health care, torture, small businesses, etc. At all these occasions he was relaxed, funny, and reasonably eloquent. He didn’t come across as an angry radical, because he isn’t one.
Barbara, have you changed your last name? Did you marry someone with one letter different?
Sometimes we see only what we want to see, Jim.
I saw Obama speak 5 times before the NH primary. He never used a teleprompter, and never had any trouble expressing himself, interacting with the crowd, or answering questions from voters.
Back then, he was saying stuff like closing NASA to give more funding to education and gutting the DoD, which is probably when he was saying what he really wants/believes he should do. When he started to lie to win a more popular vote, he needed a teleprompter to keep him on the right message.
Or maybe he’s just not angry with you, Jim, and maybe he doesn’t seem radical to you because you share his worldview, or at least you’re close enough that he seems only mildly further out.
But anyway, I kinda agree. I don’t think Oprompta is a lot more bogus and tightly wound than most top-level politicians. I mean, what do you suppose Hillary says to the cat when nobody else is around, just after some articulate fool calls her “likeable enough” in a debate? Brrr.
To be sure, I think he’s a lot more two-faced than, say, Bush, but oh well. He doesn’t seem any worse in that regard than Clinton. I mean, heck, by Democratic standards, practically the Party of Lies and Hyberbole, he’s pretty grounded. His legions seem more in need of being darted with Haldol than he does.
When he started to lie…
While there are tweaks here and there, the broad thrust of his agenda hasn’t changed since I first saw him speak two years ago. He doesn’t need help remembering a case he’s been making all this time.
Sometimes we see only what we want to see, Jim.
True — something we both should remember. But there are plenty of people (including myself at times) who would like to see more anger and radicalism from Obama. We don’t, because it isn’t there.
But there are plenty of people (including myself at times) who would like to see more anger and radicalism from Obama. We don’t, because it isn’t there.
Oh, it is, and some of us see it. It’s just in his actual policy plans, as opposed to his (teleprompted) words and demeanor.
I’d like to see more anger and radicalism, too. If you project out the RCP average approval for Obummer, he crosses into Bush territory roughly next summer. That’s a little close for comfort. I’m sure if he reached down deep inside, channeled his inner Stalinist, he could make those numbers move much faster.
I’m looking forward to a GOP blowout in the House and the Democrats hanging on in the Senate. Perfect gridlock! Our long — well, actually short and highly-colored, like some really bad acid trip — national nightmare will be over.
I don’t see it in policy either. He hasn’t nationalized the banks, or put Wall Street in criminal court. His health care plan isn’t single payer. He isn’t pulling out of Afghanistan (or Germany, or Korea, or Kuwait, or anywhere but Iraq). He hasn’t cut off aid to Israel. He hasn’t indicted Bush administration officials for war crimes. He isn’t slashing the defense budget in half. He isn’t doing a carbon tax, or banning coal-fired power plants. He hasn’t proposed new tax brackets for the very, very wealthy. He hasn’t proposed getting rid of the Senate filibuster (much less getting rid of the Senate, or at least making it proportional). He hasn’t put millions of people on the government payroll or tried to expand the Supreme Court (as FDR did). He hasn’t called for reparations, or racial hiring quotas, or equalized per-pupil education spending across the country, or a national school curriculum. He hasn’t tossed out NAFTA. He hasn’t ended the drug war, or confiscated guns. He hasn’t pushed for publicly funded election campaigns, abolition of the electoral college, or any other major change in election practices.
The policies he’s pursued are policies that have had wide support from Democrats for quite a while, and aren’t terribly different from what any of the other 2008 Dem candidates (excepting Kucinich and Gravel) would have pursued. If he’s a radical, then so is his whole party, and the majority of the voters who put them in power.
I don’t see it in policy either. He hasn’t nationalized the banks, or put Wall Street in criminal court. His health care plan isn’t single payer. He isn’t pulling out of Afghanistan (or Germany, or Korea, or Kuwait, or anywhere but Iraq). He hasn’t cut off aid to Israel. He hasn’t indicted Bush administration officials for war crimes….
[snip rest of Jim’s dream list.]
I said his policy plans. He’s only been in office for two months. Give him some time to wreck the country, Jim. It was his platform.
What did MoveOn.org say in 2004? “Now it’s our party. We bought it, we own it, and we’re going to take it back.”
So yes Jim, the whole party, at least the leadership is radical.
Proposals have been floated for almost every one of the things you say he hasn’t done save SCOTUS. The trial balloons were quickly shot down. That doesn’t mean he won’t float them again. He has also tweaked NAFTA to the point of retaliation by Mexico(the trucks). He wants to reduce the percentage of charitable deductions for some higher brackets, an effective tax increase. That’s just two off the top of my head so quit seeing what you want to see and join the rest of us in what promises to be an ugly reality.
“In 2006 . . . it was spinach. In 2008 . . . peppers . . . and possible . . . tomatoes. This year . . . it was peanut butter.”
True — something we both should remember. But there are plenty of people (including myself at times) who would like to see more anger and radicalism from Obama. We don’t, because it isn’t there.
Two words, Jim. “Bitter Clingers.”
… I don’t think underneath the mask of normalcy lies a Dr. Evil bent on conquering the world for the forces of Darkness. I think he’s just too lazy.
A sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.
Rand: I’m happy to give him time (I favor repealing the 22nd amendment, and soon). But I will be very surprised if we see more than two or three of the items from the list come to pass before he leaves office [my guesses for the most likely ones: nationalized banks (if the PPIP plan fails), a new top bracket (e.g. for incomes over $1M), and a push (unlikely to succeed) for public campaign financing].
The list, by the way, isn’t my wish list (I’d be happy about some, unhappy about others), just examples of what more radical change would look like, to put Obama’s much milder proposals in perspective. Some other possible radical changes: a Fairness Doctrine that applies to cable/satellite/etc. as well as broadcast, absorbing the Air Force back into the Army, mandatory national service, nationwide gay marriage, moving from income taxes to a VAT, universal free public college education.
Bill: Stopping a few trucks is not the same as canceling NAFTA. Trimming charitable deductions is not the same as adding new tax brackets (the super-rich still pay the same marginal rate as the merely rich). There’s a difference between your fears and reality.
R: “Bitter clingers” may tell you that Obama looks at the country very differently than you do, and it’s understandable that you’d be suspicious of someone with such a different point of view. But it doesn’t make Obama angry, or his policies radical.
Jim, it matters not at all how Barry Obama sees the country. IT IS NOT HIS GODDAMN BUSINESS! Let me be plain – it is not his, nor that of Congress, nor that of anyone else on this planet. How I live my life is entirely up to me. I have committed no theft or fraud, nor murder or rape. Thus there is no cause for him to put me in his thrall – unless he aspires to tyranny.
I don’t mind if he (or you) thinks ill of me. I believe in “live and let live.” However, that courtesy is extended from me precisely as far as it is extended to me.
Jim says: (the super-rich still pay the same marginal rate as the merely rich). There’s a difference between your fears and reality.
This is scary. Since someone took the personal responsibility to go out and make tons of money, creating jobs for others and futures for employees, they get punished by having to pay for those folks that decide sitting on the couch and eating bon bons. Yep, the super rich are going to be made to buy those bon bons too.
And Bill didn’t say it was a higher tax bracket, he said it was effectively a tax increase. Why should someone with initiative and ambition not be allowed to realize a good rich life gained from their hard work? Why should my X who occupies a couch and refuses to work get benefits from the super rich?
The fear is Socialism
But I’m assuming of course that you don’t make a huge sum of money, otherwise you’d be wondering why you fund non-working Americans as well.
Mac: You assume wrong. I’ve paid millions in income taxes, and I know why I do it: so I can live in a civilized country (where, among other things, I can earn millions of dollars).
As DeNiro says in Brazil, “We’re all in it together, kid.”
I’ve paid millions in income taxes, and I know why I do it: so I can live in a civilized country
Well, to be precise, that’s why you say you do it, and it may even be why you think you do it. But..er…how to put this? Reality is not defined by what you think it is, Jim.
For example, throughout most of American history, the amount of taxes paid as a fraction of national income has been miniscule. So, you’re arguing it’s only since 1930 or so that the United States has been civilized? You and Michelle Obama should talk. Also, my teenagers, who thing that sex and freedom have only been invented since they turned 14.
Also also, you’re nuts if you think changing the deductions in the tax code “isn’t the same” as changing the tax rate. What matters is the net hit to your pocketbook. It only matters to theoreticians and politicians whether the net hit results from this tax, or that tax minus this other deduction. 6 = 8 – 2 = 10 – 4 and so forth, ad infinitum, and it’s still 6.
We’re all in it together, kid
Yeah? Then how about you and your fellow travelers leave us other folks the f*** alone. You go pay all the taxes you want — the Treasury accepts personal checks, I believe — and you can restrict, if you like, the wonderful benefits you get in return — generous unemployment, government-run health care, whatever — to yourselves. You pay for your “green energy” initiatives, and you prohibit the sale of any wonderful too cheap to meter energy that results to we Neanderthal curmudgeons. OK by me! Good luck!
Carl: Yes, I do think that the U.S. is more civilized today than it was in 1930, for a host of reasons. [And do you really want to bring up Michelle Obama? Our “civilized” country wouldn’t let her grandparents vote in 1930!]
The deduction change does not yield the same net result as a new bracket for the super-rich (because it does not discriminate between the rich and super-rich the way a new bracket would). So I don’t think a deduction limit is as radical a change.
leave us other folks the f*** alone
You can have a prosperous modern civilization, or you can be free from coercion by your fellow man — pick one.
Jim, I truly do not know where to begin. Maybe in a few hours when I stop shaking and hitting the wrong keys, I might. Until then, let me just say – everything that is coming for us all, you in particular have EARNED it.
> Our “civilized” country wouldn’t let her grandparents vote in 1930!
Actually, our “civilized” country was perfectly happy letting her grandparents vote, and their parents before them, all the way back to the relevant constitutional amendment that came out of a war against Democrats.
It’s her fellow Democrats, folks like Jim, who didn’t let Black folks vote.
No no, Andy, that’s historical fact and that’s letting him off too easy.
Jim. You argue that we must be compelled to act, regardless of how we want it.
OK – reconcile that with the compulsion that Michelle’s grandparents not vote. Which while illegal, might presumably have happened, assuming they didn’t move to the industrial North like so many others around the nation during WW1. Where such compulsions – to vote OR NOT to vote – didn’t exist.
Yes, it was Southern Democrats who enforced Jim Crow, and the rest of the country that decided it was okay to leave the Constitution unenforced. The Democratic party redeemed itself (at least somewhat) by ending Jim Crow, and thereby driving most of its white Southern supporters into the arms of the GOP.
R: I’m not sure what you’re arguing. My argument is that coercion is inescapable. A prosperous modern state requires the rule of law. Every member of such a society has to be subject to the law, whether they support a particular law or not — otherwise every individual has a veto, and no real law exists. If an individual chooses to disregard the law, the state has to have the power to impose penalties. And, if only to fund the enforcement of laws, the state has to be able to extract money from its citizens.
One of the functions of our government is to protect property rights. I am a beneficiary of that protection, and the more money I have the more that protection is worth. Bill Gates pays a lot of taxes, but without copyright law he’d have nothing, and without criminal law he’d need a private army to defend his fortune. I imagine he considers the taxes he pays to be a bargain, given that they make his wealth possible. I look at it the same way.
The Democratic party redeemed itself (at least somewhat) by ending Jim Crow, and thereby driving most of its white Southern supporters into the arms of the GOP.
Really? You mean because everyone filibustering against it in the Senate was a Democrat, and ending it only happened because (the minority) Republicans (who, if you’re not familiar with history, were the party that actually freed the slaves, against Democrat opposition) voted to do so?
Or what do you mean?
A prosperous modern state requires the rule of law.
That’s a truly hilarious comment, considering what’s been happening in Washington lately, under total Democrat rule…
My argument is that just because there’s coercion doesn’t mean it’s the coercion you want. It might be coercion that… pick a name here… Dick Cheney for example, wants. And if he started agitating for coercion of US Citizens (as he did on occasion) then I’d oppose him too (as I did). But the notion that coercion can in ANY way be justified by ANY one, renders both forms (the ones you support and the ones you don’t) morally equivalent. No thank you, sir, I’ve had my fill of that. Live and let live, and we’ll get along just fine. Granted, it’ll be by self-curtailing most of our social interaction, but that’s people choosing on their own how to behave. Treating human beings as property (which is what all compulsion and coercion boil down to) is a good way to end that though. I think this country has had its fill of compulsion too, which is why we have Amendments XIII and XIV in the first place. And expanded the vote to women, repealed Prohibition, and eliminated the Draft. Is it perfect yet? Nope, not by a long shot. Nor will it ever be – but is it better than it was? If I really need to answer that then the country already is lost.
As to the notion that Gates’ wealth is possible due to the cops that protect it for a bit of beak-wetting… you’re kidding right? Those cops don’t do squat to help him earn it any more than they steal goods from a homeless bum with not a penny to his name. To be brief, Bill Gates got his fortune from long years of hard work, and that he gets to keep it is only just. I don’t envy him his fortune – I seek to create one of my own. Probably won’t happen, in the end, but that’s no reason to tie Bill Gates down, is it?
Incidentally Jim, I fully agree that no-one is above the enacted law, and all must obey it. That said, I’ve never heard a better justification for fewer laws in my life – thank you.
Geez Jim, When are you going to wake up. He changed NAFTA enough to make Mexico retaliate. He wants to raise the top rate, reduce deductions for charitable donations, tax health benefits, cap and trade and on and on. How many small changes does it take to get your attention that these add up to a BIG tax increase.
Rand: The 1964 Civil Rights Act and 1965 Voting Rights Act were both passed by Democratic Congresses and a Democratic president, who knew that in doing so they were alienating a substantial part of their party. It is to their credit that they did it anyway.
R: It’s a simple truth that if Bill Gates were in a country without the rule of law (say: Somalia), he a) would never have made as much money, and b) would not be able to protect his wealth without hiring his own army (and maybe another one, to keep the first one from taking the loot…). It’s much nicer to live like Bill Gates than to live like Pablo Escobar, even with Obama’s tax rates.
Bill: Most of the items you mention have been part of Obama’s platform for the last two years. They’re among the reasons I voted for him. But they aren’t terribly radical changes. Eliminating the charitable gift deduction would be radical. Having the wealthy get a 28% tax break on charitable gifts instead of a 35% tax break isn’t radical.
The 1964 Civil Rights Act and 1965 Voting Rights Act were both passed by Democratic Congresses and a Democratic president, who knew that in doing so they were alienating a substantial part of their party.
Not without Republicans. The fact remains that the only ones filibustering against it were Democrats. It’s an ugly fact for you, but it remains a fact.
> Rand: The 1964 Civil Rights Act and 1965 Voting Rights Act were both passed by Democratic Congresses
While Democrats may have held the majority of the seats, if Repubs hadn’t voted, both measures would have failed.
In other words, the Democrat members of those Congresses didn’t pass either of those pieces of legislation.
> The Democratic party redeemed itself (at least somewhat) by ending Jim Crow, and thereby driving most of its white Southern supporters into the arms of the GOP.
That’s not true either.
The Jim Crow Democrats held their offices until they died or retired. With two exceptions, they were in good standing until the very end.
Republicans didn’t start making inroads into the South until the late 70s.
In fact, we still are seeing elections where the result is “first Republican elected to {seat} since Reconstruction”, over 40 years later.
Democrats didn’t pay any price for ending Jim Crow. They paid for electing Jimmy Carter….
Jim, do you mean to suggest that Pablo Escobar and Bill Gates are kindred spirits, with their wealth coming from the same source? That the warlords of Somalia are analogous to our own elected leaders that serve only at our consent (indeed – can you even point to where I refute the rule of law? To use that phrase as a non-sequiter is a cruel mockery of law and what it represents)? Do you mean that our police are not preying upon our citizens because we bribe them not to with laws to appeal to a sense of “duty” and a Danegeld extorted from the populace?
Because it definitely seems that way from here. And to reason upon (or against) that mental foundation is like trying to construct a vault on quicksand.
Rand: The Civil Rights Act filibuster was not broken until Dirksen (R), Kuchel (R), Mansfield (D) and Humphrey (D) weakened the bill in order to attract GOP votes (which were, until then, making the filibuster possible). The GOP senators may not have been giving the long speeches, but they were part of it.
The Civil Rights Act was opposed by Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and William F. Buckley: the political and intellectual leadership of the post-Civil Rights Act GOP.
Andy: Some of the Jim Crow Democrats (e.g. Thurmond) switched to the GOP. And the Democrats definitely paid a price. South Carolina voted Democrat or Dixiecrat in every presidential election from 1884 to 1960. Since 1960 it’s only voted Dem once, for Jimmy Carter. LIkewise Mississippi and Alabama.
R: Bill Gates is an example of how you can become and stay rich in a civilized country. Pablo Escobar is an example of becoming and trying-to-stay rich in a country without strong rule of law. The enormous moral difference aside, I’m suggesting that most rich people would rather live like Gates than like Escobar, and should therefore be more than willing to pay the taxes that make that option possible.
Rand: The Civil Rights Act filibuster was not broken until Dirksen (R), Kuchel (R), Mansfield (D) and Humphrey (D) weakened the bill in order to attract GOP votes (which were, until then, making the filibuster possible). The GOP senators may not have been giving the long speeches, but they were part of it.
Nope. “Giving the long speeches” is what filibustering is (or used to be).
Some of the Jim Crow Democrats (e.g. Thurmond) switched to the GOP.
You mean one of them did. Your example is the only one.
> I’m suggesting that most rich people would rather live like Gates than like Escobar, and should therefore be more than willing to pay the taxes that make that option possible.
Does Harris really believe that the level of taxation is what makes that difference?
Jesse Helms was a Jim Crow Democrat who switched his party registration to the GOP in 1970, and I’m sure there were many others. I was not just referring to sitting Senators or Congressmen, who had seniority reasons to stick with the Democratic party. Some of them waited until they were ready to step down and endorsed GOP successors.
Andy: Who is Harris? I don’t think taxation is sufficient for civilization, but it is necessary.