Barack Obama’s deepest thoughts

Back when I was in college, I just laughed myself sick the first time I heard someone say “You can wade through Ronald Reagan’s deepest thoughts without getting your ankles wet.”  That was just so clever, wasn’t it?  Such a perfect distillation of an actor!

I’ve since learned, now that I’m old enough to pay attention to the facts and not the quips, that Ronald Reagan was never shallow.  Liberals, looking into the depths of his mind, mistook the clarity of his thoughts and the purity of his morality — a clarity and purity that allowed one to see things unimpeded by guck, murk, and mire one finds in a dirty pond — for shallowness.

Fast forward thirty years, and Ed Lasky is paying attention to the facts about Obama, facts that are often unwittingly dropped by Obama’s own acolytes and admirers.  These facts (not wishful thinking, but facts) do lead rather inexorably to the quip that one can wade through Barack Obama’s deepest thoughts without getting ones ankles wet.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Ymarsakar

    That’s not what they said about Democrat air head actors…. now was it.

  • Oldflyer

    Certain types of people invariably downgrade the intellects of certain other types of people without attention to, nor regard for, evidence.
    One of the most blatant examples was the Intellectual disdain for the quality of Ike’s thought.  It is now fashionable to claim that he spoke in a rambling, near incoherent style.   Hence he was of limited intellect.  I don’t remember his style of speech being unusual, even though I came to adulthood and served in the Navy during his Presidency.  Speaking style aside, his critics did not bother to read his exceptionally clear and well organized writings; no need, they had their template.  Nor do his critics ever explain how he was able to communicate effectively on a variety of levels and with such disparate and ego-centric personalities as de Gaulle, Churchill, Patton, et al.
    It has been noted that great Leaders tend to establish a few essential priorities on which they focus intently and with precision.  It is easy, then, to portray them as limited in their range of thought and interests.  Newtie is probably an example of the opposite extreme, moving constantly from one big idea to the next.

  • Ymarsakar

    Newt is actually the perfect example of doing something well. He communicates ideas well. Bush II did not communicate ideas well in speeches.

  • beefrank

    These one-sentence quips are typical for liberals adding to the template of Republicans and conservatives as simpletons, dolts and void of ‘educated’ thought. Similar to the other discussion-ending labels as ‘neo-con’, ‘racist’, ‘chicken-hawk’, ‘one-percenter’, ‘polluter’, ‘do-nothing’, ‘right-winger’, ‘Bible-thumper’, ‘God freak’ and ‘capitalist’.  They desire to end the conversation because they want to ignore and discount the plethora of facts.  The records and thoughts of Reagan were in the public square and available for analysis for years.  The same for Nixon, Goldwater and Bush 41.  The paperwork for Bush 43 was available and some was manufactured to ‘support’ the narrative.  Where was the paper trail for Obama besides his two heavily edited books?  Birth records (still an issue), school applications, transcripts, thesis, and law reviews?  Who ever heard of a law review editor who did not write anything?  Every Republican president went through the media anal examination but the Clintons, Gore, Kerry, Edwards and Obama received the kid gloves treatment unless something was too obvious. Kerry’s Yale GPA and SATs scores were actually lower than Bush’s but that did not fit the Left’s template of Dubya.  Of course, the grades were not revealed until after the election.  My spouse, the lawyer, thinks Obama did not graduate from Harvard Law as evident in his speeches.  She said her first year, the professors ‘beat’ the inclinations to be verbose and over descriptive out of you. Obama would not last a minute in a court room without the judge cutting him off with an exhortation to get to the point.  Contrary to the spin, he cannot even read the teleprompter correctly.  Really, who brings a teleprompter to speak to 4th graders?  Replacing our nation’s energy needs from petroleum to algae is really deep thinking?  Our current pool boys and aquarium cleaners are the future captains of industry?

  • Danny Lemieux

     “Replacing our nation’s energy needs from petroleum to algae is really deep thinking?”

    When I heard Obama say this, I really began to lose all hope for this country. We are being led by people that have all the sophistication of college sophomores high on weed.  So, what exactly are the Obama people thinking – that we will sequester one or two of the Great Lakes as algae farms to generate enough algae to fulfill our petroleum needs? Never mind that our country sits on huge pools of oil and natural gas. I have some experience with bioengineered algae technologies. They are astronomically expensive technologies that are hard to justify economically, even for the production of high-value pharmaceuticals and other industrial products.
    I guess we need to destroy the environment in order to save it. 

    We are a nation of morons led by a moron-in-chief. There’s no other way to put it. How did we get there? At what point did Hollywood fantasies become reality?