I know a shallow intellect when I see it — or why Obama’s carpet and Jan Brewer’s brain freeze are two sides of the same coin

When I was in high school, I developed a trick to make myself look smarter.  I learned the beginning of a few key quotations, all tied into the classical literary or historic canon.  At appropriate moments in a conversation, I’d start the quote, and then quickly trail off, as if I didn’t want to bore the listener with the whole thing.  That left the listener with the impression, completely untrue, that I actually knew the whole work from which the quotation was drawn.

“Well, of course he’s lazy.  It’s like ‘the lilies of the field’ all over again.  But you were saying?”

“I know, I know.  ‘To thine own self be true,’ and all that.  But isn’t it time that he began doing something for others?”

“Well, it’s like Dickens said:  ‘It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.’  Some people like what Obama’s doing better than others do.”

In each case, I left the impression that I was intimately acquainted with Christ’s sermons, Shakespeare’s plays, or Dickens’ lively prose.  I can do the same thing with Chaucer, Donne, Byron, Lincoln, etc.  I throw out a clause and then stop abruptly, leaving the quite false impression that there’s a depth of knowledge there.

Now that I’m older, I don’t actually play this game anymore.  It was a great trick when I was young, since it impressed older people.  I finally figured out, though, that it turned off my peers who knew, correctly, that I was being arrogant.  Being more mature has its virtues, some of which actually offset the wrinkles and gray hair.  Not engaging in cheap parlor tricks to create false impressions about my smarts is one of those time-learned virtues.

Which brings me around to Obama, of course.  As you’ve probably heard by now, his Oval Office remodel, in addition to reminding some (myself included) of generic conference rooms and hotel lobbies, has a major inaccuracy in it:  the specially designed carpet incorrectly attributes a quotation to Martin Luther King.  Martin Luther King did indeed say that “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”  The problem with the Oval Office carpet is that he didn’t originate those words.  Instead, Theodore Parker, an abolitionist who died on the eve of the Civil War, spoke those lovely words.

One could say that this is a small mistake, since the words are by now strongly associated with Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement.  However, we’re not just talking about my making a mistake in a little conversation when I’m throwing my (false) intellectual weight around.  Instead, we’re talking memorializing language in a carpet, in the office of the most powerful man in the world.

Someone ought to have taken the time to do a little investigation to make sure that all was accurate.  Indeed, anyone with any depth of knowledge when it came to King should have been especially careful, since King was known to borrow words, both legitimately (as here, where he never claimed that Parker’s were his words, although he didn’t attribute them either) and illegitimately (as with his lifelong plagiarism problem).  King was a brilliant, brave and, where it counted, a moral man, but that doesn’t erase the historical fact that you’d better double-check to make sure that his words were always his own.

All of which leads Thomas Lifson to reach a few conclusions about Obama himself:

The error perfectly encapsulates the shallowness of Barack Obama’s intellect, and his lack of rigor. Obama is a man who accumulated academic credentials while giving no evidence whatsoever of achieving any depth. He was the only president of the Harvard Law Review to graduate without penning a signed article in that esteemed journal. His academic transcripts remain under lock and key, as do his academic papers.

For the sort of people like David Brooks of the New York Times, who are impressed by fancy degrees and a sharp crease in the trousers, Obama may appear to be the smartest ever occupant of the Oval Office. But, as the old joke goes, deep down, he is shallow. Underfoot, literally, there is woven into his background a prominent vein of phoniness.

For some reason or other, Obama has been able to skate through academia and politics without ever being seriously challenged to prove his depth. A simple veneer of glibness has been enough to win the accolades of the liberal intelligentsia. But now that he has actual responsibilities — including relatively trivial ones like custodianship of the inner sanctum of the presidency — his lack of substance keeps showing up in visible, embarrassing and troubling ways.

Yup. Been there, done that myself. But I outgrew it. He hasn’t.

Incidentally, you see the flip side of all of this with Jan Brewer’s paralyzing moment of silence during the debate.  Jan Brewer is not glib.  Instead, she is more of a Moses:

Then Moses said to the LORD, “Please, Lord, I have never been eloquent, neither recently nor in time past, nor since You have spoken to Your servant; for I am slow of speech and slow of tongue.” (Exodus, 4:10)

I don’t think that anyone would argue that Moses’ slow speech meant that he had a slow intellect, lacked leadership abilities, or that he was ethically challenged. No one — at least no one who isn’t as shallow as a plate — would conflate moral heft or intelligence with glibness.  Oh, wait. I’m wrong. Everyone on the Left does exactly that.

To the Left, the fact that Obama reads well from the teleprompter and tosses around a few erudite phrases (and he has well-creased pants, per David Brooks) means, ipso facto, that the man must be a genius. (And since I’m a lawyer, I do get to throw around the phrase ipso facto with a certain professional aplomb.)  Who cares that he has a blank record when it comes to actual proof of intelligence, common sense, practical abilities or moral compass?

And about Jan Brewer?  Forget her effective time as governor, and the brave and moral stance she’s taken on behalf of Arizonans (and other Americans) by standing up to the federal government for its refusal to enforce its own laws.  If you’re a Progressive, the fact that she suffered a momentary brain freeze means she’s obviously an idiot, as are all the people who look past the words and into her depths, and who support her on account of the latter qualities, not the former.

As I said at the top of this post, I know a shallow intellect when I see it.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. suek says

    You know…I heard (or read) that she had had a terribly embarrassing, grasping at words incident.  I thought more or less the same as you – it’s more what she’s done than what she can say.  Her opponent in this election is a lawyer – guess what lawyers do…they talk.  They’re professional speakers.  It’s a tool of their profession.
     
    For most of us, speaking is a skill we practice, and many of us have a difficult time assembling a speech, much less giving one.  And debates are something else again.  Again – debating is a tool in a lawyer’s tool box – and a lawyer is supposed to be able to take either side in an argument.  So…what does skill in debating prove?  Not much of anything – unless it means a clarification of that person’s political position.
     
    So when I heard the audio of the “terribly embarrassing incident”, I was a bit surprised that in reality it was so mild.  Yes it was embarrassing – yes it was a mind freeze…but it was only a debate, and it really wasn’t that bad.  And as a by the way…as I’ve gotten older, I find I’m having momentary brain freezes.  Words I know, I can’t remember – till later.  It’s terribly frustrating -you wake in the middle of the night and remembering something you were “reaching” for during the day.
     
    I hope she doesn’t cancel the other debates – she needs to prove to _herself_ that she can express the facts as she knows them.

  2. says

    I suffer badly from stage fright, but it never affects me competence (or lack thereof) once I’m off stage.

    Incidentally, I do love Chris Christie’s speaking, but that’s because I think he beautifully articulates ideas in which I believe — and then proves through his conduct that he believes in those ideas too.

  3. Charles Martel says

    My neighbor across the street has climbed dozens of major peaks in the Himalayas, Andes, Alps and Rockies. Until he reached his eartly 60s, he thought nothing of heading over to Yosemite every two or three years to climb El Capitan, the 3,000-foot granite monolith that avid mountaineers worldwide consider a necessary stop before they die. (It generally takes two days to scale the cliff, so you spend one evening suspended 1,800 feet above the ground in a hammock-like bed whose rope supports you pray you’ve driven deep enough into the rock wall to hold.)

    He thinks nothing of doing this. Heights just don’t scare him. But the prospect of public speaking makes him shake. He can’t think of anything scarier.

    I, on the other hand, have to brace myself to climb more than four feet up a step ladder. Heights of any kind make me break out in a sweat. Yet public speaking, though I don’t like it, doesn’t really scare me. For me it occupies the same realm of low anxiety as going to the dentist or flying. I don’t look forward to it, but I don’t dread it—it’s just something to get through.

    The contrast between my neighbor and me is instructive. He doesn’t consider himself particularly brave and I don’t see myself that way either. Yet from our respective vantages, we each consider the other to be some kind of Braveheart.

    All this to say that Jan Brewer’s lapse doesn’t register with me at all. When her opponent decides to spend a night suspended over Yosemite Valley without pissing all over himself, I’ll give him some cred. 

     

  4. suek says

    >>When her opponent decides to spend a night suspended over Yosemite Valley without pissing all over himself, I’ll give him some cred. >>
     
    I understand your point…and I’m with you on heights.  But.
     
    Ummmmm…
     
    Well…..
     
    Now you’re raised a point I never considered.
     
    And probably won’t be able to totally put out of my mind…ever.
     
    ?????????

  5. says

    Okay, I’ll be the “racist” in the room:

    For some reason or other, Obama has been able to skate through academia and politics without ever being seriously challenged to prove his depth.”

    Really?

    For some reason or other“?

    Isn’t it obvious?  He has never been challenged because he is black, and to hold any minority to the same standards as others is racist in the eyes of the MSM and other liberals.  That’s one of the things that “affirmative action” has done to this country.  As has been said so many times by others than just myself – we now have an affirmative action president – what the hell did people expect?  competence?

  6. Charles Martel says

    Charles, kudos for talking about the elephant in the living room. Our alliterate, semi-educated, barely articulate prez is setting race relations in this country back a generation.

    I want to thank all the racist a**holes in America for voting for this buffoon because of his skin color instead of treating him like the permanently not-quite-ready-for-primetime nobody he actually is.

  7. Mike Devx says

    Well, you could say we’re all victims of history and institutionalized guilt.  The Germans still struggle with the heritage of their Nazi past, and too often, their citizenry today make decisions based solely on being able to say, “See!?!? I voted this way, just to show I am not one of those Nazis.” Or, “See? We enacted this policy solely to prove we’re not like those Nazis from the 40′s.”  And they do it out of some sense of guilt of which they themselves are totally innocent; but for which their nation apparently retains guilt as it moves forward through time and history.
     
    We are in the same boat concering slavery and the oppression of black people.  We have a national institutionalized guilt that drives us to make decisions and votes that make no sense otherwise.  We’re still atoning, at the national level, for past collective guilt that stains us all.  At some point it must be put aside and consigned to the dustbin of history.  But the election of Barack Obama occurred to a great degree because so man people voted the way they voted out of this institutionalized guilt.
     
    Having said that, I’m convinced that Nancy Pelosi would have been even WORSE than Obama.  It’s possible that in that corrosive climate of 2008, with such an inept and RINO-like campaign as McCain’s, that Pelosi would have been able to win, too.
     
     

  8. Bill Smith says

    I don’t disagree with you, Mike; but there is another layer, or dimension, and that’s the “Look At Me” factor.
     
    Look at me! Look at what a wonderful, enlightened, and totally SUPERIOR human being I am for voting for a person of color!!!
     
    Believe me, for these self-centered, self-absorbed elitist and especially elitist-wannabes GUILT has NOTHING whatever to do with it. And, feeling oh so superior to us benighted, ignorant, uneducated red neck yahoos has EVERYTHING to do with it.

  9. JKB says

    “The Welfare of Each of Us is Dependent Fundamentally Upon the Welfare of All of Us” – President Theodore Roosevelt


    This quote is also on the rug but out of context.  To me it further demonstrates the shallow intellect of Obama.  He not much more than a collection of quotes and hasn’t taken the time to read them in context.   Obama’s rug gets Roosevelt wrong « Don Surber provides a good discussion of this quote.

    If you read the “Square Deal” speech you find it to repudiate most of what we associate with Obama in regards to class and groups.  Look at a quote from the paragraph following the one the quote is from

    It is an infamous thing in our American life, and fundamentally treacherous to our institutions, to apply to any man any test save that of his personal worth, or to draw between two sets of men any distinction save the distinction of conduct, the distinction that marks off those who do well and wisely from those who do ill and foolishly.


    That pretty much repudiates the continuation of affirmative action and benefits based on protected class.  These are not attributes I’ve seen representative of Obama or his administration.

    The death-knell of the Republic had rung as soon as the active power became lodged in the hands of those who sought, not to do justice to all citizens, rich and poor alike, but to stand for one special class and for its interests as opposed to the interests of others.

  10. says

    “No one — at least no one who isn’t as shallow as a plate — would conflate moral heft or intelligence with glibness.  Oh, wait. I’m wrong. Everyone on the Left does exactly that.”  You are NOT wrong, BW….just follow through on the logic you so clearly expressed here.  We learn something important about leftists from their willingness to put this man into the most important position in our country, if not the world, despite what everyone could (and should) have known about him, as well as what we couldn’t find out.
     
    As for Jan Brewer, what did she say before and after the 15-second brain freeze?  That’s the relevant information on which to make a judgment about her.
     
     

  11. Mike Devx says

    Here is a youtube excerpt of Jan Brewer’s “brain freeze”
     
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUPKKbmWMZ8&feature=player_embedded
     
    She actually had two of them – a smaller one of about two seconds, and then later, the one of about five seconds.  Shoot, I have those kinds of freezes frequently.  Her problem was merely that it happened on camera and she did handle it awkwardly.  I found her embarrassed laugh as she remembered what she wanted to say, charming, and then her follow-on words to be convincing.  She’s no teleprompter-Barry.
     
    I suspect if the good people of Arizona actually are “good”, they’ll find that this humanizes her to them.  “Hey, that could be me up there, and I totally understand what she was feeling.”   Despite Ben Smith and the disgusting, revolting one-sided Democrat mouthpiece nature of politico.com, and their and others’ attempts to smear her due to this – their desperate hopes that this could undo her! – they may find that this actually helps her with Arizona voters.  Or merely be a wash.
     
    Their desperateness speaks volumes, however.  It’s almost as desperate and pitiful as their unending attacks on Sarah Palin.
     

  12. Mike Devx says

    And by the way, Google “Jan Brewer debate silence” and look at the volume of commentary.
     
    Then go back at look at the media’s coverage of Barack Obama during those occurrences when his teleprompter went on the blink.  Her pause was five seconds.  His lasted minutes, and they are EXTRAORDINARILY painful to watch, or belly-laugh inducing, depending on your mood.  Did they pile on him?  Of course not!  The devious media bastards, shilling for their own party’s candidate, constantly and consistently covering up for HIM… of course not.
     
    Pathetic bastards.
     

  13. Mike Devx says

    On the good side of things: The Democrats just wasted three months touting their “Recovery Summer”, which was ANYTHING BUT.  A disaster of a three months.  And their own economists, as wrongheaded as they often are, saw this coming back in June.  They saw the warning signs that, by August, things could indeed have gotten so much worse.
     
    September is upon us now, and the Recovery Summer was a complete joke. A sad joke, and a vicious one on all those Americans who were already hurting terribly, and for those Americans who have gone from the cusp of hurting, now into the pain.  The Pain of the Obama Ecnomy.  His brand of high-taxation, redistributionist scheming never works.  It just slowly keeps making things more miserable.
     
    But at the start of “Recovery Summer”, the Democrats had five months before the election to plan all their dirty tricks.  They wasted three of those months touting their “Recovery Summer” joke.  Now they have only two months in which to enact all the dirty tricks they can come up with.  That is quite a gift they’ve given us.
     
    Given the shortness of time – only two months! – and their growing desperation, they will be likely to make mistakes as they enact their dirty tricks with the desperateness of running out of time.
     
    Be wary of infiltration.  IF you’re in the Tea Party movement, take cameras and record EVERYTHING objectionable that you see around you.  It’s clear from the exemplary behavior that has gone on so far, that the bad apples will be infiltrators.  Film them, capture them, identify them, expose them.  They will be charlatans and deceivers; they will be bearers of false witness.  At times like these I HOPE there are in fact many circles of Hell, and one of the worst of those circles is reserved for Bearers Of False Witness.  Indeed.
     
    (An aside.  Catholics don’t tend to dwell on Hell very much; other denominations do.  I grew up Catholic and lost my faith in middle school to become agnostic.  But I just finished “Inferno”, a retelling and “updating” of Dante’s classic, by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle from the mid 70′s.  As an agnostic I found that the book disturbed me GREATLY.  It’s going to be a long time before this book stops troubling my mind.)
     
    Back to Democrat dirty tricks.  George Soros is starting a web site dedicated to destroying the Tea Party movement.  Can he do it?  Possibly.  But we Lilliputians have the power of numbers over him, and we can tie him down with the Truth and stop him if we’re smart enough and dedicated enough.  Here’s an article on Soros’ efforts:
     
    http://www.infowars.com/globalist-soros-launches-frontal-assault-against-tea-party/
     
    The article also discusses anarchists who want to subvert and destroy the Tea Party movement.  In that paragraph is a quoted excerpt of how one anarchist website describes the Tea Party movement.  Read this!!!
     
    According to Infoshop News, an anarchist website and forum, the Tea Party movement is “a coalition of conservatives, anti-Semites, fascists, libertarians, racists, constitutionalists, militia men, gun freaks, homophobes, Ron Paul supporters, Alex Jones conspiracy types and American flag wavers,”

    Isn’t that perhaps the most unintentionally hilarious description of a Grouping you’ve ever heard?
    conservatives
    libertarians
    constitutionalists
    militia men
    American flag-wavers

    I’d be proud to be a member of all five of those groups!  It’s kind of like when Nancy Pelosi darkly suggested that we need to investigate those who are “opposed to the Ground Zero mosque”.  Let me be the first one to jump up and wave wildly and scream madly, “Over here, Nancy! Investigate ME! ME! Over here, over here, I’m over here! Imvestigate ME! I’m proud and open about opposing that damned mosque! Over here! Choose ME!”

    Of course they darkly mix in a series of name-calling epithets of groups I’ve seen no sign of myself among video excerpts of Tea Party rallies:
    fascists (most fascists are Democrats these days)
    anti-Semites (most anti-Semites are Democrats these days)
    racists (rarely do a meet a true racist conservatives.  Most racists I talk to are actually liberals!)
    homophobes (if you exclude gay marriage from the issue list, most conservatives are willing to leave gays alone as long as gays leave THEM alone)

    And then there are the odd-ball stainings:
    Ron Paul supporters (shocking gasp! My God! I’m standing next to a Ron Paul supporter! I’m guilty by association of something though I don’t exactly know what!)
    Gun freaks (My God, WHAT is a gun freak? Someone who oils that barrel with Johnson’s baby oil and sleeps next to it, arms cuddling it and murmuring quietly to it as the gun freak drifts off to sleep?)
    Alex Jones conspiracy types (I don’t yet know who Alex Jones is and I must admit, though I could do a search and find out in less than two minutes, I feel zero compulsion to do so, and therefore I will not do it.)

    I’m surprised they forgot to mention the Sarah Palin Freak Fan Klub.  Of which I am a proud member!!!

  14. suek says

    You mention Soros…
     
    He is indeed, an evil puppetmaster and the source of a great portion of our headaches.  I can’t help but wonder just exactly what makes him tick.  Money, originally, certainly.  But now?  He could spend a million dollars a day and not put a dent in his fortune before he dies.  Fame?  He seems to keep well behind the curtain – you have to dig to find his connections to various political organizations – but he’s very often there.  What is his end goal?  Does he think that the “one world order” is the way to obtain world peace and goodness for mankind?  It _seems_ to me that that’s the end goal – but I don’t really know.
     
    In any case, those who seek to concentrate power in the hands of the few don’t seem to realize that although the “few” they choose to accomplish a particular end have only limited days on this earth, and they have no real control over those who follow.  They may indeed achieve a good result for the multitudes, but it will be a temporary accomplishment, and without some sort of fail safe method to back their goals, the goals will turn to mush.  Followed by death and disaster.
     
    It makes me think of Paris Hilton.  And the old expression “shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations”.  Parents strive so hard to achieve success to pass on to their children – but if the children don’t participate in the effort, chances are that the success will evaporate.  I’ve said it before – if you have all sorts of money and servants to do all the household chores, how do you tell the kids they have to take out the trash?  or tell them they can’t have the super car they want until they earn the money themselves to pay for it?  If you just give stuff to them, you have one problem, if you require them to earn it you have another – often resentment.
     
    Ya know … I might just talk myself into a huge inheritance tax…!!  “for the children”…!

  15. SADIE says

    Soros, not his real name, but sounds close enough to the Yiddish word for problem (Tsoris).  I guess volumes could been written about dysfunctional families, but his story is right up there at the top of the list.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros
     
    Ya know … I might just talk myself into a huge inheritance tax…!!  “for the children”…!
     
    You might want to run the numbers by a lawyer and accountant first and before the end of the year, too.

  16. suek says

    >>You might want to run the numbers by a lawyer and accountant first and before the end of the year, too.>>
     
    A) Not planning on dying before the end of the year!!  Ok..so I don’t know the future, but not planning on anything!
     
    B)I didn’t make myself clear.  We had a thread recently discussing estate taxes.  Most of us – including me – objected strenuously.  What I’m saying here is that maybe when an estate gets to a certain size, it’s actually detrimental to the heirs to receive that much, and maybe the state _should_ take the excess.  In my heart, I don’t believe that, but I could see it as a moral argument.  Although the State should _not_ be in charge of morals!  so there we go again…off to the races!!

  17. SADIE says

    A) Glad you have no plans to exit the planet anytime soon.
     
    B) Estate taxes – several thoughts. We only hear about the awful heirs and the awful way they live. Money or lack of it can’t buy morals or value judgment.  We live in such a ‘breaking news alert’ style of reporting that if one of the faces or names bought the wrong size shoes, we’d know about it from the store clerk.
    I am totally against estate taxes – they’re like eating peppers – they keep repeating in every generation.
     
    I am not sure what size an estate has to be to really corrupt the heirs, but if there’s is vast wealth, I would hope that a percentage of it was directed by trust to doing good. Of course, we then get into that sticky question of what is ‘good’. I’ll never be in the what should I do with all this money category but I do have friends who are and they have donated vast sums to hospitals and charities and do not look for their names on walls or wings.

  18. suek says

    It’s my understanding that the Rockefellers raised their children to be involved in charity work, and to have a deep felt responsibility towards society because they _had_ and others did not.  Unfortunately it seems to have blinded them to the work ethic that produced their wealth, and made them feel others should be as willing to give out of their labor as the Rs were to give out of their surplus.
     
    You know I don’t disagree with you on the estate taxes, but _sometimes_ …just _sometimes_ … I think that some of the heirs would be better off if they were thrown out into society with nothing they didn’t earn with their own two hands.  “the Prince and the Pauper” sort of thing.  I know…not quite the same…but a learning experience, nevertheless…!

  19. suek says

    Well…I think it’s also a very “parenting” thing as well.  Raising children is a bit like watching paint dry, but small things are important and small children can be _very_ aggravating.  Wealthy parents have shuffled off the job for centuries, and then – imo – paid the price.  It’s a tough job even for attentive and good intentioned parents – way too easy to botch the job when you turn it over to (usually) low paid unskilled nursemaids/babysitters/tutors.  People often don’t recognize that intellectual capabilities do _nothing_ to ensure moral character – and moral character is not only more important, but more difficult to instill.
     
    I’ve wondered about the islamic society and childcare from two aspects: how can you expect completely uneducated mothers to raise educated children, and how can you give a mother authority over a young male up to age 6-7, and then turn the authority over the mother to that young male??  I’m no psychologist, but it seems to me that that is just asking for problems in the male/female relationship.  Of course, my ideas of that relationship just might be slightly different from theirs…!!

  20. says

    “In my heart, I don’t believe that, but I could see it as a moral argument.  Although the State should _not_ be in charge of morals!  so there we go again…off to the races!!”
     
    You have to make sure that the money can only be spent on the military. Because these people have such wealth only because all the foreigners are prevented from rapine and looting them for all they are worth by the US military.
     
    Howver, DC is so evil and corrupt that they will say with a straight face, “sure, we’ll take this tax money and only spend it on the military’ then next year you’ll see them cut the military by 100 billion, take all the money from those estate taxes, and spend it on private jets, catered lunches, and prostitutes.

  21. says

    So in conclusion, if you can guarantee that you can make DC spend that money on the military and only the military, then you have an ethical position to advocate taking money from the super rich. Cause it’s for their own benefit anyways. But if you can’t guarantee it, then you have no integrity in the matter advocating for estate taxes, cause you know it won’t be spent on anybody’s good. Neither rich nor poor, just politically influential.

  22. Mike Devx says

    Obama gives his Labor Day speech and he is in full mean-spirited mode again.  Check this out:
     
    (from: http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2010/09/demonizer-in-chief-upset-people.html)
     
    Obama also was in full mock mode.  Here are some excerpts:

    “But there are some folks in Washington who see things differently. (Boos.) You know what I’m talking about. (Applause.) When it comes to just about everything we’ve done to strengthen our middle class, to rebuild our economy, almost every Republican in Congress says no. (Boos.) Even on things we usually agree on, they say no. If I said the sky was blue, they say no. (Laughter and applause.) If I said fish live in the sea, they’d say no. (Laughter.)”
    “Now, anybody who thinks that we can move this economy forward with just a few folks at the top doing well, hoping that it’s going to trickle down to working people who are running faster and faster just to keep up, you’ll never see it. (Applause.) If that’s what you’re waiting for, you should stop waiting, because it’s never happened in our history. That’s not how America was built. It wasn’t built with a bunch of folks at the top doing well and everybody else scrambling. We didn’t become the most prosperous country in the world just by rewarding greed and recklessness.
    “I mean, I personally think “Yes we can” is more inspiring than “No we can’t.” (Applause.) To steal a line from our old friend Ted Kennedy: What is it about working men and women that they find so offensive? (Laughter.)”
    “Look, the bottom line is this: These guys, they just don’t want to give up on that economic philosophy that they have been peddling for most of the last decade. You know that philosophy — you cut taxes for millionaires and billionaires; you cut all the rules and regulations for special interests; and then you just cut working folks loose — you cut them loose to fend for themselves”.

     
    But then he also had this to say, and it’s prompting a LOT of commentary tonight:
     

    “Some powerful interests that have been setting the agenda in Washington for a long time, and they’re not always happy with me. They talk about me like a dog. That’s not in my prepared remarks, but it’s true.”

    So one one hand, we have a President who has consistently been the most mean-spirited in HISTORY in his public remarks.  Then he wants to cry and whine and bitch and moan when his opponents have had enough of his crap, and come right back at him.  Awwww. poor little baby!  So thin-skinned, so quick to give out the insult, so then unwilling to take it.  The pot calling the kettle black.  Hey, Little Barry!  If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen, you mean-spirited little monster!  Demonize and insult and mock, and then refuse to be mocked.
     
    “They treat me like a dog”.  Oh, for crying out loud, give me break.
     
     
     

  23. says

    I admit it – I couldn’t listen to the whiner-in-chief.
     
    But his remarks about the dog really made me sit up straight….a DOG?  Who is it that has such a hard time about dogs?  Americans (mostly) LOVE dogs!!  Who refuses to allow even a Seeing-Eye dog in the same room?  Who won’t carry an assistance dog in their cab?  Who?
     
    Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?
     
    No wonder the American people are so unsure about this guy……..!

  24. SADIE says

    Audio and visual coverage as follows:
    Rev. Obama delivered the speech in revival mode tempo in search of an ‘amen’ from the crowd. The crowd made up of the prescribed list of white, black and several children in the front row, who clapped on cue,   looked like cardboard cutouts. Slinging barbs and promises of billion$ across the airwaves in a lame attempt to resurrect the economy and the electorate for November. The reported 9.6% of unemployed will not be giving the administration a big amen in November – only a can of ALPO.

Trackbacks

  1. [...] Bookworm on the Obama rug and Brewer brainfreeze: Incidentally, you see the flip side of all of this with Jan Brewer’s paralyzing moment of silence during the debate. Jan Brewer is not glib. Instead, she is more of a Moses: Then Moses said to the LORD, “Please, Lord, I have never been eloquent, neither recently nor in time past, nor since You have spoken to Your servant; for I am slow of speech and slow of tongue.” (Exodus, 4:10) [...]

  2. [...] Bookworm on the Obama rug and Brewer brainfreeze: Incidentally, you see the flip side of all of this with Jan Brewer’s paralyzing moment of silence during the debate. Jan Brewer is not glib. Instead, she is more of a Moses: Then Moses said to the LORD, “Please, Lord, I have never been eloquent, neither recently nor in time past, nor since You have spoken to Your servant; for I am slow of speech and slow of tongue.” (Exodus, 4:10) [...]

Leave a Reply