January 22nd, 2013

Beauty in the ear of the behearer

I still haven’t listened to Obama’s inaugural speech; don’t plan to. I’ve mentioned several times before that I don’t like speeches in general, unless they’re by Churchill or Lincoln (I guess Patrick Henry could sneak in there, too).

And Obama’s no Churchill. The funny thing is that he would like us to think he’s a Lincoln, and that many people do think so. These people tend to be (surprise, surprise) liberals and the left—not always exactly the same thing, but close enough for our purposes.

In the commentary on Obama’s address the split is massive, as one would expect when talking about a man who specializes in dividing the American public while talking about uniting it, a neat trick indeed. The right hears his combative, arrogant rhetoric, while the left hears a new assertiveness and confidence, and a determination to avoid struggling to compromise so hard anymore (!) with those intransigent, nasty Republicans.

Why would Obama feel more confident, rather than less, compared to 2008, when his mandate was much greater back then and has diminished since? Because, as was obvious, a second term frees him from the need to be beholden to the electorate. That is his triumph, and it is from whence his renewed confidence [arrogance] comes.

Those of you who are conservative and yet refused to vote for Romney for whatever reason no doubt have your ways of rationalizing that act (or failure to act). I’ve heard them all, and fought against them all, for at least a year. I continue to disagree about as strongly as possible, and it is with an especially heavy heart that I watch Obama begin his second term, thinking that his victory was achieved not only by the support of those who voted for him, but by the indirect support of those who failed to vote against him.

But I am not here to fight that battle any more; what’s done is done, and of course we’ll never know what sort of president Romney would have been (I believe a very good and also quite conservative one; your mileage may certainly differ). We can’t go back, we can only go forward; life’s not an alternate history book.

It puzzles me that so much of what I and many others see in Obama, those personal qualities that alarm us, are seemingly invisible to the vast majority of his admirers. It’s a bit like the ability to detect PTC by its bitter taste. Some have the trait and some don’t:

In 1931, a chemist named Arthur Fox was pouring some powdered PTC into a bottle. When some of the powder accidentally blew into the air, a colleague standing nearby complained that the dust tasted bitter. Fox tasted nothing at all. Curious how they could be tasting the chemical differently, they tasted it again. The results were the same. Fox had his friends and family try the chemical then describe how it tasted. Some people tasted nothing. Some found it intensely bitter, and still others thought it tasted only slightly bitter.

Soon after its discovery, geneticists determined that there is an inherited component that influences how we taste PTC. Today we know that the ability to taste PTC (or not) is conveyed by a single gene that codes for a taste receptor on the tongue. The PTC gene, TAS2R38, was discovered in 2003.

I don’t think the ability to detect bitterness in Obama is a mutation, but it almost seems as cut and dried. To his admirers, Obama’s a nice guy who’s been dealing with some difficult things. To me (and to many of you), in practically his every appearance he seems to radiate signals of narcissism, duplicity, insincerity, power hunger, and sheer nastiness. This has nothing to do with his race, although his supporters like to think that (or at least like to accuse the right of that). It’s funny, but Obama’s blackness is just not his most salient characteristic (or an important characteristic at all) for most on the right. Rather, it’s his personality and his politics.

But it’s actually much more than that. For the first time in my lifetime, anyway, I’ve seen a cult arise for a major political figure in America (that happened a little bit with Kennedy, too, but nothing like with Obama). Not only that, but the figure has been instrumental in personally nourishing and nurturing and encouraging that cult attitude mightily; perhaps that’s the most disturbing thing of all.

Not everyone who voted for Obama buys into the cult aspects, but enough do to make me very very worried about the future of this country, and that’s separate even from Obama’s politics. The adulation surrounding him, especially that of the press, is one of the most troubling aspects of his administration, and bodes ill for our future.

61 Responses to “Beauty in the ear of the behearer”

  1. T Says:

    “To his admirers, Obama’s a nice guy who’s been dealing with some difficult things.”

    Walter Russell Mead does (once again) a superlative job laying out information that, IMO, helps us understand some of the source of the cult Obama.

    http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2013/01/20/full-fathom-five-5-0-liberalism-and-the-future-of-the-state/

    In it he defines 4 basic outlooks: New England; New York; Virginia and West Virginia. He discusses the New England approach as the source of his “blue social model” and his observations reasonably well encapsulate Obama. Is it any wonder that we also currently see such a plethora of Harvard and Yale grads at all levels of all three divisions of govt?

  2. southernjames Says:

    It bodes ill indeed. The irrational hero worship and the encouragement and fostering of it (the Greek columns, “we are the ones we’ve been waiting for,” the “oceans stopped rising,” tingle in the leg, etc, etc.) was ludicrous even in 2008 – back when he was merely a blank slate into which the shallow, emotional, and insecure could project their fantasies.

    Now, the fact that the never ending fawning and complete absence of criticism still continues – in spite of a four year term where, but for Osama getting killed, NOTHING positive was accomplished for this country, is truly disturbing.

    The media has truly shown its colors. And it, and its hero it fawns over, views approximately half the country, not as the “loyal opposition,” but as the enemy. An enemy to be destroyed and vanquished, by being made silent. And powerless.

  3. LisaM Says:

    Rush Limbaugh just played clips of various members of the press covering the inauguration. “This is such a wonderful day!” “It’s so exciting!” “I might have to pinch myself!” “I’m almost close enough to touch him!” “What a great day for our country!” Those quotes were all from different people. The slavering was truly stomach turning. They’re not even pretending anymore.

  4. Sgt. Mom Says:

    I agree with southernjames – the most astounding dereliction of duty on the part of the media that I have ever seen in person – when they essentially pushed him over the finish-line in 2008. I was absolutely beside myself with frustration. I am a blogger, a writer, and a retired military NCO, with no particular connection to the political establishment – but I could see very clearly what Obama was; a charming poseur with a nice facility for delivering speeches and impressing the superficial for all of about ten minutes, gliding effortlessly up the career ladder and never staying long enough in one job for his basic incompetence to show. Never ran a business, never served in the military … just warmed a chair academia, in the bowels of the Chicago political machine, and a couple of years in Washington, doing nothing much that anyone could observe. And yet, the establishment media turned themselves inside out for him.

  5. Ymarsakar Says:

    “thinking that his victory was achieved not only by the support of those who voted for him, but by the indirect support of those who failed to vote against him.”

    But that is what propaganda’s power is for. To not only increase the morale and fighting prowess of your allies, but to decrease the fighting strength of your enemies. In Sun Tzu’s the Art of War, the highest level of battle skill was considered to be able to win 100 out of 100 battles, without wasting valuable war material and resources, including manpower and time. And how is that done? Merely by making the enemy give up, without fighting a single battle. That’s very easy to do when the enemy is demoralized to the breaking point.

    “what’s done is done, and of course we’ll never know what sort of president Romney would have been”

    The US is no longer at the point where a good President will change anything fundamental about where this country is going. Bush in 2001 merely delayed things and a Republican in 2012 would have merely delayed things some more, but the ultimate consequence was still in front of us.

    “To me (and to many of you), in practically his every appearance he seems to radiate signals of narcissism, duplicity, insincerity, power hunger, and sheer nastiness. ”

    Why would Leftists detect that in Obama, when they have worked their entire lives to deceive themselves in order to avoid detecting such traits in themselves, Neo?

  6. Ymarsakar Says:

    “And yet, the establishment media turned themselves inside out for him.”

    In 2003, the mass sewer media allied with Islamic terrorists and ME dictators against the United States of America’s military branch. Why would them turning against “domestic enemies” be a surprise given such a track record?

    Of course, they are much more open about it, perhaps because they are testing the waters. But they tested the waters back then, and that is why they become more bold afterwards.

  7. Occam's Beard Says:

    The media has truly shown its colors.

    Yes: Red.

  8. rickl Says:

    southernjames Says:
    January 22nd, 2013 at 2:11 pm

    And it, and its hero it fawns over, views approximately half the country, not as the “loyal opposition,” but as the enemy. An enemy to be destroyed and vanquished, by being made silent. And powerless.

    And disarmed.

  9. holmes Says:

    But the gene to detect PTC is not something willfully acquired, as is liberalisms willful aversion to recognizing authoritarian fascistic tendencies in its leaders.

  10. neo-neocon Says:

    holmes: I disagree. I don’t think it’s willfully acquired at all, at least not by most of the people I know.

  11. Jed Skillman Says:

    Two points: When Barack Obama points his finger and yells into the microphone before a crowd “What’s frustrating is that we don’t have a political system or an opposition party worthy of opportunity”, or “We reject the belief that America must choose…” he is amplifying the music that is already in the hearts of his listeners. He wagging his finger in front of every imaginary target of resentment his listeners despise. That is what was so hard to take about his 2nd Inaugural speech yesterday. We just settled a man into the Oval Office for another four years and he hates half of the country.

    My other point is that Barack Obama is totally one with the Main Stream Media. It is not just that they are protecting him, advancing him. He is them and they are him. They all went to Harvard or Yale or State together. They all learned that America is not the world’s hope but the world’s problem together. They are sons of the same mother. This is his greatest advantage.

    Mitt Romney? He is a very good man. But with all his millions it still costs him a buck twenty-five for a cup of Starbucks.

  12. KLSmith Says:

    Occam’s Beard: they’re watermelon. green on the outside, red on the inside.

  13. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    “Why would Obama feel more confident, rather than less, compared to 2008, when his mandate was much greater back then and has diminished since? Because, as was obvious, a second term frees him from the need to be beholden to the electorate. That is his triumph, and it is from whence his renewed confidence [arrogance] comes.”

    Not to denigrate that valid rationale but I suspect that his confidence may spring from a deeper well than simply the freedom from concerns of reelection.

    Obama’s actions may be best explained by postulating that he believes that democrats have excellent prospects to regain control of the House in 2014.

    Larry Kudlow maintains that if republicans do not secure spending cuts (they will not) the House majority will return to the democrats in 2014. While I find his rationale to be somewhat unpersuasive, I do agree that if seen as helplessly ineffective, they will lose the majority they currently have in the House.

    I believe this to be the tactical goal that Obama foresees accomplishing and the strategic motivation for his intransigence on both the fiscal cliff and debt ceiling ‘negotiations’. If so, he’ll continue to play political hardball, accusing republicans of the very actions he’s guilty of and rely upon the MSM to support his characterizations to keep the public drinking the left’s kool-aid.

    In his inaugural speech, he only mentioned the word ‘jobs’ three times and two of those were in relation to the ‘collective’, that speaks to either a complete political tone deafness or the judgement that jobs are irrelevant to both his goals and the political realities he faces. Given his reelection, I judge tone deafness to be unlikely.

    Should he regain control of the House in 2014 and, the democrats chances are IMO excellent, we can anticipate in his last two years a veritable deluge of radical leftist legislation, all designed to fundamentally and permanently transform this country.

    He also anticipates selecting several new SCOTUS nominees. Which represents an opportunity to near permanently change the tenor of that branch to knee-jerk support of the left’s initiatives.

    Obama’s narcissism and ideological commitment ensure that he will seek to go out a big winner. His ego demands that he be seen to triumph. Nor is it enough that he should merely win, others must suffer. His racial hate demands it.

  14. KLSmith Says:

    Our best hope is Obama fatigue. The press will probably always love him but America will surely become bored, if not disenchanted, before his second term expires.

    Neo: I would think almost all of your readers voted for Romney. From comments I saw at various blogs before the election, many who were adamant that they would never vote for Romney came on board at the end. I’ve never seen a definitive analysis of who stayed home. Some blamed conservatives, others blamed the apathetic middle.

  15. KLSmith Says:

    Geoffrey Britain: although I agree that the Republican party’s future is in peril, the House in 2014 will likely stay Republican. The best thing about the massive victory in 2010 was re- districting. I’m more concerned with Senate seats and the next Presidential race. With the caveat that it will even matter much by then.

  16. ahem Says:

    It was immoral not to vote to keep Obama out of office. That’s all there is to it. Now we’re living in a fascist state.

    Thanks a heap!

  17. kaba Says:

    Just take a look at the characters the leftist hold as heroes.
    The chronic philanderer and rapist Clinton.
    The drunken womanizer Kennedy.
    The racist hate-mongers Jackson and Sharpton.
    The pseudo Native American Warren.
    The hyper hypocrite Pelosi.
    And the degenerates Frank and Stubbs.

    Given that crowd Obama is almost a choirboy.

  18. Occam's Beard Says:

    Just take a look at the characters the leftist hold as heroes.

    I think this about Hollywood actors and actresses, few of whom I would allow in my home.

  19. Jim Nicholas Says:

    A diagnostic sign of the charming psychopath is that he (or she) leaves the psychiatric appointment not with paying the fee but with a loan (or some other kind of favor) from the psychiatrist. Some psychiatrists are quite sensitive to this kind of personality and others are taken in again and again.

  20. holmes Says:

    Neo- interesting. Liberals are simply naive to the dangers of authoritarians in their midst, i.e. the target audience of “Road to Serfdom”? Many that I know are simply little tyrants themselves.

  21. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    KLSmith,

    I certainly hope the House will stay republican but arguably, the chances of its doing so are dependent upon the circumstances of the next two years. If republicans appear to be singularly ineffective, Obama will gain credence with his certain blame that Republican obstructionism is preventing him from accomplishing more. That argument may resonate with low information voters enough to give him the House. If that happens, I think it certain that Obama will push for a lot of radical legislation.

  22. DonS Says:

    Romney would have had immense difficulty fixing our problems, particularly with a Democrat controlled Senate. And the media would have blamed him for any problems.

    The left’s control of the media, universities and government make it very difficult for Republicans to fix our problems even when they win politically.

    And the racheting effect is in evidence.

  23. J.J. formerly Jimmy J. Says:

    KLSmith asks, “I’ve never seen a definitive analysis of who stayed home. Some blamed conservatives, others blamed the apathetic middle.”

    Here’s one view: “The final numbers suggest that 91.6 million votes were cast by whites — 7 million less than the 98.6 million cast in 2008! Meanwhile, 16.6 million blacks voted, 300,000 more than in 2008 and 11 million Latinos voted, 1.7 million more votes than were cast by Hispanics in 2008.

    We lost because whites stayed home. Particularly among the elderly, the voter turnout was disappointing with seniors casting only 16 percent of the vote, much less than had been anticipated. (Seniors were the only age group that President Obama lost by a significant margin — 15 points).”

    See the whole article here: http://tinyurl.com/ahrklpj

    Blacks, Latinos, and single women turned out and voted in record numbers. Whites, particularly the elderly, stayed home in near record numbers. Why? I don’t think anyone has come up with an answer that makes sense. Was it the fact that Romney never really answered the Bain attack ads properly? Was it because Romney was too rich and out of touch? Was it that many elderly whites believed that Obama was toast and they really didn’t need to vote? Or was it because the Republican get out the vote effort was totally screwed up? My guess is for the last conjecture because the elderly often need someone to urge them and help them get to the polls. Whatever it was, the Republicans should be studying it carefully so they can get those 7 million voters to come out and vote for the R candidate next time around.

    Romney got fewer votes overall than McCain did. Obama also got fewer votes than in 2008. Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate received a record (for a Libertarian) one million votes. So, many Libertarians did not vote for Romney. It is a conundrum as to why people did not vote for Romney in what many anti-Obama voters believed to be the most important election since the Civil War.

    Here’s another point of view:
    “Update: How many of those Republican voters who stayed home were duped by Obama?

    Given all this data, how did Obama win? Simple: by relentlessly attacking Romney, thus driving down Republican turnout, while orchestrating an unprecedented micro-targeting campaign to drive base Democratic voters to the polls. On the former, The Washington Post reports:

    “The most striking data we saw early on was on the ‘understands problems of people like me’ question,” said a senior White House official involved in the discussions. “Into the summer, Romney was in the teens in this category.”

    The choice was made. The onetime campaign of hope and change soon began a sustained advertising assault that cast Romney as a heartless executive, a man who willingly fires people and is disconnected from how average Americans live their lives — an approach reinforced by Romney’s mistakes along the way.”

    That piece is available here: http://tinyurl.com/bxmhs8l

  24. Ed Bonderenka Says:

    The next house election will not have an Obama turnout.
    We have a fighting chance.

  25. parker Says:

    4th grade math looms over DC, many states and localities, the EU zone, and the entire global economy. BHO & the dems will have to hustle to get their agenda solidified before the tsunami hits. Printing without pause never ends well. All the rhetoric in the world can not stop the grinding wheel of 4th grade math.

  26. expat Says:

    Race was still an issue for the left. Supporting Obama allowed many (especially in the press) to simultaneously relieve their own white guilt and boost their egos by drawing a line between them and the know-nothing Reps.

    One encouraging sign is the emergence of more conservative blacks who can talk about issues and not race. This is similar to the Palin effect, which gave lots of women impetus to reject standard feminist ideology. Even recent college grads who can’t find jobs may start to break out of their leftist ideology. We all need to keep up the effort to cause cognitive dissonance in these groups. The gun control issue is doing that in WVa. We also need to break apart big issues like abortion. How many parents want their 14-year-old daughters to get an abortion without their knowledge? How many inner city parents think that banning assault weapons will stop their kids from being shot with a pistol?

    Harry Reid has been protecting his senators from having to cast votes unpopular with their constituencies. We have to bring up issues in a way that increases their vulnerablity.

    We have to stop thinking that we can win a big ideological argument an try instead to assure that the libs lose lots of little ones.

  27. M J R Says:

    neo wrote, “For the first time in my lifetime, anyway, I’ve seen a cult arise for a major political figure in America (that happened a little bit with Kennedy, too, but nothing like with Obama).”

    I think that ^after^ John F. Kennedy’s death, the Camelot/martyr business got pretty hard to take (I dunno, maybe because I was in college in Massachusetts?).

    I do think you’re correct, neo, but post-assassination, the JFK near-sainthood — now much tarnished with the passage of time and unearthing of revelations — gives the present incumbent a reasonable run for his money.

  28. Otiose Says:

    Cheer up, because it could get worse. Look at California, where all of the top offices and more than 2/3rd’s of both houses are controlled by Democrats, and these aren’t the pretend variety. Most are very open and devout in their leftist beliefs.

    We are in the process of implementing an array of wonderful carbon reducing / alternative energy boosting regulations, which to my knowledge while setting a wonderful example have yet to inspire the Chinese/Indians to follow our lead and hasn’t yet reduced the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

    Affirmative action is in full force – even tho the people voted it down – George Orwell would understand.

    Taxes are up and the only reason they’re not higher yet – oh God an image of the Wicked Witch from the Wizard of Oz springs into mind – ‘just can’t decide how to kill the little girl’ – in CA the Democrats can’t believe the way is wide open before the party (not the Tea Party) begins – so many tax possibilities.

    Welcome to rule by and for the Public Unions and their members’ well being.

  29. parker Says:

    “Look at California… Welcome to rule by and for the Public Unions and their members’ well being.”

    California is in the same dilemma as Greece; they can not print their own currency. California, Greece, Illinois, Ireland, Spain, Italy, New York, Michigan, France, and a roll call of failed states with the USA not far behind once the USD is no longer the reserve currency. I know, I know I keep flogging the dead horse; but nonetheless the horse is dead much like the parrot.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vuW6tQ0218

  30. neo-neocon Says:

    M J R: yes, I was referring to during Kennedy’s lifetime. After he was killed, he became a martyr, which certainly changed things and is not comparable.

  31. Darrell Says:

    To add to southernJames and RickL:
    “views approximately half the country, not as the “loyal opposition,” but as the enemy. An enemy to be destroyed and vanquished, by being made silent. And powerless. And disarmed”
    And broke and Unemployed…..

  32. neo-neocon Says:

    To J.J. formerly Jimmy J.:

    No, Romney did NOT get fewer votes than McCain. That was reported on election night, and became the meme, but it was clear even then (and certainly shortly afterward) that people were comparing apples and oranges (i.e. McCain’s total final vote to Romney’s election eve vote, which doesn’t include absentees, etc.).

    When all the votes were counted (check Wiki), it turns out that Romney got a million MORE votes than McCain did in 2008. Obama got about 3 and a half million less than he did in 2008. But that was still enough to win.

    My personal opinion about missing votes is that both in 2008 and in 2012 there were plenty of conservatives who stayed home because they thought the candidates were RINOs. More of them stayed home in 2008, but a lot of them still stayed home in 2012. There are plenty of these people around, a couple here but a lot of them quite vocal on other blogs. There were some bloggers (and talk show hosts) who ripped Romney right to the end; they didn’t like him, and they influenced their listeners, too. That stuff is poison, and a certain conservative segment thrives on being holier-(i.e. more conservative and more pure)-than-thou.

  33. SteveH Says:

    Imagine a conversation with one of your liberal friends 20 years ago and telling him/her that they would one day soon help elect and support a man who spent 20 years in a racist church that spewed hatred toward people who were different than them.

    They would have looked at you like you were an idiot for even suggesting such a thing. But they’ve done it. And they now look at you crazy for suggesting the slightest bit of concern for such a man being in power.

  34. J.J. formerly Jimmy J. Says:

    You’re correct, neo. And I knew it, but I was fresh from reading an article by Andrew McCarthy that was written shortly after the election. Those figures stuck in my mind. (And my mind is not as sharp as it was even 10 years ago.)

    The problem that needs solving is how does the Republican candidate get those people to the polls in 2016? It’s of the utmost importance to the nation that we get off this progressive horse. Maybe Obama’s new combativeness and agressive approach will drive them to the polls, but if the first four years weren’t enough, it’s hard to imagine how they will ever decide to vote against progressives.

  35. KLSmith Says:

    Neo: which talk show hosts are you referring to? Everyone I ever listened to was pro-Romney. They were desperate to see Obama defeated.
    Like I said before, I’d love to see the demographics on who stayed home. My guess is that the blame is shared and conservatives are only part of it. The elderly are more likely to be exposed to only traditional media.
    My mom’s elderly life long Republican neighbor “didn’t like” Romney (although she said she voted for him). And both of my neighbors on either side never vote as far as I know. They think all politicians are the same. I’m also guessing they were surprised when Obama was re-elected.
    I know this is andectodal, but I recently found out that I live in the voting precinct that most closely mirror’s the national results.

  36. Occam's Beard Says:

    M J R: yes, I was referring to during Kennedy’s lifetime. After he was killed, he became a martyr, which certainly changed things and is not comparable.

    Realistically, JFK’s reputation is based upon his failing to duck at the opportune time. He was in fact an appallingly bad President, one who through his fecklessness almost started a nuclear war, and who then gained kudos for avoiding (thanks to ) the catastrophe he’d set in motion.

    Apart from almost getting us vaporized, he did a pretty good job. For a Democrat, I mean.

  37. Molly NH Says:

    My husband & I voted for Romney. In our state (NH) however
    significant numbers of out of state college students are voting & are having dire effects. In 2010 (non presidential year) we were able to turn our state legislature red & our congressional delegation had 2 republicans elected to the house & Kelly Ayotte former state AG was elected to the senate ! Now sadly Kelley is the only republican in the entirely female delegation !
    I am surprised there has been no national coverage of a state that has 4 females in Congress & a female governor as well !
    Almost immediately there are mumblings of rolling back all the
    strides made for personal freedoms that came with the GOP majority in the house 2010/2012. I am a woman but I cannot abide the *style* of chick governance, its *fairness* run amok , except that it isn t fair, its akin to being run by your mother & I thought we were all grown up these days.

  38. neo-neocon Says:

    KLSmith: When I speak of the talk show hosts, I am speaking in part of their behavior during the Republican primaries. Now I know that during the primaries Republicans are pitted against each other, and I’m not saying talk show hosts should only say kind things about all the Republican candidates because one of them will end up the nominee. But, that said, there was something especially vicious about the attacks on Romney, something that fired up a lot of conservatives against him in ways that could not be undone by the talk show hosts’ somewhat tepid (at least to my mind) support of Romney after he became the nominee.

    I don’t listen to talk shows much, if ever, but I do read about them, so this isn’t from listening so much as from reading about it. But to the best of my recollection Marc Levin was quite anti-Romney during the primaries and continued to be only a rather weak supporter even after Romney was the nominee. He’s one of the main ones I’m thinking of. Rush Limbaugh was similar, although he came on board a bit stronger later.

    Both men got especially fired up about the supposed sins of the “establishment” Republicans or the “elite” Republicans who supposedly were thwarting the REAL conservatives in various ways. I read about this a lot on blogs, and the anti-Romney sentiment was absolutely vicious, especially during the primaries but for a long LONG time afterward, and it never really dissipated although it got somewhat weaker. I believe it was a big force. See this for a post I wrote about the phenomenon during the primaries.

    And then post-election, I’ve seen plenty of comments on a lot of blogs to the effect of, “that jackass RINO Romney, from the start I knew he’d lose, the establishment pushed him on us and I never bought it, but it doesn’t matter anyway because he would have been just as bad a president as Obama.” Do you really think such a person voted for Romney? Sometimes they explicitly say they stayed home, or voted for someone else. Sometimes it’s merely implied.

  39. beverly Says:

    His ego demands that he be seen to triumph. Nor is it enough that he should merely win, others must suffer. His racial hate demands it.

    This.

  40. beverly Says:

    Neo, the behavior of some of our talk-show hosts (Limbaugh has been bad about it lately) reminds me of an angry coach after his team loses a game, cussing them out in the locker room and kicking them in the pants for losing. Limbaugh, whom I usually enjoy, has been irking me lately when he starts snarling at and sarcastically attacking some hopeful souls who call in to try to advance ideas about what POSITIVE things we can do to WIN this country back.

    Man, a little of that goes a long way. We need to save our powder for the Left, the real enemy.

  41. KLSmith Says:

    Neo: “Do you really think such a person voted for Romney?”
    Well, I never thought Romney was a jackass… But, I will admit to wavering almost daily on whether he could win. And he was the establishment candidate. And, I had very mixed feelings about him being our candidate. I hoped that, as a nice looking good family man, he would appeal to moderates – and he did. But personally, I thought it was pretty sad that our candidate was the father of Obamacare. In my view he was a weak candidate but probably the best of the lot of slim pickings.
    But once he won the nomination, I donated to his campaign, actually paid for yard signs for myself, family, and some elderly neighbor friends. Printed out an article on how close the race was going to be in VA in the hopes of motivating my disinterested neighbors and literally begged my mother’s neighbor to do her patriotic duty and vote for Romney whether she liked him or not.
    Why would I do all of that if I wasn’t thrilled with Romney, and if I’m not a hypocrite and I’m not the bandwagon type? You know why. And unfortunately we have him for another four years. I would bet a lot of others loathed Obama and what he’s doing to our country more than they were unhappy with Romney.

  42. beverly Says:

    The whole Romney thing reminds me of this — say you’re driving on a mountain road, and you round a corner, and see a woman pinned under a huge boulder. That boulder has to be moved, or she’ll die. Frantically you look around for a lever — anything. All you can find is a green sapling. Do you fling it petulantly (or despairingly) into the chasm? or do you wedge it under that boulder and push with all of your might?

    It’s so hard to believe that the rot in our nation’s fabric is so extensive that we’re at this pass so quickly. But human nature is as unvarying as the Gods of the Copybook Headings, and they keep banging into each other.

    I’ve been thinking a lot lately of the MORAL fabric of our nation: remember that concept? those of us who are over 50 will remember when that term was in common parlance, and taken very seriously as a public concern. Not just the sexual morality, but the concepts of Honor, Duty, and Truthfulness. The Left has made the concept of “a moral fabric” something to laugh at or despise, not something most of the younger set have been taught to protect and look after.

    Staunch Christians and Jews will tell you that we ignore our morality, and our nation will die. Our nation’s leaders used to know this: it’s written all over the monuments and buildings in Washington.

  43. KLSmith Says:

    Neo: I started listening to talk radio a couple of years ago. In fact accidentally tuning in to a show, by a guy that’s off the air now, was part of my change. However, I mostly listen now to keep the house from being so quiet.
    Anyway, you are correct that Mark Levin was the most anti-Romney of the lot. But remember, up until the end Romney never got more than about a third of the primary vote. He won the same way McCain did – by getting the biggest share that was not split by his conservative competition.
    Sean Hannity was fairly neutral, I thought, because he probably wanted to be in the winner’s good graces – for future interviews. Rush became neutral not overly late in the game because he could read the the writing on the wall. And Mark held out until the primaries were over. But they were all without question very much behind Romney then. And I think they were truly in shock when Obama won.
    They also repeatedly tried to convince callers that said they weren’t voting for Romney that they were making a mistake.
    There are probably many reasons why he lost but I don’t think talk radio is any where near the top.

    I blame the stupid white people that voted for Obama in the first place. Especially those old enough to remember Carter. Idiots. And the ones too lazy to drag their @sses off the sofa to go vote.
    It’s going to be cold comfort when those people finally realize what a mistake they made.

  44. KLSmith Says:

    beverly: I think it only seems that we are at this pass quickly. the left has been at work like termites destroying our foundations for years.
    and as for Rush, I truly think he is depressed, frustrated, and feeling hopeless – but he still has a show to do and he’s not a quitter by nature.

  45. rickl Says:

    KLSmith Says:
    January 22nd, 2013 at 4:18 pm

    Our best hope is Obama fatigue. The press will probably always love him but America will surely become bored, if not disenchanted, before his second term expires.

    That is not going to happen. His entire economic policy is to strangle the private sector and force as many people as possible to become dependent on the government. Once they’re addicted to government benefits, they will be afraid to vote for anyone who they perceive to be likely to reduce them or cut them off. This strategy has already borne fruit, and was part of his margin of victory in 2012. It will only get worse in 2016.

    Think Hugo Chavez. How many elections has he won? I’ve lost count. The Venezuelan middle class, or what’s left of it, despises him; but the poor regard him as a savior. That’s where Obama is taking America. He aims to enlarge the number of poor, dependent people who will be beholden to him.

  46. rickl Says:

    I have no patience for anybody who blames conservatives for Romney’s loss. There were far more who knew he was a bad candidate but held their noses and voted for him anyway than those who stayed home.

    But 2012 was the last chance for the Republican Party, and they blew it. There are too many voters who are sick and tired of voting for the lesser of two evils, and simply won’t do it any more. I predict that they will lose the House in 2014. It may even be a landslide. The so-called “base” is melting away. More and more people are seeing that there is no reason to vote for the Institutional Republican Party, as they are part of the problem.

    Look at how Weepin’ John Boehner has systematically purged Tea Party conservatives from committee positions. I assure you that conservative and libertarian voters are watching and paying attention. We are fed up and we are not going to tolerate it any more. As I have said before, the Republican establishment has no principles whatsoever and simply wants a seat at the table of power, like the European “conservative” parties.

    The Republican Party is dead. It just hasn’t fallen over yet.

  47. pst314 Says:

    “It puzzles me that so much of what I and many others see in Obama, those personal qualities that alarm us, are seemingly invisible to the vast majority of his admirers.”

    They aren’t invisible. It’s just that liberals see them as virtues. All totalitarians think that way.

  48. expat Says:

    rickl,

    Who would have been a good candidate? Until conservatives start being realistic and thinking strategically and tactically, we won’t get anywhere. Too many seem willing to make dumb statements to prove their conservative creds. The answer to Fluke should have been a loud and constant repeat of Romney’s take: No one is talking about taking away birth control, and, As in so many other areas, should we borrow from China to pay Fluke’s bills?

  49. Ymarsakar Says:

    I’m not sure why people think elections matter. The Left knows it doesn’t, since all they do is print more votes when they need it. Sure, that’s hard and requires money, but it’s easier for them than trying to “win elections” in the sense of convincing voters.

  50. WEDNESDAY GOD & CAESAR EDITION | Big Pulpit Says:

    [...] Beauty in the Ear of the Behearer – Neo-Neocon [...]

  51. Don Carlos Says:

    Neo’s PTC thesis that Leftists are born, not made, means determinism wins and all is lost. All.Is.Lost.

    Like natural blondes in Scandinavia–a recessive gene that requires the mating of two blondes to make a new blonde. With the collapse of the Scandinavian gene pool, minority blondes are the first to disappear.

    I am inclined to agree with the PTC thesis, troubling though it is. And I am not at all sure Neo will agree with my extrapolation. Whence came the thesis of Natural Rights? Where did that thesis ever hold? Not among the yellow, brown or black of the world; only among the social and political “blondes”.

  52. neo-neocon Says:

    Don Carlos: Actually, I’m not sure the trouble I’m describing is a strictly political one. I think it transcends politics, although it seems connected with it. For example, I know liberals whose radar goes off with Obama; they just don’t like or trust him. That’s not the majority of liberals I know, but definitely more than one. And I know people on the right who disagree with his politics and didn’t vote for him but whose radar does NOT go off; they think he’s an okay person and don’t see him as duplicitous or nasty. I don’t know what percentage of people on the right this would describe.

  53. neo-neocon Says:

    pst314: I disagree strongly. Demonize all liberals all you want, but you are wrong, IMHO.

    Please remember also that (a) I once called myself a liberal, and voted like one, and I was the same person then that I am now; I was just poorly informed; and (b) I know tons of liberals, and most of them are not as you describe. You are describing a certain group, to be sure, but not all by any means, and in my opinion not even most.

  54. blert Says:

    I don’t honestly think that Barry honestly won the election.

    He weaponized the US Census – -taking it inside the Pink House — you do remember?

    The gross statistics are almost meaningless. The 2012 election was NOT fought on a national basis. Out here in California, you’d scarcely know that an election was underway — except for the news channels.

    With 40% of the electoral votes required for victory — Californians saw almost no media buys — primaries or November.

    !

    The corruption of the Philadelphia urban ward vote was to the limit — and brought 29 EVs to Barry.

    The corruption of the Florida vote was evident. Every time the western panhandle posted fresh, Romney, votes — newly discovered Miami votes kept turning up. They’re a full hour apart — closing wise.

    Ohio had Somali immigrants — effectively illiterate — bused from town to town — voting ahead of election day.

    Google black hats ran a sweet campaign for the Wan — Mitt can’t get his Web portal on-line. It was bombed with demand. Like a DOS attack. Imagine that.

    And then, the Wan, himself, didn’t look like an invigorated man. Mitt did. They were both looking at top notch poll numbers. Florida was considered so out of contention that pollsters left the state in mid-October.

    And, North Carolina — not even considered a battleground state — almost went for Barry. It kept generating last gasp voters in its eastern urban centers.

    It now comes out that Black gals were driving from booth to booth voting anyone not yet ticked off the list — so that Barry ends up with Saddam and Adolf levels of voter approval.

    Imagine that. EVERY SINGLE BLACK VOTER MADE IT TO THE POLLS in countless machine run voting districts.

    =======

    But, it was an honest election….

    R i i g h t.

  55. neo-neocon Says:

    blert: that “every single black voter made it to the polls in countless machine run voting districts”–not true. It was an internet-spread misunderstanding of the reporting of certain voting data. In fact, in some black districts, all voters who did come to the polls voted for Obama. But by no means did all possible voters get to the polls. And those districts had voted very similarly before; they are simply all black and very poor districts. I did a draft for a post on this and had cites for it at the time, but I’m in a hurry right now and can’t provide the links (but I probably can later if you need them).

  56. Ymarsakar Says:

    “I don’t honestly think that Barry honestly won the election.”

    That’s been true for awhile, but in 2001, they had some issues in Florida. They realized it was hard to do such things outside Chicago. But it does mean controlling certain districts and states was a lot easier than trying to macro manipulate the popular vote. All they had to do was fabricate enough votes to counter act whoever was voting for Romney in X states, and that was it. Those X states happened to be Democrat controlled too.

    They were doing these things as early as FDR’s 4 term Presidency. It’s nothing new. What is new is how they got 99% of urban blacks to vote for em. That is better than Saddam got even.

  57. Ymarsakar Says:

    Well, 93% of DC residents voted for Obedience guy there in 2008. DC is made out of blacks? No.

    The backbone of Leftist power is not vote fraud, that’s just a magic trick they pull out when they need it. THe backbone of Leftist power is that they have literally enslave several demographics in the US, far worse than when they complained about Iraqi tribes voting for one candidate.

    A second world country was indeed a better democracy than many parts of America. One reason fixing it scared the Left in certain ways.

    With the recent Benghazi scare, people may come to understand what I did long ago. The Left didn’t really care about Americans dying in 2003-2007. They didn’t. They cared about power though.

  58. IGotBupkis, Legally Defined Cyberbully in All 57 States and some Canadian provinces Says:

    }}} It’s a bit like the ability to detect PTC by its bitter taste. Some have the trait and some don’t

    I’m reminded of an interesting anecdote from the pesticide industry.

    Back in the 80s, RAID (or Black Flag, I forget) was testing a new roach bait that targeted the nest, preventing the roaches from reproducing, solving one of the issues with previous treatments, that roaches developed immunity over time.

    Well, they got reports that roaches were developing immunity.

    At first, they blew them off as mistaken, but eventually the reports made it clear that something was happening.

    After some time spent investigating the problem, it turned out that some roaches were ignoring the baits. Turns out, there are/were two different kinds of cockroaches — sucrose averse and non sucrose averse — that is, some would not touch sucrose. The bait, of course, had a sucrose formulation, so what would happen is it would kill off the non-sucrose averse roaches (which were more plentiful) and clear the way for the sucrose averse roaches to take over and “show immunity”.

    They reformulated the bait so it no longer contained sucrose, and “Bob’s Your Uncle”, problem solved.

    Another personal anecdote surrounds Coke vs. Pepsi fans.

    I have always preferred Pepsi to Coke (yes, I’m in the minority), and was amused one time when a Coke fan told me they thought Pepsi tasted sweeter than Coke. Given that my own impression is to the contrary, I began surveying, and my (non repeatable, non official) results are that, about 9-1, whichever one you like, the other one probably tastes sweeter to you.

    I presume there’s some chemical taste difference in peoples’ taste buds that causes them to “taste different” to different people.

  59. attraction marketing Says:

    Wow, that’s what I was looking for, what a stuff! present here
    at this webpage, thanks admin of this web site.

  60. karolinakurkova Says:

    I do believe all the ideas you have presented on your post.

    They are very convincing and will certainly work.
    Nonetheless, the posts are very short for beginners.
    May just you please prolong them a bit from subsequent time?
    Thank you for the post.

  61. Desiree Says:

    This is really interesting, You’re a very skilled blogger.
    I’ve joined your rss feed and look forward to seeking more of your wonderful post.

    Also, I’ve shared your site in my social networks!

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 >>






Monthly Archives



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