November 17th, 2012

Obama’s outrage

I know quite a few people who don’t think all that highly of President Obama but don’t think he’s all that unusual. They see him instead as a typical politician doing typical political things.

Now and then I’ve tried to convey to these people — and even to some Obama supporters I know — just what I find so very different, and so very reprehensible, about him. For the most part, I’ve gotten uncomprehending stares when I try to explain, or shrugs and statements that “all politicians are like that,” or remarks that the person just doesn’t see what the fuss is about.

To me there are so many character “tells” that they leap out nearly every time I hear Obama speak or read a transcript of his words. These are things that I cannot remember any other president doing before in my lifetime, whether he be Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative. They used to be Just Not Done by presidents, acts and/or statements that smacked of weakness or blaming or inappropriateness or lack of understanding of the office and its responsibilities.

I remarked on the first one back in May of 2007; it was Obama’s tendency to make excuses for himself. That was actually one of the very first things I ever noticed about the man, about whom I knew virtually nothing except the bare bones of his biography. His excuse-making struck a strange and discordant note, like a flat where a sharp is supposed to be in a musical scale, something that made me recoil. At the time I wrote:

And if the President doesn’t feel up to it all the time, he/she is supposed to shut up about it and not let others see.
No excuses, although of course Presidents make mistakes. But, as Harry Truman said, “The buck stops here” for the President — and for the Presidential candidates.

That used to be the rule, and there was a reason for it: strength and leadership. But the rules have been re-written for Obama.

Since then there have been hundreds of other “tells” like that, moments when Obama seems—for want of a better word — “unpresidential” in a way that reveals a lack of character. In his press conference this past Wednesday there was another one of these tells — Obama’s outrage at the criticism of Susan Rice, through which he probably meant to convey the idea that he is very presidential, very much a leader and alpha male, and very protective of his subordinates:

If Senator McCain and Senator Graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me…But for them to go after the U.N. ambassador who had nothing to do with Benghazi, and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence that she had received, and besmirch her reputation is outrageous.

Try as I may, I cannot recall any other president implying that criticism of the statements of an ambassador to the UN, acting in his/her official capacity as spokesperson, should be off-limits — and especially the approach Obama takes here, which is to say that the men who criticized Rice (McCain and Graham) are somehow “besmirching” her reputation (Rice is a vulnerable little woman, not just a gender-neutral official, when it suits Obama’s political purposes) and that such comments are “outrageous” and beyond the pale. Should those on the left who criticized Colin Powell for presenting information about WMDs to the UN, information “based on intelligence that he had received,” have been admonished to shut up because they were “besmirching his reputation” in an “outrageous” manner? Of course not, as they’d be the first to tell you. But Rice is apparently off-limits, because Obama says so.

Has any other president even hinted that his appointed officials are beyond reproach, and that anyone who would question them is a lout? There’s something truly imperial about Obama making such a suggestion, and anyone in the press who fails to call him on it is complicit.

It wasn’t just an isolated statement, either. Obama said something very similar during the second debate:

And the suggestion that anybody in my team, whether the Secretary of State, our U.N. Ambassador, anybody on my team would play politics or mislead when we’ve lost four of our own, governor, is offensive. That’s not what we do. That’s not what I do as president, that’s not what I do as Commander in Chief.

I really can’t imagine how anyone could hear statements like his and not think: This is a dangerous man. But I’ve learned that most people do not seem to hear the warning bells that are sounding so loudly. The fact that his is a new and alarming attitude, one that is different from that of presidents on both sides in the past, presidents who understood that it was the job of the press and the opposition to criticize them and their administration, including UN ambassadors, and certainly including women — seems to have been utterly lost. Perhaps this is due in part to the fact that the press hardly ever does criticize Obama, so it has become unthinkable to him and to his supporters.

I would dearly love for some member of the MSM to ask Obama exactly why such criticism is “offensive” when it’s directed at him or at someone in his administration, and yet it was inoffensive (and even laudable) when it was directed at his predecessor George W. Bush. But no, I’m not foolish enough to expect to ever see that day.

[ADDENDUM: Instapundit Glenn Reynolds links, and adds some apropos artwork:

131 Responses to “Obama’s outrage”

  1. gcotharn Says:

    I sold cars for many years. Many cars. Many negotiations.

    What Obama does: surrounding both sides of issues, shading truth, leaving himself room for (albeit implausible) deniability … is what many car salespersons do, and is what many car purchasers also do. So, b/c I have a decade’s worth of experience at listening to auto purchasers shade truth, and at hearing salespersons shade truth, therefore I was – similar to you – almost instantly repulsed by Barack Obama. Going all the way back to 2007. Possibly going all the way back to his convention speech of 2004 – which was a great speech, yet I recall, even then, having a sense that the dynamic young speaker created, in me, a suspicion that he was all platitude, no fortitude.

    Re why so many of your friends never notice Barack’s glaring tells:
    Narrative.
    And ignorance.
    They really never pay attention. Except to each other’s assurances that their treasured narrative is true, and to sporadic blog/media assurances that the treasured narrative is true. If all the smart people are assuring them that the treasured narrative is true, then, ipso facto, the treasured narrative is true. They really never pay close attention to what Barack is actually saying and doing. They just don’t. They play the role of smart, informed people re politics, yet they are simply ignorant. They depend on the treasured narrative to inform them. And the mystery is as simple as that.

    And, honestly, your friends maybe are the sanest persons. We, who are obsessed with politics, and who actually pay attention to the knave Barack, are very likely the insane persons.

  2. George Pal Says:

    The failure of so many to see Obama as a greatly disordered personality with character flaws more abundant and intense than one could imagine possible in one functioning non-institutionalized human is the most intriguing thing about the entire phenomenon that is Obama. If it does nothing else it proves you can too fool most of the people most of the time.

  3. kolnai Says:

    Excellent post, neo.

    I have very little to add to it. Perhaps just a guess at some reasons why people have such a tin ear for this stuff.

    First, recall the Cult of Obama – by which I mean literally the cultish behavior of his partisans who’ve put forth ads with singing children and celebrities dissolving into Obama’s face as they chant, drone-like, “I pledge to be of service to Barack Obama.”

    Did that bother anyone – ANYONE – aside from conservatives? I didn’t get the vibe that it did. The Cult of Obama was the thing that pushed me over the edge in regarding the man as not just ignorant and wrong, but dangerous, as you put it. Quite frankly, I never thought I’d live to see the day when a politician was openly worshipped like the golden calf itself, without any discernible revulsion from the public.

    But I did. I lived to see it twice.

    In any case, that’s item #1.

    Item #2 is what might be called the Pathology of Obama. The tics you noted in his speeches clearly manifest a set of vices that characterize much of our culture more generally. There’s narcissism. There’s the avoidance of responsibility by shifting blame to Satanic scapegoats. There’s the arrogance that comes from getting a free pass from scrutiny due to one’s presumed “authenticity” (racial, gender, sexual orientation, and so on). There’s the sanctification of the Self, leading to “outrage” whenever one is questioned and criticized, however legitimately.

    Notice this has nothing, per se, to do with policy. It is simply a cluster of deranged and decadent attitudes. And herein I think lies the key to why it is fruitless to try and explain wherein the danger lies in all of this. I said on an election night thread that the troubling thing about the Obama phenomenon is not that he’s some alien other who snuck into the body politic like a virus, but, on the contrary, that he represents the American public all too well – he’s right at home in this narcissistic, arrogant, self-sanctifying, irresponsible culture, and in Obama this cluster of pathologies finds its perfect reflection:

    “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for,” indeed.

    To point this out in Obama is like pointing it out to those who see their reflection in him, and like good little irresponsible narcissists they just brush it off and shrug, “What are you talking about?” Point out to a narcissist that he is narcissistic, and the response is: “No, I’m just that awesome.” Point out that, nonetheless, his behavior is unseemly, and he replies: “No, you’re unseemly for questioning my behavior.”

    For a long time now the thrust or upshot of our culture has been exoneration – concoct whatever we must in order to give ourselves a Free Moral Pass for as many possible choices and attitudes as possible. Obama is the Free Moral Pass incarnate. Obama means never having to say you’re sorry.

    It has become clearer over the past four years what we were getting at with our post-sixties culture: whereas we once worshipped God, who provided the moral law, we came to seek a substitute, who would provide liberation from the law.

    We’ve found out substitute.

  4. kcom Says:

    I’ll say what I said in another post – now I see why the Roman Republic fell. Civic behavior that had previously been inconceivable became possible, and then common. And led to unexpected consequences. I do believe it is inherently true that a people gets the government that they deserve, or perhaps better put, have earned. If enough people give a pass to this sort of behavior, including the press, then we, as a people, will have earned whatever government we eventually have.

  5. vanderleun Says:

    Benghazi will also transform ye olde Watergate question into:

    “What didn’t the president know and when didn’t he know it?”

  6. neo-neocon Says:

    Vanderleun: Obama as Alfred E. Neuman: what, me worry?

  7. Molly NH Says:

    Excellent posts all, esp kolnai !
    I was reading or listening to someone advise how we can combat rampant Leftism & it was offered up that this will be quite difficult because Leftism has become their new religion ! The most wonderful tenet of this new Faith is *non judgementalism*, how wonderful ! There is no better Creed that the 1% could possibly ascribe to. This completes a dream life for these adherents. Hollywood, Congress, the WH & former pols like Gore & Clinton & the Military Brass & your run of the mill monied types like Soros, Putin, Ayers etc. can indulge in all the drugs, sex & rock n roll they want to with a guilt free conscience ! Besides this *new* religion is taking care of those annoying little people, they have their Healthcare, we took those pesky guns away from them so they won t be shooting each other, we raised energy costs through the roof so we won t have them clogging up the hi ways when we are out & about in our stretch limos. They have their food stuffs from bargain basement groceries, while we shop Whole Foods.
    They will whittle down all these cheaper restaurant venues like Denny’s, papa John’s, etc
    the beautiful people will still have Wolfgang Pucks & Gordon Ramsey places to go to !
    With hedonism & narcissisum now virtues how unappealing traditional religion has become. Sadly what were mainstream qualities to be admired, like self sacrifice (Benghazi heroes come to mind) working to make ones marriage a success, patiotism, being a good role model to ones children etc. will all be derided & laughable.

  8. jack Says:

    I’m 62 years old. This is the first president iv’e seen have virtually total control over the press.

    And if they dare question him all he has to do is indignantly bark for them to STFU.

    Or as he puts it … that’s a conversation i would like to have … BUT NEVER HAS!

  9. parker Says:

    I’m waiting for BHO to begin using the royal we instead of the stuttering I, I, I, I.

  10. Retail Lawyer Says:

    I have noticed those character “tells”. I’m certain that my leftist friends have noticed them as well, and change the subject, but I can tell they are bothered by it. And you are so right, it adds up to something dangerous. God help us all!

    The trait that bugs me lately is the way he jogs up the stairway of his jet, and to podiums and teleprompters. Never misses the opportunity. This is what boys do. Maybe American Idol children and hosts, trying to amp up the excitement. Where is the gravitas? I’m not sure what effect he’s going for with this one. Maybe we’re so lucky to have a fit athletic president who throws like a girl?

  11. Kurt Says:

    Molly, NH wrote: I was reading or listening to someone advise how we can combat rampant Leftism & it was offered up that this will be quite difficult because Leftism has become their new religion ! The most wonderful tenet of this new Faith is *non judgementalism*, how wonderful !

    Your comment nicely overlaps with two reflections on contemporary “liberalism” that I never tire of telling people about. The first is the excellent talk given by Evan Sayet at the Heritage Foundation where he explains that for the “modern liberal,” “indeterminancy is a moral imperative.” (You can find a video of the talk on youtube, as well.) The second is an excellent article by Stanley Kurtz from May 2001 entitled the Church of the Left. Both pieces do a great job of explaining what many “modern liberals” believe and why.

  12. Bob Says:

    Yes. This man is dangerous. He was an unremarkable Illinois State Senator who was ushered in to the US Senate under machine of a now little known IL State Senate leader. They paved the way to magically unseal court records that neither party to those records agreed to unseal. He was an unremarkable US Senator and his only claim to fame was a speech made before he was elected to the US Senate.

    He is ignorant of history, economics and, yes, the law, but he believes his own utterings and his followers are awestruck by the sound of his voice. His being a man of color resolves much liberal guilt and self-loathing (for having nominated losers like Gore and Kerry and supporting Clinton through his lying).

    He is the leader of a religion now. Clearly they believe in things that cannot be achieved because they are impossible. they can spend and tax, but they cannot grow an economy, eliminate a deficit, or pay-back a debt.

    There is one law they cannot rewrite, ignore, or repeal, and that is the law of economics.

    However, they may not care and their true aim is the destruction of our economy and country.

    This may, in the end, reveal him as a true follower of radical black religious leaders who may just be radical muslims in disguise. Isn’t that the stated aim of radical fundamental Islam?

  13. J.J. formerly Jimmy J. Says:

    Another interesting thing is that Obama challenged only Mccain and Graham, which completely erased Senator Kelly Ayotte. She is pushing just as hard on Benghazi as her fellow male Senators. What a way of dissing a woman who is not in lockstep with the feminazis. Just ignore her. Who is it exactly that has a war on women?

  14. Brutus Says:

    Amen, sister. You’re preaching to the choir here. The problem is, how do you make inroads with the people that you mentioned in your post, who are resistant to the idea that Obama is a unique specimen in the political world? I suspect that you need to take less of an intellectual approach, and more of a visceral one. For instance, Obama gives people the finger in public: Hillary Clinton at one of the Democratic debates, Paul Ryan at the health care summit, etc. I don’t recall anyone, Republican or Democrat, doing this. Also, he made a cunnilingus joke about Sarah Palin at the 2012 White House Correspondents Dinner, this after making a big deal about how poor Sasha and Malia were concerned about going into public life after what that mean man, Rush Limbaugh, said about Sandra Fluke. And Obama’s the president, not a radio talk show host! I think that a significantly higher standard should apply to him than to Rush Limbaugh, and I suspect that a lot of the people that you’re dealing with would agree with this.

    Another big problem with the public’s perception of Obama is media coverage of him, as you mentioned at the end of your post. What’s to be done about that? Since we don’t want to sound like Charles Dudley Warner (“Everybody talks about the weather, but nobody does anything about it”), something constructive needs to be done. I believe that the media have reached a tipping point in their history, and that it should be relatively easy to push them over the edge, into bankruptcy. That’s why I have stopped subscribing to any newspapers or magazines. If you starve them of income, they go under.

    This denouement is closer to happening than what most people realize. The Omaha World-Herald almost went bankrupt recently, until Berkshire Hathaway (Warren Buffett) swooped in and “saved” it. That element of the sale was “the dog that didn’t bark,” so you have to know something about the situation to know what happened.

    Peter Kiewit, the original owner, set up an Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) to run the paper after his death. It was important to him to have local ownership of the paper, and having the employees own the paper would ensure that. To have the ESOP disappear, which is apparently what has happened, is a major, major decision, and one that would be made only if the paper was about to go under.

    Republicans and conservatives should be trying to accomplish the feat of driving the existing media under. They especially should believe in the value of capitalism and free enterprise, that competition produces higher quality work, not lower quality work; I know that I do. This goal doesn’t seem as radical if you remember that the Republican Party in the 1870′s through the 1920′s passed the Sherman Antitrust Act, prosecuted Standard Oil, etc.

    Destroying morally corrupt companies is a net benefit to society, and who can argue that the media in this country are run in a moral, ethical way? Their coverage of Obama shocks the senses, quite frankly, and could only have happened in an environment where there is almost no competition, a problem that will be remedied by getting rid of the existing media.

  15. vanderleun Says:

    “Obama as Alfred E. Neuman: what, me worry?”

    And now I have my item.

    http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?47683-Sorry-we-elected-Alfred-E-Neuman

  16. kaba Says:

    I’m sure if we look hard enough we can find examples of Obama defending Sarah Palin, Condi Rice, and Michelle Bachman; can’t we?

    Obama is that nagging little pain that ultimately discloses a fatal cancer within.

  17. rickl Says:

    J.J. formerly Jimmy J. Says:
    November 17th, 2012 at 4:00 pm

    Another interesting thing is that Obama challenged only Mccain and Graham, which completely erased Senator Kelly Ayotte. She is pushing just as hard on Benghazi as her fellow male Senators.

    Interesting. I hadn’t noticed that. How Muslim-like.

  18. T Says:

    There is nothing new here. It is the Obama administration’s M.O.

    Claim women can do anything a man can do. Appoint them to public positions. Then when they are criticized, run to their defense in a faux chivalrous display because, as we all know, women need to be defended, even if the can do anything a man can do.

    Note, also, that minorities are just as capable as the white oppressor. Appoint minorities to public positions. Then, when they’re criticized, claim any criticism is raaacist because one dared to criticize a minority.

    Is there anything new here?

    Ann Althouse noted that the despicable implication of this faux chivalry is that if we can’t criticize women in public office, then women in public office are actually a limitation on our freedom of speech and so, by implication, should be barred from public office. This implication carries to minorities as well and certainly we have seen numerous examples of how the racist charge is used by the left to try and limit criticism of Obama, Eric Holder, etc.

    Jack (@2:53) wrote:

    I’m 62 years old. This is the first president iv’e seen have virtually total control over the press.

    The repulsive thing here is that the press voluntarily acquiesced to such White House control. I would call the press “whores” but that would insult ladies of the evening who actually provide a service.

  19. T Says:

    rickl,

    By avoiding Sen. Ayotte, Obama is trying to engineer the appearance of two old, white, racist guys attacking a defenseless minority woman (see my comment above). Can’t create that narrative if there’s a woman or minority on the attacking team.

    That is also why people like Condi Rice, Herman Cain, Sarah Palin and the like are so reviled by the left. They strike at the very heart of the leftist vision of conservatives (and Republicans) as old, racist, chauvinistic white guys.

    Recently Bill Maher noted that conservatives were reacting to Obama’s re-election win as if they found out their wife was screwing a black man. Just think about what that says about Maher’s vision of what conservatism is. He, and the left, must create a “Great Satan” enemy which embodies all of aspects against which they agaitate as despicable. That they say vulgar things about conservatives and especially conservative minorities/women tells one all s/he needs to know about how repulsive the left truly is. Their self-loathing knows no bounds.

  20. carl in atlanta Says:

    I never thought I’d feel this way, but now I can almost empathize with the way Jonathan Chait felt when he wrote the following on September 29, 2003:

    “I hate President George W. Bush…. I hate the way he walks–shoulders flexed, elbows splayed out from his sides like a teenage boy feigning machismo. I hate the way he talks–blustery self-assurance masked by a pseudopopulist twang. I even hate the things that everybody seems to like about him. I hate his lame nickname-bestowing– a way to establish one’s social superiority beneath a veneer of chumminess (does anybody give their boss a nickname without his consent?). And, while most people who meet Bush claim to like him, I suspect that, if I got to know him personally, I would hate him even more.”

    http://www.tnr.com/article/mad-about-you#

    I’m not going to elaborate….

  21. Kurt Says:

    carl in atlanta: You might have missed Chip Ahoy’s comment in a thread at Althouse the day after the election. I suspect he expressed some of the same things you’ve been feeling. Here’s a sample of what he wrote:
    I cannot really express how sad I feel. And I don’t feel sad for myself either. I’m fine. As I mentioned I’m not long for this world anyway, but, what happened last night was not fine. It is not okay.

    I’ve never hated a president before. I heard people talking about hating Bush but I had no way to relate. Now I know exactly how they felt about Bush. I cannot stand to see or hear Obama. I’m worse than that girl that cried about bronco bama. I see that face and the revulsion is physical. I see his ladyhands and my impulse is break them. I see a sign I want to damage it. A bumpersticker – destroy it. A window sign — toss a rock through . Someone mention the name — punch them.

  22. M of Hollywood Says:

    I wonder why we continue to try to pinpoint exactly what is so disturbing. The list is long: strutting, finger-giving, false outrage, pretense, the uh-uh-uh-uhs, the coarsification of culture, the dropped ‘g’s, the platitudes, the occlusion, the eerie fact that an “Axelrod’ (no relation) co-wrote the original “The Manchurian Candidate,” the absence of a past, the millions of tax $$$$ for family vacations, the 2xyear sham press conferences, the failure to tell us what he knew and when and what he did — the list is as long as the moments since 2004 when someone launched this entity. Why do we seek to nail his essential weird disengenuousness? His weirdness lacks transparency so it can seem evil. Why do we seek to get it just right? We will never know who he is. Only God knows. I think why I am disheartened is what he has done to language. His words mean nothing. I love language, and in him meaning evaporates. Poof! Everything patriotic is a platitude and every platitude is a smoke screen. I wish he would just say what he really thinks. Like, “I’m not ever telling you because it’s classified and it’s classified because I said so.” At least that would be honest. When he said, “We won,” at least it was honest – icky, but straightforward.
    Four more years of muddle and the Mute button and lost friends.

  23. NeoConScum Says:

    Very, VERY Good Post, N-Neocon.

    My thinking and opinions have evolved from low and very skeptical to aghast and horrified. His ‘Tells are constant and have been from the get-go. He surrounds himself with a slimy clique of worshippers and chorus singers. And, he is The Amateur of Ed Klein’s book. NO political sense. NO moral compass. NO balance. NO tolerance of even the appearance of a ‘nay’ vote in his circle. The Heart of a Bully…absent the HEART. Vast Hubris.

    To my disgust and true Horror, the country has re-anointed a Massive Catastrophe. It will become more & more brazen and Malignantly Narcissistic.

  24. kolnai Says:

    M of Hollywood -

    I think you’re right, but the question here is why so many people fail to perceive (what you rightly call) his “weirdness.” That is a much more interesting question than who he is. And the implications of the answers we discern are vast.

    My spitball has been that the “Obama the other” theory, as put forth by, say, Dinesh S’Souza, is a red herring. There is one sense it which it is true: Obama is, in terms of our Founding principles and the traditional “élan” of this country, un-American. But the sense in which it is false is utterly decisive: it turns out that, in the same terms, quite possibly a majority of Americans are un-American too.

    Perhaps overstating it somewhat: Obama is the un-American President of the un-American people. We now live in un-America.

    (Even I, the forever pessimist, don’t think it’s quite that dire. But it’s a punchy way of stating the starkness of things as they stand).

  25. carl in atlanta Says:

    Kurt: I did miss that post by Chip. Thanks.

  26. denise Says:

    As I’ve said in an earlier post, my turning point with Obama was his Selma speech in which he claimed that the 1965 Selma to Montgomery march played a role in his parents’ union and, of course, his birth. Except, of course, he was born in 1961. All this was delivered in that faux black accent he adopts when addressing black audiences. Apart from that there was the typical nothingness that defines his speeches.

    The media treats his speeches as if they were modern day versions of the Gettysburg Address (the NYT, as I recall printed his entire speech on race following the Wright episode during his 2008 campaign), yet when you read his speeches they never rise above the most pedestrian. Dressed up a little bit perhaps, but utterly lacking in substance.

    There’s something missing at the core of this man. But his strange hold on the media and the American public (recall this his approval rating has almost never drifted below 40 -45%) continues reflects on both him and our fellow citizens.

  27. katielee Says:

    T:
    He, and the left, must create a “Great Satan” enemy which embodies all of aspects against which they agaitate as despicable:

    The conservative/republican is the canvas upon which they must project, and transfer, their own deep biases.

    Great analysis in these comments. I think another thing we need to consider is current child rearing theory. The idea that we must take a hands off (figuratively speaking) approach. Allow them to chart their own course, make up their own minds, create their own values, thereby leaving them adrift with nothing to anchor and guide them. They were raised with nothing to believe in. A vacuum will always seek to be filled, and we have kids who need a strong central figure they can cling to.

    We see this time and again in cult followers. That strong, central figure to be in control, and give direction in the chaotic worlds, regardless how crass, frightening or dangerous that person ultimately is.

  28. rickl Says:

    Brutus Says:
    November 17th, 2012 at 4:09 pm

    I believe that the media have reached a tipping point in their history, and that it should be relatively easy to push them over the edge, into bankruptcy. That’s why I have stopped subscribing to any newspapers or magazines. If you starve them of income, they go under.

    Republicans and conservatives should be trying to accomplish the feat of driving the existing media under.

    I agree completely. The media is the enemy. They must be utterly destroyed.

    I, along with many people, thought that the fraudulent Texas Air National Guard memos promulgated by CBS News in 2004 marked the beginning of the end for Old Media. The blogosphere had their number, and quickly exposed the memos as fake.

    But the media learned from that episode. In 2008 they doubled down and circled the wagons around Obama. They more than anyone were responsible for his election, and I can never forgive them for that. If they had taken the slightest interest in his radical background, he never would have come close to being elected.

    It got even worse. After his disastrous first term, a rabid squirrel should have been able to win by a landslide in 2012. The media continued to defend him, and made sure that didn’t happen.

    I haven’t subscribed to newspapers or newsmagazines in years, and I long ago stopped giving my money to left-wing actors and musicians. On Election Night 2008, I quit watching TV news. All of it, including Fox. The proximate cause was that I didn’t want to see Obama’s face or hear his voice. I had already stopped watching TV sitcoms and dramas. Since then, about the only TV I’ve watched has been baseball games and the occasional movie. I haven’t missed it.

    But I kept my cable subscription all this time. A portion of my monthly bill goes to networks and channels whether I watch them or not. On Tuesday I called Comcast and canceled my cable TV subscription. This afternoon I drove to the local Comcast office and turned in my converter boxes. I have no TV at all now. It’s a small gesture, but I’m doing what I can to starve the beast. I want to drive them out of business. What they call news is nothing but leftist propaganda, and most popular entertainment is toxic and depraved.

    A few days ago I linked to a post at Ace of Spades. I’ll link it again:

    Krugman, Lefties Advise “No Compromise” Policy For Obama

    Among the reasons I’m despondent about the election is that the media won. They won big. Their outrageous slant to the Democratic/liberal/progressive/leftist side won an election, and they’re not paying a price for it. Oh, they’ll continue diminishing, as they’ve been doing for a while, but it’s a slow process. There is never a moment when they’re truly repudiated.

    My usual practice would be to post this sort of story and then say “Media fails to notice progressive left’s hypocrisy.” I can barely even write those words. So what? It’s been said (literally) ten million times, and it doesn’t matter. The bad guys win. The bad guys profit.

    I renew my call: Boycott NBC. Someone has to pay a price. At some point we must either change the game or simply resign ourselves to losing, given the game’s current rules and current players.

    Many of the comments are excellent, and offer a variety of ideas for defeating the media. I recommend reading them.

    I would go further than boycotting NBC. Boycott all of them, and try to avoid giving them your money any way you can. Don’t read them, don’t watch them, don’t link to them. Boycott their sponsors and advertisers, too.

    Media delenda est.

  29. Papa Dan Says:

    rickl-

    Starving that media beast will be a long affair. They will cease their print divisions as Newsweek did, and will maintain an online mag. They don’t care if they have to shag the spellcheckers, copy editors, and support staff such as pressman and their mailroom operations. They will protect the upper echelon of columnists and editors at all costs, and they will join forces with television media to save each other.

    kolnai-

    “Perhaps overstating it somewhat: Obama is the un-American President of the un-American people. We now live in un-America.”

    That is it. Traditional America as we know it is no longer represented in Washington.

  30. Carlos Gomez Says:

    Does the term anti-Christ strike a familiar note?

  31. MarkJ Says:

    “He is the leader of a religion now. Clearly they believe in things that cannot be achieved because they are impossible.”

    I can immediately think of two (in)famous political figures who shared many of Obama’s personality traits.

    One of them spent his last days in a bunker. The other ended up swinging by his heels from the girders of an unfinished gas station.

    Interesting days await us…..

  32. thomass Says:

    speaking of alpha male acts; Obama is acting like we live in an honor shame world… and I don’t mean specifically in protecting a woman… I mean like if you are not called out on misdeeds; they effectively didn’t happen. Ergo you threaten or intimidate people into not criticizing you… so you receive no shame.

    Its pretty at odds with enlightenment values.. reason and all that dwm stuff. Can make you vaguely nauseated when your forced to deal with it in your life (vs seeing it on tv in some other country)…

  33. DAve Says:

    An easy way to completely flip this Susan Rice situation and its attending narrative would be for the Republicans to counteroffer that if Obama would like to nominate Condoleeza Rice instead her appointment would be approved in mere minutes. Utterly destroys the dominant narrative that their opposition is sexist or racist.

    A win-win-win

  34. rickl Says:

    Looks like I’m not the only one who has more than one tab open. ;)

  35. Mary Says:

    I remember that speech from the convention in 2004, I watched it on television, I was a democrat at the time. All the self references, me, my, I, etc.. the narcissism.

  36. nothing to see here … it’s just talking points | pindanpost Says:

    [...] Was Terrorist Attack Not YouTube Protest Within 72 Hours Yes, just talking points: OBAMA’S OUTRAGEOUS OUTRAGE: Try as I may, I cannot recall any other president implying that criticism of the statements of an [...]

  37. Carl Pham Says:

    This is a good thing, honestly. It tells you the Obama Era is a one-man cult. It tells you even he can’t keep it going without referring everything back to himself. That is, Susan Rice can’t stand on her own, and she can’t even stand as a member of a certain Democratic Administration — she can only stand as Zero’s personal envoy.

    Which is great. Because O is constitutionally forbidden from another term in office. And once he’s gone…what next, Democrats? Joe Biden? Let us not say that while drinking, lest we have to clean the keyboard. Hillary? Too old and tainted besides, with failures of two Administrations on her record. There’s no farm team — no set of dynamic, successful Democratic governors. Democratic Senators are mostly a bunch of old white guys who survive (barely) by kissing the magic negro’s fanny (and he treats them appropriately contemptuously). Nobody can inherent Obama’s groupies.

  38. Cleaver Says:

    Neo,

    I can’t thank you enough for this post.

    I lurk here a lot and have commented a few times. Lifelong Democrat until about 6 years ago, then became an independent, and on November 6 voted — proudly, desperately — for a Republican for president for the very first time.

    This election just feels very very wrong, and of course no one will ever prove a thing. (But go, Allen West!)

    The congressional Democrats are feckless. The country’s only hope now is the Republican majority in the House. Long may they wave their “obstructionist” flag. Obama is a dangerous man.

    P.S. Obama is no alpha male. He’s a classic beta-male bully.

    P.P.S. I hated George W. Bush. Now I actually miss him.

  39. neo-neocon Says:

    Cleaver: you’re welcome!

    And let me offer you my deepest sympathies. Hating George Bush all those years, and then having a change experience just in time to hate Barack Obama—you’ve had the worst of both worlds.

  40. M J R Says:

    denise, 7:59 pm says, in part:

    “[M]y turning point with Obama was his Selma speech in which he claimed that the 1965 Selma to Montgomery march played a role in his parents’ union and, of course, his birth. Except, of course, he was born in 1961.”

    Assuming any Republican would have lost in 2008, the alternative would have been Hillary.

    The same Hillary who once claimed publicly that she was named for Sir Edmund Hillary, who became famous (with Tenzing Norgay) for having scaled Mount Everest in 1953. But “our” Hillary was born in 1947.

    Something about those two . . .

  41. M J R Says:

    rickl, 8:07 pm notes:

    “If they [the mainstream media] had taken the slightest interest in his radical background, he never would have come close to being elected.”

    A nitpick. It’s not that they weren’t interested; they ^loved^ what they knew. But they knew that too many others would not have loved it, so they kept quiet.

  42. Allison Says:

    Now in response to all this narrative, for 8 frustrating years I was saying the same thing about our president from 2000-2008 – which quite honestly I see little difference between the two personalities.

    Now, what is stunning is this: the Sheeple who voted both people into office – which – constitutes the vast majority of America. Am I going mad?

    Sheeple (a portmanteau of “sheep” and “people”) is a term of disparagement in which people are likened to sheep, a herd animal. The term is used to describe those who voluntarily acquiesce to a suggestion without critical analysis or research. By doing so, they undermine their own individuality and may willingly give up their rights.

  43. Renascent Says:

    Carl, I wish you were right, but don’t be so sure. Van Jones is laying the groundwork to be the next One. The flame will not be doused that easily.

  44. neo-neocon Says:

    Allison: little difference between the two personalities?

    Leaving politics aside, the two personalities—Bush and Obama—are about as different as two people can be.

    But just sticking to the topic of this post: when did Bush ever blame his predecessor for anything? In fact, when did he ever blame another person for anything? And when did he ever suggest he was offended by criticism of someone in his administration?

  45. thomass Says:

    neo-neocon Says:

    “In fact, when did he ever blame another person for anything? And when did he ever suggest he was offended by criticism of someone in his administration?”

    Bush would would occasionally say some uncool things but there was no venom or rancor… he would just sort of say it as part of a verbal stumble.. in light tones. Sort of a ah shucks… people who don’t support this bill don’t care for what is best for America… I didn’t put quotes around it because I didn’t look it up but I’m pretty sure he used a line very similar on lefties at least once (and they went nuts over it) and on conservatives (in that case, the conservatives that didn’t want ‘comprehensive’ immigration reform). None the less; I didn’t get why liberals hated the guy so much until I realized they not just hate everyone not on their team (like the tea party, what the heck did they do to be hated the way they are… other than existing)….

  46. The Elephant's Child Says:

    It was his first campaign that got me. Mellow baritone voice, dazzling smile, soaring words, that upon closer examination were meaningless. Can one imagine Dwight Eisenhower, Jack Kennedy, Ronald Reagan or any president in history speaking from a podium decorated with a phony presidential seal? Or any president ever accepting a totally undeserved Nobel Peace Prize for something he might do in the future? Demanding to speak at the Brandenburg Gate? And the phony Greek Columns — is there anyone who could have done that without embarrassment?

    The fawning celebrities— pledging. The little kids singing songs to Oh Bah Ma. It was new and different, but so crass, so shameless.The fainters! I would buy a fainter at one campaign event on a hot day, but over and over?

    This campaign was something else: The only goal to WIN, at all costs. 1) The Big Lie technique —Bush’s fault, 4.5 million new jobs etc repeated for 4 years. 2) Total attack campaign on opponents character and morals. 3) Pure agit-prop effort to secure the votes of low-information voters 4) Vote fraud in selected locales. A Pure Chicago campaign, anything goes as long as it works. Is this the future of our politics?

  47. flataffect Says:

    He had no experience in politics to speak of and no qualifications that I could see, and he has no understanding of the importance of preparedness for war to conduct foreign policy. He’s not even legitimately an American Black as his statement about the Selma March demonstrates. (I’m not a birther. I just don’t see much that he has in common with those whose ancestors were brought here against their will.) His knowledge of the African American experience is largely second-hand.

  48. Jan of MN Says:

    The scariest thing about Obama is the blind faith of the people who worship him. It actually *is* blindness. I don’t believe they’re covering for him, and they are puzzled at those of us who get all exercised over Benghazi. To them, apparently Benghazi was an event where things just went wrong, nobody’s fault, and what a shame. Nothing to do with Obama or his administration.

    I’m more disturbed after the Republican loss because I had hoped enough people had found their way out of the cult to make reelecting him unlikely.

    BHO even makes the office of the presidency difficult to respect. As Senator Moynihan might have said, Obama defines the presidency down. He demeans the presidency by occupying the office.

  49. kolnai Says:

    thomass -

    That horn/shame culture observation was on point. That had never occurred to me before.

    Perhaps this relates to the latent primitivism in the farther reaches of leftist ideology, which I always suspected were just different ways of trying to get out of the modern bargain (or Faustian pact, as they see it) in order to return to some kind of romanticized, simpler, less mental, less “choicey,” more natural time.

    Multiculturalism, after all, is just tribalism by another name. Environmentalism is about the sacrificial stone and the shaman, in the end – one gets the feeling all these people want is to be ruled by a witch doctor.

    Anyway – great observation. It kind of blew my mind, tying a lot of things together.

  50. progressoverpeace Says:

    There’s something truly imperial about Obama making such a suggestion,

    Think “Sukarno”.

  51. Terry Kirkpatrick Says:

    Forward!

  52. carl in atlanta Says:

    Thomass’s speculation about an honor/shame cultural thing going on here has piqued my curiosity.

    A question for the anthropologists here: Just doing some light Googling, I see that the following are classified as having honor/shame cultures : Japan, China, Middle East (presumably this refers to Arab/Bedouin culture). Is Indonesian culture also based on honor/shame? I bet it is….

    An interesting discussion of honor/shame cultures vs. guilt based cultures (e.g., Judeo-Christian) can be found at Dr. Sanity’s blog post of August 18, 2005 here:

    http://drsanity.blogspot.com/2005/08/shame-arab-psyche-and-islam.html

    A quote from that post:

    “Guilt is an emotion that rises after a transgression of one’s own or cultural values. Guilt is about actions or behavior; while shame is about the self. There is an important psychological difference in saying to someone that their behavior is bad; as contrasted with saying that they are bad. The former leads to guilt; the latter to shame….

    …. Eventually for the shame-avoidant person, reality itself must be distorted in order to further protect the self from poor self-esteem. Blaming other individuals or groups for one’s own behavior becomes second nature, and this transfer of blame to someone else is an indicator of internal shame.” >

    My take: The bowing; the puerile self aggrandizing rhetoric; the grandiosity of his physical poses; the constant blaming of others…. It all makes sense. He has no internal sense of guilt; it’s all about how he thinks others perceive him.

    The image I have is of the self righteous shrieking of some alpha-Kabuki character.

    Or of some pompous chieftain at a potlatch gathering….

  53. Hangtown Bob Says:

    “That’s not what I do as president, that’s not what I do as Commander in Chief.”

    This statement by our imperious ruler is very reminiscent of Nixon’s “I am not a crook”.

  54. holmes Says:

    Kolnai’s comment at 1:55pm is depressingly accurate.

    Great post!

  55. M of Hollywood Says:

    He just weird, that’s all.
    We gave the keys to the car to a kid – and now all we can do is pray. Egad, we’re in the back seat, too, so pray hard.
    Like any 16 year old, particularly a priviledged one who has had all things given to him (‘cept for that ‘lil election he lost in IL, but we ‘weren’t lookin’), he is invincible. We know that no human is invincible, but he doesn’t. That is all we have on him. Having that scheme to ‘out’ Petreus in place was particularly ingenious for the Chicago team … now on to more iPad, motorcades, AF1, dinners, platitudious speeches, oh, yes, that little dust up in Gaza, gee … I’m almost bored with this . . .

  56. holmes Says:

    I think this all demonstrates that while Obama is not Hugo Chavez, or really even Hugo Chavez-lite, he shows some of the same inclinations. We’re a nation that would easily fall prey to a Chavez-like leader. I have seen lefty friends rationalize every sort of misdeed thus far. There are very few who are not totally and utterly smitten and committed to this man. It makes me wonder how far they would let him go, or anyone, as long as s/he were on their team.

  57. Mike Says:

    In a word, it is entirely the PRESS’ fault that Obama is allowed to act this way. Just one example– a Republican president that presided over an economy with black unemployment at 14% would have been tarred as a racist. Not just “tryin’ hard but fighting some tough headwinds he inherited,” but as a Jim Crow, “throw y’all back in chains!” hate-filled, scarcely human monster. Then… there’s Sandy. We all saw what the press (including Fox News for that matter) did to Bush after Katrina. Is there anywhere, the slightest hint of a suggestion that FEMA’s failure with Sandy is personally Obama’s fault? Was Sandy personalized the way Katrina was?

    It is the press, the press, the press. You can lie to the “low information” voter all day long, and you’ll keep winning elections.

  58. T Says:

    Carl in Atlanta,

    Thanks for the link. I was a regular visitor to Dr Sanity but missed this (it’s sad that she has suspended her essays).

    I did not know about this distinction, but it explains a lot. It sounds like a prescient essay about Obama. Even his defense of Susan Rice is forseen in the discussion of seeming virile by seeing women as inferior (the need for them to be protected). It has given real meat to Kolnai’s comment above that Obama is an un-American president appealing to un-American Americans and thus we live in un-America, at least for the time being.

    So the question becomes how does one deal with that mindset? Heap shame on the intended until he implodes from his own inability to deal with it? We know that there will be monumental push-back to avoid recognizing shame.

    Whatever we do, we must target the left as a whole. Part of their success lies in the fact that, like an intractable child, they maintain their behavior long enough to wear down the opposition and eventually get the results they desire. Their behavior has been consistentently enabled and rewarded by results.

    And a P.S. You asked “Is Indonesian culture also based on honor/shame? I bet it is….”

    Here is Dr. Sanity’s response to that very question:

    it seems to me that the Arab psyche has had centuries to be slowly absorbed by Islam and that in many cases, and in most important aspects, the two are now inseparable. We can see this in the fact that even in Indonesia, Thailand and non-Arab locales where Islam has been embraced it retains both Arab misogyny and intolerance.

  59. Michael Adams Says:

    Systems of Survival,by the late Jane Jacobs was first published in 1992, and is now out of print. So few people are reading it that copies are being withdrawn from libraries across the country. The used book sellers we reach through Amazon are selling out their last copies for a buck a book. However, now, more than ever before, people need to be reading it. Her theory is so basic, so fundamental, the it even underlies the Shame/honer vs guilt/conscience dichotomy. Like any good theory, it is quite simple when we come to understand it, and brings order out of the chaos of diverse observations. The periodic table, evolution, and Systems, all make it possible to understand what has already been seen and to predict what future data might reveal. Read it. Get Neo to give you my e-mail address, and discuss.

    Mild apologies, Neo, but I do not really believe that you are going to become Central Michael Post Office. The Newton library had a copy as recently as four years ago, so you can read it, too, for free. She will broaden everyone’s understanding of what is happening to us now. I still believe that, when the commenters here and at Bookworm Room achieve this basic understanding, they will find solutions to what afflicts us.

  60. mezzrow Says:

    @ Carl Pham – It tells you the Obama Era is a one-man cult… (snip) …Which is great. Because O is constitutionally forbidden from another term in office. And once he’s gone…what next, Democrats? Joe Biden?

    John Judis in the New Republic, November 5, 2012:

    The 22nd Amendment deprives the United States of the possibility of successful second acts. It has also made a virtue of inexperience among American presidents. The practice of having an entirely new president every four or eight years has led to flailing and mistakes during a president’s first year or two in office. That has been particularly true in foreign policy. Over the last fifty years, John Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Obama have had rocky first years in foreign policy. Kennedy – Bay of Pigs. Reagan – Lebanon. Clinton – flailing in the former Yugoslavia and with Japan. And Obama’s initial Afghanistan policy was flawed.

    Repealing the 22nd Amendment would not eliminate the possibility of presidential stumbles, but might lessen them, particularly if the country faced the prospect of electing an untutored new executive in the midst of a foreign policy crisis. I am not making an argument that Bill Clinton should have run again in 2004, or Obama, if he is re-elected this year, in 2020. Only that the possibility for them to do so should exist.

    And so it continues. Of course Judis would never make the argument. Your eyes have lied as they have read the preceding text.

  61. LisaM Says:

    I used to be married to an alcoholic. Many of Obama’s mannerisms and attitudes remind me of my ex. The way he feigns outrage when someone gets close to the truth, the way he accuses others of the very things he is doing himself, the way he appears to answer direct questions but hasn’t actually said anything, accusations of overreacting when the reaction was perfectly reasonable, refusing to discuss negative events afterwards because if you don’t talk about it it never happened, blaming others for his mistakes, thinking special treatment is simply his due. But most of all, the shameless, constant lying.

    I don’t know if Obama is an addict or has an addictive personality. I know he did a lot of drugs in his youth. Has he stopped? I know he can’t quit smoking. Or maybe my ex has whatever personality disorder(s) Obama has that have nothing to do with addiction. I do know this is one big reason that I can’t stand to look at the man and why his tricks don’t work on me.

  62. Harold Says:

    Neo, excellent article.

    Marxism is a form of secular religion. As such it needs messiahs, and prophets. At various times there has been Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot. In America it has been FDR and now Obama. The prophets themselves have always had severely disturbed personalities, but this never has seemed to disconnect them from their worshipers.

    The republicans are profoundly weak and cowardly. They have no idea how to do politics. They are terrified of attacking their enemies.

    We the remnant, can look forward to very bad things in the next four years. We are a group of people, as during the Dark Ages who will preserve the values, culture, religion until society has burned itself out and becomes ready to be free again. So even under the darkest of scenarios the remnant has an important and life affirming role to play going forward. Remember socialism always, always fails.

  63. T Says:

    Harold wrote: “Remember socialism always, always fails.”

    Agreed, but with a sycophantic press in the tank for Obama’s collectivist policies, they can make it appear to enough people that it hasn’t failed (Nov. 6, 2012 is a case in point).

    10% unemployment is just the new norm, high taxes are the new norm, the problem is so great that we just need more time; more time again, and more time yet again. The stimulus would have worked if there had been more money . . . etc.

    Once again, Andrew Breitbart’s vision is proven true; he has revealed the true enemy, the fourth estate, our Pravda, as it were. Only our press wasn’t siezed by Democrat govt., it willingly fell into lock step with it.

  64. mezzrow Says:

    @Michael Adams

    Just reviewed the wiki for the Jacobs book and have it on the way to my doorstep by Wednesday. Great stuff, and more timely now than even then. Many thanks for the pointer.

  65. johnt Says:

    A good post, but with one not so small error. Obama is not singular in his childish defensiveness, a defensiveness which easily morphs into aggression, which in turn translates to a politics of a collectivist/control nature. He has oodles of company on the left, or hasn’t anybody been reading the NY Times and watching the media protective blanket used for this farce of a man? Think, Obama helped open the door & drop the diguise held up to his election, the true liberal[?] finally stepped out of the closet. It will be an interesting four years. Don’t place any bets on a happy future.

  66. Kurtis Fechtmeyer Says:

    Everything about this man is wrong as the leader of this country or any organization for that matter. Obama has NO leadership skills.

    But like Sarah Palin with movement conservatives, Obama touches a deep psychographic for his supporters, including 80% to 90% of our celebrity-focused press. All reason is brushed aside in celebrityville. Lindsay Lohan, Michael Jackson, the list goes on and on of “celebrities” where personal oddities only seem to enhance their celebrity status.

    They, along with Chicago skullduggery, have created a united and effective force to win two elections in this odd hybrid media environment.

  67. NeoConScum Says:

    N-Neocon(1:01am)to Allison’s astonishing 12:08am:

    THANK YOU. Similarities between a Great, Steadfast, Strong & Truly Humble Man and The Infantile Anointed Amateur?? There are NONE.

  68. NeoConScum Says:

    …a follow-up thought for Allison: Obama, like the far cheerier Clinton, is a Black Hole of Emotional NEED. Both must BE Something. Thus, we never stop hearing from Clinton–even though Obama brilliantly took much of his ‘presence’ off the map by making Hillary Sec’y of State–and, once Momma C. is out in January, Billy Boy’s snipping, yapping and hand waving will be far more obvious:”Look at Meeeeee…Hey, y’all, LOOK over heeerrrreeeee…ME..ME…ME…Look’at MEEEEE..!” He DOESN’T EXIST unless he’s being seen. Sad, irritating, air sucking & pathetic

    President Bush has none of the horrific ‘wiring’ of NEED. He wanted to DO Things. You know, like LEAD? In a, you know, Huge Axis Shifting Post-9/11 World?? Our Warriors loved him and still do. They can barely contain their loathing & disrespect of Obama. Not even remotely close. Mr.Bush chose men and women who were BIG and didn’t shrink from telling him things he didn’t “want” to hear. The Boy King–even more than Billy Bubba–has Axelrod, Jarrett and innumerable A** Suckers and Chicago Game Players and he happily lets them shield him from Truth & Facts.

    Nothing personal, Kid, but you must have been asleep Jan.’01 to Jan.’08.

  69. NeoConScum Says:

    Woops..Jan.’01–Jan’09…!

  70. LordJiggy Says:

    Slightly off-topic, but after reviewing the abject failures of the Obama Presidency (which we all know, including unemployment, Fast/Furious, gas prices, poverty, homelessness, debt/deficit, serial lying about Benghazi, and using the Constitution for a urinal), I found myself wondering: “What do Liberals really believe in, if they allow Obama to get away with all of this with only the very faintest, most occasional whispers of dissent?” I don’t know if you have any Liberal friends left, but could you ask them: “What do you really believe in?”

  71. neo-neocon Says:

    holmes: I have often wondered where the left’s (and MSM’s) bottom line is regarding Obama. I am not even sure there is one, although there might be. Watching the last four years has opened my eyes even further on the subject of how people can rationalize the behavior of those on their side. It is a very widespread phenomenon, to say the least.

  72. neo-neocon Says:

    johnt: I never said he was singular now—although I do continue to think he’s ahead of the pack in the polish and shamelessness of his use of fake and inappropriate outrage. My point, however, was that he is singular when compared to previous presidents.

  73. neo-neocon Says:

    T: socialism may always fail in the objective sense, but it doesn’t always fail in terms of people still wanting its perks despite the fact that their country is bankrupt. Witness Greece, etc. As long as the people won’t renounce it, it can’t be said to have failed in their hearts and minds, even if it fails economically.

  74. Don Carlos Says:

    Look up The Curley Effect. I ain’t gonna do it for you.

    Obama=Mugabe

  75. Mac Says:

    I find it very interesting, Neo, that you have this reaction to Obama. Much as I dislike and fear what he’s doing in office, I’ve never had that sense of him as a bad man that you do. Your arguments in favor of that view are good, and I see what you mean, even admit that you’re probably right, but I still don’t feel it the way you and obviously many others do. His followers and the press are a different story–they do creep me out.

    But I did feel that way about Bill Clinton. On first seeing and hearing him, my alarms went off. It’s got something to do with being a southerner, but I hadn’t heard him speak for more than five minutes when the thought came to me: “crooked preacher.” I always found it grimly funny that the educated northerners who tend to look down on us hicks couldn’t see through him. If you know Flannery O’Connor’s great short story “Good Country People,” well, Bill is the Bible salesman in that story. And the sophisticated liberals of the ’90s were his Hulga.

  76. Tara Says:

    Where does the cult of leadership end? North Korea

  77. sayitaintso Says:

    There is one thing I’ve noted when Obama is speaking about some particularly emotion-laden issue (or when he’s lying, which is constitutes most of his utterances). There seems to be a tightening of skin around his eyes, which strikes me as weird. I haven’t related this to anyone else, friends or family. Maybe someone here? I can’t agree more with the responses to this most excellent article.

    He is guilty of many things, the list is too long to relate now. One blogger mentioned the debasement of language – enough for today. I also am using the word “dangerous” now in my thoughts about this incompetent fraud.

  78. neo-neocon Says:

    Mac: well, it’s a gut thing. Obama makes my alarms go off big time. By the way, although I was a Democrat during the Clinton years and voted for him (twice), I never liked or trusted him. He seemed very much the oily politician to me, and I found his speeches to be boring laundry lists. I never fell under the spell of Clinton at all (I supported Paul Tsongas, a very different sort of character).

    In fact, there have been few politicians I’ve liked and trusted. But—and this is the point of my post—to me Obama is in a different category of distrust compared, for example, to Clinton, who was more of the ordinary spin-the-story politician and womanizer. That is standard political stuff; Obama is most definitely not, and his character flaws don’t seem to set off alarms with enough people, which tells me what has happened to the judgment of the American public in recent years.

    Of maybe we’ve long been susceptible to someone like this, but no one appeared until now who used blame and fake outrage the way Obama does.

    Nixon was also a shady character, but the difference was his character flaws were less well covered up, so people saw them more readily. He wasn’t slick. He also had the interests of the country at heart; his goals for the country were more conventional.

  79. rickl Says:

    Harold Says:
    November 18th, 2012 at 10:36 am

    We the remnant, can look forward to very bad things in the next four years. We are a group of people, as during the Dark Ages who will preserve the values, culture, religion until society has burned itself out and becomes ready to be free again.

    I have lots and lots of books. I’m starting to think that I should vacuum seal them in plastic and bury them in lead-lined boxes in my backyard.

  80. Papa Dan Says:

    The fact that Obama, with his mysterious unknown past, even after four years is still the most frightening to me. I cannot shake my belief that he is a traitor, a saboteur.

    And the left does not care, because they expect to control it all when he is finished.

    The lefts latest wish list courtesy of the Nation- http://www.thenation.com/article/171263/obama-won-now-its-time-change-system#

  81. T Says:

    Neoneocon,

    “socialism may always fail in the objective sense, but it doesn’t always fail in terms of people still wanting its perks despite the fact that their country is bankrupt.”

    I don’t think I agree with this although I am still processing the thought. It seems to me that the simple fact that people still want perks doesn’t speak to any success of socialism. Further, I don’t think that people wanting perks is, itself, even socialism; we all want things. I might want a Bentley I can’t afford, but wanting a Bentley doesn’t make me rich. Likewise, I don’t think that desiring govt perks makes for a success of, or even a nascent existence of, socialism.

    As for the example of Greece. The Greeks have become inured to govt handouts, I don’t think that makes socialism successful; quite the contrary. They may be a prime example of Glenn Reynolds oft cited missive that “they’ll turn us all into beggars because they’re easier to please.”

  82. neo-neocon Says:

    T: but that’s exactly what I mean by success. I don’t mean success in the objective, economic sense. I mean success in the sense that people have internalized the idea of wanting something for nothing—or rather, something from the work of other people, something they are entitled to take, and they usually won’t give up that idea even if it bankrupts a country. They won’t stop voting it in, even as the country sinks downward and everyone’s (or nearly everyone’s) standard of living suffers. Socialism is a very tenacious idea—and if a certain form of it doesn’t work, a lot of people don’t think it’s to socialism’s discredit. Like a phoenix, socialism rises again from the ashes, and people think it just wasn’t done right last time, and this time it will be done right.

  83. davisbr Says:

    I should have been paying attention, since I’m now commenting quite late on the subject.

    …so I did a search to see if anyone else remarked upon a simple explanation of your list of symptoms, Neo.

    Nope.

    “Immature” and “immaturity” didn’t turn up any page hits. Color me surprised.

    All the things – the symptoms – you list, are part and parcel of what most of us would recognize as a very immature individual.

    The things he does are what we would pretty much disregard in a typical teenager (yeah, yeah: I know there are exceptions …but seriously, those exceptions are so remarkable that we actually notice them in a teener).

    …because we know the typical teenager is going to get past it (experience is a brutal but effective teacher).

    But those attributes you list we generally find very, very unattractive in an adult.

    Those “tells” you’ve noticed (we’ve all noticed: those little things that niggle at us, that make us go “huh” in an unpleasant way at the president) are simply: Obama is an immature adult.

    …from his history, it’s pretty much what you’d expect. (Well, if you know just enough about child development and psychology to be dangerous lol.)

    By the way, both mature adults on the right AND on the left generally easily recognize these symptoms as being those of an immature adult. (And both sides find those symptoms unattractive and off-putting.)

    But you can’t look as through a glass darkly (so to speak) – and in politics, there’s a lot of that …especially these days (on both sides: no one gets a break) – and see past your bias to what appears so damn obvious to the child puzzling over the naked old man with the jeweled scepter walking down the causeway.

    …though the equally immature NEVER recognize the symptoms (a lot of that going around these days, too).

    How many immature adults are there in your inner circle, hmmmm, everyone?

  84. neo-neocon Says:

    davisbr: see this.

  85. LoveEconomicFreedom Says:

    A breathe of fresh air. Thanks. And good to find a like minded set of readers. There are some more simple possibilities. Perhaps Obama is simply driven by the age old lure of power. He seems to simply want to be president, or any other high office. Please elect me even though I have no platform, because I want to be president another term, and YOU can fill in the plan as we go. Because plans aren’t important, just having a person like me, who is like you, as president is what really matters. I really DO believe that for many people, the government IS their new religion and religious institution. They want to rebel against any religion that holds one accountable, but, all people really do need SOME religion, so why not “worship” government? It seems like Obama was at the right place at the right time. He wanted power, and the power to help “his people” (many groups). The socialist party in America had slowly been changing its ways to try to get into power through the democratic party rather than a revolution. And then they found this great, charismatic guy who fit the bill. They taught him how to organize people, mainly in negative, destructive ways. Then he became the teacher. Now he carries on in that vein. These are all things I instinctively understood after reading “the road to serfdom”, and growing up as a lover of economic freedom, and logic. But reading the Stanly Kurtz book Radical and Chief, gave me a bit more of an understanding about the history of the socialist party in America, and the whole Chicago scene. And a bit about what a “community organizer” does. The whole Rice thing struck me as how someone would react if one’s girl friend or wife was criticized. But it could be that he is doing this on purpose to appeal to the large population of single women and unwedded mothers out there who seem to think of him as their true husband. Yes, I thought his was the most important election in my life time, and a real judgement of where the American people are today. And it did not come out as I had hoped. I don’t want to find a silver lining yet, or pick up the pieces. I put a lot of effort and money into this election, and the American people knew what they were getting this time, and voted for socialism. I guess one good thing I can say is that this was a close election. So whereas about half the population has decided they DESIRE socialism, the other half does not. So all is not lost yet.

  86. M of Hollywood Says:

    LordJiggy, to reply 2U: I see many libs on a weekly basis. I know only one who follows the news – if you call CNN, Bill Maher, Stephanie Miller, Kos and HuffPo news.
    They hated Bush so much that when they got “their guy” (as they like to call him) in ’08, they stopped watching. They felt relief; they gave him their trust. Anderson Cooper and his ilk keeps them snuggy in that trust without having to watch much.
    Plus – like all citizens, everywhere, there is in all of us a desire to like our country. We even wish we could like our family. Since they hated Bush so much, they let out a big sigh of relief when this guy got in and they have been living on that sigh ever since. It’s cool, you know? It’s cool, you know? Our guy. It’s cool. It does not go much deeper than that. They will not engage in conversation about it; they back off. They have no detail, just the warm fuzzies.

  87. FiscalCliff Says:

    There is much wrong with the man but right now the biggest problem we have is that we’re headed for a constitutional crises. The IPAB portion of obamacare can only be struck down between January and February 2017, and requires super majorities to do so. Likewise, the CFPB has been established to be unaccountable to any branch – its funding comes from the Federal Reserve. If he stripped Congress of power when he had to face re-election, what will he do without any such constraint?

  88. rickl Says:

    LoveEconomicFreedom Says:
    November 18th, 2012 at 2:56 pm

    So whereas about half the population has decided they DESIRE socialism, the other half does not. So all is not lost yet.

    Actually, that’s a recipe for civil war.

    Half of the population is trying to ram socialism down the throats of the other half, which wants no part of it.

  89. Cleaver Says:

    @ davisbr: Obama certainly is immature. But his immaturity is just one perceptible effect of a deeply disordered psyche.

  90. kcom Says:

    “It is the press, the press, the press. You can lie to the “low information” voter all day long, and you’ll keep winning elections.”

    Bingo, Mike!

  91. T Says:

    Neo,

    You wrote: “I mean success in the sense that people have internalized the idea of wanting something for nothing . . . .”

    I submit that is not socialism. The basis of Marxist socialism is “From each according to his ability; to each according to his need.” Even that presupposes a give-and-take. The current crop of takers are exclusively that, takers; there is no give involved. They operate on the basis of “I wants what I wants when I wants it.” That’s a very different mindset.

  92. thomass Says:

    T Says:

    “So the question becomes how does one deal with that mindset? Heap shame on the intended until he implodes from his own inability to deal with it?”

    Yes; ridicule him. I argued back in the McCain election; that for him to win he should provoke Obama as it was clear Obama had a ‘glass jaw’ when it came to criticism.

  93. thomass Says:

    LordJiggy Says:

    “I don’t know if you have any Liberal friends left, but could you ask them: “What do you really believe in?””

    “Power”

  94. Don Carlos Says:

    Why don’t we stop with the 4-years now analysis of what ails and fails Obama and the Left. We are pretty much all aligned on that.

    Obama is not paying us for our therapy, however.

    Perhaps after 4 years we can finally turn the topic to What Are We Gonna Do? I will start by stating there is precious little of substance that we can lawfully do.
    Obama and his Senate will appoint a SCOTUS majority that will rule for the Left for the next generation.

    Boehner and the House RINOs will accomodate, as has already been signalled.

    Civil War? Secession? Dream on. There is a reason the Dept of Homeland “Security” recently contracted the purchase of 450 million rounds of .223 cal rifle ammo, and it’s not for target practice.

    Any ideas? Anyone?

  95. thomass Says:

    neo-neocon Says:

    “They won’t stop voting it in, even as the country sinks downward and everyone’s (or nearly everyone’s) standard of living suffers.”

    Another thing already happening not being covered by the press. We have higher inflation than the government numbers while at the same time many people have not had raises in the last five years.

  96. R Daneel Says:

    Whether The Won is a pathological narcissist or something else does not matter. The problem is that the ability of the body politic to discern his pathology is lacking. The are Barnum’s wet-dream – suckers writ large.

    The rest of us – Liberty lovers are portrayed as the ones with pathologies.

    There is no way any of this will end well. Hot civil war may be the less cruel path rather than the long, slow destruction that realized Socialism can bestow.

  97. Cleaver Says:

    @ LordJiggy: “I don’t know if you have any Liberal friends left . . . ”

    All my close (and dear) friends are liberals. And they’re not mindless people. They’re not fainters and swooners at Obama rallies. They can be quite thoughtful and cogent in articulating their political beliefs and goals.

    But what they don’t get at all (and this is apart from their failure to know much if anything about the actual history of their stated beliefs and goals) is their basic and profound Assumption that they are objectively right, and that Republicans/conservatives are not only wrong on the putative facts but also morally wrong — by virtue of not being liberals. And, oh yes, the Assumption is accompanied, as necessary, by “liberal” (pun intended) amounts of class snobbery, condescension, and — when the Assumption can no longer withstand the assault of facts and logic — truly hateful rhetoric.

  98. NeoConScum Says:

    Cleaver…My Iron Law of producing(101)is this: ASSUMPTION is the Mother of All F*** Ups.

    It applies, as you ably point out, to Far, FAR more than our jobs.

  99. Curtis Says:

    I love that there is alot of new commentors on her. It’s great.

    Comment away and prepare and speak and be outraged and ready to take back our country.

  100. parker Says:

    Don Carlos says, “Civil War? Secession? Dream on. There is a reason the Dept of Homeland “Security” recently contracted the purchase of 450 million rounds of .223 cal rifle ammo, and it’s not for target practice. Any ideas? Anyone?”

    Stay cocked and locked. In the end, all they can do is kill you. Freedom: http://tinyurl.com/a7g7wgl

    “You’re messin’ around with my life
    So I bought my lead
    You even mess with my children
    And you’re screaming at my wife
    Get off my back
    If you wanna get outta here alive.”

  101. Bookworm Room » This and that — about the Middle East, mostly, with a little Obama stuff thrown in too. Says:

    [...] Okay, I’m done with the Middle East, but no Bookworm Room political post would be complete without some Obama bad-mouthing.  I don’t like the man.  It’s not just his Leftist policies and ignorance.  It’s him.  I find his narcissism and egotism repellent and dangerous.  So does Neo-Neocon. [...]

  102. RandomThoughts Says:

    LoveEconomicFreedom Says:
    November 18th, 2012 at 2:56 pm

    The whole Rice thing struck me as how someone would react if one’s girl friend or wife was criticized. But it could be that he is doing this on purpose to appeal to the large population of single women and unwedded mothers out there who seem to think of him as their true husband.

    WORD. In fact, I think it’s worse than that. I strongly suspect that for most liberal adult women, Obama is basically their #1 DILF (if you are unfamiliar with the term, look it up at http://www.urbandictionary.com). He’s managed to package himself as their fantasy come to life in the Oval Office. If memory serves, Bill Clinton also managed to present himself in a similar way to a previous generation of voters. Perhaps it’s something endemic to liberal women’s perception of the male politicians they favor?

    Personally, I’m with those who can’t bear to see Obama’s face nor hear his voice. The thought that my son must serve under such a sham of a CIC quite literally makes me feel queasy.

  103. Don Carlos Says:

    parker:
    Staying cocked and locked is, I regret, mere self-comforting braggadocio and an excellent way to become a lifelong ward of the loving, caring State with views out thru the cell bars, for very little gain. Using ammo that way makes sense only if one intends suicide by cop.

    They will ratchet us down step by step, starting with raising revenues….errr, taxes. Those taxes will extend to bullets and gas as well as income, and especially death. Won’t worry Warren Buffett though. His kids can probably make it on a billion apiece or so.

  104. M J R Says:

    Don Carlos, 9:43 pm –

    “Staying cocked and locked is, I regret, mere self-comforting braggadocio”

    I’m glad you’re returning the conversation to realism in this manner, calling it out for what it is.

  105. parker Says:

    Don Carlos,

    What else can one do? I can not fire the first shot, unless someone bursts through my front or back door. I have no interest in “suicide by cop”. However, I know many of the cops in my town. They will not be the enemy should it all come down to dust. I know many of my local NG members, they will not be the enemy should it all come down to dust. However, I live in flyover country and my mileage may differ.

  106. Francesca Says:

    Republicans and conservatives should be trying to accomplish the feat of driving the existing media under.

    Destroying morally corrupt companies is a net benefit to society, and who can argue that the media in this country are run in a moral, ethical way? Their coverage of Obama shocks the senses, quite frankly, and could only have happened in an environment where there is almost no competition, a problem that will be remedied by getting rid of the existing media.
    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
    Thank you for this! I completely agree. If we don’t get rid of such a dishonest, lying media, we have NO CHANCE. It is outrageous what they have done and are doing! Cancel them. Refuse to watch them. Let them know why. There are millions of people who are beyond sick and tired of their slanting, withholding, burying and spinning information that the people should have.

    DUMP THEM!

  107. The Deranged Chivalry of Barack Obama « Stately McDaniel Manor Says:

    [...] takes to task a number of silly people, including Mr. Obama.  She brings up an important point:  Mr. Obama is not an ordinary politician doing the things politicians normally do. I know quite a few people who don’t think all that highly of President Obama but don’t think [...]

  108. Otiose Says:

    Need to pace ourselves here.

    We’ve got more than four years to go.

  109. rickl Says:

    Don Carlos:

    Well, what do you suggest we do? Based on your 5:41 pm comment, there is nothing left to do but wait quietly until we are taken to the re-education camps.

  110. Don Carlos Says:

    parker:
    I live in a town of 100K pop, also in flyover country, but I don’t know cops personally. I expect them to follow their orders, and on orders to get me, I will be got.

    As to the NG, an insurrection-locally-against what? To what purpose? Planning a violent overthrow of anything is entirely illegal. Obama would love such an attempt, though: Wham-O! martial law, no more Constitution.

    The days of Johnny Reb are long gone. The Tree of Liberty is going un-nourished, whithering, and will die. It is dying. We are done. We gave it away these last 60 years and we just can’t get it back. Gramsci lives beyond the grave, and he is laughing! So are Cloward and Piven.

    I have no solutions for the USA. None that make any sense in the years left allotted to me, efforts to which I might contribute my weight. But what the hey….some people live just fine in Chicago. In Detroit, not so much. Detroit is our future.

  111. Don Carlos Says:

    rickl-
    as above, I have no solutions. Do you? Does parker? Does anyone?
    Defeat is defeat. Goliath rules, and we’re all out of Davids.

  112. rickl Says:

    Don Carlos Says:
    November 18th, 2012 at 11:21 pm

    Planning a violent overthrow of anything is entirely illegal.

    It was in 1776, too.

    Seriously, that sentence made me LOL. No offense intended.

  113. rickl Says:

    When the government itself has become lawless, then what is left for us to do?

    I see no option besides overthrowing it or meekly submitting to tyranny. Which, given the left’s crystal clear track record, will end with death in a forced labor camp or a mass grave.

    Personally, I hope the military has a Pinochet up its sleeve.

  114. rickl Says:

    Don Carlos:

    I’m despondent about the election, and I think we’re beyond the point of being able to vote our way out of this.

    But how do you know that we’re all out of Davids? It’s a big country.

    Meanwhile, the black swans are flocking.

    Tyrants can be surprised and overtaken by events, too.

  115. RandomThoughts Says:

    Personally, I hope the military has a Pinochet up its sleeve.

    Not sure about a Pinochet, but I can tell you that if it came down to something like what happened in Germany on August 2, 1934, my money would be on the U.S. military refusing to back Obama.

    Their oath is first and foremost to “defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic,” (bolding mine) and a they tend to take that very seriously. While they also vow to obey the president’s orders as CIC, respect for the current CIC is rather low, from what I hear.

  116. T Says:

    rickl @11:08pm,

    “there is nothing left to do but wait quietly until we are taken to the re-education camps.”

    We will not be taken to re-education camps. The camps have been planted among us. ABC, CBS, NBC, NYT, WAPO all of them and more intend to influence the national dialogue, create narratives and influence everyday culture, whence politics.

  117. T Says:

    Also, somewhat O/T but I thought I’d note it here since part of this discussion revolves around what to do now.

    Over at Ace of Spades, there is a Monday morning post from Gabriel Malor about NOT drawing the wrong lesson from this election, It is well worth reading (and cites Ross Douthat’s latest essay), but the gist of the thesis is this (emphasis mine):

    [Obama] got the swing voters by making Romney the icky candidate. The same thing could have been done to any candidate we ran because it wasn’t about Romney’s politics, it was about a caricature of Republicans that we have repeatedly failed to rebut.

    Note my comment about Bill Maher’s caricature of conservatives above (11/17 @ 5:41pm).

    Read the whole thing at Ace posted as Top Headline Comments 11/19/2012:

    http://ace.mu.nu/

  118. Dinocrat » Blog Archive » Mystery inside an enigma Says:

    [...] Neo-neocon explains. [...]

  119. Dinocrat » Blog Archive » Missile defense changes the game Says:

    [...] WRM explains. And you can see the results for yourself. [...]

  120. Don Carlos Says:

    This thread seems concluded. It is sad to say the only solution proposed is to hope we have another Pinochet in the upper military echelons. A rather faint and forlorn hope.
    That’s all, folks, as Bugs Bunny would conclude.

  121. GayPatriot » Watcher of Weasels Nominations–Thanksgiving 2012 Edition Says:

    [...] Neo-Neocon – Obama’s Outrage submitted by The Glittering Eye [...]

  122. Trevor Loudon's New Zeal Blog Says:

    [...] – Obama’s Outrage submitted by The Glittering [...]

  123. Watcher’s Council Nominations – Am Yisrael Chai Edition | Independent Sentinel Says:

    [...] Neo-Neocon – Obama’s Outrage submitted by The Glittering Eye [...]

  124. Thanksgiving Day Reading | Says:

    [...] Neo-Neocon – Obama’s Outrage submitted by The Glittering Eye [...]

  125. Trevor Loudon's New Zeal Blog Says:

    [...] place *t* with 2 votes – Neo-Neocon – Obama’s Outrage submitted by The Glittering [...]

  126. The Council Has Spoken! This Week’s Watcher’s Council Winners! | Independent Sentinel Says:

    [...] place *t* with 2 votes – Neo-Neocon –Obama’s Outragesubmitted by The Glittering [...]

  127. The Winners of the Week | Says:

    [...] place *t* with 2 votes – Neo-Neocon –Obama’s Outragesubmitted by The Glittering [...]

  128. Watcher's Council results: Arab Spring Part 2 Edition! - Says:

    [...] Its Date With Destiny submitted by The Noisy Room Second place *t* with 2 votes – Neo-Neocon –Obama’s Outrage submitted by The Glittering Eye Third place with 1 1/3 votes -Ralph Peters-It’s Not Adding Up [...]

  129. Bookworm Room » Watcher’s Council winners, Thanksgiving 2012 edition Says:

    [...] place *t* with 2 votes – Neo-Neocon –Obama’s Outrage submitted by The Glittering [...]

  130. The Council Has Spoken!! This Week’s Watcher’s Council Winners | Virginia Right! Says:

    [...] place *t* with 2 votes – Neo-Neocon –Obama’s Outrage submitted by The Glittering [...]

  131. This Week’s Watcher’s Council Results | therightplanet.com Says:

    [...] place *t* with 2 votes – Neo-Neocon –Obama’s Outrage submitted by The Glittering [...]

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>



About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.
Read More >>








Blogroll

Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge