"Writing is a skill, not a talent, and thus one's ability as a writer can be improved by thoughtful effort. The problem with some people is that they graduate college as good writers, experience early success on account of that, and thus never devote themselves diligently to the relentless quest for improvement that could make them great writers."
[A]s it became clear internally that the Administration had suffered perhaps its most embarrassing failure in the area of national security, senior Obama White House aides, including chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, David Axelrod and new White House counsel Robert Bauer, ordered staff to begin researching similar breakdowns -- if any -- from the Bush Administration. "The idea was that we'd show that the Bush Administration had had far worse missteps than we ever could," says a staffer in the counsel's office. "We were told that classified material involving anything related to al Qaeda operating in Yemen or Nigeria was fair game and that we'd declassify it if necessary." The White House, according to the source, is in full defensive spin mode. Other administration sources also say a flurry of memos were generated on December 26th, 27th, and 28th, which developed talking points about how Obama's decision to effectively shut down the Homeland Security Council (it was merged earlier this year into the National Security Council, run by National Security Adviser James Jones) had nothing to do with what Obama called a "catastrophic" failure on Christmas Day. "This White House doesn't view the Northwest [Airlines] failure as one of national security, it's a political issue," says the White House source. "That's why Axelrod and Emanuel are driving the issue." . . .
America's primary race problem today is our new "sophistication" around racial matters. Political correctness is a compendium of sophistications in which we join ourselves to obvious falsehoods ("diversity") and refuse to see obvious realities (the irrelevance of diversity to minority development). I would argue further that Barack Obama's election to the presidency of the United States was essentially an American sophistication, a national exercise in seeing what was not there and a refusal to see what was there—all to escape the stigma not of stupidity but of racism. Barack Obama, elegant and professorially articulate, was an invitation to sophistication that America simply could not bring itself to turn down. . . .
If we can’t catch a Nigerian with a powerful explosive powder in his oddly feminine-looking underpants and a syringe full of acid, a man whose own father had alerted the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria, a traveler whose ticket was paid for in cash and who didn’t check bags, whose visa renewal had been denied by the British, who had studied Arabic in Al Qaeda sanctuary Yemen, whose name was on a counterterrorism watch list, who can we catch? . . . Before he left for vacation, Obama tried to shed his Spock mien and juice up the empathy quotient on jobs. But in his usual inspiring/listless cycle, he once more appeared chilly in his response to the chilling episode on Flight 253, issuing bulletins through his press secretary and hitting the links. At least you have to seem concerned. . . .
Once Modo starts eyeing the exit of the Obama bandwagon, what next? Will David Brooks espy an un-meritocratic wrinkle in the president's pants?
Jennifer Rubin makes some good points at Commentary. RTWT, but let me summarize:
...this president showed no inclination or talent to engage in the nitty-gritty business of lawmaking.
...the Obami ran Left, even beyond the tolerance of their own party.
Obama himself did not inspire or persuade the public in the way his followers imagined he would.
The final point about persuasive power is most interesting. The 0th Rule of Alinsky would seem to be "Get the fix in before the opponent catches on."
Nothing in Alinsky's wisdom seems to capture what to do once the target becomes aware they are such. If an Alinsky stage magician is up there doing his thing, but the audience loses faith, things may go pear-shaped:The loss of faith has been technology-driven. It's too easy to get on YouTube and see clips of Barack Obama contradicting himself over time. On the one hand, an argument can be made that people should modulate ideas as more facts are available. On the other hand, the inability to differentiate between invariant core values that are non-negotiable, like integrity, and the variable details where compromise makes sense, succeeds in demolishing public confidence. That leadership capital is precious, dear, and hard to recoup. Aside: Mr. President, don't leave the Iranian dissidents hanging out to dry. Again.
The loss of faith has been contextually driven. After a century of Progressivism, the country realizes that this Progressive dog don't hunt. Who cares how high-minded the social justice program is? We're financially exhausted. Whatever system you want to implement must first and foremost be a stable one. If our fiscal profile is 'bankrupt', then fixing that has to take priority. Additionally, making the Constitution explicitly include these social justice items will lend them legitimacy. The Progressive dog don't hunt. The dog looks for a government hunting program, with policy and procedure to ensure a fair hunting experience for the whole world. Yet that never arrives.
Is it possible for Barack to restore the faith? Is this Administration doomed to another three years of Greek tragedy? Unfortunately, yes. Even if BHO drifted so far Left as to achieve an Austrian breakthrough, he can't do it convincingly enough to (a) survive the retribution of his backers, (b) convince sufficient numbers on the right that he's serious.
No, the prediction from The Porch, sad though it will be, is that there will be further political delaying tactics in early 2010, followed by a raucous campaign, culminating in an electoral Cannae for the Democratic Party in November 2010. At that point, Barack will become a bitter, clinging little bobble-head, and continue to blame Bush and raaaaacism for his agenda's impotence.
The strategic question is whether the country learns anything from this. Occasionally people assert the United States is a Christian nation. Christians purportedly adhere to the Bible, i.e. both testaments. Yet where is our grasp of this:
Only if thou carefully hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe to do all these commandments which I command thee this day. For the LORD thy God blesseth thee, as he promised thee: and thou shalt lend unto many nations, but thou shalt not borrow; and thou shalt reign over many nations, but they shall not reign over thee. Deuteronomy 15:5,6
If the budget deficit, and the national debt it feeds, are not The Issue of the century, then Barack's inability to "inspire or persuade the public" really don't matter. The Progressives can just throw another series of bodies into the Oval Office, continue to jack up the debt, and let's see where that leads us. Metaphorically, we will all be bricklayers working on a large pyramid of debt.
Update: Related Dan Riehl: "Does America Have A President Right Now?"
For better or worse, our best and most notable presidents tend to be leaders. They tend to be out front, not simply for the cameras, but on the difficult questions and issues of the day. One can fault former President Bush all they want, some criticism is fair, but one could never question where, ultimately, the buck stopped. We all knew it stopped with him. With Obama, it sometimes seems as if we're chasing him down for a bad loan.
Sorry, Dan. We've another three year slog ahead, and that bad loan is called our national debt.
President Obama as Prevaricator of the Year? Don't sell the man short. In my opinion he's blown by his predecessor with flying pastel rainbow colors.
But I wouldn't say BHO thinks himself a liar. Allow me to paraphrase a review of al-Sahaf, emphasis mine:
"In an age of spin, [BHO] offers feeling and authenticity. His message is consistent -- unshakeable, in fact, no matter the evidence -- but he commands daily attention by his on-the-spot, invective-rich variations on the theme. His lunatic counterfactual art is more appealing than the banal awfulness of the Reliable Sources. He is a Method actor in a production that will close in a couple of days. He stands superior to truth."
"Tumbrels have rolled through taunting crowds. Broken glass has sparkled in darkened streets. Strange fruit has hung from southern trees."
In other words, opponents of this bill are Jacobins, brownshirts and Klansmen. Some Republican Senator should make a point of order about this kind of rhetoric. It's one thing to throw around inflammatory metaphors on a blog or cable TV, but another thing entirely to bring it onto the floor of the Senate.
UPDATE 3:25 p.m.: If somebody's got video or a text of Whitehouse's speech, please let me know. That was one of the most villainous speeches I've ever heard by any Senator, and I hope to God that some of my friends who are Senate staffers will provide a Republican with a solid rebuttal to vile Adorno/Hofstadter psychoanalytic crap, which is no more valid today than when Buckley critiqued it in Up From Liberalism nearly 50 years ago.
UPDATE 3:03 p.m.: Sheldon Whitehouse is the Keith Olbermann of the Senate, and I mean that in the worst possible sense of "Keith Olbermann." The only good part of his speech? "Mr. President, I yield the floor." And not a moment too soon! UPDATE 2:50 p.m.: For crying out loud, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) reads Richard Hofstadter on the Senate floor. In other words, if you oppose this bill, you're a neurotic suffering from status anxiety. There can be no rational opposition. Is Julian Sanchez ghost-writing speeches for Democrats now?
UPDATE 2:33 p.m.: Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) just said he's got relatives in Nebraska who are "embarrassed and ashamed" by Ben Nelson's "Cash for Cloture" sellout -- click that link, because The Boss is still fighting. She weighs less than 100 pounds, but it's all fight.
This idea was central to Vladimir Lenin's revolutionary vision: The worse real-life conditions became -- the more oppressive the czarist regime, the greater Russia's military disasters in World War I -- the greater likelihood of the kind of political upheaval in which the Bolsheviks could seize power.
Given its source and original meaning, Lenin's worse-is-better strategy is obviously not something any conservative would endorse. However, as MacLeod makes clear, that isn't the way he means it. What he is arguing is that a short-term "win" by the Democrats should not be viewed by their opponents as a demoralizing defeat, but rather as a springboard for future conservative victories. His is a message of hope, not despair:
This is a moment for sober judgment, and for confidence in one's own beliefs and analysis, whichever best keeps you in the fight. It's a moment to decide whether our message to the Obamaist progressives is going to be: "You win -- we give up" or "We're coming after you, and getting rid of your laughable, embarrassing, and repugnant health care bill (presuming you ever get around to passing it) will just be the beginning."
Indeed, and you should read the whole thing. Speaking of radical rhetoric, I notice that King HerodHarry Reid plans to kill the babies by Christmas. Humor Update: (Smitty) 3:13PM Whereas I read MacLeod's piece and thought of Coleridge, by way of the Monty Python. This legislation could prove both an albatross and a career opportunity for Dingy Harry, as seen in the clip:As a bonus, Graham Chapman's humorless Colonel prefigures the tender, loving care that government health care will embody.
The gross, atrocious irresponsibility of this bill in all aspects will be a boon to Americans. Harry Reid gives us ammunition. We will return it to him with, bonus kinetic energy.
The UN climate summit reached a weak outline of a global agreement last night in Copenhagen, falling far short of what Britain and many poor countries were seeking and leaving months of tough negotiations to come. After eight draft texts and all-day talks between 115 world leaders, it was left to Barack Obama and Wen Jiabao, the Chinese premier, to broker a political agreement. The so-called Copenhagen accord "recognises" the scientific case for keeping temperature rises to no more than 2C but did not contain commitments to emissions reductions to achieve that goal. American officials spun the deal as a "meaningful agreement", but even Obama said: "This progress is not enough." "We have come a long way, but we have much further to go," he added.
In a strange twist, a Washington snowstorm is forcing Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, to make an early departure from a global warming summit here in Denmark.
LOL. We're expecting up to a foot of snow here in the hills of western Maryland. My sons and I just got back from buying The World's Best Christmas Tree. (Family tradition requires that the entire family praise my selection as absolutely the most beautiful tree they've ever seen.) Now we're about to decorate the tree andnd I say, "Let It Snow!" UPDATE III: Great minds think alike -- The Boss digs Dino, too!
Obama managed to cobble a "feeble" agreement that he is, of course, calling "unprecedented." Obama leaves the snow-covered Copenhagen summit just in time to catch the East Coast blizzard.
Things are getting crazy, with lots of Left-on-Left action. Via Ace of Spades, Obama's apologists are excoriated by . . . wait for it . . . Glenn Greenwald:
We've long heard -- from the most blindly loyal cheerleaders and from Emanuel himself -- that progressives should place their trust in the Obama White House to get this done the right way, that he's playing 11-dimensional chess when everyone else is playing checkers, that Obama is the Long Game Master who will always win. Then, when a bad bill is produced, the exact opposite claim is hauled out: it's not his fault because he's totally powerless, has nothing to do with this, and couldn't possibly have altered the outcome. From his defenders, he's instantaneously transformed from 11-dimensional chess Master to impotent, victimized bystander.
Barack Obama has indisputably performed his first true miracle. A year ago, Rush Limbaugh was the only guy talking like that. Charles Johnson to accuse Glenn Greenwald of raaaaacism in 3, 2, 1 . . .
And I hereby pledge that I will not buy this perversion of health-care reform. Pass this at your peril, senators. And sign it at yours, Mr. President. I will not buy this insurance. Brand me a law-breaker if you choose. Fine me if you will. Jail me if you must.
Next: Olbermann attacks Obama with a nine-iron . . .
Update: (Smitty) This nearly teased a post out of me. My thought, to paraphrase Buckley, is that Kieth would do anything but start his own goddam insurance company. In defense of Olbermann, such a capitalistic outburst would offend Hugo Chavez, so maybe simple petulance is the better part of valorinfantilism.
[President Obama's] speeches at West Point and Oslo this year are pitch-perfect explications of the liberal internationalist approach. Other Democrats talk tough in a secular way, but Obama’s speeches were thoroughly theological. He talked about the “core struggle of human nature” between love and evil. . . . Obama has not always gotten this balance right. He misjudged the emotional moment when Iranians were marching in Tehran. But his doctrine is becoming clear. The Oslo speech was the most profound of his presidency, and maybe his life.
Tuesday's column was the most idiotic of David Brooks' week, but the week's not over yet.
Brooks seems to confuse speeches with policy, as if all Obama needs to do is begin a speech, "Fiat lux," and we will all be blinded by the brightness of a thousand suns. Brooks' paean to "the liberal internationalist approach" ignores the sequel to Woodrow Wilson's crusade to "Make the World Safe for Democracy," namely World War II, which ended with half of Europe under the Soviet heel, followed in turn by the bloody stalemate in Korea and the blundering "escalation" of Vietnam.
The fact that Brooks takes Obama at his word is no reason the rest of us should be so foolish. Nevertheless, given the actual consequences of "the liberal internationalist approach," if indeed this is what Obama is about, it shouldn't really be reassuring. Democratic Party foreign policy is not necessarily a straight line from Versailles through Yalta to the scene of helicopters rescuing Americans from the roof of the Saigon embassy, but it's a familar route nonetheless.
The Zeitgeist-sniffing Brooks shifts like the wind, yet is stubborn about exactly one thing, his refusal to acknowledge that liberals generally make a botch of whatever policy they influence. Brooks has probably been too busy admiring the crease of the president's pants-leg to notice anything else.
Picking on BHO's ears is about as appealing as picking his nose.
Now, if we want to limit the discussion to lefty, Progressive nitwits, BHO weighs in with a "C". His attempt to sound vaguely equipped in the fortitude department at the Peas Prize speech kept him from achieving a full-on beta-male "B".
However, weighed against actual Presidents who were packin' the gear, e.g. George Washington, BHO is a fail of epic proportions. Screw Frank J's "D+ on the curve" nonsense.
The last century of "Theft: it's for the collective good" programs, aided by a de-furred SCOTUS that defers to Congress on every asshat Socialist idea that comes down the pike (first hit free, kids!) leave no room below.
F-
Go to impeachment. Go directly to impeachment. Do not pass "Go", do not collect $2,000,000,000,000 dollars.
Some might argue that Republicans should not look "obstructionist." But they are wrong -- the vast majority of Americans don't like this bill and don't want it to pass. The Tea Party movement was the upheaval of millions of ordinary Americans who are scared and angry about the out-of-control growth of the federal government, federal spending, and the national debt. They want to see the Republicans obstructing passage of this bill and if they think the Republicans are not fighting with every tool they have at their disposal, then any advantage that the Republicans think they will get in next year's elections from such a bill being passed will evaporate.
As I was lashing together my article, it seemed to me that the tipping-point of the Hoffmania momentum shift was Oct. 16, when the Siena poll showed Hoffman surging while Scozzafava had fallen behind the Democrat. That was the same day Michelle Malkin's column called Scozzafava "An ACORN-Friendly, Big Labor-Backing, Tax-and-Spend Radical in GOP Clothing." Two weeks later, the final Siena poll confirmed what the Hoffman people had known for some time: Dede was heading for a weak third-place finish. So the RINO quit and repaid the GOP Establishment by endorsing Democrat Bill Owens. Exposing RINOs as untrustworthy creatures was worth whatever damage might be suffered by having Owens in Congress -- until next year, when the freshman Democrat will face a re-energized GOP grassroots in NY23. Go back and read my "Memo to the Grassroots." I didn't know it at the time, but that Hot Air Green Room post was written the same day that Yates Walker decided to hire on as manager of the Plattsburgh office of the Hoffman campaign. Yates was just one of several people who helped turn the Hoffman campaign into such a stunning dynamo of grassroots energy. . . .
Op-ed pundits and TV talking heads portrayed the battle in the North Country as evidence of an intraparty schism, a Republican "civil war," but in fact the ideological factor of right vs. center was less important than the uprising of the party's rank and file against a GOP establishment that grassroots activists consider out of touch, politically inept, and hamstrung by favor-swapping among well-connected Republican insiders. . . . One GOP Internet operative of libertarian leaning saw the lesson of the NY23 fight as a training exercise for the bigger battle in the 2010 midterm elections, comparing it to the way Web-savvy liberals lined up behind Howard Dean during the 2004 Democratic presidential primaries. "Right now, we're where the Democrats were with Dean in 2003," the Republican operative said, remarking on the left's online advantage that the GOP has struggled to overcome. "We're getting there, but we're not there yet."
Perhaps the most important lesson of NY23 is the value of time. That wild three-week Hoffman surge that began in mid-October produced spectacular results, but it was just a little too late.
Had more conservatives jumped onto the Hoffman bandwagon in August -- when Erick Erickson did -- maybe Scozzafava could have been driven out of the race a couple of weeks earlier. Instead, she got about $1 million from the RNC and NRCC and hung in until the last weekend before Election Day, then endorsed Bill Owens, making just enough difference to elect the Democrat by a margin that, in the end, amounted to about 3,200 votes.
A similar situation exists with ObamaCare, where the White House and Harry Reid (whose poll numbers are in the toilet) want to hurry the bill through the Senate during the holidays, when most people aren't paying attention. Erick Erikson is urging Republicans to fight now -- delay the bill, at risk of being called "obstructionist" -- to give the grassroots more time to put heat on the issue. He quotes Winston Churchill:
If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival.
You might think she would express gratitude for being the ugliest left-wing woman ever to achieve worldwide fame, against tough competition from Barbara Mikulski. But you would be wrong. Via Drudge Twitter and Politico:
The 9/11 Never Forget Coalition, a diverse group of 9/11 victims, family members, first responders, active and reserve members of the military, veterans, and concerned Americans, is holding a November 24th press conference to discuss the details of their December 5th rally protesting the plan to bring the 9/11 terrorist conspirators to trial in New York City.
The Coalition formed to fight the decision of President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder to try the 9/11 co-conspirators in New York City’s federal court, effectively giving war criminals the same rights as American citizens while endangering the safety of all New Yorkers.
It's almost as if the actual people of New York want the KSM trial as badly as the actual people of Chicago wanted the 2016 Olympics. Don't they know that there will be copious economic stimulus involved? Lots of billable hours, bread and legal circus for all?
I voted for Ross Perot, the outsider, in '92. Looking back, I've often wondered if his blunt style would have ground things to a halt, had we the tubey-webs at the time to amplify the support for un-b0rking our country.
Now, we have a slick, cerebral, well-connected POTUS who is managing to grind things to a halt through serial asshattery. One views the thought of 36 more months of this tripe with an emotion somewhere between academic interest and morbid curiousity. What bogosity will next week bring?
One sincerely prays for BHO's physical safety, and that of his family. He must live to see every false, un-American aspect of his thought fully repudiated. However, his political demise cannot arrive soon enough. The BigHollywood.com dumpster dive isn't likely to deliver anything substantial. BHO's sidekick Muttley, was enamored of the veterinarian's daughter and sings a fine soprano. He lacks the sack to do his godforsaken job. He irresponsibly misinterprets the Law of War for political purposes, while paying ACORN scant heed.
You could not have sold a script for the events of 2009 to a Hollywood studio. It would have seemed too outlandish. Really bad reality TV is fine for its fans, but there is too much at stake for the country. I've no memory of there ever being a protest against bringing legislation to the floor of the Senate. Also, I've never heard of this kind of a planned protest for a trial. We need a real administration.
That's what the Politico implies, citing Arkansas Democrat Blanche Lincoln as the magic 60th vote necessary to bring the measure to a floor vote. Meanwhile, a lefty at Firedoglake suggests that Harry Reid is "planning to sell out the public option," whatever that means. (Both via Memeorandum.)
There are good reasons why I don't maniacally follow every blip of news about the legislative progress of ObamaCare. The main reason is that it's policy, and policy is the province of specialists -- the wonks -- who are forever arguing the arcane details of proposed legislation with their fellow specialists.
Having never craved a reputation for wonkery, I seldom even bother to discuss such things, which are by their nature beyond my expertise. But I am a conservative, and conservatism is the belief that liberalism is wrong. Liberals support ObamaCare, and therefore I oppose it with every fiber of my being. The rest is just details.
The politics of ObamaCare are another matter. Politics is about, "Do we have enough votes?" The supporters of ObamaCare say they have enough votes to prevent a filibuster, but whether they've got enough votes to guarantee passage is another matter.
The wily political types whose judgment I trust will tell you that the Democrats are now facing a basic question: "Do we want a bill or do we want an issue?"
That is to say, if Democrats can round up enough votes to pass the bill, they thereby forfeit the issue: Nevermore can they go to voters promising some nebulously wonderful "reform." On the day ObamaCare passes into law -- should it pass -- all the glittering generalities about more coverage and reduced costs become void, and the old Democratic "promise 'em anything" tactic will be permanently obsolete in regard to healthcare.
Whether ObamaCare could ever be repealed, once it were signed into law, is an interesting question. But I remain skeptical that Democrats will be able to muster enough votes for passage, if Senate Republicans can maintain party unity in opposition. (A mighty big "if.")
ObamaCare is a political liability for Democrats. Buried in that ungodly mishmash of legislative detail are enough stinkbombs to fuel a thousand different attack ads next fall, and if the Democrats don't see the danger, they're marching blind to their own destruction.
Michael Graham has a listener who says Oprah is cancelling her talk show to run as VP on the 2012 ticket. Democratic party, presumably.
Bwahahahaha! Oprah is so much more competent as an executive that she'd crush BHO, even after another three years of him trying to figure out how to pick up the scatalogical legislation by the clean end and give it a polish.
I just can't foresee The Aura allowing itself to be diminished by The Oprah.
Update:Cynthia Yockey arrives at the point from a different angle: "Oprah picked Obama to be president and is surprised to be under the bus now that he doesn’t need her any more"
While most people attending Tea Party events claim they harbor no extreme views, many of the ideas they promote fall outside the mainstream, especially the more conspiratorial ones. Angry protesters have frequently made claims ranging from proclaiming Obama’s “socialist” intentions to making explicit Nazi comparisons to suggesting that the President is defying or even subverting the Constitution.
Got that? If you think Obama's policies are "socialist" or if you think the Cult of Personality aspect of his leadership has totalitarian overtones, this makes you a potential menace to society, according to the ADL. Ditto, if you took part in the "Town Hall Meeting Disruptions":
These meetings became a fertile ground for anti-Obama protests and stunts. Various conservative and far-right organizations encouraged people to attend the town hall meetings. Protesters expressed rage at elected officials and many of the meetings erupted into chaos. In some cases, police were called to eject people who were disrupting the events.
If you were expecting the ADL to take notice of the brownshirt tactics of Obama's supporters -- like the SEIU goons who beat Kenneth Gladney -- you would be sadly mistaken.
The ADL's "No Enemies On The Left" posture means that it blindly supports Obama and recklessly smears Obama's opponents in the name of "anti-defamation." I believe the appropriate word for this is shanda.
Jimmie Bise at the Sundries Shack wonders if the KSM trial is an act of political suicide, and then considers that it might be about airing more Bush laundry, effectively putting W on trial by proxy:
the trial does give the President a chance to make the pouty lip about the sins of America, which the world could love if only she’d throw off the bleak cloak of Bushism, while promising that he’ll put everything. But that’s his go-to and I’m pretty sure that’s he’s practiced that routine enough to do it whether KSM is standing tall before a judge in Manhattan or a military tribunal in Gitmo.
Shanon Love thinks that blurring the civil/military distinction is all about bringing martial law to America:
For over two hundred years we were careful to keep a firewall between civil and martial law. We did so because civil and martial law are polar opposites. Civil law is focused on protecting the rights of the accused against the overwhelming power of the state. When there is doubt, the accused walks free. Martial law is focused on imposing a minimal order on bloody chaos. It was focused on allowing the military to complete its mission and win wars. When there is doubt, the accused is presumed guilty.
Now, Obama wants to bring martial law into a civil court room in Manhattan. In order to let a civil conviction of KSM stand, the higher courts will have to overturn almost all the current constitutional protections of the accused.
Neo-Neocon has a fascinating read, which prompts my main point: "Obama the Heartthrob: The End of the Affair?"
...Obama has some of the qualities of the best con artists. That's not to say that Obama is literally a con man; he's not pulling the old Spanish Prisoner scam. But he shares more than a few of their attributes.
Obama held himself out to be one thing during the election (a bipartisan moderate), and on taking office became quite the opposite. Cons, like Obama, are ordinarily out to deceive people as to their true purposes. But it's an error to think they come across as sleazy. The most effective ones are unusually likeable and charming, even as they pull off their scams. This likeability is not a tangential characteristic of con artists, either; it is a central one.
"Con", after all, is short for "confidence". The con artist works by gaining the victim's confidence and trust. The successful con artist is so very likeable, in fact, that he seems especially credible, and people who might otherwise be wary and cynical drop their guard around him. They don't examine him too closely, so great is their desire to believe.
Contradictions are waved away. Acts that would arouse suspicion if they were committed by someone else are excused. Important omissions go unnoticed. Inconsistencies are rationalized. Shady company is defended or ignored. Sound familiar?
The con artist is able to gain trust by using the right vocal inflections to fit the mark (or, in Obama's case, the audience), changing accents and speech patterns to match. In addition, a con doesn't usually stay in one place very long (it has been remarked how often Obama changed jobs) because, although people may not catch on to his game all that quickly, he is afraid that if he sticks around they eventually will.
We've had the endless repetition of the raaaaacism trope for all who disagree. Given the rest of the seeming America-hatred evidenced by the administration, does a possible exit strategy emerge?
One wonders if the whole political career was just a High Society play. We have this landmark election. He goes around and makes speeches. He gives vast financial gifts to his old friends. He plays the apologist.
What will BHO do when the struggle becomes boring?
I submit that the continued provocations such as the KSM trial, the obsession with the previous administration, the wrenching changes from spendthrift to fiscal hawkcould, if he's a committed con man, be deliberate provocations towards impeachment.
I'm throwing out the idea that the ultimate Blame America piece will be when, pushed beyond all tolerance, there is a serious demand for impeachment. The con has reaped all of the desired financial rewards, and needs to exit the stage before the bankruptcy of the domestic policy meets the bankruptcy of the foreign policy somewhere around his head. The shiny factor of being POTUS is all drained away, leaving more disgruntled voters than W ever faced.
This is a bizarre possibility. I'd laugh at it, if not for the series of bizarre incidents that form 2009.
Update:Pat in Shreveport explores the possibility that the KSM trial is a national security vs. civil liberties call, linking some John Yoo analysis. I think it's all farce, crap, and a giant "screw you" to the American people.
[A]s is the routine with everything Brooks' pen produces these days, an otherwise coherent piece is disrupted by the author's gratuitous displays of affection towards President Barack Obama. After ticking off all of the qualities that might make Thune presidential material and the issues that may lead the country towards a GOP revival . . . Brooks (perhaps fearing the White House might construe this as some sort of criticism) quickly reminds readers that Obama is "the most talented political figure of the age." Really? After a year in the Oval Office, what tangible evidence is there to support this theory? Cash for Clunkers? . . .
Read the whole thing. I do not deny that Obama has political talent, most especially the oratorical power of his sonorous baritone. But Rush Limbaugh also has a great baritone voice. It takes more than political talent to be a good president, and political talent that is employed to advance bad policies is a net negative.
The reason that Obama is so effusively praised is the same reason he's a bad president: He is a liberal. It is Brooks' desire to be considered "thoughtful" by his liberal peers that causes him to engage in this ridiculous genuflections before their temple-cult idol, Obama.
Brooks is not a conservative. Being a conservative begins with the fundamental assumption that liberals are always wrong, about everything. If liberals generally admire someone, you may be sure that the object of their admiration is a deeply flawed personality (e.g., Bill Clinton). The frenzied enthusiasm for Obama (who is to liberals what Joe Jonas is to 13-year-old girls) exceeds even the worst excesses of Clintonmania, which is a sure sign that Obama will be a spectacularly bad president.
<sarcasm> Here is an embattled POTUS trying to scare up a few, say, 2,000 jobs for New York, but Just One Minute is all up in arms about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the NY trial. Oh, come on: as some nitwit was saying on the local news, we really can't trust the reliability of the military courts. And think of the 20,000 jobs that will be created or saved.
Never mind the non-command of the Laws of War on display, much less the non-grasp of the duties as Commander in Chief of the armed forces. We're talking about creating, saving, or upgrading ~200,000 jobs here.
This trial promises to be a steady stream of distraction from all of the other issues that the Administration would prefer go unnoticed, and may even directly lead to a US economic Renaissance of Industrial Revolution proportions, only with a little more green spin.
</sarcasm>
It actually could be worse. BHO could try to punt KSM upstream to the HaigHague or something.
Review Situs QQ Poker Online Terpercaya Untuk Kamu
-
Satu lagi situs QQ poker online yang wajib kamu tahu. Situs yang satu ini
bernama QQPokerOnline. Situs ini juga bisa dengan mudah dicari dengan kata
kunc...
Video: Easter Parade
-
One of the sweetest numbers from any musical ever: And Mark Steyn has done
a special Song of the Week podcast on this Irving Berlin classic. Learn the
gene...
"When R.S. McCain talks about gonzo journalism, he knows what he’s talking about." -- Chapomatic
"You are reading Robert every day, aren’t you? If you aren’t, you’re missing out, folks. The guy brings the good stuff every day." -- Jimmie, The Sundries Shack
". . . the one-of-a-kind Robert Stacy McCain, whose blog should be on your must-read list, if it isn't already." -- Dyspeptic Mutterings
"The most enthusiastic blogger I have yet to meet." -- Pam Geller, Atlas Shrugs
"The guy has to be the hardest working dude in DC. I've yet to meet someone here he doesn't know." -- Dan Riehl, Riehl World View
"The fount of wit and wisdom, Robert Stacy McCain." -- Brian C. Ledbetter, Snapped Shot
"A very sharp mind and strong writing that pulls no punches." -- Matthew Archbold, Creative Minority
"One of the most important conservative writers working today." --Donald Douglas
"For what it's worth, the man can also hold his liquor better than most; that's probably how he gets his scoops." -- Little Miss Atilla
Posts
