Rich Lowry defines Obama

Without touching on policy, Rich Lowry explains Obama in two simple paragraphs:

Put Barack Obama in front of a teleprompter and one thing is certain — he’ll make himself appear the most reasonable person in the room.

Rhetorically, he is in the middle of any debate, perpetually surrounded by finger-pointing extremists who can’t get over their reflexive combativeness and ideological fixations to acknowledge his surpassing thoughtfulness and grace.

The rest of the article puts the meat on Lowry’s perfectly expressed indictment.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. suek says

    Some weekend reading for you. It’s actually an excerpt from David Horowitz’ 2002 book, “How to Beat the Democrats and Other Subversive Ideas”, and is the description of the “progressive narcissist”. Obama wasn’t really on the scene at that time, so it’s primarily about Hillary. Which doesn’t mean that it doesn’t apply to Obama.

    http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2009/05/continuance-of-them-progressive.html

    Another book I should buy. I’m still working on “Liberty and Tyranny”. I finish sooner if I didn’t keep reading blogs…!

  2. Gringo says

    This may be carrying coals to Newcastle, but a NYT article two years ago on Obama’s time at Harvard Law School makes much the same point. Obama made summations of opposing viewpoints, which resulted in people on both sides of an issue believe that Obama was on their side.

    Unfortunately, a moderator is not the same as a decision-maker. One cannot always split things down the middle. There was no middle ground in the US Civil War, for example. Those who tried to split things down the middle, such as President Buchanan, only made things worse.

    Most likely this is a long-standing way of operating for Obama. I suspect that he began to use it as early as his time as an elementary school student in Indonesia, as a way to ingratiate himself to people who had very different backgrounds from him. The price to pay for being everyone’s friend is that one has no set core of beliefs. A man without beliefs is a figurative man without a country. Unfortunately for the rest of us, we already have a country.

  3. says

    When I was listening to and studying Bush’s speeches and his answers to certain press questions, I started noticing something peculiar. I didn’t realize what it exactly was, but I was rather dissatisfied with Bush’s answers or how he phrased things. I understood what he was saying, but I also knew that others would not perceive it the same way. Thus as a simple matter of communication, Bush should modify his answers to more fit in line with both the question, the implied and stated meanings, and the questioner, the stated and implied purpose of that person.

    This, of course, now that I look back on it, was the same kind of empathic capability that Obama has shown. He simply tells people what they want to hear, in order to create a positive impression. I can do the same thing. I’ve done the same thing to a group audience. Tell them what they want to hear, in the way they want to, but also not saying anything that is false or is contradictory with my own principles. For Obama, he’s able to utilize it more, since truth doesn’t matter to someone like him. He has enough power to cover up, intimidate, and eliminate the truth, for a time.

    After I studied this phenomenon of human perception and communication, I more readily understood why con men were able to do the things they could do and I more readily understood why human beings are so easily manipulated.

    People are not so much stupid, as they are naive, arrogant, foolish, and wannabe tools. They wanna be tools, you see. They want to be used, to be of use, to belong. Their “rebellion” is only an emotional reaction to what they perceive as personally stifling, but their need to belong to a group has not changed, for human nature has not changed.

    This has peculiar ramifications due to the fact that the public education system does not teach the basic tools required for an individual to prosper in modern day society. The public education system and the overall popular American culture teaches individuals to be slaves, to be drones, and to be incapable of defense against either physical attack or psychological attack.

    There are specific things children must know about propaganda and self-defense before they are able to live as their own man or woman in this modern day world. Things that are not taught to them, in fact those things are forbidden to them. This is bad by itself, but when combined with an indoctrination system that perpetuates it across the generations, disaster is the only end result.

    Now we have generations of people, Baby Boomer and non alike, who have no idea how to defend themselves against manipulation. They have no idea how to increase their resistance to cons, lies, and the disintegration of their way of life.

    The fake libs always keep talking about White Culture and how the White Man is responsible for creating an environment which forces blacks to be evil and to “act out” with criminal mayhem. But if this is true, then is not the Left guilty of everything up to and including mass murder, for their systemic indoctrination and psychological torture of generations of children? They have created the system which created the tools.

  4. SADIE says

    Thanks for the link suek…I rather liked the one from Dennis below:

    “There is nothing wrong with your television set. Do not attempt to adjust the picture. We are controlling transmission. If we wish to make it louder, we will bring up the volume. If we wish to make it softer, we will tune it to a whisper. We will control the horizontal. We will control the vertical. We can roll the image, make it flutter. We can change the focus to a soft blur or sharpen it to crystal clarity. For the next hour, sit quietly and we will control all that you see and hear. We repeat: there is nothing wrong with your television set.”

    Indeed, we have entered the Twilight Zone!

  5. suek says

    >>…how the White Man is responsible for creating an environment which forces blacks to be evil and to “act out” with criminal mayhem.>>

    You know…if that’s the case, then it seems to me that the environment which has ‘forced’ blacks to be evil and “act out” has only existed since the civil rights era. The logical conclusion is that blacks are incapable of adapting ito the society we have, and we need to go back to the repression that existed before the civil rights era.

  6. Deana says

    Lowry’s point is spot on.

    It appears that it is too much to ask for people to value what a person does as opposed to what he says.

    Deana

  7. says

    You know…if that’s the case, then it seems to me that the environment which has ‘forced’ blacks to be evil and “act out” has only existed since the civil rights era. The logical conclusion is that blacks are incapable of adapting ito the society we have, and we need to go back to the repression that existed before the civil rights era.

    Which is what the Democrats have been working for for generations, even before the Civil War.

Leave a Reply