He couldn’t bother with a tie? *UPDATED*
Bookworm on Dec 28 2009 at 2:58 pm | Filed under: Barack Obama
Maybe I’m being picky, but it seems to me that a president who makes an official statement three days after a terrorist attack on the United States could bother with a necktie? I know he’s on vacation, but I’m really, really sure that, even if he didn’t pack a tie, someone could have run to the store and gotten him one.
There’s a whole new level of disrespect for the American people revealed in the fact that, after three days of thinking about a terrorist attack that could have incinerated 300 people he just couldn’t make that little extra effort. Obama’s not even pretending any more to take the job seriously, is he?
UPDATE: You know it’s bad when even the New York Times reporter expresses disdain for the President’s casual demeanor and flat affect, especially when contrasted with Americans suffering through airport security procedures that are nothing more than the barn doors closing behind long-vanished horses:
Until now, Mr. Obama had tried to strike a balance between signaling that he is on top of the situation and not drawing more attention to it than it already was generating. Each day since Friday, his staff accompanying him here in his home state put out statements indicating that the president was holding conference calls and requesting action of government agencies. But he declined for three days to address it in public himself, cognizant perhaps of warnings by some terrorism experts against elevating such incidents and by extension their authors.
Yet the visual contrasts have been jarring. Pictures of passengers enduring tougher security screening at the airport were juxtaposed against images of the president soaking in the sun and surf of this tropical getaway. Appearing at a Marine base near the Kailua beachfront house he has rented, Mr. Obama on Monday praised the “quick and heroic actions of passengers and crew” but made no attempt to defend the security system that allowed the suspect onto the plane with jerry-rigged explosives in the first place.
In the run-up to the election, I noted (as did a zillion other conservatives) that Obama has never held a job; he’s just gotten jobs. He has never demonstrated any ability to do the hard work associated with actual employment.
Even in the first year of his presidency, when he had a compliant Congress that would willingly follow him of any cliff, as long it’s positioned to the Left, Obama couldn’t make himself do the hard work of leadership. He played golf, he played basketball, he partied with the big shots, he went on TV — but he didn’t work.
And he’s still not working, even as the terrorists make ever greater ingresses on American security. It’s no coincidence that, after George Bush kept us safe for 8 years, the terrorists are emboldened by Obama. Even more than the fact that he’s trying to buddy up with the bad guys, they’ve figured out something important about him: he’s so lazy, he just doesn’t care.
Email This Post To A Friend
55 Responses to “He couldn’t bother with a tie? *UPDATED*”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Obviously there was some concern with security that someone would rush up and hang him with one. Actually, I was surprised he didn’t wear one of those infamous flowery Hawaiian shirts with a tie.
You know the expression, Fake it til you make it.
His tone bothered me. He could have been reading a paragraph from IRS instructions. I guess he thinks the professorial mode will inspire confidence in his ability, but it doesn’t work for me. If he doesn’t even “get” the American people, how can he ever prevail in the psycho battle with jihadis?
I don’t particularly care if he wears a tie or not, though if I had to pick, I’d go with “not”. To me, “tie” doesn’t mean “serious”. To go further, if it is intended to give a meaning (rather than what a gent is comfortable wearing in a certain situation), then the actual meaning is “pompous.”
However, I do care — quite a bit! — that he and his are basically incompetent when it comes to anti-jihadist policies and procedures. I just wish he were more incompetent at getting crappy legislation through the congress.
If you ever saw me, colorless, you’d know that I am the most casual dresser in the world. I live in comfy, informal clothes.
Nevertheless, I think there are certain times when one makes an effort to dress for other people, not just for oneself. Addressing the American people after an attempted plane explosion is, I think, one of those times.
Obama needs to demonstrate seriousness. If he had rushed to the mic immediately after the attack had been thwarted, casual clothes would have been appropriate, and even lent a sense of purpose to the press conference (as in, “this was so important, he didn’t take the time to fuss with his appearance”).
Three days after the fact, though, the same casual dress sent the message “you are so unimportant to me, I can’t even be bothered to make myself look serious for you.” In a visual age — and I’m not a very visual person, but I still get it — these things matter.
Bookworm -
You so nailed this. I would not have minded if the President had been in shorts and a T-shirt and placed in front of a camera 10 or 20 minutes after finding out about the failed terrorist attempt. But this was THREE DAYS LATER. But this isn’t really about what he wears – it is what he says and how he says it.
Expat -
You say that Obama doesn’t get the American people. I agree but I think he truly believes he does. I should clarify here: he thinks he gets those of us who voted against him. He thinks he is smarter and more sophisticated than we are and understands the world in ways we never will. We are beneath him. He’d never admit it but it is as clear as day in his jokes, the way he refers to people, political opponents, and so forth.
The funny thing is that these terrorists completely get HIM, so much more than 99% of the American people who voted for him. They know he is weak and is not how he tries to appear. It’s so scary, I think.
Deana
“if he doesn’t ‘get’ the American people”….I think Obama’s attitude toward the people of this country is indeed pretty strange…here are a couple of analogies I construct to help think about this issue: He’s Just Not That Into Us http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/9641.html
Book, you wanted seriousness….
KAILUA, Hawaii – President Barack Obama abruptly ended his golf outing and sped in his motorcade to his compound Monday after he learned a child of a friend was injured while playing on the beach.
It’s just a matter of priorities. He’s vacationing with unidentified ‘friends from Chicago’.
I understand what you are saying, Ms. Bookworm, and you may well have BHObama nailed on the matter. But in my own millieu, tie/no-tie makes little difference. (I work in scientific research: when I do wear a tie, it’s usually a western (bolo) type. I think the last time I wore an English style tie was over ten years ago.)
It’s just not something I notice. I’m really more interested in what BHObama says, and, especially given his duplicitous history, much more interested in what he actually does. (Which I expect will be very little.)
Look, American Demoncrats and Leftists voted Obama in so he could loot the country for his cronies and white masters. This is part of the same plan as they have always had.
Afrikan Chief of Corruption: Barack Obama.
I am surprised that Obama doesn’t wear a bow-tie [ala farrakkan]
For most of us conservatives, there is only One Group: Americans. We care about all Americans; we think of the rights and responsibilities of each individual as an American. We recognize that you can sort-of form us into smaller groups, but those are just a convenient way of identifying how each of us is thinking. And that’s transitory! I change my mind this evening, and when I wake up tomorrow morning, because I’ve changed my thinking, I’m sort-of in a different group that doesn’t really matter.
What’s important to us is that you are American, and that you believe in America.
But for Obama and most leftists, there is no such thing as “American”. There is only the sub-group, the faction. And you should stay in Your Group. The only important thing about your group is whether Obama likes your Group or not. He likes you, then you are a friend, and Good. He dislikes you: Then you are the Enemy.
Make no mistake about it. Iran, China, North Korea, etc… there are no Enemies there. Because the only Enemy is the domestic political Enemy within America. Terrorists are just a criminal matter. Foreign powers that want to “influence us negatively” are distractions. The only true Enemy is the domestic political Enemy.
Once you accept that to the depths of your heart, and with all your brain, Obama becomes much easier to understand.
Quite right, the new template as opposed to the old ideas.
“I think there are certain times when one makes an effort to dress for other people”
Indeed. We communicate with people not just with words, but with intonations, gestures, facial expressions, and numerous other kinds of body languages. How we dress is just another form of body language.
When we go to a funeral, we wear very dark clothing because it is such a serious occasion. Similarly, we dress up for a wedding because although it is a joyful occasion it is also serious.
When Obama held this press appearance with an unbuttoned shirt he may have thought he is showing by his casualness that the terrorists had not overly frightened him, or perhaps he simply thought that a president on vacation should look casual and thus cool and not an old fogey. But in reality the message he conveyed was that he is a fool who is badly out of his depth.
Mike Devx
Easier to understand, but not any less palatable.
Leadership isn’t easy. It also also takes a lot of practice to get right. We had a military leader as present. He was reviled. People found him scary with all that cowboy talk and such.
So “we” elected a poodle that votes “present” and has who has, within less-than a year, turned our nation into a crude joke and among other world leaders and doormat among nations. Now, we have a President who votes “Present”…a PresentDent. Hey, people got exactly what they voted for and it is going to get a lot worse.
I can’t be disappointed because my expectations, as I believe the expectations, of most of Book’s salon aficionados, were never that high. I actually think that it is a good thing for people to contrast Obama and Bush as events unfold. I only pray that not too many people get hurt before the American eagle reasserts itself in our national character, as I am confident it will.
The blogger who recently posted on his experience on flight 253 on the Huffington Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/roey-rosenblith/over-detroit-skies_b_404255.html describes many of his fellow passengers as unwilling /unable to accept that someone was trying to kill them. Eventually these (apparent) Democrats will wake up to reality as well.
Obama thinks leadership is about using his personal power to change the level of the oceans. In reality, leadership is about being loyal to those who have loyally given their power to the leader, to use for the benefit of the people, not the leader.
But since Obama thinks he got all his power from his own egocentric narcissism, he sees no need to oversee the interests of people in America. And only fools and useful idiots would believe otherwise.
A lot of folks noticed the missing tie. I sure did! Expect it to be explained away as ‘The One’s’ way of showing that the attack was not scaring him. He was being purposely casual to assure the American public.
Sure.
As for the words spoken … it wasn’t a campaign speech in front of his adoring myrmidons. So he couldn’t work himself up. No, he doesn’t want to do the work of the Presidency, he just wants all the trappings and money that go with it. That and the perfect place from which to launch the Left’s biggest assault on the American way of life.
I’d have to agree with Danny; I have no expectations for President Obama. I’ve tried to be fair, but time after time he disappoints. He either has no sense of how a leader should act in specific situations or he has poor advisors. The man may be a good politician, but he is a crappy leader. He inspires no confidence in me.
The American people got what we voted for and now we have to live with it until 2012. I would be amused if it didn’t also affect me negatively as well.
It’s sort of a double whammie in California; we have crappy leadership both at the State and national level. One can’t help but laugh at how little Californians learn from mismanagement and history… I think we are preparing to elect Brown again. I would like to say I have hope in my fellow man… but I don’t… not if they are from California.
Spiff
<B> One can’t help but laugh at how little Californians learn from mismanagement and history</b>
That’s the permanent serfdom the Left seeks to create. A place and time where nothing gets better, regardless of how many elections are held, and the only thing that matters is how much money can be stolen from the serfs to feed the insatiable socialites.
The Left is playing to the End Game. They’re not just looking at taking a piece with one move and gaining in the game. They’re looking at End Game, checkmate, no defense feasible.
Y, you always have an interesting perspective on everything.
[...] is taking care of reality. All the King needs to do is -in a day or three- show up at a microphone in casual dress and do the PR work of expressing concern over the issue and confidence in the [...]
There are a few positive things I hope will emerge from Obama’s crappy leadership, both here and abroad. Obviously the bad- his horrible policies of which I seem to disagree with each and every one, will make us less safe, less free and poorer. Our enemies are salivating at his ineptitude. That being said, as he has united disparate groups in Israel to realize that they have to unite to survive, I believe that he will be so awful that increasingly people who have Conservative values but who have been unwilling to identify as Conservative will increasingly be open to moving toward the Right. We need to be open to accept what a WSJ editorial called “Whole Foods” Republicans.
The second positive is that Europe can no longer sit around being pacifist heroes if they want to have a Europe. They are actually starting to pass laws and convict Muslims of such things as honor killings. Sometimes things have to get worse before they get better- Obama and Pelosi and Reid can shatter the fantasy of a big government Leftist Utopia making our lives better. My only prayer is that he doesn’t make things too much worse over the next few years weakening America or risking the lives of its citizens with idiotic decisions and cluelessness.
I also fear that becasue of Obama’s obvious Narcissicism, he is indifferent to the fact that the majority of Americans disagree with his policies. He believes that he knows better and has contempt for the average American. Yet, it seems to me that we may be beginning to witness the end of a dominant Leftism here, choking on their own hubris. What do you all think?
This AP article is laughable. While reluctantly admitting that this Obama administration’s assertions that “the system worked” were “jarring”, it spends most of its time comparing Obama to Bush, and making sure that the Bush response to crisis is seen as worse.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091229/D9CT6TE80.html
Sigh. What a joke. This article could be used in a 10th grade class on Journalism: “How To Spin.”
But it’s the media doing the spinning, not Administration officials! I know we’ve become so used to this that it’s not shocking anymore… but think about it! The media… is spinning the story itself!
I was only 10-years old when Reagan was elected, so I don’t remember the Carter years all that well. But, I understand the US was in pretty sad shape at that time. Does anyone here honestly believe that we are headed for a worst period under Obama than we had under Carter? And by comparison, is where we are going, going to be worse than what the Country experienced during the Great Depression? I’m not asking a rhetorical question here, I truly would like to know because I have no sense of how bad it was in the 70’s.
I am so far un-impressed by Obama, but I view him more like Clinton than I do Carter. Basically, at this point, his presidency will most likely be viewed as accomplishing nothing meaningful. When I talk about his utter lack of leadership, I am more viewing that from the prism as somebody serving in the reserves. I have very little faith and confidence in his ability to even pretend to be our Commander-In-Chief. Outside of photo ops and dithering about what to do in Afghanistan, President Obama has paid little more than mouth service to our men and women serving this Country. Hell, who was the person who visited the victims of the Ft Hood shooting: President Bush (with very little publicity or fan fare might I add). I have already written him off in my mind.
I am, on the other hand, more concerned about what passes for leadership in both the House and Senate of the United States. And this includes both sides of the aisle (but mostly with the Democrats though). They are all uninspiring as far as I am concerned. And as far as I said before, I have very little faith in our fellow citizens who seem to continually re-elect these fools.
<B>Does anyone here honestly believe that we are headed for a worst period under Obama than we had under Carter?</b>
Carter supported Khomeini against the best interests of Iran.
Obama supports the Khomeinis against the best interests of Iran.
Carter eagerly destroyed Rhodesia.
Obama eagerly destroys the American economy.
It’s all a matter of when and where, not a matter of if. There is no question of if it will be as bad, only when and where will it be so.
Spiff, I was 28 when Jimmy Carter was elected, so I have vivid memories of the years when he was president.
As appalling a man as Carter was, I think Obama is far worse. We’re seeing a reverse of Marx’s observation that “history always repeats itself: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.”
The differences are telling. Carter still believed that there was some good in America, and he had little interest in playing a socialist end game. Obama, on the other hand, despises American exceptionalism and is a crypto-Marxist. His consciously pursued destruction of this country, versus Carter’s witlessness, is far more harmful.
Both men are Jew haters, but one of them in a position to assist Israel in a moment of existential danger has refused to do so—Obama. Even when he was trying to humiliate Israel at Camp David, Carter never entertained the notion that he might contribute openly to its actual destruction.
At the height of the Carter-era economy, when interest rates were at 21 percent and inflation was running at 18 percent, government mostly kept its hands off the private sector. Pubic debt was high by the standards of that era, but few people counseled spending our way out of trouble.
In contrast, Obama has set out to deliberately destroy the dollar and the ability of the U.S. economy to ever perform well again by saddling the next three generations with immense debt.
Also, the American public had not yet been dumbed down to the extent that it is now, and the radicals of the Democratic Party who had taken over in 1972 had not yet totally consolidated their power. Blacks had only been taking LBJ’s welfare drug for a decade, versus the 45 years many of them have been on it now, and affirmative action had only been in place for about five years when Carter came aboard. Jews did not see the hatred for them that Carter kept well hidden, unlike Obama’s overt disdain for Israel and his conscious appointment of self-hating Jews like Rahm to his inner circle.
So, I would say that Obama is by far the most dangerous man to ever occupy the presidency–far more so than Jimmy Carter.
Excellent summary, Charles Martel.
I’d like to add one more bullet point (literally) to the 1970′s – * Munich Olympics
This was the nail in all the coffins that have followed.
This was the beginning when the islamic jihadists went global.
This was when the world thought it was only a Jewish/Israeli problem.
This is when our consulate in Iran was attacked.
This is when Carter confused Camp David with the City of David.
Almost 40 years later and TIDE (Terrorist Int’l Data Base) is as helpful as t*ts on a bull.
This is not ineptness, this is treason from the inside.
p.s. This is the day Yemen should have been leveled.
http://www.cole.navy.mil/Site%20Pages/Memorial.aspx
If I were given control of a country, and my controllers told me “Destroy that country, but don’t let them understand you’re destroying them”… how would I go about it?
1. Put it so deeply into debt that there is no way to ever get out
2. By the end of my four years, ensure that its military is significantly weaker
3. Weaken its sense of national sovereignty. This can be done via the U.N and international organizations (in the name of global human rights), and via infiltration of foreign power (Interpol, in the name of being able to hide all your politically embarrassing stuff in their offices, where no one can reach them)
4. Weaken gun rights (by ensuring very limited access to ammunition, which has a limited shelf life), and by moving forward on gun control against all. Anyone seen that mayors’ report that indicates that most urban areas should be under extremely strict gun control. Remove gun ownership, of all guns, for any reason? The first move of any serious dictator is to disarm the citizenry, leaving them completely vulnerable to his shock troops.
Obama is not the dictator. By analogy, I will call Obama the dictator’s John The Baptist.
spiff580
Want to know how bad it is. This is what happens when you don’t go with the flow. The ‘new and improved black panthers’ get to keep their billy clubs and attitude.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/29/justice-transfers-panthers-pursuer-out-of-dc-offic/?source=newsletter_must-read-stories-today_headlines
h/t The Hill
NO AIRPORT PROFILING
By Eric Zimmermann – 12/29/09 03:21 PM ET
The chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee said today he opposes any efforts to profile passengers in the wake of a failed plane bombing.
“You pat down every person who’s suspicious. I don’t think you have to target people,” Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), told MSNBC. “This Swedish grandmother could just as well be a part of a terrorist plot as anyone else. So I think we have to be very careful when we try to target people.”
Thompson also said the financial concerns could hold up efforts to get full-body scanners in airports.
“It’s a matter of money. You know, security is an issue, but as we struggle with this economy, there’s only so much money we can dedicate to this particular issue,” he said.
I think we would be safer profiling who is on the ballot!
Good comments and insight; you’ve all given me some food for thought. I don’t tend to agree that Obama is the worst President ever… it’s still too early yet; although the signs so far are not good. For one, although he is the most powerful elected official in this Country, he still can only do so much. Which is why I’m more concerned about the status of our legislative branch, as they have more power to affect this country long term than even the President.
In general, I am a cynic by nature, but I a have a generally optimistic view of this country and where it is headed. But the big flaw and general disconnect in that belief is my general lack of faith and confidence in my fellow citizens. I don’t know how we can stop this trend towards socialism in this country, especially if the change is happing through our democratic system. Ultimately, the people get what they vote for.
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/lscott/2009/12/30/idiots-of-the-year/#more-286006
Spiff
Carter had 4 years to mess up intelligence and military affairs. Obama’s at that point in 1 year. The trend is either proportional, meaning 4X the damage or exponential.
spiff580, I’ve wondered the same thing, why is Obama the “most dangerous and destructive president we have ever had”? BW posted frequently before the election about Obama’s narcicist personality and it was easy to discount this as campaign rhetoric. We’ve all known people with tendencies to self-aggrandizement, but I have to admit I’ve never met anyone who wields so much power with that tendency. In other words, I’ve never seen the effect of the disorder when the person has the power to substantially affect the lives of others– besides his own family. It seems rather innocuous in a sense, and hardly worthy of real alarm. But let’s suppose he really thinks his presidency will “slow the rise of the seas”? As Charles Krauthammer noted in 2008:
“Americans are beginning to notice Obama’s elevated opinion of himself.
There’s nothing new about narcissism in politics. Every senator looks in the mirror and sees a president. Nonetheless, has there ever been a presidential nominee with a wider gap between his estimation of himself and the sum total of his lifetime achievements?
Obama is a three-year senator without a single important legislative achievement to his name, a former Illinois state senator who voted “present” nearly 130 times. As president of the Harvard Law Review, as law professor and as legislator, has he ever produced a single notable piece of scholarship? Written a single memorable article? His most memorable work is a biography of his favorite subject: himself.
It is a subject upon which he can dilate effortlessly. In his victory speech upon winning the nomination, Obama declared it a great turning point in history — “generations from now we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment” — when, among other wonders, “the rise of the oceans began to slow.” As economist Irwin Stelzer noted in his London Daily Telegraph column, “Moses made the waters recede, but he had help.” Obama apparently works alone.” http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/07/obamas_egoaccomplishment_gap.html Apparently America didn’t take it seriously at that time. We passed it all off as campaign bluster, and while unusually hyperbolic, the kind of breast-thumping, peacock-strutting drivel we expect from politicians. But what if Obama believes himself? I know, I know, it’s a silly question to ask. No same person could possibly believe this stuff and Barack Obama is the best con man to ascend to the presidency since– well, since forever. But what if he’s not the best con man ever, but if the fawning he’s received much of his life has gone to his head? When Richard Nixon’s paranoid tendencies were revealed, the country reacted in horror. Democrats demanded his head. Even reasonable people were concerned and Nixon paid a horrible price. What makes this situation potentially more dangerous is a liberal congress that will never engage in the oversight to prevent Obama from giving away our sovereignty, or a skeptical media questioning his motives. John W. Whitehead: “When Barack Obama was a U.S. Senator in 2005, he introduced a bill to limit the Patriot Act. Now that he is president, he has endorsed the Patriot Act as is. What do you think happened with Obama?” Nat Hentoff: “I try to avoid hyperbole, but I think Obama is possibly the most dangerous and destructive president we have ever had. An example is ObamaCare, which is now embattled in the Senate. If that goes through the way Obama wants, we will have something very much like the British system. If the American people have their health care paid for by the government, depending on their age and their condition, they will be subject to a health commission just like in England which will decide if their lives are worth living much longer. In terms of the Patriot Act, and all the other things he has pledged he would do, such as transparency in government, Obama has reneged on his promises. He pledged to end torture, but he has continued the CIA renditions where you kidnap people and send them to another country to be interrogated. Why is Obama doing that if he doesn’t want torture anymore? Throughout Obama’s career, he promised to limit the state secrets doctrine which the Bush-Cheney administration had abused enormously. The Bush administration would go into court on any kind of a case that they thought might embarrass them and would argue that it was a state secret and the case should not be continued. Obama is doing the same thing, even though he promised not to. So in answer to yI am beginning to think that this guy is a phony. Obama seems to have no firm principles that I can discern that he will adhere to. His only principle is his own aggrandizement. This is a very dangerous mindset for a president to have.”
“I was only 10-years old when Reagan was elected, so I don’t remember the Carter years all that well. But, I understand the US was in pretty sad shape at that time. Does anyone here honestly believe that we are headed for a worst period under Obama than we had under Carter? And by comparison, is where we are going, going to be worse than what the Country experienced during the Great Depression? I’m not asking a rhetorical question here, I truly would like to know because I have no sense of how bad it was in the 70’s.”- spiff580
Yes.
No.
What comes after the Second Great Depression will be worse though.
>>It’s no coincidence that, after George Bush kept us safe for 8 years, the terrorists are emboldened by Obama. <<
Just to be fair and balanced here, the Underpants Bomber case was almost identical to the Shoe Bomber case, which occured under George W. Bush’s watch. For those who feel three days was too long for Obama to wait to hold a press conference, remember Bush waited six days before holding a press conference after the Shoe Bomber case. So let’s not pretend Bush was the Great Savior.
Matt, there’s really no comparison. The Shoe Bomber event took place within a couple of months of 9/11. Bush was already frying huge fish by then, with the Shoe Bomber simply being an ugly little fish in a manifest war declared against us. Once you’re fully engaged in war, you don’t expect the CIC to announce every wartime event with the same time solemnity.
This time around, however, we haven’t had attacks in 8 years. Suddenly, under Obama, we have three attacks — and each time Obama refuses to admit that there is a war going on. In terms of the possible number of dead, this most recent event was the most serious attack of all. Despite that, Obama is still pretending that what happened is akin to an abortive shoot-out in a bar in a bad neighborhood.
Obama’s lack of seriousness his appalling, and that’s what’s got people’s goat. Bush was manifestly serious, so a delay of a few days while he was sorting information about Reid didn’t bother anyone at the time — and still doesn’t bother thoughtful people now.
<B>For those who feel three days was too long for Obama to wait to hold a press conference, remember Bush waited six days before holding a press conference after the Shoe Bomber case. So let’s not pretend Bush was the Great Savior.</b>
Let’s not pretend attacking Bush does anything to redeem yourself in the eyes of humanity, or erases Obama’s crimes of neglect and socialite luxuries.
People attack Bush because they have been told by their peers in the propaganda stream that defending their own position is tactically unsound. So they prefer the easier path of directing attention away from their own weak spots.
But those weak spots are glaringly obvious to the right eyes.
George Bush? Wasn’t he president from 2001 to early 2009? Is he still president?
Watching the tu quoque crowd, it seems he is.
Matt #39:
> the Underpants Bomber case was almost identical to the Shoe Bomber case, which occured under George W. Bush’s watch.
I made the same connection that Matt did, and I thought it was valid. But I must contrast a record constructed over seven years (the Bush Admin) against eleven months (the Obama Admin). If you’re going to make the first comparison, you must also agree to make the second.
Obama’s is a record of a steadily worsening situation, brought about by his attitude toward terrorism, his weakness in foreign policy, his coddling of the worst of dictators, and his deliberate alienation of nations and leaders friendly to America. There is an acceleration to the jihadist attacks in just these last few months that is alarming. Obama is being dismissed in every foreign policy arena he tries to dabble in. His coddling of dictators was apparently meant to influence them to behave better, but they have measured him and found him wanting, and for all the kindness (ok – massive buttsmooching on a level that is simply nauseating), they are treating him with profound disdain and contempt. Nothing he’s done has worked, and it is all simply getting worse and worse.
@Matt: The classic “he did it first” defense (almost as good as the Chewbacca defense). Doesn’t work for my kids so I don’t expect that it will work for the President either. But then again, maybe it will, since I have lower expectations for Obama than I do for my kids.
“Obama’s lack of seriousness his appalling” – Not only that, his continually blaming all the problems on the previous administration is getting tiring as well. That’s another strategy my kids use to deflect responsibility – doesn’t work for them, why should it work for Obama? I don’t remember, is he the youngest President ever? If not, I think in maturity he is.
Sean
But then again, as Book has posted here before, one of the characteristics of modern liberals is a sort of perpetual adolescent mindset. So, why should we expect more maturity, leadership and seriousness from one of the most liberal Presidents ever?
Sean
Shelby Steele continues the conversation about Barack Obama. In 2008 in “A Bound Man” Steele was skeptical that Obama could climb the divide of race in America. His conclusions don’t rise to the “possibly the most dangerous and destructive president we’ve ever had”
level, but he sees some of Chance the gardener in the current president.
“Barack Obama, elegant and professorially articulate, was an invitation to sophistication that America simply could not bring itself to turn down. If “hope and change” was an empty political slogan, it was also beautiful clothing that people could passionately describe without ever having seen.
Mr. Obama won the presidency by achieving a symbiotic bond with the American people: He would labor not to show himself, and Americans would labor not to see him. As providence would have it, this was a very effective symbiosis politically. And yet, without self-disclosure on the one hand or cross-examination on the other, Mr. Obama became arguably the least known man ever to step into the American presidency.”
[snip]
“Mr. Obama’s economic thinking (or lack thereof) adds up to a kind of rudderless cowboyism combined with wishful thinking. You would think that in the two solid years of daily campaigning leading up to his election this nakedness would have been seen.
On the foreign front he has been given much credit for his new policy on the Afghan war, and especially for the “rational” and “earnest” way he went about arriving at the decision to surge 30,000 new troops into battle. But here also were three months of presidential equivocation for all the world to see, only to end up essentially where he started out.
And here again was the lack of a larger framework of meaning. How is this surge of a piece with America’s role in the world? Are we the world’s exceptional power and thereby charged with enforcing a certain balance of power, or are we now embracing European self-effacement and nonengagement? Where is the clear center in all this? ”
[snip]
“A greater problem for our nation today is that we have a president whose benign—and therefore desirable—blackness exempted him from the political individuation process that makes for strong, clear-headed leaders. He has not had to gamble his popularity on his principles, and it is impossible to know one’s true beliefs without this. In the future he may stumble now and then into a right action, but there is no hard-earned center to the man out of which he might truly lead.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704254604574614540488450188.html?mod=rss_opinion_main
But then again, as Book has posted here before, one of the characteristics of modern liberals is a sort of perpetual adolescent mindset. So, why should we expect more maturity, leadership and seriousness from one of the most liberal Presidents ever? – spiff580
Adolescent mindset is taking the “w” key off computer keyboards as you leave office.
Obama appears to have surrounded himself with serious people who have serious intentions. Obama is the happy face for the left.
It isn’t valid. What it ends up doing is bolster Bush’s integrity while destroying Obama’s. Which is fine, if that is the intention, but it doesn’t look like it is when it is advertised as defense.
The reason is simple.
On 9/11, Bush heard the news of a plane crashing into a building and instead of overreacting hysterically, waited for more information.
Obama heard about Gates doing a pseudo ghetto threat display against police due to professorial insecurity, and he said they, the police, acted stupidly on no details at all.
Bush took a long deliberate time in Iraq, before finding the right general, then never looked back. Staying the course as he always said he would.
Obama was given the right plan and general from Petraeus and Bush, then looked back some odd months later, lasting 3 months, until quibbling over how many troops he would send after already saying he would.
Given Bush’s natural integrity and consistency, it is natural to see that Obama’s a hypocrite and so are his defenders. They have no legitimacy, so it doesn’t matter if they are wrong or right. They have no legitimacy. They have no standing. They are not in a position to judge, anything or anyone. It’d be like a chihuahua yapping about making world peace happen.
It isn’t hard for me to say that Matt is the kind of person that when facing dying innocents, would by instinct find a way to find somebody to blame. That’s cause everybody makes a decision on what is more important: their own emotions and feelings, or the interests of others. To the selfish and corrupt man/woman, their own benefit is of utmost importance. They will always try to find ways of getting out ahead of others, even at the cost of others.
If Obama had been supported by unselfish and noble people, that would have been one thing. But his predominant supporters are just like he is. There is no redemption in the eyes of god or humanity on this score. Defending Obama is not noble, because it’s just ensuring your own feelings of inadequate and insecurity are disguised. It takes more than that kind of self-centered obsession to actually protect the lives of others.
Only by pretending that Obama isn’t responsible for the lives of Americans under his watch, including those lost to Hasan and in Afghanistan, can selfish people live joyously free of responsibility. Because they voted for him. He is an extension of they.
Conservatives normally don’t have the luxury of delusion. We didn’t judge whether the Surge would work based upon the lens of how it would affect our own luxuries. We judged it based upon the realistic context of whether it would work as intended. Which it did, but the Left tried to make it otherwise because success for innocent Iraqis meant failure politically for them.
AQ is also obsessed with their own tortured psyches and emotional drama, endlessly beating their women because of insecurity and attacking Western society because they feel threatened by our successes.
The world would be a much better place if all such things were cleansed by fire.
On that note, since it seems to be a religious practice of AQ to become a martyr by putting highly combustive materials in their underwear, it shouldn’t be a problem if we strap such things to all captive terrorists and set off the explosives.
It would be what they wish and it would be what we wish. Mutual benefit, such is the cycle of justice.
@Brian: There are different types of adolescent mindsets. The Obama administration may have serious intentions, but their ideas are still adolescent… like a teenage know-it -all who thinks adults are stupid (like the angst ridden teenage vampire wannabes). They cling to the their ideas, even though around the world their ideas have been proven wrong at best, and disastrous at worst where tested.
Sean
@Y:
“It isn’t hard for me to say that Matt is the kind of person that when facing dying innocents, would by instinct find a way to find somebody to blame.” – Y
Hell, Y, his ilk are the kind that would blame the victims for being in the wrong place and then turn around and criticize the ones stepping up to save the victims. Then he would look for someone to blame and demand immediate action. And if that immediate action affected him, he would whine about that. J
<B>They cling to the their ideas, even though around the world their ideas have been proven wrong at best, and disastrous at worst where tested.</b>
I think Brian’s point is that adolescents with nuclear weapons and armed force in their hands aren’t adolescents anymore; they are enemies.
I’ll describe a tool of conflict resolution, aka diplomacy.
The Left likes to puff themselves up like the good Professor Gates, due to insecurity, on this matter of talking resolving problems, but they would be the worst people you can have to do such.
Conflict resolution via words and negotiation can be used, but it takes good people to use it. Not selfish, insecure, always looking for a fight, wannabe messiahs.
One of the things you have to realize is that people are controlled by their passions, which shortcut their logic. Thus if they feel threatened, they will react emotionally in order to preserve their perception of self and social status. Thus as one side of the negotiations table, you must be careful not to let the subject wander into zones that they can’t do anything about now. If you talk about their past mistakes or accuse them of having done something in the past, you are giving them no chance to correct them because it’s impossible to do so.
Look up blood feud and War of the Roses if you don’t know what I’m talking about. [Chances are, as a Democrat, you will have no idea of what those contexts entail]
If you are looking to resolve a conflict, you can only do so in the present with present problems. Things people can actually change by modifying their actions. Saying that my ancestor burned down your ancestor’s castle, and now you are going to attack me for it, is not going to do anything except cause me to unleash everything I have on you as a self-defense method. There’s no way I can change what my ancestors did, so no way I can change your behavior, so I’m just going to kill you.
If someone has done something wrong, like Obama, then he can still correct it and atone. Obama is still President, so he still has a chance, meaning 3 more years. Bush is not the President, so it doesn’t matter what he did or didn’t do, because nothing he will do will affect the current security climate of the United States.
All of those at Bookworm Room have legitimacy and standing to challenge Obama on this issue because anyone of us can die due to his mistakes. It’s a little too stupid to try to claim that your political opponents that defended Bush on a few points in the past, now shouldn’t criticize Obama for something similar to what Bush did. Nor does it matter whether Bush is a Savior or not, because what matters is the lives of those threatened now. Is Bush going to cause people to die now because he spent 6 days overseeing the war in Afghanistan against Osama Bin Laden or is Obama going to cause more people to die now because he’s retarded and incompetent on national security. That’s the question people should ask, if they weren’t so high on the drug of self-deception.
The Left are terrible mofos. That’s just the plain truth. Conflict resolution doesn’t work with them, but they are not interested in preserving peace. They’re interested in power. They’re in our way, stopping those of us interested in preserving the lives and living standards of others.
Just terrible.