Excerpt:
When he wants to be, the president is a brilliant and moving speaker, but his stories virtually always lack one element: the villain who caused the problem, who is always left out, described in impersonal terms, or described in passive voice, as if the cause of others’ misery has no agency and hence no culpability.ADDED: Paul Krugman comments on the linked piece:
[W]e shouldn’t really wonder what happened to Obama — he is who he always was. If you paid attention to what he actually said during the primary and the election, he was always a very conventional centrist. Progressives who flocked to his campaign basically deluded themselves, mistaking style for substance. I got huge flack for saying that at the time, but it was true, and events have borne it out.Of course, I wasn't deluded. That's not to say I'm happy.
पोस्ट्स
१४२ टिप्पण्या:
Appears to be more a poliical screed than anything else. But it is the NYT so that is not unexpected.
Oh boy. The left is really flailing around when they start rolling out the psychological analyses this early. Just last week Martin Bashir interviewed Stanton Peele, an addiction specialist, on his analysis of the Tea Party: Are Tea Partiers "Delusional" Addicts?
Another idiot. He's a member of the mandarin class that would be taken out and shot were the great revolution to take place. Yet, he imagines that he's on the outside bitching about the wealthy and powerful.
Psychology professor at Emory University?
Why don't these assholes know that they are ruling class?
Peggy Noonan writes a criticism of Obama's speech that actually makes sense: The Power of Bad Ideas.
Like the "story" Obama made up about his grandmother's access to medical insurance?
The far left want Obama to spew the emotional hate they feel. Blame the tea party! Or, in other words, blame people who disagree you, after all they must be to blame.
I'll summarize Noonan's piece for those of you who don't want to read it:
Obama's backers think that Ronald Reagan appealed to Americans solely through some extraordinary oratorical gift. In fact, it was Reagan's ideas that were the source of his power. He spoke the truth.
Obama's ideas are bad. No degree of oratorical ability can cover that up.
It's not as if prez narcissist is going to name the real villian, that is, himself. That would never do.
WV: priffi - how Thomas Jefferson would describe Obama. Well, that and property.
James - I read your "addiction specialist" as -- an addicted socialist.
So far we've only had a half-stimulus, more stimulus! quack quack.
Thought the villians were Mr Bush, Tea Party folks, and CEOs with corporate jets--Seems to Me Mr Obama has been unstinting in naming villians.
When he wants to be, the president is a brilliant and moving speaker, but his stories virtually always lack one element: the villain who caused the problem, who is always left out, described in impersonal terms, or described in passive voice, as if the cause of others’ misery has no agency and hence no culpability.
The same could be said for his followers. They just can't quite put their fingers on it,...they just know it wasn't them, and they don't have time to look at evidence regarding who it may have been.
That helps.
Oh, I am pretty sure Obama has his villians. Unfortunately they are often people I think of as heroes.
Hey Drew Westen, keep practicing! Eventually you might have something worth saying!
As the ex-husband of a psychologist, I will resist the temptation to diagnose at a distance. No I won't. The prof suffers from delusions and a general detachment from reality.
really...Obama cant stop villianizing Fox news, the
tea party...GEORGE BUSH...any Republican, everyone else...paaaaaleeeeeezee....
Unreadable shit from a supposedly "educated" professional.
Is there any limit - ANY limit - to the twists and outright lies that the New York Times and it's Democrat party will employ to insure the reelection of the boy sent to do a man's job?
Short version: Obama's not liberal enough and doesn't vilify his opponents with enough ferocity. Our psych columnist projected too many of his hopes and dreams onto the Obama blank screen and now is disappointed.
Apparently presidential leadership requires attacks on dissenters (those who used to be recognized as part of "my fellow citizen.") National unity is such an over-rated, quaint notion, anyway.
In that context, Americans needed their president to tell them a story that made sense of what they had just been through, what caused it, and how it was going to end. They needed to hear that he understood what they were feeling, that he would track down those responsible for their pain and suffering, and that he would restore order and safety. What they were waiting for, in broad strokes, was a story something like this:
“I know you’re scared and angry. Many of you have lost your jobs, your homes, your hope. This was a disaster, but it was not a natural disaster. It was made by Wall Street gamblers who speculated with your lives and futures. It was made by conservative extremists who told us that if we just eliminated regulations and rewarded greed and recklessness, it would all work out.
Basically, Westen's problem is that Obama was drinking the cherry Kool-Aid, when any fool could tell that grape Kool-Aid was needed.
Nowhere in the article does he consider the possibility that Obama was neither making good decisions nor was receiving good advice from his left flank.
What is it about politics that makes nominally intelligent people become such stupid dicks?
I've got some FB "friends" I went to college with, and I know these people are waaaay brighter than the squish-lefty pablum they post to each other.
It's political discourse as circle jerk.
Discovered this yesterday on Facebook. The Jewish Tea Party of America.
The group agrees in general with the Tea Party. Also questions why Jewish voters continue to support Obama, who seems determined to undermine Israel's ability to defend itself.
Obama is - and his Presidency is daily proof - of the dangers of voting for a candidate with no experience.
So, thank you to everyone who voted for Obama the boy (Old connotations be damned - the same term would apply to any experienced person).
Let's us all wait with bated breath POTUS' remarks on the black on white violence in Milwaukee, Chicago, Maryland, etc. We are witness to a breakdown in civility as Obama's failure to lead empowers those he and his fellow progressives have made dependent on another failed father figure.
I recall the Watts Riots I and II. We are sitting on a powder keg as a country and the fuse is about to be lit. No beer summit here. Obama will use the unrest to deflect from the economic disaster looming on the entitlement horizon. Milwaukee and Chicago are beginning to resemble Mogadishu, Somalia. What happened to the CCW permits and Second Amendment legislation in Wisconsin? The local law enforcement will continue to be overwhelmed leaving you to defend yourselves, your family and each other.
From this article I would assume that "Republicanism" is in the latest DSM.
Well, I skimmed it anyhow.
The comments seem to be dominated by people who read it through out of agreement and who are similarly windy.
The errors in it slide by without making so much as a bump; statements assuming the truth is what the author prefers it to be.
And that includes the notion that Obama isn't willing to point fingers, but politely takes a passive voice. This sounds so reasonable, but it's far from the truth. He frequently names names, points fingers, and vilifies industries and professions. To say he doesn't do that, isn't an observation of fact, but a complaint that his pointing finger fails to have the power this fellow thinks it ought to have.
And he doesn't use passive voice often, which is why we get the I, I, I, thing he does all of the time. Someone complaining that he uses the passive voice isn't complaining about his rhetorical style, but the fact that he doesn't seem to have the strong impact that the complainer thinks ought to be the result of using an active voice. Obama would be much better off if he really *did* employ the tools offered by passive voice, at least when it applies to any moment he might be tempted to say "I".
This fellow, this "scientist by training" and psychologist who mentions it with a disclaimer and then expects readers to accept what he says on the authority of those credentials, reveals quite a lot about his own prejudices.
He, of course!, mentions previous debt that no one seemed to mind, as if this is meaningful in any way, and neglects to mention just how much more debt we have under Obama in three years. The implication by this omission is that nothing much has changed. Maybe he believes that, or maybe he puts no value on debt (even if our creditors do), and doesn't think it's important, or maybe he's omitting this information because it would un-smooth his narrative.
It is, after all, all about the story. Not the truth. People need a story, according to him. And people do. A story can strengthen community resolve, can create structure in our relationships, a good story can restore confidence in markets and optimism... but a good story can't create reality itself.
In the speech he'd like to have heard he clearly implies that the mistakes of the Republicans were not "honest" ones. This is a belief system of the sort that goes "blessed are those who believe without seeing."
The ability to write well and order thoughts clearly does not automatically result in an arrival at the truth. In fact, it makes it easier to lie.
vet66,
I recall the Watts Riots I and II. We are sitting on a powder keg as a country and the fuse is about to be lit.
Jesus Christ, put down the match, man.
Reagan was The Great Communicator.
IF ONLY I were able to communicate more or better!
Like the UN reorganizing how they're selling the false religion of MMGW.
It's the messaging, so what if things don't work in practice?
Have they ever considered that maybe it's not how the message is presented but the message itself?
And we're back to voting against your own interest(s).
Dude totally downgraded the obvious explanation any thinking voter recognized as "a second possibility":
"A second possibility is that he is simply not up to the task by virtue of his lack of experience and a character defect that might not have been so debilitating at some other time in history. Those of us who were bewitched by his eloquence on the campaign trail chose to ignore some disquieting aspects of his biography: that he had accomplished very little before he ran for president, having never run a business or a state; that he had a singularly unremarkable career as a law professor, publishing nothing in 12 years at the University of Chicago other than an autobiography; and that, before joining the United States Senate, he had voted "present" (instead of "yea" or "nay") 130 times, sometimes dodging difficult issues."
Duh.
I suppose the next two years of opinion pieces from the idiot Left will be nothing more than hand-wringing, bed-wetting sobs of disappointment, disillusionment and discouragement over their failed fantasy of a wet-dream candidate turning out to be nothing more than the empty suit, affirmative action hire from the doucheoisie that every thinking voter knew he was.
I'll take it, if it means we get a new president in 2012.
I read the first two pages. Good grief, he thinks that Obama has not sufficiently demonized rich people. He compares Obama to FDR. Well, they have this much in common: neither man managed to reestablish our country's economic equilibrium......They say that the devil's greatest trick was making people think that he did not exist. On a par with this is the Democrats greatest trick. They make people think that rich people are Republicans. The directors of Goldman, Sachs from Jon Corzine to Lloyd Blankfein have nearly all been Democrats. Robert Rubin introduced Citibank to the profit engines of credit default swaps. Warren Buffett, Bill Gates and his father, and, of course, George Soros have all campaigned for Obama. I'm not even mentioning the Democratic activists who took over Freddie and Fannie Mae. They walked away with millions and poor people walked away with foreclosures. My bet is that Bernie Madoff was a registered Democrat. The media have not reported on his party affiliation which is a sure sign that he is a Democrat. The original Kool-Aid dispenser, the Rev. Jones, was an activist for Democratic causes......We need an extensive government supported research effort to find out why psychologists are so stupid and why they suffer from such cognitive dissonance. There has to be a cure for this.
WV: priffi - how Thomas Jefferson would describe Obama. Well, that and property
Jefferson in a way, was Obama.
Spent like a drunken sailor & expected everyone else to pick up his personal tab.
Whereas John Adams saved his money.
Obama was never and is never a brilliant and moving speaker, not once.
A practicing psychologist with more than 25 years of experience and zero comprehension of economic or the fact that the DEMOCRATS were in control of the House and the Senate for years.
Zero comprehension of who writes the spending bills and who controls the purse strings. Ignorance cubed.
I couldn't make it through the first page. Blah blah blah....liberal talking points. Blind partisanship. Blame Bush. Blame "Wall Street", which by the way supported his boy king in the last election. Blah blah blah.
This just makes my point about the liberal elites (and teachers in particular). Too freaking stupid to help.
The stories our leaders tell us matter, probably almost as much as the stories our parents tell us as children, because they orient us to what is, what could be, and what should be; to the worldviews they hold and to the values they hold sacred.
Fuck you. I am not a child. The president is not my parent. I do not need a politician to teach me morals and values.
@William--Thanks for saying this so I didn't have to. One of the most frustrating memes is the idea that Republican = Wall Street. The richest of the rich are deeply entwined in both parties for sure, but somehow the Dems get a total pass for their relationships with Wall Street.
Some of you guys need to read or re-read the last page of the article.
It's a devastating personal critique of Barack Obama that practically demands his replacemant on the Democratic ticket in 2012. The second one I've seen lately from a leading liberal commentator.
As with the other article by Froma Harrup, the initial anti-conservative screed is just a set-up establishing the author's progressive bona fides before the Obama criticism that follows.
Hillary will beat him hands down if she takes the plunge.
I do agree with the author of the piece on one thing. That Obama missed an opportunity.
There was great culpability on the part of Wall Street and the big banks. There are some moral issues as it relates to the power the big multi national corporations wield. And serious issues with executive pay abuse.
But Obama was too stupid, naive and inexperienced to implement some meaningful reforms. Instead he let his handlers and buddies in Congress like Dave Obey and Pelosi dole out the cash to their favored constituencies. At the same time people like Obama and Jim Doyle practiced crony capitalism where companies like GE got favorable treatment and Govt. financing.
If anything the author should be equally upset with his entire side who blew it as well. Who comes up with the idea of blowing 900 million on a 69mph train to Madison when true high speed rail from Milwaukee to Chicago is an extremely defensible project that might have provided huge economic benefits?
And if you want to know who is to blame for our economic problems, I have a confession.
It was me. I'm at fault. I'm not a mortgage broker, or a Wall Street fat-cat. But I am to blame.
I'm not solely to blame, but I deserve a share. I spent more than I should, and ran up my credit cards a bit. I bought a second property on which to build a larger house, driving up prices in the housing market.
Then, when the economy slowed, I had to cut back a lot, and sell off the land at a significant loss. I'm not going to default, or declare bankruptcy, or anything like that. People who do those things have more economic blood on their hands. But everyone who ran up credit card debt, or bought more house then they should with the plan to live off their ever-growing equity, shares in the blame for the recession.
I'd love to hear the President tell that story.
Obama was never and is never a brilliant and moving speaker, not once.
Agreed. His voice does have the timbre and he is poised. Now we know that as being haughty. His cadence is predictable; not good, and it becomes annoying.
Remember, though, it is always the message that sticks.
I don't mind the "story" thing, Iggy. I just prefer the sorts of stories someone like Palin tells. In her stories we're capable and strong, bound to be successful in whatever we set our minds to do, limited only by the strength of our own will.
In Obama's stories doctors are out to chop our limbs off for profit, and we ought to be scolded for spending our money on Las Vegas, and we're limited in what we can do by the greed of those greedy corporations who hold us down. My ability to "make it" is limited by my ability to make those who have made enough money already, to give some of it up.
The economic reality is what it is, of course. (And I think that on this the Tea Party and Austrian School and similar thinkers are right.) But the Story does have influence. We're not *smarter* by preferring (as so many "educated" people seem to) a story about how strong the people are who are keeping us down. Of course people feel as if things won't get better and will probably get worse.
The most positive part of progressive story telling, at the moment, seems to be an insistence that it doesn't really matter in the least if we are in debt or how much debt we carry.
Synova said...
I don't mind the "story" thing, Iggy.
I actually don't mind the story thing either. I despise the government/citizen relationship being equated to a parent/child relationship.
First Sirota, then this guy. Does the left's delusion know no limit? This is truly sad.
Never thought I would read such a devastating critique of Obama the man and Obama the President in the New York Times.
This piece makes the flaying of State Department lawyer in chief Harold KOH --article also in today's New York Times--seem tame in comparison.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/07/opinion/sunday/harold-kohs-flip-flop-on-the-libya-question.html?scp=2&sq=Harold%20KOH&st=cse
Liberals are now cannibalizing their own.
The commenters over at the Times seem to agree that Obama is not far enough Left for them!
I've been around Lefties long enough to know
there could be a tyranny or a dictatorship, and as long as some of them were on the gravy train, or kept busy as useful idiots they would still be singing the same tune.
This is a clear threat to liberty...
...but don't expect them to see it that way anytime soon (just expect a bottled up rant about how liberty must be made equal and positively defined, that (S)cience and scientific bureaucrats must lead the way...or that with so much injustice in the world the only path through justice is the State and through some redistributive scheme)
Some things never change.
ts; cf (too stupid; couldn't finish)
Oddly enough, this dipshit's
own research explains why his NYT column is so unhinged:
In January 2006 a group of scientists led by Westen announced at the annual Society for Personality and Social Psychology conference in Palm Springs, California the results of a study in which functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) showed that self-described Democrats and Republicans responded to negative remarks about their political candidate of choice in systematically biased ways. ...
Dr. Westen said,
None of the circuits involved in conscious reasoning were particularly engaged... Essentially, it appears as if partisans twirl the cognitive kaleidoscope until they get the conclusions they want... Everyone... may reason to emotionally biased judgments when they have a vested interest in how to interpret 'the facts.'
He lost me as soon as he said that the country was in "tatters" after the Bush administration.
Where's this clown been the last two and half years?
I started reading this article via a link at Metafilter. I quickly gave up and decided to read the comments there instead. Those were as bad so I decided to check in here in the hopes that there would be something to make me forget that dreck. Ugh.
wv - parott Everyone there does seem to be saying the same thing, to a T.
Of course, I wasn't deluded. That's not to say I'm happy.
Ohhhh, she twists the knife again! I swear, this is the slowest case of seppuku I have ever seen! Meade, dude, you love her - act as her second, man!
HURRY!!
Krugman, of course, is the asshole who tried to pin the blame on Sarah Palin for the Arizona massacre.
Is there a level of stupidity or incompetence that demands that somebody just shut up and stop writing?
Krugman reached that level with his Arizona massacre babbling.
There's the question of his pragmatism, about which people may or may not have been deluded.
Then there's the question of his competence....
So, the left has basically thrown in the towel on Obama. They're trotting out the old commie line:
The Great Five Year Plan wasn't a disastrous mistake! We need a new, more charismatic leader! Death to the Kulaks!
Does this mean that Obama is finished?
Obama was never a centrist.
Obama took every position. He argued against "false choices" on the left and right. He was a pragmatist, which seemingly meant he could make everything work. That's very different than being a centrist.
I'm not convinced this article isn't a satire intended to promote the author's published research on political bias. There's an awfully big hint of this in the Bulwer-Lyttonesque opening line:
It was a blustery day in Washington on Jan. 20, 2009, as it often seems to be [on the day of a presidential inauguration] in January.
William of course the very rich can be democrats or republicans or anything else that will suit their purpose in accumulating more wealth, the point of this article was that Obama has not had the advice or the spine to fix the mess that wall street and the republicans have put us in. Should the stimulus have been larger, many would say yes, was the health care reform the best direction, needed, many would say, but wasted in focus and time. The reasons for Obama's failure, I suspect include all his (the author's) explanations from the structure of the political scene to Obama's personal avoidance of confrontation and his modest accomplishments which have not developed further.
Thinking Obama is any kind of pragmatist is indeed its own delusion.
A pragmatist would explain the positions he takes and why. The pros and cons of his own policies. Obama explains the pros and cons of other people's policies while studiously avoiding putting forth his own specific plans.
"If you paid attention to what he actually said during the primary and the election, he was always a very conventional centrist. Progressives who flocked to his campaign basically deluded themselves, mistaking style for substance. I got huge flack for saying that at the time, but it was true, and events have borne it out.Of course, I wasn't deluded. That's not to say I'm happy."
Invoking Krugman as a defense against delusion is as delusional as Krugman saying Obama "was always a very conventional centrist." America idiotically voted for an inexperienced, affirmative action leftist ideologue despite all the clear signals that exactly what Obama always was, regardless of any delusional perceptions, wishes or hopes to the contrary. Sadly, the bill is far too real; no delusions will save us from that.
Obama's personal avoidance of confrontation and his modest accomplishments...
were well known before he was elected. It's disingenuous for those who voted for him despite these serious flaws to now use them as rationalizations for this epic disaster of a presidency.
rhhardin +1.
And props to Ignorance, too: yes yes yes, the president is not my Daddy.
Lets see, political scientist, economist, historian, sociologist--are there no limits to the talents of this self-styled Da Vinci cum psychologist, this Renaissance man?
What leftist "intellectual" tripe...utter drivel..
There are some genuinely eminent psychologists at Emory.
Drew Westen isn't one of them.
There isn't a whole lot of psychology in the article—as already noted, the author doesn't even mention his own past work on political bias.
It's nearly all third-rate punditry. An advertisement for Westen's "strategic consulting." (Democrats are well advised not to hire such an idiot.)
Does Westen care whether the stories politicians tell are true, so long as they achieve the desired effect?
Nothing in his article suggest that he does.
He looks to be pining for a more fluent liar and more effective demagogue in the White House.
We're going to be seeing a lot of Left-wing "explanations" of their guy's failure to issue in the New Progressive Millennium.
With any luck, these will be followed by many more, come November and December 2012.
I don't directly blame Saul Alinsky for the wilding* youths in Milwaukee--those kids have almost certainly never heard of a guy named Alinksy.
But those kids have heard of a guy inspired by Alinsky, and so too, I might add, has a former First Lady. I'll bet the Prof who wrote the linked article has too.
____________
"wilding"--beware the gerundocracy
[added Oh, I'm sorry, is this the wrong thread?]
but his stories virtually always lack one element: the villain who caused the problem, who is always left out, described in impersonal terms, or described in passive voice, as if the cause of others’ misery has no agency and hence no culpability.
That's because half of his stories are outright fabrications or so heavily slanted as to be untrue. If you actually have a villain that exists, that villain is going to grab the nearest reporter and say "That's not what happened. Here's how it really went down..."
Shouting Thomas said...
I'll summarize Noonan's piece for those of you who don't want to read it:
Obama's backers think that Ronald Reagan appealed to Americans solely through some extraordinary oratorical gift. In fact, it was Reagan's ideas that were the source of his power. He spoke the truth.
I think Shouting Thomas is on the mark here, but I will add a bit to it. Progressives think three things: 1. Progressive ideas are correct. 2. Obama is on par with Reagan when it comes to selling ideas. and 3. It was Reagan's rhetorical gift that sold fundamentally unsound ideas.
Now they are in an area of cognitive dissonance. That their ideas are weak is never suspected. They hate to find fault with Obama, so they resort to him not being tough enough on obstructionists. Or finally, they resort to accusing the American people of just being stupid.
The thing is that we are a democracy. If your ideas are correct and you have a great leader who cannot get the people to follow, it may be time to reassess your assumptions.
A pragmatist does not, for example, put forth a budget that studiously avoids actually solving the deficit, debt, or entitlement problem. A pragmatist does not say the competing budget plan, which does address entitlements, fundamentally changes the contract government has with America.
A pragmatist offers an attempt at a solution that can be respected by both those who agree and disagree.
A centrist tries to solve the problems by attempting to please both sides.
Someone who doesn't know what they are doing and wishes to avoid blame offers a budget that does nothing serious to address the problems and calls it "leading from behind".
Exactly, Eric.
In the case of at least one story , the villain turned out to be....Barack Obama.
The story of the auto insurance company not covering his collision damage, when he hadn't purchased that insurance.
"he was always a very conventional centrist."
Except this isn't really at all true. McCain was a very conventional centrist. That's why nobody really liked him.
That Obama is not a centrist comes out when he has the actual power to do whatever it is he wants. Obamacare was not a centrist act.
The huge stimulus package was not a centrist act.
When Obama is free to do whatever he wants, with no opposition, he's pretty radical. The trouble with him is that he has very little capacity to deal with opposition, so he shuts down.
Which makes him more of an undependable progressive.
Or, maybe a better way to put it, what a could be caudillo looks like in a democracy. Obama would be a lot like Chavez, if he could. But he can't, and he doesn't have even a fraction of the charisma or fortitude. He's very good at walking through doors that are open, and people have jumped to open doors for him his whole life. So, when a door is closed he just sits down and hangs out.
Also, like a caudillo, his overall policies sound a lot more cohesive when they're understood in light of him getting money/power to his associates -- the patronage model of governance. And like with all caudillos, true believers are merely tools to maintain power, swept aside or ignored when needed.
Yes Krugman-
"Conventional Centrists" always drop $800 billion while promising to keep the unemployment rate at 8% or lower.....
Funny how the media doesn't remember that.
If Bush did that there would be 20 minutes of his administration making that promise replayed daily.
****
As many have noted above- the "psychologist" never heard Obama blame Bush?
Selective hearing- there ought be an app for that.
I swear Hillary or someone must be paying the press to insure Obama keeps repeating his biggest mistake over and over again.
He declared war on Republicans -("I won") and he keeps that battle talk up during his speeches. Only during interviews with Oprah- when he's off the teleprompter -does he drop it.
Makes you wonder if he even reads any of his speeches before or after they are on the teleprompter.
The interesting "psychological phenomena" is the split or disconnect that is going on there.
Of course Krugman would be the last person to "see" that.
And since Krugman makes his wealth from the same pawns/tools, he has to make sure the mists of true belief continue to surround the reality of corruption.
The existence of leaders abusing progressives for the sake of corruption can't be acknowledged, so now that Obama is increasingly no longer useful, he has to be relabeled as a centrist.
The ol' no true Scotsman fallacy in action.
No true progressive, after all, would fail like Obama has.
Everybody criticizing him now, left and right, want to still call him a brilliant speaker as a consolation prize. He was never that. It is another delusion.
If people like Ann were smart enough to not delude themselves, I don't know what they did to vote for him. Especially since she and people like her voted in the Dem primary and all the evidence and contrast was there in plain sight. If they thought Obama's hoodwinking was a virtue then against Hillary, good. They have been hoodwinked, hoodwinked hard now. Where will they go now?
Paddy O.
Well the thing is during his campaign he sometimes talked like a "centrist" in fact he probably talks less centrist as President.
It's interesting ....that as President he never lived up to his promise.
Another thing about the absolute blind spot the media has...
Reid came out and gave a press conference and said-
..so it's perfectly clear-the only compromise-is-
mine!
He is so inside the liberal Beltway he had no clue how ridiculous he sounded and he was surrounded by Liberal media who didn't even recognize how ludicrous a statement it was.
It would be really funny if it wasn't a historic new low for the country as a whole.
I don't think that Obama was ever any sort of centrist. I think that to the extent he acts like a centrist it's because he doesn't think he can get more. And he's right about that.
Like a libertarian who believes in starting where we are and moving by increments and being seen, then, to not be a libertarian at all.
His understanding of the situation in Honduras was the biggest "tell." His early use of Organize America to rally the "people" as his direct line to power, doing an end-run around having to deal with Congress was a "tell." Making some version of Nationalized health care his singular cause for which to spend all of his political clout in the midst of a looming financial crisis was a "tell." The little slips he makes about spreading wealth, about making enough money, about eating peas... those are "tells".
Diagnose at distance was used in the 70 ´s and then declared unethical by the psychiatrist association
I suppose that I should clarify.
I think that he's got one idea in his head about what he should do and how the world works, and a different idea in his heart.
In his head he might be somewhat pragmatic and functionally centrist.
In his heart, it's all about the people's revolution.
Althouse said that she voted for him because she knew he was lying to the extreme left.
Now again-there is the huge problem with that-
it's the lying.
Here's the problem, when you need to compromise-you need to deal, and in that environment no one wants to deal with a liar.
If you look at his campaign stances-lying might be a harsh word for the differences. But the difference in his campaign promises vs. performance cannot be explained away because he was forced to compromise.
Now a person can get away with-let's call it "inconsistency" and "unpredictability" for awhile but it will eventually catch up with you*. (* there might be an exception for blondes-but it really won't work for Presidents.)
Sure lying in diplomacy can actually pay off for awhile but it will have huge consequences in the long term.
In the business world and in negotiations people don't often go back to the table with people that don't keep their end of the bargain.
I don't think the country can afford another four years of-to put it mildly-
"inconsistency".
Raging at the Dying of their Light
Clarice Feldman
Twice in recent years pleasant social events have been shattered by rage-filled outbursts when liberal men of a certain age learned that I disagreed with their views. In each case the rage with which perfectly polite disagreement was expressed suggested to me that more than political differences were involved. As time has passed, I have come to believe that the reactions I received represented a rage at the dying of all that which these men had embraced in the absolute certainty of the righteousness and soundness of their views, and their right to have them automatically accepted as the approved model for all right thinking people.
That leaves us with-
how in the hell does that "inconsistency" thing work for Krugman-not blonde and not President?
Why it's the miracle on...
-what the hell street does the NYT occupy?
It's a Krugmandrum.
"...
but his stories virtually always lack one element: the villain who caused the problem, who is always left out,...."
Why does a story always have to have a villain? This says more about Herr Professor Psychologist than it does about BO.
The only thing the Bamster is pragmatic about is doing whatever it takes to secure his re-election. Which is the central thing in his sorry life. Yes it's true that Bamster is now being pilloried because so many people projected their hopes and dreams onto this blank slate. But dreams don't turn a rookie into a champion.
madawaskan said...
That leaves us with-
how in the hell does that "inconsistency" thing work for Krugman-not blonde and not President?
At the end of the day, you just know that he's a crock of you-know-what.
______
wv = "leded" Which is what LZ were before Jimmy Page went all unplugged.
Is Obama's behavior that which is ment by "passive-aggressive"?
One amjor problem that Obama and his people have, I think, is that while they have ideas about what they want to achieve, they do not know how things work, in or out of government, and so do not know how to go about getting the changes they want. So they tend to just say or do something to get the ball rolling, and then just cross their fingers and hope that someone or something will cause their hopes to come true.
IOW
He's full of the viss?
You know if anyone could explain the "arc" of Krugman we might figure this whole thing out.
Sane people fail psychiatric tests!
Mort Sahl was once asked if he had anyone analyze him. His response is a classic:
NO, BUT IF I DID, I'D ASK FOR A REFUND.
Reminds me of a Richard Feynman story. Back in 1947, army psychiatrists re-tested him at a physical. And, decided he was crazy.
When he told this story to Hans Bethe, they kept laughing for half an hour. This story is now part of Feynman's lore.
It pays to disrespect psychiatrists! They don't know more about you than your own mother.
Do you listen to your mother?
There's also a Feynman story from about that time period.
Feynman says his mother was told that her son, Richard, was the smartest man on earth.
Hearing that she said: God help us.
A long time ago, when I worked at a medical college, I learned that the only doctors who went into psychiatry did so because they couldn't stand the sight of blood.
And, psychiatrists made such lousy parents, they screwed up and messed with all their children's minds.
Recently, I heard that men who go to college and can do the math, avoid everything associated with "women's studies."
And, that colleges just produce bunches of women who take "psychology." But they're dumb as rocks.
Saddest news yet. Kept behind the screen. Is that obama wins, ahead. While the republicans will go into business as selling religion for political discourse.
Yup. Obama can win lots of votes just by looking like a loser.
Why change for a worse horse?
You don't remember McCain? He came in short. Back in the days plenty of republicans were holding their noses. But they were sure they picked a winnah. Because they smelled Hillary voters coming McCain's way.
Hello. McCain is a gigolo. He didn't smell under his wife's skirt! He smelled inside her pocketbook.
Obama? He's surrounded by pros who know the fools. Just like he has a caddy who tells him to watch out for sand traps.
Will it get any uglier than its been?
Oh, I know. You'll ask Boehner and McConnell for advice. Where I'll just stick with gypsies.
"So they tend to just say or do something to get the ball rolling, and then just cross their fingers and hope that someone or something will cause their hopes to come true."
Obama isn't a centrist, he's just being passive-progressive.
the villain [is]...described in impersonal terms, or described in passive voice, as if the cause of others’ misery has no agency and hence no culpability.
I refute it thus: "Slurpees".
"Passive-progressive."
Brilliant!
Krugman was against Obama because he wanted a bomb throwing liberal who would attack Republicans.
It had nothing to do with policies or views.
It was all petty name calling.
Which is all Krugman trades in about now. No one can have a legitimate view different than his.
Nope, you must be stupid or evil; you can't just be wrong.
the point of this article was that Obama has not had the advice or the spine to fix the mess that wall street and the republicans have put us in.
Of course he is, he's fixing them the way he wants 20++++ years out.
"Passive-progressive" is good!
chickenlittle said...
I don't directly blame Saul Alinsky for the wilding* youths in Milwaukee--those kids have almost certainly never heard of a guy named Alinksy.
But those kids have heard of a guy inspired by Alinsky,
===========================
Progressive Jews like Alinsky formed many of the "Fronts" to uplift the Negro, later to excuse criminality and violence in the black community as not their fault...but societies.
If it was the case where all nations with big black populations had a history of progressive jewish enablers of dysfunctionalism...you might have a point.
But America and it's level of disproportionate black criminality, dysfunction and violence is not the exception - but the general rule.
See France, Brazil, Haiti, UK, two dozen African nations, even the apple of liberalism's eye - the Swedes.
No Alinskys, no Jews organizing black "grievance movements" there. Possible exception is S Africa, where Jews were prominent in running the "colored unions", financing groups like the ANC, and orchestrating the economic boycott of Apartheid S Africa.
Some factors clearly are more weighty than Alinsky-type figures in explaining Somalia, Jamaica, the banuels of France, NOLA during Katrina...
That Obama could be called a pragmatist is a falsehood which is disproven by reality.
A pragmatist, by definition, makes decisions based ON WHAT WORKS. Bill Clinton became much more of a pragmatist once his Leftism was sufficiently slapped down.
We already know what works, but Obama has at every juncture attempted to take the country in the precise opposite direction.
Bankruptcy works. It kills off the companies too weak to survive while allowing others to emerge stronger on the other side. He refused to allow GM and Chrysler to go through the cleansing fire of bankruptcy instead.
We know that government can't create jobs. Even the White House has been forced to admit it. But not until they had spent $800 billion to prop up Democratic politicos and public unions hoping they could out last the downturn and claim credit for the gains which would otherwise have been experienced in a normal recovery.
We know that central command economies don't work. But Obama is doing everything he can to control every jot and tittle of the US economy from Washington.
He has done NOTHING which could even be called pragmatic.
Over and over again, he has done the bidding of the farthest left wing of the Democratic Party, only stepping back when it threatened his re-election chances to do so.
To be serious for a moment-this is the new fictional narrative that the Liberal media is spinning.
Supposedly it's the 'progressives' that are upset with Obama-because of the "compromises".
Well let's look at the damn numbers.
Here is the latest polling for Obama from Gallup July 25-31.
Approval-
Liberal Democrat-83%
Moderate Democrat- 76%
Conservative Democrat- 59%
Pure Independent- 28%
Liberal/Moderate Republican 21%
Well you get the idea Obama has lost the middle big time.
Perhaps more significantly Obama has lost 7% points in just the last week with Hispanics with a drop from-
52% to 47%.
That's huge.
This guy is really in trouble-expect the media to start spinning like crazy-hell this was the number one article at the Atlantic via Facebook just now dropped to #2-
Obama as Chess Master: Think of Him as Bobby Fischer.
It spins the story of Obama as Centrist-that must be the new designated talking point from the DNC.
"When he wants to be, the president is a brilliant and moving speaker, but his stories virtually always lack one element: the villain who caused the problem, who is always left out, described in impersonal terms, or described in passive voice, as if the cause of others’ misery has no agency and hence no culpability. "
Bull, he blamed Bush thousands of times for all his troubles.
And Krugman is just so full of it. Centralist? hahahahaha, Obama is about as 'centralist' as Castro.
Obama has simply reached the point where even the Left now thinks of him as a silver-tongued, opportunistic bullshit artist. All hat, no cattle.
Vs. McCain, who is an oportunistic, but more clumsy and incoherent bullshit artist. Also like Obama, not as smart as his backers say he is. Also ready to throw people under the bus at a moments whim. But who, if you didn't know, served in Vietnam like his dear Senate friend John Kerry, and got medals...Plus "McCain suffered!" (Which, if suffering was a credential vs. a sympathy milker, would have landed Max Cleland in the Oval Office)/
While we have been lucky in most our history, sometimes we get two nominees running - that both sides see as not likely to have a good, competent Presidency - forcing the public to choose between the lesser of two evils.
In recent years, at least in the living memory of people the times that both Parties gave us dogs,vs. at least one reasonably good, competent candidate matched up against a dog, even two good candidates -was just 3 occasions. Ford-Carter in 1976. Bush-Kerry in 2004. And Obama-McCain in 2008.
Now that the majority of the country is of an opinion all Obama is is a bullshitter - the question is if Republicans can come up with a candidate that is acceptable to the political center of the nation, has experience and competency, and at least offered the hope of a better America no longer in decline.
The left and Obama have a punitive attitude toward anyone who can make a profit. They think that therapy is the business of America, and that only people who are professional victims are cured of their belief that they should make money for themselves through excellence. The left is a twisted set of loops. Obama is their symptom.
If this is a centrist I'd really hate to see what they consider a true progressive.
And you call that pragmatism? Deluded is what you are. The man does not have a clue on being pragmatic. He has killed almost every attempt to work with him on solving any problems since he became president. Check out his losing the deal with Boehner because at the last minute he wanted an extra $400 billion right after he had gotten an agreement. Is that being pragmatic? I don't think so.
Sounds to me like you are still years later trying to justify your error in voting for this empty suit.
the villain who caused the problem, who is always left out
Apparently this guy hasn't been listening to all that many Obama speeches and whatever.
I am not sure (I stopped listening > 2 years ago) what the count is, but it was pretty clear that Bush did it.
In the Rose Garden.
With multiple gold pens.
The villain was always clear in Obama's kabuki (<-- without the skill).
Gack!!1!1!!
I have only read the first page so far and I am wondering who has been whispering in this turkey's brain?
What planet is he from?
The decade before Obama involved an attack on the United States as had not occurred ever. Two wars but an unemployment rate of ~4 1/2 percent, and a healthy deficit correction in progress thanks to the Bush tax cuts.
Plus of course, the DEMOCRAT controlled collapse of the housing market via Johnson, Raines & Gorelick Associates with heavy backing from Barney Frank & Co., and 2 YEARS of a Democrat controlled Congress.
Don't forget that -- the Dems controlled Congress (and even before that blocked accountability oversight of Fannie and Freddie) for the last two years of the Bush Administration.
But they were *terrible* years (and he has the nerve to write this after the past 30+ months)?
I can't wait til Page 2. /s
I'm surprised no one has noted that, conveniently, the DSM dropped "narcissism" as a pathology soon after their demi-god was elected.
Just a coincidence, I'm relatively possibly likely somewhat certain (mostly).
I think this is one of those examples of "credentialed" not educated.
wv shant
I shant diagnose from a distance, or a reading.
Oh yes I will.
Cult victim struggling to read the handwriting on the wall.
Professor -- I do not believe McCain could have screwed this up anywhere near as badly. At least we'd have a healthy energy industry.
geokstr -- I noticed.
This article and others like it are the new meme of, "If only Obama would be more radical, demonizing, hard nosed, uncompromising then progressive agendas could flourish."
I think the NYT has to have one of these every weekend to soothe the masses of the upper east side telling them that everything in their world view is right. I swear, it is like telling an Evangelical that Jesus is coming. They need their hope and reassurance every week. Those C-SPAN Book TV gatherings in lefty book stores are like their little tent revivals.
Kermit the frog sang, "It's Not Easy Being Green." We need to have a song, 'It's not easy being liberal." to soothe their wearied and frightened souls.
It is my impression that American conservatism represents the moderate position in social, economic, and political venues. I would be very much surprised if Krugman has ever ventured outside his ivory tower, let alone lived under left-wing regime.
Of course, the spectrum would be defined by the principles each individual has accepted. If Krugman considers Obama to be a centrist or moderate, then that would suggest that Krugman has rejected or selected an extreme compromise of individual dignity.
Also, as Obama has similarly accepted the normalization of deviant behaviors, including the conventional abortion of human life, then this would suggest that he is a social extremist as he devalues human life further.
Obama, by any reasonable standard, is not moderate in his positions, as he supports progressive involuntary exploitation (i.e., economic slavery), substitution of totalitarian policies for moral knowledge (i.e., progressive loss of liberty), and the sacrifice of virginal human life (perhaps to appease mortal gods or selfish needs).
What we don't know, is if he is merely an opportunist and has correctly determined that it is easier to exploit individuals who seek instant gratification at the expense of others. They are, by definition, without integrity, and are predisposed to supporting progressive totalitarian regimes; and they probably have no idea how the policies they have supported have harmed them personally and undermined the viability of humanity.
Other than their highly successful effort to wield emotional appeals and to marginalize their competing interests through the recall of a selective history, America's left is not particularly impressive. They can continue to play their semantic games and perpetuate a selective reality; but, they should understand, that even under totalitarian regimes, an individual's heritage and principles are conveyed from one generation to the next. Not even indoctrination of children in schools when humans are most vulnerable to corruption ensures comprehensive submission.
Good luck, left-wing ideologues. I just hope that your games are not terminated following historical standards.
I couldn't stand to listen to Bush speak, but at least he meant what he said.
Obama is the reverse. A good public speaker who's every word is bullshit.
In every realization, whether it is communism, socialism, fascism, etc., the result is a crony system, where the leaders consolidate wealth and power, then delegate authority in order to appease the greed, and ameliorate the lust, of their supporters. The principles underlying these systems are principal contributors to progressive corruption. It further undermines their credibility and stability when redistribution is involuntary and unequal.
That said, in theory, and if people voluntarily accede their individual authority, these systems could provide a superior outcome. Unfortunately, in the real world, the redistribution of funds acquired through involuntary exploitation, and the loss of liberty, always accelerate the corruption which leads to the decline of every civilization.
"He lost me as soon as he said that the country was in 'tatters' after the Bush administration."
Damned straight! I miss those halcyon days of three years ago when the country was a gleaming city on a hill and all was right in the land.
"I don't directly blame Saul Alinsky for the wilding* youths in Milwaukee--those kids have almost certainly never heard of a guy named Alinksy."
Good call...given that virtually no one today has ever heard of Saul Alinksy.
For those prophesying (or hoping for) another "long hot summer", remember, even in the poorest neighborhoods houses are now air conditioned. People would rather stay inside and watch television than go sit out on the stoop in the heat. Times change and the way riots get started has changed, too.
I'm surprised no one has noted that, conveniently, the DSM dropped "narcissism" as a pathology soon after their demi-god was elected.
I'm not a fan of the DSM, and as a non-clinical psychologist, I don't get asked to defend it very often.
This really is a coincidence. Some committee has some bright idea about completely reorganizing the "personality disorders" along multiple dimensions. And the committee hasn't finished its work yet. It may be accepted as brilliant, or it may be dead on arrival. Hard to know.
In the meantime, my clinical colleagues keep talking about narcissism as though there's nothing wrong with the notion.
JAL - "The decade before Obama involved an attack on the United States as had not occurred ever. Two wars but an unemployment rate of ~4 1/2 percent, and a healthy deficit correction in progress thanks to the Bush tax cuts."
What planet are you from?
1. The Japs and Conferderates were far more lethal, had more effective attacks than the Islamoids who wrecked a few buildings over an area of a couple of city blocks. . Not to mention the Brits, that burned whole US cities in the War of 1812. Or the Nazi Uboats that killed more civilian American people and inflicted more economic damage in the 1st half of 1942 than KSM could dream of
2. Two wars. One required, one at Bush's elective.
3. Tax cuts targeting the wealthy did not cut the deficit or add jobs (Bush lost 3 million manufactiring jobs, added 1.6 million net jobs in 8 years vs. Clinton's 20.6 million jobs. And most of Bush's jobs added were in new positions created by expanding government, government spending).
4. Bush did not "correct the deficit thanks to tax cuts". He exploded it. Everything he "bought" was on money loaned to the USA..and he and the other Republican Corporatists share in a blame for the housing, financial industries collapse that forced another 2 Trillion to go out on bailouts.
===========
JAL - "Professor -- I do not believe McCain could have screwed this up anywhere near as badly. At least we'd have a healthy energy industry."
Well, you might be right...because once the dimbulb McCain started his dreamed of neocon war of adventure by bomb-bomb-bombing Iran...the Gulf would have been closed, oil at 250-300 dollars a barrel, rationed in the US, the world in Depression. And there would be almost no opposition to a healthy eneergy industry in America. Freezing Greenies would cheer the arrival of coal trains.
In fact, the average American had no idea what Democrats were trying to accomplish by deficit spending because no one bothered to explain it to them with the repetition and evocative imagery that our brains require to make an idea, particularly a paradoxical one, “stick.”
Don't y'all hate it as much as I when the credentialed talk about "the average American?"
Not to mention if I hear / see "...let me be clear..." and "... as I have repeatedly said..." One. More. Time. I will cease even *reading* Obama's comments.
Google "Bush 'repeatedly said'" and "Obama 'repeatedly said'" and remember Bush was in office 8 years versus the 30 months we have now. All of the Obama spokespeople and the MSM have to tell us what Obama repeatedly said.
So don't tell me he / they didn't bother to explain it to us with repetition and evocative memories of cars in ditches and millionaries and billionaires flying around in their corporate jets with impunity for dinner dates {<--strike that, wrong millionaire} ripping us all off while they provide the juice that creates the nations jobs.
And I know that no bank would let *me* "deficit spend" with a promissory note attached to my unborn grandchildrens' toes.
Sincerely not yours,
An Average American
Nice piece.
A 100% liberal believer analyzes Obama to be totally lacking in a good leader's psychology skill set that requires telling a story that gives his followers a target.
He is disillusioned, and now he says that he saw this all along, but only now is speaking out.
One hopes the writer has tenure. Emory is not a friendly place for teachers who point out the liberals wearing invisible clothes have no clothes on.
This is a bad sign for Obama's re-election.
C4 -- Pearl Harbor was a military target. The WTC was not. The civilians on the planes were not.
The Civil War was not a foreign attack.
BEFORE this recent debacle of debt ceiling & spend spend spend Obama & Co have stated what he is facing is the worst time in American history. BS.
Re McCain --And why again is it we are involved in Libya again?? Elective? Maybe if we had a glimpse at Obama's transcripts we would understand his view of "electives."
Did you not see the graph floating around the net in recent days ... the deficit goes up and then DOWN under Bush. So someone made up the numbers?
In 2008, I listened to the constant, verifiable lies and the radicalism of Obama the candidate and I became very frightened for America and the American way of life.
I was so afraid of him that I voted in the Democratic Party primary for Hillary Rodham.
In the past three years of his presidency there has been hardly a day when the outrageous words and actions of this narcissistic fool don't set me off.
Forget John McCain -- choose Bob Barr, but how could anyone not see through the emptiness that is Barack Hussein Obama -- especially a blogger who has to follow the news every day to keep her readers happy?
Not Forgiving Obama ~ Peeling the Oreo Cookie Obama ~ Gutless Obama Squandering the Political-Theology Tradition that Lincoln Took a Bullet to Hand Him
http://randomarrow.blogspot.com/2011/08/not-forgiving-obama-peeling-oreo-cookie.html
Fudd - give it up pal, no one listens to your incoherent blather any more. Do you have a blue dress ready to wear for the Clinton inauguration?
Cedarford writes: The Japs and Conferderates were far more lethal, had more effective attacks than the Islamoids who wrecked a few buildings over an area of a couple of city blocks.
Cedarford, I question your grasp of history. You're telling me that those pesky Insurrectionists firing a few shells across Charleston Harbor at Fort Sumter was WORSE than the World Trade Center? Pierre Gustave Toussant Beauregard was feeling pretty frisky with himself that morning. But his ghost would be laughing his ass off at ignorant twits like Cedarford.
There is a difference between firing at or upon men in uniform from firing at --or more to the point--murdering 3,000 civilians.
I happen to know of a beautiful young girl, freshly graduated from university, valedictorian of her college in her university, flying home to the West Coast from Boston. Her life ended in one of those twin towers. Her parents will grieve to the end of their days.
So Cedarford don't give me any bullshit about a couple of buildings in a couple of blocks.
Robert Cook said,
I miss those halcyon days of three years ago when the country was a gleaming city on a hill and all was right in the land.
As well you might. Through the end of 2008 the pattern of employment losses were nearly identical to the pattern in the other postwar recessions.The difference this time is that employment has hardly rebounded at all, and the divergence in the data from the historical record started right when Obama took office.
The idea that Obama is a good or inspiring speaker is a myth created by the media. Play the one great clip over and over and it will seem that his words actually are inspiring. Listen to his entire speech over the radio and you get an entirely different feeling.
He's not much better than Bush and he rarely knows of what he speaks. His ums and errs are frequent. He is a weak speaker and I think that he's not really a very bright guy.
He is a media created creature and the entire country is seeing that the emperor has no clothes.
Also, C4, if the strikes had been an hour later there could have been 30,000+ dead instead of 3,000. Would you be happy then?
The psychological analysis bit bothers me too. My father was a clinical psychologist and professor. I know how full of shit they can be.
Just bringing up the "I'm a psychologist" is a fallacious appeal to authority, even though the authority is himself. Psychology/psychiatry can be very dangerous as the "authorities" can change the definitions of mental illness at their own whim. Homosexuality used to be an illness in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual psychologists/psychiatrists use.
Learning to see the truth as it is is a great and valuable skill. Who speaks it shouldn't matter.
I like Krugman's take. Even I was a little deluded. (I didn't vote for him.) I thought he'd be bad, but he's epic bad. I think he has a piece missing too. But, you don't have to be a psychologist to see that.
ChipS, you seem to have forgotten we were on the verge of complete economic collapse in the last months of Bush's administration. Obama has not helped, primarily because he has equivocated too much and has given priority to Wall Street and the banks in his governance. Essentially, he is Bush Redux.
Obama is merely the latest caretaker of our ongoing economic decline, and he is to be blamed for not arresting it or turning it around, but he cannot be blamed for having caused it.
Obama is merely the latest caretaker of our ongoing economic decline, and he is to be blamed for not arresting it or turning it around, but he cannot be blamed for having caused it.
No, Obama didn't cause it.
And he played no significant role in the initial harmful responses to it (up to and including TARP).
But he can be fairly blamed for significantly accelerating it.
And for blocking efforts to reverse it.
I think he will go down in history as the Democratic counterpart to Herbert Hoover.
Of course, the reason Obama doesn't tell the narrative about how extremist conservatives destroyed this county is because he knows it's a big lie.
He will let his surrogates, like this psychologist, do it instead.
the cause of others’ misery has no agency and hence no culpability
Far far worse is that Obama doesn't understand the agency behind others' joy.
"I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
I will add that I think both Althouse and Krugman are wrong. Obama is not a centrist and never was. Obama is a follower. When the Democrats owned Congress he followed them. Now that the Republicans have rolled the weak members of the Senate he follows along.
He doesn't think he's following along. He thinks complaining is leading. But he doesn't lead.
Jefferson wrote, "In matters of style, swim with the current."
Obama is all style. He has no idea how to be anything else.
Mike "Cedarford, I question your grasp of history. You're telling me that those pesky Insurrectionists firing a few shells across Charleston Harbor at Fort Sumter was WORSE than the World Trade Center?"
Given the sum of Confederate actions resulted in 660,000 dead and 1.1 million grievous woundings and whole regions of the coutry destroyed or torched...yes, I do. It was minor stuff compared to other wars
"Pierre Gustave Toussant Beauregard was feeling pretty frisky with himself that morning. But his ghost would be laughing his ass off at ignorant twits like Cedarford."
No, he would be laughing at the twits that compare a small event like a few city blocks being taken out to the mass destruction of major wars.
"There is a difference between firing at or upon men in uniform from firing at --or more to the point--murdering 3,000 civilians."
How does that jibe with the 3 million Germans and Jap civilians we blasted and roasted in WWII? The goal was to kill the the civilians, terrorize the survivors, and wreck their economy so Our Will prevailed. Did that make our WWII Vets murderers?
"I happen to know of a beautiful young girl, freshly graduated from university, valedictorian of her college in her university, flying home to the West Coast from Boston. Her life ended in one of those twin towers. Her parents will grieve to the end of their days."
What does that have to do with anything but your personal empathy from a personal connection in one instance of human conflict? Think any war has happened on any scale anywhere without people who knew someone who died - grieving to the end of their days?
"So Cedarford don't give me any bullshit about a couple of buildings in a couple of blocks."
Just saying that the other side of the coin is the part of the world that has known real war rolling their eyes at Americans. At their claims that 9/11 was something far more important than other terrible times in history. That some buildings in NYC and workers in NYC are far more "special" than those in other places.
Robert Cook said...
...virtually no one today has ever heard of Saul Alinksy.
Which is very, very fortunate for you Marxists, because if the general population did know about him, and understood exactly how his tactics were used by the left for the last half century to subvert the democratic process, and by the unions to undermine the capitalist system, all the leftists would be voted out of any office higher than Asst Junior Cook County Doggie Doo-Doo Sweeper-Upper.
I'll bet you knew exactly who Alinsky was. Obama certainly did. He taught Alinsky's methodology to ACORN for several years, the only actual job he's ever held. What a foundation that was for being the most powerful man on the planet, and doesn't it just bode so very well for this nation?
You probably also know that Alinsky's son wrote a letter to the Boston Herald congratulating the Obama campaign for the brilliant use of his father's tactics in the 2008 primary.
And Hilary wrote her college thesis on Alinsky basically giving him a 92-page Lewinsky.
Those tactics won't work nearly as well this time because:
1) We're finally on to them
2) You Marxists have awoken the silent majority, and we are pissed.
Action:
I never thought of walking on the grass until I saw a sign saying 'Keep off the grass.' Then I would stomp all over it.
~Saul Alinsky
Reaction:
Get off my lawn!
Resolution:
And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us.
___________
@cedarford: you err, as perhaps did Nietzsche, in conflating "resentment" with the Jews. Resentment is universal, and old as dirt. And those who gain power from it are...dirt.
Obama's voting record as a senator (what there was of it) placed him as one of the most liberal if not the most liberal member of that body.
So let's put aside that "he's a centrist" nonsense.
What Obama really is is the KIC (Kibitzer-in-Chief). The guy is only really happy when he's criticizing someone else's ideas. He gets really defensive and annoyed when he's forced to come out with his own ideas and defend them.
Such a characteristic makes him an ideal person for the U.S. Senate which is composed of, let's be honest, a lot of blow-hards who are seldom made accountable for their rhetoric, but it's a disaster in an executive.
"there could have been 30,000+ dead instead of 3,000. Would you be happy then?"
As long as some of them were Jooos. He'd get a few extra spurts in the flophouse then.
Who cares what Obama says. Look what he does. His is a story of one and only cause - advancing Obama. That's is all there is to it.
"I'll bet you knew exactly who Alinsky was."
Only because you right wing fanatics drop his name with tourettes-like frequency and reflexiveness. Otherwise, he's a forgotten figure from the past.
"You Marxists (sic) have awoken the silent majority, and we are pissed."
Go back and sleep it off; you'll be sober in the morning.
Good morning, C4 --
Seen this? (HT Instapundit & Powerline)
Let’s take a walk down memory lane. What did the Democrats do with respect to federal debt during the four years they controlled both Houses of Congress? Here is a summary of the deficits the Democrats racked up during that time:
FY 2008 — $460 billion
FY 2009 — $1,410 billion ($1.4 trillion)
FY 2010 — $1,300 billion ($1.3 trillion)
FY 2011 — $1,600 (estimated) ($1.6 trillion)
Of the $14.5 trillion national debt, nearly $4.8 trillion–one-third of the total–was incurred during that four-year period when the Congress was exclusively controlled by the Democrats. Moreover, and equally important, during that time the Democrats did nothing to assure the markets that they have a long-term plan to deal with the country’s burgeoning debt. On the contrary, for more than two years the Congressional Democrats have refused to adopt or even to propose a budget! If you are looking for the reason why rating agencies have lost faith in the ability of our government to get its spending and debt under control, you need look no farther.
Have a nice day.
Robert Cook said...
Only because you right wing fanatics drop his name (Alinsky) with tourettes-like frequency and reflexiveness. Otherwise, he's a forgotten figure from the past.
Well, that leads us inexorably to several possibilities:
1) You are too young to know who he is, and ignorant of history and current leftist political and union tactics
2) You are old enough that you should know who he is, but ignorant of history and current leftist political and union tactics
3) You're just another typical Marxist liar
Alinsky's methods, tactics and philosophy are intensively taught to union organizers, community organizers, and Democratic political operatives even today. The ends justifying the means is the only moral or ethical compass leftists have.
They may not call them "Alinskyite" when they're taught, but Marxist professors never refer to themselves as "communists" either.
"You Marxists (sic) have awoken the silent majority, and we are pissed"
Go back and sleep it off; you'll be sober in the morning.
Not in your wildest wet dreams. I've been able to see November 2012 from every window in my house already for two years already. No way you're getting away with 2008 twice.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा