The Obama infomercial
There really hasn’t been a previous president capable of this sort of thing:
Obama describes Republicans and their actions by saying, “It’s not on the level.” “It makes people cynical.” But that’s a good way to describe Obama himself. Note, also, the affectation of his constantly dropped “g’s,” part of his effort to seem like he’s just one of the little guys. He even says, “I was you guys” [at minute 1:25].
And then there’s the sentence at minute 2:16 that begins, “I’ll be honest with you.” When Obama starts that way, watch out because it means there’s an especially pernicious whopper coming. This time it was this [emphasis in the original]:
We’ve got a party on the other side whose only rationale, motivation seems to be opposing me.
Note he doesn’t even say “opposing my agenda.” It’s all about him you see; it’s personal, and of course there’s always the implied racism of his opponents, because why else would they concentrate so much on him? Otherwise, it would be on his party or his policies.
And hating on him is not just his opponents’ agenda, it’s their only agenda. According to Obama, they adhere to no policies that are opposed to him, they have no philosophy of government that he’s running roughshod over. All they have is this agenda of opposing him out of sheer spitefulness, bile, orneriness, hate.
Have we ever seen a president like this? All opposition to his proposals are by definition ad hominem attacks, according to him. And yet most of his attacks actually are ad hominem attacks. It’s a beautiful Orwellian circle he’s got going there.
Obama also seems awkward and tense here, almost hesitant. But he keeps doing it, and I suppose somebody’s still buying it. After all, his approval ratings are still well above the 5% they should be at this point.
Every previous president I can remember in my lifetime, Democrat or Republican, showed a basic respect for his opposition. For the most part, they also thought they had to answer to scandals and take them seriously. Obama does neither, and therefore doesn’t just disrespect the office and the opposition, he disrespects the American people—although I have to say that by electing him twice, they’ve earned it.
[NOTE: Here’s a companion piece; do the nine SCOTUS justices oppose Obama for the sheer bile of it, too? And please watch the whole thing, because it’s the second half that’s most important, and it’s not all that long:
I agree with it for the most part, although I don’t think that even Obama thinks he’s doing good any more. I think more of his motivation is hatred at this point. And yes, Obama the constitutional law teacher knows exactly what he’s doing in terms of unconstitutional overreach.]
I think Obama is too self-absorbed to respect his opposition.
Obama constitutional overreach is scary for the precedent it will set. Even if every other president is a Republican, it’s dangerous.
Obama does not care about the consequences of his actions. He’s a leftist after all. All he cares about is congratulating himself for his supposed good intentions.
“I’ll be honest with you” also implies that, up until that point, he has not been honest with us.
It’s a damning phrase no matter how it’s construed — from the “smartest” man to ever sit in the oval office.
I used to think that Obama was just hateful but now I think he is depraved. Look up the definition of moral turpitude. I consider all leftists to be depraved. The reason is because I saw an interview with Eric Hobsbawm, a British Marxist, on BBC TV some years ago. It was on PBS here. He said that he realized that communism wasn’t working by the 1960s, but he had to continue supporting it because otherwise he would have been in depression. He also said that 100 million deaths would have been worth it if communism was successful. So he continued to espouse communism because he couldn’t admit he had been conned, that he was a fool. It would have been too embarassing, even humilating. Even worse, he saw nothing wrong with 100 million deaths to achieve success. Had I been the interviewer I would have asked him if 200 or 300 million deaths would be acceptable to achieve the communist utopia.
Neo, you and anyone else who can stand listening to that pompous charlatan and analyze his words at this point deserves some sort of special recognition, maybe being made an honorary SEAL or combat veteran status. To paraphrase Mark Twain, the heads of nations should stand when you enter the room.
I agree with everyone about Obama planting poisonous seeds that will germinate in the most horrible ways long after he is gone. Can there be any other outcome if he is not stopped and punished but eventual dictatorship.
I think President Wilson could have come close. He didn’t have quite the narcissism of Obama, but the cold heart and hatred of life was shared.
Bill Maher recently stated Obama was an athiest. Maher would probably know.
A dogmatic belief in objective value is necessary to the very idea of a rule which is not tyranny or an obedience which is not slavery.”
― C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man
Until the rise of bho I have long considered Wilson as the president who did the most damage to the fabric of our constitutional system, and yes he was a mean spirited, vain SOB; but bho is in a league of his own. Barack Hussein Obama is a spoiled punk twice elected to POTUS who truly hates America and wants to cause as much destruction as possible to the concept of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness which this nation was founded upon.
And no, there has never until now, been a POTUS who has showed complete disdain for the dignity of his office and showed so much vicious hatred for those who oppose his agenda.
Him chewing gum at the D-Day observance … that was just as awful and disrespectful as it gets. The president of these United States, chewing gum like a truculent teenager. What a spectacle.
SGT, I think Hussein was chewing something in the gym as well. Nicotine gum or perhaps he was wee weeding it up and needed to quit?
Parker, well he is the first Black President, after all. Black signifying death, pirates, and plagues.
I can’t recall ever having a president in my memory—even Johnson—who had such poor grammar and such disrespectful mannerisms.
It’s going to be a long couple of years.
The end of the movie “The Caine Mutiny” popped into my head, see if these quotes seem like they might have come from Obama in a slightly different world –
Captain Queeg:
All the officers were disloyal.
They were always fighting me.
Ahh, but the strawberries that’s… that’s where I had them. They laughed at me and made jokes but I proved beyond the shadow of a doubt and with… geometric logic… that a duplicate key to the wardroom icebox DID exist, and I’d have produced that key if they hadn’t of pulled the Caine out of action. I, I, I know now they were only trying to protect some fellow officers…
To quote a much greater man than Obama, “…not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”
I do oppose him. Because he is a narcissistic, unreformed socialist. Because socialism is based on envy and utopian fantasy. When coupled with his well-known lies, it paints a picture of a very small, petty tyrant.
And not one jot of the statement above relies upon the color of his skin, but solely on the content of his character.
Barry studied the US Constitution — as opposition research — nothing more.
For those who still take their oaths to defend he
Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, deposing the manque-in-chief is the ultimate necessary course. Unless no one cares about Madisonian tyranny at all.
“If Obama were a Republican,” he never would have made it past the vetting process, much less the primaries.
It’s a pity Charles Krauthammer refuses to consider how his concluding argument “. . . if he gets away with all this over-reach, creating laws, rewriting laws, ignoring laws, it will be a terrible defeat for the country and for the rule of law . . .” undermines his tacit support for Boehner’s ridiculous ‘lawsuit’, when the Congress (decidedly not John Boehner, for who is he in a Constitutional republican scheme of government, the King?) has in its hands at the intention of the framers of that Constitution the perfect means of correction to an over-reaching executive. To abjure the use of this proper Constitutional means in impeachment is already to abandon the very Constitution Krauthammer claims he wishes to obey. A pity, simply because it’s hard to believe that Krauthammer desires that we lose our respect for his voice, and yet, such is the result.
sdferr,
Preview is your friend considering your muddled ‘arguments’.
Explain why, pray tell, Boehner’s lawsuit is ‘ridiculous’? Just saying that does not make it so. Eric the Red’s DoJ will not appoint a special prosecutor to investigate all the high crimes and misdemeanors of this Administration, as was done with Watergate. What do you expect Republicans to do, accede without a fight to President Petulant and his usurpation of Congressional and judicial power?
When the Administration/DoJ will not appoint a special prosecutor, then Boehner, as Speaker, can seek relief in the courts.
I don’t give a sheit about his phonetics, his gum, his personal conduct, his jug ears, his stupid slightly rolled-up sleeves.Yes, he’s a disgusting creature, but that’s not what matters.
I care about the ruin, the absolute ruin of the politically most remarkable nation the world has ever seen, but it is now clear that was a one-off. The nihilistic forces Hussein has set in motion will have an inexorable inertia of their own, worldwide. The lights are going out worldwide and we shall not see them lighted again, ever. The Ignorati prevail. The few of us will hunker down like secret jews in catholic 15th century Spain, or secret Christians in an emirate, unable to do more than keep a flickering flame of reason barely alive.
To assume a priori that opinion regarding the necessity of impeachment of the ClownDisaster is fixed — permanently inalterable — is in error. Political opinion, particularly mistaken and deleterious political opinion, is always changeable.
Contrariwise, to preach day in and day out that impeachment is made impossible on account of this presumed inalterable opinion (a nonsense) is to propagandize on behalf of that false opinion ab initio.
Anyone who thinks that impeachment is precisely the proper course for the correction of an over-reaching, incompetent, or incipient tyrannical executive, owes not merely the country but their own considered view a duty to argue for the change of that nonsensical opinion that impeachment is ‘closed’ or utterly out of bounds. They owe it to themselves as well as to their oath on the Constitution — should they happen to have taken one — to persuade the polity that the polity’s own safety lies in upholding the rule of law: that within the meaning of the rule of law is a faithfulness to the prudent intentions of the impeachment clauses.
Because these propositions arise within the meaning of the Constitution itself, long before any resort to this ridiculous ‘lawsuit’ (support for which Krauthammer himself hedges with “should they get standing”), these ought by right to be the first resort of a faithful Congress. Any absurd talk of abjuring the proper — which is to say the explicitly lawful — means of removing in a lawless executive is implicitly to abdicate the law, i.e. the Constitution.
Better, first things first.
How is this different from an Osama Bin Laden video? The guy’s name is Hussein instead?
Krauthammer lacks the spine to say or do much of anything in DC. All his friends, all his business associates, are in or through DC. He’s been thoroughly corrupted, even if his ideology is different from the Left’s. That doesn’t stop the Left from making use of people who refuse to fight.
As for the lawsuit, it’s may be seen as pathetic, although a necessary try, because of how little damage it would do in reality.
“Krauthammer lacks the spine” is a terribly inappropriate remark about a man who fractured his spine as a young adult and is paraplegic as a result, Ymar.
Krauthammer is heeded by millions. Yes he can be wrong and has been, but let’s concentrate our fire on the Enemy: Hussein and his running dogs.
Krauthammer is heeded by millions.
I’m sure millions also gave you your award, DC. I don’t really give a damn, and never will. Save your words for someone that cares. When Kraut gets a spine in DC, that’ll be his problem (DC dissolves spines automatically), not mine.
Your authority DC, ain’t worth a damn thing to me.
sdferr,
What you say is correct, as far as it goes. But it is a theoretical argument.
The practical reality is that:
1) To convict, as opposed merely to bringing charges (i.e. impeach) will require Democrats to cross the aisle.
2) Democrats will not do that, as long as Obama is popular with the Dem base.
And here is the template for Obama’s entire tenure: while the demagogue remains popular, he can’t be touched.
In that case, the first step is to make him unpopular.
I’d love for our side to take credit for that, but the establishment hasn’t laid a glove on him. All his decline in the polls has been due to his own ineptitude. Fine. We’ll take what we can get, without accepting credit for it.
Two final notes:
1) Even if Obama becomes wildly unpopular, the cultism among the upper ranks of the Dems may prevent them from impeaching him anyway. They would feel badly about impeaching such an historic black man, you see. And we can’t have them feeling bad, can we? In fact, I think this is the most likely response. If true, that means there is no practical way to impeach (and convict) him.
Conviction is important because if impeached and then not convicted, the left will see it (and preach it) as an exoneration. Afterwards, things may be worse than if he were never impeached at all; especially if the people agree with this narrative. (See the failed Clinton impeachment trial and the resulting polls for what this looks like)
2) The difference between theory and practice is all-important. All of your theoretical arguments are correct (and I share them), but if the people don’t care about theory, then it’s just words.
My own view is that the citizens of this country are mostly inattentive, to a great extent out of disgust with politics. I’m sure TPTB have purposefully worked to sow this attitude.
The people will ignore as much as they can, right up until it hits them in the pocketbook. That, they can’t ignore.
In order to take effective action, the popular sentiment must be marshaled. And the people don’t care about theory.
I simply don’t agree to the dismissive bifurcation. Politics is largely a matter of persuasion, at least where it is not simply coercion, and as such a practical business. There’s nothing theoretical about it. That the effort may require energy and courage, qualities sorely missing in our political representatives these days I’ll happily grant — will to begin down the right path also isn’t a theoretical matter, it’s merely the choice of a thinking and determined agent.
People aren’t disgusted with politics. They are afraid of the Left. They are just like Muslims. The minor of crazies determine for 97% of humanity what happens, just like the good old US of A democracy.
The Left is at war. They aren’t a political branch or party. That’s what people don’t realize, and so they can’t win the war.
@sdferr,
If the people are disconnected, as I hypothesize, then it almost doesn’t matter what our leadership is like because they can not and will not reach the LIVs…because the LIV’s don’t want to be reached.
I further hypothesize that Obama’s apparent polling floor of 40% is partially due to these people…say 15% out of the 40%.
This is why talk of impeachment is theoretical, especially in context of stiffening our leaders’ spines. What’s needed is a gigantic external event that cannot be ignored, such as another recession.
When the self-centered LIVs get their ox gored, they will lash out.
We’ve already seen some of this in the stories surrounding the individual mandate. Lifelong Dems incensed that they were lied to, and such. Of course, there were others that refused to blame Obama, but what can I say? Some people are lost causes.
So, there’s not going to be any “persuading” going on, because these people aren’t even listening to us…or anyone else.
@Ymarsakar,
Even assuming people are more afraid than disgusted, as you suggest, you know what trumps fear?
Hate.
If another recession/depression comes, and parents are forced to watch their children starving, the hate will flow.
And like all hate, it will be an ugly thing to see.
Hate comes directly from fear. Women are made to fear being rape, being single, by the LEft, so they hate the Republicans, not the Democrat education that disarms them.
A Regime merely has to divert the hate to the right targets. Jews. Whites. Republicans. Tea Party ists. Domestic terrorists like US veterans. Somebody.
But until people stop hating Bush and the other convenient scapegoats, they can’t be made to hate the right targets either.
What’s needed is a gigantic external event that cannot be ignored, such as another recession.
If injury and harms are together what are needful to direct the minds of those who do suffer and will in future suffer under them toward the causes of their suffering injuries and harms, pelting these innocent people day after day for years on end, yet all these injuries and harms are not together enough to trigger recognition — who would desire that yet more injustice should fall upon them, and do so in good conscience? With regret, I cannot join in such a thing.
For enough!, far more than enough injustice has already come, laying the ground for much greater injustice to follow, as night follows day; enough lawlessness and intentional lawbreaking for the sake of gathering greater power — to be ever more lawless — has taken place; enough thoughtlessness pretending to defend the nation from external threat, while vigorously enabling that same external threat, has struck its self-righteous pose on stage.
No, no more. This must stop.
And yet, these deeds of deep wrongdoing against the nation are not our sole concern, for we must step back, looking before and beyond this pusillanimous character Pres. IWonPenPhone.
What do we see?
What of the other actors on the scene — the nominal opponents of Pres. IWonPenPhone — who themselves pretend to desire a rule of law and yet who turn away from the source of the rule of law they claim to desire? Must we not recognize their deceptions of us? Must we not hold them to the standards they claim to uphold to us?
Take an analogy, if you will? Recall Chief Justice John Roberts’ exclamation in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1: “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”
A tautology? Yes, in a manner, yes, certainly, a tautology. As well, however, this is a call to an active practice: “Do you wish to stop? Well then, begin by stopping.”
Also a call to an active practice: “Do you desire we obey the law? Well then, try to begin by obeying the law.”