What gets Obama’s goat?
Bookworm on Jun 22 2010 at 11:46 am | Filed under: Barack Obama
Obama has been in office roughly a year and a half. That’s long enough to get a handle on what motivates our president. He’s pretty binary. When he’s not partying with rock stars, he’s either apathetic or angry. Here, in no particular order, is a little list of Obama’s responses to both world situations and domestic policy initiatives that have occurred so far during his administration:
Health care bill: Apathetic. (Yeah, it passed and, yeah, he made the talk show circuits, but he was a follower, not a leader on this one. The momentum came from the Democratic Congress.)
The Green Revolution in Iran: Apathetic. (Obama had the opportunity to topple the Iranian government using the power of the Iranian people. Instead, after a prolonged silence, he damned the Iranian people with faint, frightened praise.)
The Gulf Oil Spill: Apathetic. (Notwithstanding his promise to find “some ass to kick” — a phrase that, with repetition, takes on weirdly homoerotic connotations, or is that just me? — Obama has done little. Alternatively, what little he’s done, has been obstructive or unconstitutional, without actually affecting that endless oil flow.)
The Iranian Nuclear Bomb: Apathetic. (Although that’s not quite true: when he’s not being frighteningly quiescent, he’s been working to water down sanctions against them. That goes beyond apathetic and veers into self-destructive, with America, the Middle East and Europe as the “self.”)
The cratering economy: Apathetic. (Obama is making noises about spending yet more of tax payer money to prop up his already disastrous plans, but he’s been remarkably passive about the whole thing, helped, perhaps, by a frightened Congress that is now pretending there is no budget at all.)
The Fort Hood Massacre: Apathetic. (“What Fort Hood massacre? But while we’re here, I’d like to give a shout out….”)
The two front war (Iraq and Afghanistan) that America is engaging in against Islamic jihad: Apathetic. (Hello! Is anyone home at the White House? As you may recall, despite meeting multiple times with Andy Stern, of the SEIU, Obama didn’t have time to meet General McChrystal, who was running the Afghanistan side of the war.)
Continued Islamic jihad directed at the American home front: Apathetic. (He’s handed this one to Holder and Napolitano, and they’re just doing a wonderful job, aren’t they? They’ve now got the entire Pentagon going through all documents with white-out to delete any reference to Islam. Obama remains apathetically above this fray.)
State efforts to stem the terrible criminal and economic consequences of uncontrolled federal borders: Anger (at the states drowning in crime by and welfare claims from illegal aliens).
Israel’s efforts to stem the terrible genocidal consequences of Hamas on her borders: Anger (at Israel, which is in the fight of her life against entities whose sole goal is her total destruction).
The military’s deep concern at the fact that the Obama White House is mishandling our two front war in Iraq and Afghanistan: Anger. And this is the one that sparked my post. Huge, earth-shaking things have been going on around the world, and Obama has acted in a bizarrely passive (or, sometimes, passive-aggressive) way. But General McChrystal does a rather foolish interview in Rolling Stone, and suddenly Obama is all action (emphasis mine):
President Barack Obama was “angry” after reading Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s remarks about colleagues in a Rolling Stone article, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Tuesday.
McChrystal — the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan — has been recalled to Washington to explain his actions to the president. He is expected to meet with Obama in the Oval Office on Wednesday, Gibbs said. Gibbs refused to speculate about McChrystal’s fate, but told reporters “all options are on the table.”
Any citizen should be shocked by this: Obama will see McChrystal, not regarding how to win a war as to which Obama is commander-in-chief, but to give McChrystal a dressing down because the latter hurt Obama’s witty-bitty fweeings. We don’t have a man in the White House. We have a giant ego, unattached to morals, intelligence, strategic skills or anything else useful.
My Mom told that that her retirement community which, judging by lapel pins back in November 2008, went 80-90% for Obama, is having buyer’s remorse. They say that they had such high hopes for him, and he’s been such a disappointment. I tell her that we in the conservative community were a large, howling pack of Cassandras, desperately trying to get the truth out there — and we were roundly, and soundly, ignored.
She also told me that the residents were so willing to give him a chance, “hoping he’d grow on the job.” None of them seemed to have figured out that you’re already supposed to be grown when you hit the White House. It’s not a practice job; it’s the real deal. It’s unnerving to see a building full of people who demonstrate that age does not necessarily beget wisdom.
[Welcome Lucianne readers! So glad you stopped by.]
Related posts:
- This kind of thing gets my goat
- Obama administration turns the politics of personal destruction onto General McChrystal
Email This Post To A Friend
28 Responses to “What gets Obama’s goat?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Oh? Were they equally as eager to give a nurse or doctor this “hands on training” when it came time for their surgery, care, and medical treatment?
Or is the case different now cause it was somebody else’s Ox being gored when voting for Obama. So long as Obama tortured and mistreated Americans they didn’t care about it, it was okay, right. Obama, after all, gets a kick out of every suffering American. That’s just how he is.
“It’s unnerving to see a building full of people who demonstrate that age does not necessarily beget wisdom.”
Wisdom covers a lot of things. For example, if it is true that McChrystal voted for Obama, then that casts doubt on his political judgment. But it does not cast doubt on his killing terrorists judgment. Because the two things are separate subjects and wisdom is a general field that humans can only take slices from, but never have the whole pie.
http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/2010/06/22/michael-yons-crack-addicted-monkey/
I just saw a pretty good update on that. It’s a radio show confrontation between Jimbo and Michael Yon.
You know you want to hear what happened.
As a practical example, you can be wise in the ways of economy and child care and education and Ivy League diplomas. But when you have no training in violence and no experience in killing, and you have to make a decision using your “wisdom” concerning violence and how to deal with it, you shouldn’t expect your expertise in non-violent subjects to carry over to violent ones. Wisdom is not a panacea nor is it Utopia.
Btw, Book, this is a pretty good and funny list. I like it.
People do grow on the job, however, this requires that the person (a)understand the job well enough to have a starting point, and (b)have enough humility to recognize that they have the something to learn. Neither of these is the case here.
Obama has no experience in executive management, and he really doesn’t understand what people in these jobs actually *do*. Also, he is too intellectually incurious to read up on the subject.
We are the fools:
“The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the presidency. It will be easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to an electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails us. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The republic can survive a Barack Obama. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.”
And his ears. Don’t forget Barry is sensitive about his ears.
And his religion.
And his middle name.
And his preacher.
And his birth certificate.
And his school records.
etc etc etc
Obama Replaced Churchill Bust in Oval Office With Picture of Himself Walking On Water
“hoping he’d grow on the job.”
POTUS is not a job – the position is that of leader of the free world.
It isn’t just the seniors who were lured, it is also the youth who have been spoon fed a litany of lies from their parents, the media and schools. This generation is no more prepared for life than the president they voted for.
g6loq – spot on. More worrisome is the fact that he can issue Executive Orders left and right (strike right) left and left and appoint judges that will impact decisions negatively long after he is gone.
When you are an incompetent fraud, there isn’t a lot of growing to be done – unless it is the process of growing more and more obvious in your lack of ability!
The essence of a good administrator (which is – essentially – what the Presidency should be) is to select highly competent and knowledgeable people for the various key positions in your administration and then let them do their jobs, all the while keeping an eye on the proceedings. It does not involve, as it does with this president, selecting Chicago cronies and sycophants from various left wing venues and letting them run amok!
I’m worried less about the person of Barack Hussein Obama, the Kenyan wetback, than I am about the mindset of the people who voted this pipsqueak into office!
Very interesting appraisal. Very interesting observations to _get_ to the appraisal.
I had a brief exchange with my husband yesterday, which leads me to this question: When does “agenda” become a “conspiracy” or vice versa??
The question comes up because of the Judge’s decision that the drilling moratorium had to be lifted. H said something about the administration being controlled by the environmentalists – or was it the unions. I said “neither…it was about getting governmental control of the oil industry”. “Aha!” quoth he. “You’re still on the conspiracy theory” I said – “no…it’s just that he is a fascist. Industry is good – as long as it does what it’s told to do by the government.”
So…since he’s now president, it’s hardly a conspiracy, in my mind – it’s an agenda. He considers it a conspiracy, I think, because it’s an agenda that is contrary to the concept of the nation and therefore not a legitimate national agenda. I’m not exactly sure…so…when is an agenda a conspiracy, and vice versa.
By the way…the reply box now has my type size at about 6-8…very tiny. This started yesterday – but the reply appeared in normal sized print when it posted. The log in also seems to have forgotten my sign in name, but not my password. Is anyone else having a problem – or is this a personal-it’s-my-computer kind of problem???
O Pack o’Lips Now…
Every minute I spend in front of a TV camera, I get weaker, and every minute Obama squats in the White House, he gets stronger. General Willard Kurtz, TALKY TAC OPS Obama has been in office roughly a year and a half. That’s long enough to get a handle …
suek
I am having the same problem, font is tiny and had problems logging in as well – NO, it’s not just your computer and relieved that it isn’t mine either.
when is an agenda a conspiracy, and vice versa?
Maybe it’s a matter of perception or deception.
http://market-ticker.denninger.net/archives/2438-Open-Contempt-Will-The-Judiciary-Sit-For-It.html
Heh…
You’re reading Denninger these days as well???
Hubby is so funny – he says “if you’d just stop believing all that stuff on “your” blogs…!” He really thinks of blogs as just gossip columns. He doesn’t understand that blogs _may_ be just gossip, but in many cases it’s also the output of people who are very knowledgeable and perceptive in their own narrow fields. The real problem is figuring out who’s good and who’s blowing smoke. There are so _many_ blogs out there!!! And of course, the person who’s a pro in one area may be a total idiot when they get out of their area of expertise. Which explains why I have so many bookmarks. (yeah…riiight!)
[...] has a very good piece up, wherein she wonders at how our president can run the gamut of emotional and intellecutal circuits, [...]
General McChrystal was out of line and in the military such insubordination MUST result in discipline. I expect him to be removed from his command later today, as he should be (and quite likely expected; I’m guessing he sees failure no matter what he does and does not want to go down with the ship). That having been said, he probably should resign from the military and run for office. I’ll bet he’d be wildly popular.
You’re reading Denninger these days as well???
I took your suggestion some time ago.
“if you’d just stop believing all that stuff on “your” blogs…!”
Huh! versus what? faith in the media! Unlike the ‘news bites’ at 6 and 11, you cannot click on the TV and print media and double/triple check sources, nor is there the give and take of an exchange of ideas. Of course one has to be discerning, but that holds true for everything.
<B>The log in also seems to have forgotten my sign in name, but not my password.</b>
Same here
Part of the Rolling Stones interview here …
http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2010/06/rolling-stone-runaway-general-by.html
>>General McChrystal was out of line and in the military such insubordination MUST result in discipline.>>
In fact, this may not be true. He apparently said nothing about the CIC. He himself apparently only made a comment about Holbrooke. On the other hand, it’s no doubt that his staff _did_ make comments about the Administration in general, and the president in particular. Another blogger has commented that perhaps – given the juncture in Afghanistan at which we find ourselves – McChrystal should tender his resignation, and Obama should refuse it. Ala McClellan. And Obama should come out and say that the pressures of conflict can account for the frustration, but they have reached an understanding, and McChrystal will continue his leadership. Someone else has penned the opinion that McChrystal has committed occupational suicide deliberately in order to make the problems publlic – that he did so as the only way to force a needed change. I don’t know…it’s an interesting thesis. In any case, I doubt Obama’s big enough to choose that route – even if it’s the best one for the country. I think a defeat in A’stan is ok with him.
Part of the issue of blogs really goes back to the Wild West, suek, where reputation and honor counted. He thinks of blogs as one person shops, or conglomerates like cable news, where you don’t know a damn thing about the people involved and just listen up like a meth addict.
The reality is rather different. All the ones people saw of Cronkite were scripted. They would have had to research him in depth and think for themselves to get his true nature. But so long as they believed whatever he fabricated for them or even simply observed only that, they would be led false.
On the blogs, fabrication is much harder with critical audiences that aren’t just observers or readers, but actually do the things that you do. So it’s like a bunch of magicians vs two bit hucksters using hand of sleight. The magicians are going to fact check and de bunk the “competition” if only because they want to preserve their own reputation. And it’s good for income too.
Blogging makes for very hard fabrication even for those interested in it. Not just because of outside pressure, but because of the immediacy. The post and the response posts are very very fast. Far faster than what it takes to create a counter-propaganda or propaganda response by normal media organs. So what you get is essentially the individual’s take. And we have all evolved with an ability to judge and get a sense of individuals. Cronkite and his team of hucksters may fool millions cause of tv and his presentation, but if it was just Cronkite blogging and writing, he would have been found out far sooner. Before he got millions killed and tortured.
Essentially, suek, you believe people on the blogs because you know them, their strengths and weaknesses, in far more detail and fidelity than anybody being spoon fed propaganda by traditional news sources. Even if they write under anonymous names and don’t have an actual history to check, you can still check their actions on the net. Because the internet is vast, there’s no limit to where you can go, what you can write, or who you can converse with. And if it is unlimited with you, so it is thus with the people you are observing. Because those people’s interactions with other people on the internet are unfiltered in regards to you, you get a far more accurate representation of people’s behavior and motivations than if the individuals involved consciously set out to make themselves look good to you. But on the net, there’s too many people for that kind of individual product fabrication to work. You can make yourself look good to some, but not all. And the rest is always watching, if not commenting.
It’s a reputation issue. People who are known as trustworthy and honest, with no axes to grind, will convince the people who actually are like that. Communities self-segregate. Because this is a survival mechanism. If human beings had been like the addicts of modern society, we’d never have gotten out of the cave alive.
>>General McChrystal was out of line and in the military such insubordination MUST result in discipline.>>
Heh…did you happen to watch O’Reilly last night? He had two guests discussing this – one was the retired Col. Hunt, who has been a fairly regular guest on Fox since the beginning of the Iraq conflict. I thought he was going to _bust_ waiting for the other guest to finish his comment! It was _so_ funny – he should _not_ play poker!! His opinion agrees with yours – and my husband’s – and I can certainly see why. But given that – McChrystal comes from the same culture…he knows it too. So what’s going on?
I also question why the Rolling Stone reporter was embedded. That seems an odd choice.
I just can’t see the General making this kind of error of judgment – but maybe this reporter sort of faded into the woodwork and they just forgot about his being there. O’Reilly also commented that Rolling Stone had done a hatchet job on him some time ago, and had taken many comments out of context, as well as simply making some stuff up out of whole cloth. He didn’t accuse RS of doing that in this case, but did leave it up in the air.
Things never happen in a vacuum, do they!
http://www.rr.com/news/topic/article/rr/9009/14345848/Afghan_leaders_warn_against_firing_Gen_McChrystal/full/
[...] Bookworm Room – What gets Obama’s goat? [...]
Credibility of blogs….if you post on any subject whatsoever, no matter how esoteric, and the post gets any kind of play, then genuine experts in the field will show up. For instance, a few months ago I posted an item on the termination of the LORAN radionavigation system. Not only did many LORAN users come by and leave comments, but also USCG people who had actually installed and operated LORAN stations. There is nothing approximating that sort of feedback in the old media.
[...] The Bookworm Room has a great post, today, comparing issues the President is apathetic about to the things that makes him angry. [...]
[...] Obama: As I noted earlier, Obama is either apathetic or agitated. One of the things about which he’s never been [...]
[...] hat tip to Gerard, and this one points to my former fellow Webloggin contributor Bookworm Room. Obama has been in office roughly a year and a half. That’s long enough to get a handle on what [...]
[...] a comment » Bookworm has a fine, and quite alarming, list. The only time His Oneness doesn’t appear bored is when he believes he has suffered [...]
[...] the Bookworm Room examines President Obama’s actions — rather attitudes — in What gets Obama’s goat?, June 22: Obama has been in office roughly a year and a half. That’s long enough to [...]