Revealed: Obama suffers from Romney Derangement Syndrome
My oh my:
Obama really doesn’t like, admire or even grudgingly respect Romney. It’s a level of contempt, say aides, he doesn’t even feel for the conservative, combative House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, the Hill Republican he disliked the most. “There was a baseline of respect for John McCain. The president always thought he was an honorable man and a war hero,” a longtime Obama adviser said. “That doesn’t hold true for Romney. He was no goddamned war hero.”
Time and again Obama has told the people around him that Romney stood for “nothing.” The word he would use to describe Romney was “weak,” too weak to stand up to his own moneymen, too weak to defend his own moderate record as the man who signed into law the first health insurance mandate as Massachusetts governor in 2006, too weak to admit Obama had done a single thing right as president.
The entire article is worth reading. Hard to say whether any, some, or all of it is true, but it’s certainly an indication that—at least for the moment—Politico is willing to present a portrait of Obama that is decidedly unpleasant. There’s hardly a paragraph in the piece that doesn’t describe a leader and a group of underlings consumed by pettiness, narcissism, and disorganization. So just on that score alone, the story has the ring of some sort of truth, although I remain distrustful of unsourced anonymous insider info.
If the “Obama hates Romney” bit is correct, it’s both interesting and informative. Why such strong antipathy towards Romney? My guess is that one reason would be that Obama has been unpleasantly surprised by Romney’s toughness as an opponent, and that rouses his anger. So far, except for Bobbie Rush, Obama has been very lucky in his opponents—and that was especially true of McCain in 2008. The “war hero” part is not why Obama “respected” him (I think that idea is poppycock); it was McCain’s unwillingness to slug away at Obama that almost certainly is why Obama appreciated McCain, and why the president now fervently wishes Romney would follow the McCain rulebook, as he’d been expected to. How hard must it be to expect that your opponent will be a pushover and then find that he’s determined to give you the battle of your life?
Another issue may be (and here I’m going to go all psychological on you) envy on Obama’s part, most specifically father-envy. After all, Mitt had a strong, loving, and helpful father and Obama most assuredly did not. “Romney had it so easy, and I had it so hard” could be the source of a lot of outsized rage.
Hatred of one’s opponent can sometimes help motivate a person to fight harder and more effectively, especially if the two people are involved in a fistfight. In a political campaign, perhaps not so much; it can cloud the judgment considerably, and lead to errors.
The “lead to errors” part is powerful.
When you hate or strongly dislike someone, you may project on to them things that might not be true.
When you look for people to agree with you on those points, they wonder what’s wrong with you.
I did not see the Politico piece, but it must explain the headline I saw yesterday where Obama said he doesn’t personally dislike Romney.
I on the other hand have a visceral dislike of Obama that I have never had for another person on earth.
Not even close.
I see him on TV with that smug condescending look and hope for God to smite him.
Not Christian, but there it is.
I blame him for the position the country is in.
I wonder what I attribute to him that is not accurate.
Years since I checked this blog – glad to see you still going strong. I too am suspicious of this sort of article. – it just invites us to project all sorts of unpleasant things on the still somewhat mysterious Obama. But I certainly notice in my own response to Romney what Obama or the politico authors refer to as ‘nothing’ regarding Romney. Knowing that Romney is a man with formidable experience I recognize the ‘nothing’ reaction is almost certainly a response to Romney’s personality – one that I would say many Republican voters also felt and responded to by voting for a whole series of ‘anyone but Romney’ candidates. I have have had to keep reminding myself that in terms of his resume, Romney is about as well qualified for the position as any candidate in a long time. View him as a vulture capitalist or a turnaround artist but his work at Bain demonstrates he has real knowledge and experience of the private sector. He simultaneously earned law and MBA degrees from Harvard. Etc. My point is that he just has not been convincing, but the choice of Ryan changes all that for me. Suddenly I can take him seriously because his pick is saying that he is taking the country’s predicament seriously. And that he has what he appears to lack – the will to act decisively. I hope I am right and that the electorate notices that Romney has qualities that are not superficially apparent.
I always thought Mitt suffered from the same fault his father did. Both didn’t know why they wanted to be President other than it was the next step up the ladder. He has learned the hard way and now (especially with Paul Ryan as VP ) he seems to feel it is OK to go with an more ideological path.
He also suffered from his Massachusetts political start. I try to explain to people outside of New England that Massachusetts is a really corrupt place politically. Only the old Boston veneer prevents it from appearing like Louisiana north. When the corruption and cronyism gets too bad, then the voters elect a moderate republican (Weld, Romney etc.). He can ride a short wave of good government feeling to fix things then loses it. Mitt thought this was enough to play on a National stage.
Obama was always the instrument of others who were corrupt in the way that only Chicago can produce. Now that he is President, he has learned nothing about people and power. His skills are missing to allow him to accurately size up his opponents. Also Obama started with very similar advantages to Mitt. Access to good schools, influential people and media, were available to both. Mitt went for conventional paths and prospered. Obama was co-opted by leftists for their own use and while prosperous was not his own man. This must be part of the envy he feels.
Neoneocon,
By any standard Romney has been a tremendous success and a poster-boy for the traditional “American Dream.” Let me, then, suggest the possibility of Obama’s envy of Romney’s success.
In my own experience I have found that many liberals envy the success of others rather than admire it. It seems that the more to the left they are, the greater their envy. If we assume that Obama’s denigration of successful people as “just lucky” truly mirrors his feelings, Obama has every reason to envy Romney’s success because Romney actually earned it. Obama may have engineered himself to be president, but on what basis? I’d bet Obama assumed that by becoming president and bringing a fundamental FDR-like change to the country he could finally evince and justify his own inflated self-worth. With his record over the past 4 years, however, I’d bet that deep down inside (“in places they don’t talk about at parties”) Obama knows he is now confronted with his own measurable mediocrity and perhaps failure. Forty years later Jimmy Carter is still trying to confront that demon.
Is this not congruent with a narcissistic personality? How dare Mitt Romney outshine the light bringer!
Lorenz Gude,
“Suddenly I can take him seriously because his pick is saying that he is taking the country’s predicament seriously.”
I saw it succinctly stated in the last week (perhaps here at Neo’s blog): The CEO chose a CFO as his VP pick.
It doesn’t get much better than that.
It seems to me there’s a very real, fundamental difference of opinion between the two men as to what America is all about and what makes it work. The dichotomy between the two mindsets is under the “heartland vs. coasts” divide that has been, rightly, I think, called a “cold civil war”.
It needs to be fought in the open, so if Obama’s festering attitudes can make clear what his ideas of government inevitably lead to, as he embodies the bitterness, envy and hate that drive statism, all the better. It would definitely be better for him as a person to grow past that, but it’s better for our country if people can see him for what he is, and his policies for what they do to people.
There is nothing to recommend Obama to himself and he doesn’t like the comparison in which he comes off looking a distant second. Certainly he is aware his status and accomplishments(?) are none of his doing and most all the result of affirmative action ramps. Certainly he is aware he is in no meaningful way “authentic” as the kids on the Left like to say; most every bit of his public image is a misrepresentation of his private self. Who is he, what identifies him? The One admits his measure of a man is not what he has done but what he stands for. By that measure and that measure only can Obama claim superiority – he stands for big things.
The most revealing ‘tell’ of Obama and all progressive Leftist is that they love the people, they are for the people, humanity weighs heavily on such as Obama; so much of it is mistreated, taken advantage of, suffering want, illness, disease, and Obama is there for them. He’ll speak for the people, he’ll take up their cause, he will work to see that someone ease their suffering, he will not allow them to be ignored. And then there’s Obama’s half-brother.
Here is Obama.
Here is Romney.
Obama is the superior man, on paper, in his own mind, and in the abstract. But if I needed the least little bit of help in life I’d ask that horrible man Romney.
George Pal,
“But if I needed the least little bit of help in life I’d ask that horrible man Romney.”
Perhaps the real question is “Who would I rather have living next door as my neighbor, someone who will work with me to work things out or someone who thinks working things out means doing what he wants?”
T asks: “Perhaps the real question is ‘Who would I rather have living next door as my neighbor, someone who will work with me to work things out or someone who thinks working things out means doing what he wants?'”
This question is one that causes me to be baffled when people talk about Obama’s “likeability.” What is likeable about him? Who would want him as a neighbor or as a colleague? Romney easily bests him in those categories, in my book, and Ryan does, too.
Obama’s the smart-alec pot-head from the dorm who seems amusing at age 19 or 20, but who grows up to be a bitter and irresponsible blame-shifter. He is in no sense a leader. A leader knows how to respectfully work with others to build coalitions and to bring people together. Obama expects others to come to him and to share in his inflated narcissism. That’s why one of the first things he said to the Republicans in congress in 2009 was “I won.”
There’s a great deal of research, or perhaps “research” always on-going and often reported in Science News and the like, designed to show “conservatives” and by implication Republicans, in a poor psychological light. As: authoritarian, less intelligent, less “nuanced” in their thinking (that’s a big favorite), and suffering from various other mental and behavioral rigidities.
Liberals on the other hand blessed by nature as they are, seem to be forced to admit to being more neurotic, anxious, depressed, and medicated. Which is spun as the admirable consequence of having the courage to “face reality”.
But given the moral incoherence and consequent physical disaster that has dogged the members of one of our most prominent liberal political families; and given the fact that our last two Democrat Presidents had absent alcoholic bigamist natural fathers, and mothers of extremely dubious character, isn’t it natural to ask if there isn’t something inherently problematical with the politically progressive person himself, when it comes to honoring contracts, recognizing rational limits, keeping one’s word, and seeing life as more than just the sum of its appetite satisfactions?
What’s wrong with these people?
“isn’t something inherently problematical with the politically progressive person himself, when it comes to honoring contracts, recognizing rational limits, keeping one’s word, and seeing life as more than just the sum of its appetite satisfactions?”
DNW,
Sounds a lot like the classic gangster to me. Coincidental?
DirtyJobsGuy
He [Romney]also suffered from his Massachusetts political start. I try to explain to people outside of New England that Massachusetts is a really corrupt place politically.
Correct. Given the political climate of Massachusetts, any Massachusetts politician who is neither corrupt nor a moonbat liberal has done remarkably well.
One kudo for Governor Romney: he forced Whitey Bulger’s brother to resign from his post as President of the University of Massachusetts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitey_Bulger
Obama once described working in the private sector as being “in the belly of the beast.”
Romney not only has worked in the private sector, even worse he’s been phenomenally successful, and most reprehensible of all, he’s enjoyed it and is proud of it. Obama, on the other hand, only respects those who become wealthy by stealing–you know, socialists, union leaders, race reparations extortionists, etc.
I agree with almost everything in the comments, and especially agree with DirtyJobsGuy, and especially agree that the Ryan selection reflects well on Romney (for multiple reasons), and has greatly strengthened Romney’s appeal to conservatives.
Barack Obama
The Politico article (accidentally?) hints at Barack’s incompetence for exectutive office: at Barack’s absence of proper temperament; at Barack’s absence of understanding of strategy/game-theory; at the radical assumptions (fantasy assumptions) which guide Barack’s actions.
Ockham’s Razor: Barack’s envy is driven
1] by his father figures: the absent Obama, Sr., the communist Grandfather Dunham, the communist Frank Marshall Wright, the communist founder of Black Liberation Theology: James Cone, the communist preacher of Black Liberation Theology: James Wright, the communist patron Bill Ayers, and the communist campaign operative David Axelrod; and
2] by the women who have influenced Barack: the communist mother Ann Dunham, grandmother Dunham, the envious avaricious ambitious Michelle, the communist Valerie Jarrett.
For Barack, and for every single man and woman who has been influential upon Barack: Mitt Romney is the exact representation of what they detest, and is the exact representation of what they are fighting against. Whether we consider persons who are communism, or who follow the communist Black Liberation Theology, or who are suffused with racial anger or class anger or gender anger — whichever persons from Barack’s past whom we consider: Mitt Romney is the apotheosis of everything which such persons detest. And Barack is their Frankenstein. He cannot fail to detest Mitt Romney. He must. He is constructed that way, and cannot possibly avoid detesting Mitt Romney.
Short version of “why Obama would prefer another McCain”: President Dirty-Tricks wants an opponent who’s got oatmeal where a spine should be. A “nice guy” who’ll describe his opponent (Obama) –even in the middle of a campaign rally– as “a good man, a family man”. (Heard that with my own ears, yes I did.)
On to “Another issue may be … father-envy.” Maybe so, especially when white Mom repeatedly abandons/ rejects the child, and the boy then idealizes the absent black father. Note that the “lack of presence” of the father gives the kid’s imagination a “blank screen” on which he can to “project his hopes and aspirations” … as Mr. Obama noted of himself during the 2008 campaign, describing how we was “a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
Superb insightful commentary on an excellent post.
Reading gcotharn’s summary of Obama’s circle almost makes me feel sorry for Obama. Good God, what a miserable crew!
Assuming Politico’s report is true, it would seem that Obama detests Romney because he is a walking talking indictment of Obama’s entire composite (i.e., made-up) life, and a ringing refutation of the principles (earnest leftism, and the belief that success only comes from luck and help from others) and fictions (that his father gave a rat’s patoot about him) to which Obama clings to preserve his self-esteem. Romney is, in short, the anti-Obama. No wonder Obama hates him.
MEanwhile… has anyone noticed that now there are a lot of articles on the upcoming big war…
not to mention that things are getting very creepy… backchannels are reporting stuff that would make your blood curl.. i wont reveal back channels… but here are some front channels talking about it…
Executive Orders 11002, 11000, and 11004, respectively, give government the right to register all persons, assign them to work brigades, and relocate them.
ALL the same things as the soviets had are now in place.. (i would rather that none of them were as they have no legitimate purpose in a free country)
New York Times Concealed Ukrainian Genocide
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qmz3wGFQDkk&feature=related
It was key that their laws said they could displace people at will. so ukrainians were moved… and millions starved…
same with latvians…
The Baltic Tragedy – Nazi and Soviet occupation in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x440cUS4uTU&feature=fvwrel
tons were moved out of the country, and soviet citizens were moved in. this created a group of external people from other races and prevented any kind of peace or return to peace as the pocket of others could be used as a resource from then on.
Who Does The Government Intend To Shoot?
By Major General Jerry Curry, USA (Ret.)
http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/17/who-does-the-government-intend-to-shoot/
“This is enough ammunition to empty five rounds into the body of every living American citizen,” writes Major General Curry, who wonders what plan might require “so many dead Americans.”
Will Obama Keep Power ‘by Any Means Necessary’?
http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2012/08/will_obama_keep_power_by_any_means_necessary.html
(monster) A Portrait of Stalin (in blood): Secret Police
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtWkn5IhfqU&feature=related
i would go through the quotes and histories of various players here… and what some of those terms mean that you may not know if you actually dont look them up!!!!
The word he would use to describe Romney was “weak,” too weak to stand up to his own moneymen
This from the man who tugs his non-existent forelock as he submissively says, “Yes Mr. Soros, right away, Mr. Soros.”
Hell, Obama doesn’t even stand up to his wife, although admittedly that’s a pretty tall order.
The “war hero” thing is especially bizarre. Maybe Obama thinks he became one by proxy through finally giving the nod to Seal Team Six.
Once again, thanks 52% for saddling us with this basket case.
Art, I noticed this also in the last day or two. Rather than hijack this thread, pass the info along to Neo to digest. She has a remarkable talent for separating wheat from chaff.
Another contrast is that Romney seems able to grow from his experiences and mistakes. Obama keeps reverting back to the myths provided by family and mentors. Also, Romney is willing to take risks (starting Bain Capital, rescuing the Olympics) and accept responsibility. He also seems truly grateful for the blessings he has had, and I bet he rates family and friends way higher than money on that lis of blessings.
I would love to be a fly on the wall when Obama was talking to Michelle about Paul Ryan. If he hates Romney, Ryan must give him ulcers.
I think that Obama is nostalgic for a ultra-liberal past he never really experienced, based on his mentors’ stories. He really wasn’t politically active at college, was he? I still remember the faces, if not the last names, of the Free Nelson crowd, so I imagine his classmates would have remembered him if he’d done something.
One of my friends described him early on as “The Triflin’ President” – a little riff on Clinton the Teflon President, but also true. He spends a lot of his public time on trivial pursuits while more important things are happening. It’s not just that the press doesn’t pressure him (pun intended) to answer tough questions. He also lets others run interference for him.
Romney comes from a loving and supportive family background.
He holds deeply religious views which he not only preaches but practices.
He has achieved remarkable academic success without the benefit of affirmative action.
He gave away one fortune but through his intelligence and hard work has earned another.
He apparently has a deep love for this country and everything that it has meant.
He is the perfect symbol of everything Obama hates about this country.
Obama laid down with dogs and got up with fleas, which in this case carry the bubonic plague.
From the Mayo Clinic’s list of the symptoms of those inflicted with narcissistic personality disorder: believing you are better than others; fantasizing about power, success, and attractiveness; exaggerating your achievements or talents. expecting constant praise and admiration….
The list is rather long, BHO scores 100%. It contains everything one needs to know about the would be king of the world.
Neo – I appreciate it when you add caveats like “Hard to say whether any, some, or all of it is true. . . . “, since — if you are anything like me — you dislike having to warn your readers about the source you are using.
But it’s good practice.
(At one time, I considered putting estimated probabilities on such pieces, but decided it was too much work.)
How can you be too weak to admit something that is manifestly untrue.
I’d be hard pressed to “admit” anyhting The One has done right because, off the top of my head, I can’t recall a single thing.
I guess the fact that he didn’t just yank us out of Iraq or Afghanistan might fit the bill, but even there, he STILL managed to do it wrong, by not making it about results rather than a time line.
Bupkis, there is nothing that has gone “right” in the Obama presidency. We should thank God (or luck or karma or whatever) for that. Oh, maybe DEVGRU’s little foray into Abbottabad went right, but “he didn’t build that”. Otherwise, it’s been a litany of failures. But that’s better for the country than if Obama had succeeded. We can recover from his failures. His successes, if he had had any, not so much.
Dr. Sanity has been noting for about 6 or 7 years, now, how Narcissistic Personality Disorder seems to be endemic to being a member of the Left these days.
Clearly, she can’t make a fully professional diagnosis, but she does repeatedly detail the evidence suggesting it on her site.
Here are two:
NARCISSISM, PATHOLOGICAL LYING, AND POLITICS
A Lesson in Narcississtic Rage
This is a slightly different topic:
SHAME, GUILT, THE MUSLIM PSYCHE, AND THE DANISH CARTOONS
This one’s pretty good, too — I give you the third because it has links to parts 1 and 2 as well, read them in order:
STRATEGIES FOR DEALING WITH DENIAL – Part III
She posts less than she used to, but the site is very good for viewing the intersection between politics and psychology, and a lot of the back-entries are very informative regarding the whys and wherefores of how psychology works, particularly applied to the left and islam.
In her postings, she’s much more focused on the psychology of things than Neo is. Not a criticism by any means — just an observation. I think the two sites have a nice level of overlap without covering the same things.
>>> But that’s better for the country than if Obama had succeeded.
Oh, no dispute, but even in little things that it’s actually hard to mess up, he’s demonstrated a degree of ineptness that is beyond even what *I* expected, and I, when he got the nom, predicted that he would make everyone appreciate the mound of quivering incompetence that was the Jimmy Carter presidency.
I contend that statement borders on prescience, it’s been so accurate.
From the initial forays into meeting with foreign leaders (the lame gifts to the Queen and PM of England to the bowing to other world leaders) — all avoidable if you only pay attention to the protocol experts that ARE going to automatically on your staff — to the foreign policy “triumphs” with Ahmadamnutjob, he’s just been an arrogant tool all around.
If he can get himself re-elected after doing all the things he’s done, it will be a sign that America IS doomed, because the capacity for any form of critical thinking in the populace has gone too low.
I agree with previous commenters and just add that in keeping with Obama being envious of Romney’s success, he sees in him a self-made man, and worse, he’s a business man. Lefties love victims, people they can “help” in order to feel better about themselves, and so they instinctively dislike anyone that refuses to be a victim or dependent on the state. Romney also lacks most (all?) of the vices that can be used against a fellow politician – he’s genuinely religious, happily married with a brood of adult children who are seemingly the same (I don’t know much about the Romney kids, but if there were any trouble-makers we would have heard about it by now). So Romney has also denied Obama the opportunity to point and yell “Hypocrite!!!”
Romney’s biggest sin, though, is that he has no qualms about criticizing Obama (without getting personal), which is something that Obama has rarely had to endure, ever. I can’t imagine anything worse for emperor Obama.
Thug obama hate Romney because Romney DID BUILD IT!
Obama doesn’t respect Romney because . . . “That doesn’t hold true for Romney. He was no goddamned war hero.” WTF? Obama is a war hero?
I believe Obama can’t stand Romney because Romney represents EVERYTHING that Obama is against.
Lefties love victims, people they can “help” in order to feel better about themselves, and so they instinctively dislike anyone that refuses to be a victim or dependent on the state.
“Brit-Think, Americ-Think,” a book outlining cultural differences between the two countries, included the aspirations of citizens of the two countries. For the Brits, it was “to be a victim of circumstance.”
A lot of people have given some strong theories here as to why President Obama might hate Romney (if he in fact does).
But I think Occam’s Razor can give us a very simple explanation. Obama has never been in a serious fight in his life; he has always had things handed to him. On the rare occasions when he really did have to fight, he found ways to get his opponent disqualified, thereby ending the fight before it had really begun.
Romney clearly didn’t get the memo. He’s supposed to talk like Chris Matthews and run a campaign even milder than that of John McCain; he’s a Mormon, for goodness’ sake, one of those nice-nice guys who doesn’t swear or smoke or drink caffeine! He’s supposed to be a gentleman, and enter the boxing ring wearing white kid gloves.
But Romney has chosen to fight… and perhaps for the first time in his life, Obama’s own words are being thrown in his face, as are his achievements, such as they are.
What’s not to hate?