July 20th, 2015

Obama’s abilities

Commenter “FOAF” writes:

Neo, I have always known how intensely you dislike Obama. If anything you despise him even more than I do and that’s saying a *lot*. But you seem to be according some kind of regard for his abilities that some of us do not feel is warranted.

One thing that has always maddened me about Obama apart from the obvious points of his ideology and personality/character is that he had almost no substantive accomplishments in his life prior to his election as POTUS. Yes he was a “community organizer” but what did he actually do as such? Nearly everyone here equally loathes the real community organizer Saul Alinsky. But regardless of that, the things Alinsky did entailed some degree of planning and organization – activities that are notably lacking in Obama’s pre-POTUS resume. And I suspect that even now his attempts at these are pretty desultory.

First of all, I think it is very dangerous to underestimate your opposition. It does no good whatsoever, and is one of the many reasons Obama has succeeded: his opponents have continually underestimated him in terms of what he can accomplish and how far he is willing to go to accomplish it.

I don’t think I overestimate him, either; I think he has many accomplishments, they’re just not the ones people usually look for in a president. I certainly don’t admire most of these things, nor do I think him an intellectual genius or even a giant. I think he’s smart, cunning, and determined, and charming when he wants to be, as well as unprincipled, which can be a pretty powerful combination under the right circumstances.

I don’t mean to say he’s done this alone; not by a longshot. He’s had help, advice, mentors, and supporters, as well as a public primed by the media (both MSM and entertainment), the press, and academia. But he is also an expert at three things in particular: presenting himself as whatever people want him to be, campaigning, and getting and keeping power and pushing for more of it. Those may not be laudable things, but they are important things in the world, and he is excellent at all three. What’s more, his planning and acumen do go back a long way.

No, he doesn’t have many of the conventional accomplishments that historically have qualified a person for the presidency prior to running. He had some credentials in the world, though: Harvard Law, guest lecturer at a prestigious university, community organizer, state legislator, US senator, and had his name on two books as their author. But he has not been a governor, or a US senator for very long, nor has he executive experience of any magnitude. And he certainly wasn’t a general, like Eisenhower or Grant. Obama had other “qualifications,” however.

Obama has long reminded me of the Godfather figure in the eponymous movie, especially in his rise. No, I don’t mean Obama is a murderer or even particularly crooked compared to the general run of politicians. But way back before Obama was elected, when I was first learning about him, I read up on his past and got a cold, cold chill. I’ve written about these things before, of course: remember the Alice Palmer incident, which occurred right at the very start of Obama’s political career? Or Blair Hull and Jack Ryan? (If you don’t recall, please read the links to refresh your memory).

These were not accidents. Although Obama probably did not work alone—he always had help—he was cunning, ruthless, smart, manipulative, charming when he needed to be and nasty when that was required. He amassed power and status, and mowed anyone down who was in a position to stop him.

Except for Bobby Rush. Taking him on was Obama’s one mistake. But he learned from it and never made a similar mistake again, or really any mistake of any consequence (and if you think things like mispronouncing “corpsman” are of consequence to anyone inclined to vote for him, I think you’re wrong).

During the 2008 presidential campaign, many people on the right were paying so much attention to Obama’s leftist confederates and acquaintances—Ayers, Reverend Wright, Frank Marshall Davis—that they had less energy for what Obama himself had actually done—his astounding rise, and who he had crushed along the way, and how.

Take the matter of Emil Jones. If you want to learn a lot about the sort of operator Obama was back in his early political days in Chicago, you’d do well to read this, which also goes into the way that Emil Jones greased the skids for Obama by handing him legislation on a silver platter, and how angry Obama got when anyone suggested he hadn’t accomplished this on his own. And that article I just linked was written by an Obama admirer; I can only imagine what detractors would have written. This information was in the public domain prior to the 2008 election; wonder why so few people have heard of this stuff?

Or how about this, which was also written before the 2008 election and, although something of a puff piece, still contains some clues to Obama’s rise and how he engineered it with Jones’ help and his own cold-blooded ambition. After the Democrats finally won control of the Illinois state legislature after years in the wilderness of Republican domination, Obama went to the newly-minted Majority Leader Emil Jones (whom he had carefully cultivated even before he was elevated to that position) with a proposition:

…[Obama] went to see Jones with a big idea. By that point the two men had known each other for the better part of 20 years, but theirs had not always been an easy relationship. They had first met in the mid-1980s, when Obama, as a community organizer on the far South Side, had seen Jones as an “old ward heeler”…

Jones, a chain-smoking, gravelly voiced, unvarnished throwback to the era of the old Daley machine, was wary of Obama, a freshly minted agitator from Columbia University. Obama and other community activists “were in-your-face types [said Jones to the reporter]. I happened to see them out there one day. And I told them, I said, ‘You don’t gotta be outside. Come on in the office.’ ”

A friendship was born. A decade later, after returning to Chicago with a law degree and the mantle of first black president of the Harvard Law Review, Obama won his own state-senate seat, taking the place of an incumbent [Alice Palmer] who had decided to run for Congress, placed a distant third in the Democratic primary, changed her mind, and—with Jones’s help—tried to run for her old seat after all. Obama’s team, in a move as bold as it was adroit, challenged her nominating petitions and managed to keep her name off the ballot.

Let’s pause for a minute to understand what was happening. Obama had met Jones before he even went to Harvard Law, and at first Jones and Obama were mutually distrustful but then struck up a friendship. But during Obama’s first run for office years later, Obama pulled a really nasty but very effective power move on Jones’ favored candidate, Alice Palmer, and won. This (as I read in more detail in another article that unfortunately I can’t seem to locate right now) really impressed Jones and made him realize that Obama was no soft law school prof but one of the more hardened and ruthless pols around, even though he was just beginning in the trade. The Alice Palmer gambit was what I call Obama’s Godfather move, and Jones understood that he was in the presence of a man with certain gifts: the ability to look like a nice guy and yet who had no reluctance to mow people down, even former friends and mentors, when he needed to do so to get ahead.

To continue:

Obama arrived in Springfield and told Jones, then the minority leader, that he wanted to “work hard.” He promptly became Jones’s point person on a number of tricky issues, including ethics reform. Now, with Jones elevated to the senate presidency, Obama was approaching him with a cold-eyed proposal.

“After I was elected president, in 2003, he came to see me, a couple months later,” Jones recalled, relishing the tale. “And he said to me, he said, ‘You’re the senate president now, and with that, you have a lot of pow-er.’ ” Jones stretched out the word, as if savoring the pleasure of it, and his voice became very quiet as he continued: “And I told Barack, ‘You think I got a lot of pow-er now?,’ and he said, ‘Yeah, you got a lot of pow-er.’ And I said, ‘What kind of pow-er do I have?’ He said, ‘You have the pow-er to make a United States sen-a-tor!’ ” Jones let out a soft, smoky laugh. “I said to Barack, I said, ‘That sounds ood!’ I said, ‘I haven’t even thought of that.’ I said, ‘Do you have someone in mind you think I could make?,’ and he said, ‘Yeah. Me.’ ”

Jones let the words hang for a moment, and then went on. “The most interesting conversation. And so I said to him, ‘Let me think about this.’ ” Obama knew that Jones’s support could single-handedly freeze the discretion of other powerful politicians in the state, and put endorsements of possible rivals on ice. “We met a little later that day, and I said, ‘That sounds good. Let’s go for it.’ ”

Jones gave legislation to Obama that other people had worked on for years, and that (as this article I linked previously made clear) frustrated and angered a lot of legislators who had done the actual work on the bills and had to watch as Obama got the glory instead of them. Obama, the freshman, knew exactly how to work Jones, who’d been doing this for years, and Jones knew a fellow master manipulator of power when he saw one.

Todd Purdum, author of this Vanity Fair piece, is an admirer of Obama. But he noticed something important about how Obama got to the top, and how his ability to hide his ruthless nature (Purdum calls it Obama’s “toughness”) behind a mild facade helped him get there and get there fast:

The rare talent is to wear ambition lightly, and to allow toughness to be taken for granted. Obama’s life and career suggest he has that talent—or at least that gift. He long ago decided that he had a chance to make something extraordinary of himself. With a calculating consistency that may not always have been apparent to others, or even sometimes to himself, he set out to do just that. His half-sister, Maya Soetoro-Ng, a schoolteacher in Hawaii, says simply, “He’s a very cool customer.”

A man like that can do without the usual “accomplishments” ordinarily deemed necessary to reach the presidency.

[NOTE: By the way, according to Purdum, Emil Jones has the Godfather theme as his cell phone ring. And the introduction to this interview with Emil Jones mentions that Obama calls Jones his “political godfather.” Funny how that comparison keeps popping up.]

49 Responses to “Obama’s abilities”

  1. Cornhead Says:

    And Barack can speak the Negro dialect when he needs to; at least according to Senator Harry Reid a/k/a Senator Geary.

  2. KLSmith Says:

    Yeah, he’s ruthless. And he has a nice smile and a calm voice. But mostly he has the MSM completely in his pocket. There can be no underestimating their value to his success. He could not be where he is without them.

  3. neo-neocon Says:


    Of course. As I wrote:

    I don’t mean to say he’s done this alone; not by a longshot. He’s had help, advice, mentors, and supporters, as well as a public primed by the media (both MSM and entertainment), the press, and academia. But he is also an expert at three things in particular…

    My point is not, I repeat, that he did it alone. There are many “but for”s. But the idea that his own particular “skills” weren’t a very significant part of it is wrong, and an underestimation of those skills.

  4. KLSmith Says:

    Neo: I think we pretty much agree except I may give slightly more weight to the media than do you. On a brighter note – the less than 18 mos left in office countdown begins today.

  5. parker Says:

    To paraphrase Chinatown: Forget it Jake, its Chicago. Chicago’s corrupt, cynical, ruthless democrat machine made bho what he is today. Granted bho had the talent to exploit the possibilities provided by burrowing into the corruption and he has shown himself to be a ruthless chameleon on the national stage (with the msm providing cover); but as noted, “he didn’t build that on his own”.

  6. Paul in Boston Says:

    I believe that Emil Jones is responsible for the wonderful line, “you call it pork, I call it steak.”

    KLSmith. It’s actually scary that there are still 18 months left in Obsma’s term. He will now go all out to maximize the damage to what’s left of the Republic without compunction. The MSM will cheer him on and attack anyone who dares criticize his attempts to bring us Utopia on Earth. Just you wait, now that the Iraq deal is done, he will do every thing he can to finish his agenda in his sneaky underhanded way.

  7. F Says:

    Paul in Boston:

    “now that the Iran deal is done. . .”


  8. KLSmith Says:

    Paul: true. But throw me a bone; I have to celebrate something.

  9. Doom Says:

    I was pretty much with FOAF, but I think you may have tipped the balance, or at least re-opened the door. Dang women types! :p

    I don’t trust women, specifically for their femininity. Though, if I don’t always say it, I also don’t trust men, specifically for our masculinity. Then again, men don’t care. Women often do. And it’s more fun to give women psychic tonsillitis, and often so easy. Don’t have to, as much, with some women. *wink* Anywhile… back to looking for fresh targets.

  10. carl in atlanta Says:

    Talk about having help: In what material respects is he really any different than The Manchurian Candidate? I’ll stipulate that the FLOTUS is no Angela Lansbury…

  11. Beverly Says:

    I don’t remember where I read it, but a commenter said that an old friend of his, a black journalist, initially couldn’t stand Hussein O., that he was one of the coldest bastards he’d ever met (was assigned to Hussein’s campaign plane). That same guy, however, ended up voting for the SOB and being a gung-ho supporter because he was a black man.

    There were moments in the Obama/Romney second debate where the mask came off, and what I think of as Obama’s black-glass glare was visible. Really made the hair on the back of the neck stand up.

    Oh, how he hates. Coldly, calculatingly, hates.

  12. Beverly Says:

    But he has Saruman’s gift of the voice. (He who has ears to hear, let him hear.)

  13. Philip Says:

    Hi, Neo. This is quite an interesting writeup–a good summation for someone like me who isn’t familiar with the deeper background. Thanks.

  14. Frog Says:

    Ah sh*t. We’re just gonna sit here and take it. That security guard in the CDC elevator could’ve saved us all.

  15. neo-neocon Says:


    My estimate would be that about 95% of voters aren’t familiar with the “deeper background.” The odd thing is that this was all in the public domain before the 2008 election. I was writing about it, and some other bloggers were writing about it. I will never understand why the Republicans and the press on the right didn’t make more of it. When I learned these things during the 2008 campaign, I was quite shocked. Then I was even more shocked to see how few people knew, for example, about what Obama did to Alice Palmer and the other candidates in his very first political run. That extremely long article was in the Chicago Tribune in April of 2007! That’s a well-known paper, and that’s long before the election. Why do so few people know about it even to this day? It’s a mystery to me. The only thing I can think of is that (a) of course the Democrats weren’t going to talk about it; and (b) the Republicans were afraid to talk about it because they were afraid of the “racism” charge.

    Although, by the way, Alice Palmer was a black woman, and I believe all the other candidates he swept off the primary ballot through his legal action were also black (not women, though), or at least most of them were.

    He’s quite the piece of work, Obama is.

  16. neo-neocon Says:


    Nope, it wasn’t just Chinatown.

    The point is—and I think the Emil Jones and Alice Palmer stories indicate this—Obama was impressive right from the start, even to the old Chicago pols. They recognized that Obama was a standout practitioner of the Chicago way, a natural, as it were, head and shoulders above the rest.

  17. Japan Says:

    So he have had some points paved his way to WH?
    I am in no way in support of Obama, but Neo you forgot one important point that missed your mind which is:

    A key part of President Obama’s legacy will be the fed’s unprecedented collection of sensitive data on Americans by race. The government is prying into our most personal information at the most local levels, all for the purpose of “racial and economic justice.”

    Obama collecting personal data for a secret race database
    By Paul SperryJuly 18, 2015 | 4:00pm

  18. FOAF Says:

    “They recognized that Obama was a standout practitioner of the Chicago way, a natural, as it were, head and shoulders above the rest.”

    I’ll buy that. But I still choke on calling it “leadership”. Even the crooked old Tammany Hall/Mayor Daley type bosses at least took care of their friends. Obama is only in it for himself, that is what is so chilling.

    That might have been what impressed them, that he was even more cold-blooded than they were. In my comment I made the point that “evil geniuses” are not necessarily so much smarter but simply more willing to do whatever it takes to seize and keep power. At the risk of going double Godwin, were Stalin and Hitler that much smarter than their opponents? Perhaps a little but they may have simply been more ruthless than rivals who were already in the 99th percentile of ruthlessness. Finally with Obama there is as many here have noted an enormous degree of enabling by the MFM. Now if you can prove he has blackmailed dozens of columnists and reporters … not that I wouldn’t put it past him but I don’t think he has to.

  19. FOAF Says:

    “On a brighter note – the less than 18 mos left in office countdown begins today.”

    We are not going to be rid of him on 1/20/2017, even if he doesn’t pull some move to cancel the election. If a Dem is elected he will be issuing snarky cheap shots weekly. If it’s a Republican he will be working 24×7 to undermine him. Either way he will have the enormous megaphone of the MFM supporting his divisive megalomania. And I’m not ready yet to withdraw my prediction that Michelle Obama could be the Dem nominee.

  20. CapnRusty Says:

    “Harvard Law, guest lecturer at a prestigious university, community organizer, state legislator, US senator, and had his name on two books as their author.”


    Every one of them could have been due to affirmative action.

    He’s had six and a half years to prove otherwise.

  21. junior Says:

    We are not going to be rid of him on 1/20/2017, even if he doesn’t pull some move to cancel the election. If a Dem is elected he will be issuing snarky cheap shots weekly. If it’s a Republican he will be working 24×7 to undermine him. Either way he will have the enormous megaphone of the MFM supporting his divisive megalomania. And I’m not ready yet to withdraw my prediction that Michelle Obama could be the Dem nominee.


    Obama’s gonna make Carter’s post-presidency look like the work of a lazy bum.


  22. Cornhead Says:

    Neo is correct. He is a natural in practicing the Chicago way.

    He has fundamentally transformed America with the debt and illegal immigration.

    The job is done and no one even noticed while he did it. Stealth.

  23. Artfldgr Says:

    Boys from Brazil without the cloning or exact life duplications…

  24. Artfldgr Says:

    1938 and 2015: Only the Names Are Different

    I called this over 10 years ago, it was that easy to see… but the problem then was that people wanted a real soothsayer, one who could describe the exact steps that would be taken, and if not, then ignore it for the reasonable position

    New “White Privilege Tax” for all White People Supported by Minorities…

    break out the ovens, break out the gas chambers, call for beatings in the streets for if you get all whites you get all jews (except relatives of sammy davis junior)…

    welcome to the new shoa.
    will it take the same few years to make it so?
    after all, in a very short while you will have a majority minority voting to take everything away and negate the constition and in effect destroy what they came here for.

    SHOA II – coming to a neigborhood near you

  25. G Joubert Says:

    You’re still not getting it. Obama is the epitome of an empty suit, and didn’t do any of these things contributing to his rise. Others did them, and others prepped him. We still don’t know who’s behind the curtain. But I’d wager that we will.

    You just don’t go from stoner on the beach in Hawaii to Columbia and HLS without somebody else’s major help, especially when you’re as lazy as we know he is.

  26. Artfldgr Says:

    “We must organize the Intellectuals.”
    – Willi Münzenberg

    i covered him a long time ago…
    anyone remember? Otto Katz??

    Artfldgr Says:
    February 1st, 2011 at 3:59 pm
    Most of this army of workers in what Münzenberg called ‘Innocents’ Clubs’ had no idea they were working for Stalin. They were led to believe that they were advancing the cause of a sort of socialist humanism.

    Artfldgr Says:
    June 6th, 2011 at 10:06 am

    he pioneered most of the manipulative political techniques which are a feature of life in Britain today. Ad hoc committees for endless causes, politicized arts festivals, mock trials, celebrity letterheads, disinformation stunts and protest marches all sprang from Münzenberg’s sheer genius for propaganda.

    Stephen Koch, in his book Double Lives: Stalin, Willi Münzenberg and the Seduction of the Intellectuals, calls this “righteous politics.” Political issues are turned into a quasi-religion, which brooks no debate – witness the ‘no platform’ antics of left-wing students who can tolerate no outlook besides their own.


    The individual is made into nothing … he operates as the physical part of a higher group intelligence … he has no awareness of the plans the higher group intelligence has for utilizing him …

    What now became clear to me was the collusion of these two forces: the Communists with their timetable for world control, and certain mercenary forces in the free world bent on making profits from blood.” Bella Dodd, head of the teachres union and the CPUSA


    “Today the path to total dictatorship in the U.S. can be laid by strictly legal means, unseen and unheard by Congress, the President, or the people… We have a well-organized political-action group in this country, determined to destroy our Constitution and establish a one-party state… The important point to remember about this group is not its ideology but its organization. It is a dynamic, aggressive, elite corps, forcing its way through every opening, to make a breach for a collectivist one-party state. It operates secretly, silently, continuously to transform our Government without suspecting that change is under way… If I seem to be extremist, the reason is that this revolutionary clique cannot be understood, unless we accept the fact that they are extremist. It is difficult for people governed by reasonablenss and morality to imagine the existence of a movement which ignores reasonableness and boasts of its determination to destroy; which ignores morality, and boasts of its cleverness in outwitting its opponents by abandoning all scruples. This ruthless power-seeking elite is a disease of our century… This group…is answerable neither to the President, the Congress, nor the courts. It is practically irremovable.”

    Senator William Jenner of Indiana (1954)

    dont bother, that was years ago… and this is now… and history dont repeat… but at least i had a record that almost half a decade ago i was commenting on the kind of fruits that such things lead to…

  27. G6loq Says:

    G Joubert Says:
    July 21st, 2015 at 9:35 am

    You just don’t go from stoner on the beach in Hawaii to Columbia and HLS without somebody else’s major help, especially when you’re as lazy as we know he is.

    A Puppet doing unorthodox moves ….

  28. blert Says:

    He couldn’t very well call him his ‘rabbi.’


  29. K-E Says:

    I have a liberal friend who grew up outside Chicago. I remember emailing her after the 2008 Democrat primaries and saying how badly I felt because of the way Obama treated Hillary and bullied and forced her supporters out of the process (In fact, at the time, there was a number of videos circulating online by Hillary supporters about this very thing…they were supposed to be making a movie about it. Oddly, I never saw this movie come out.).

    My friend said, “Well, he’s from Chicago.” In other words, she knew the process had been corrupted, but shrugged her shoulders.

    When Obama was running for a 2nd time, she was an ardent supporter and very pleased that he had won. This tells me that most democrats do not care if he’s a political ‘Godfather’ of sorts. They are totally fine with Obama doing whatever the heck he wants in office just because he’s the democrat and he ‘won’ the election.

    Sickening, really. You could point all of your Democrat friends to read all the links you provided on Obama’s background, and they really will not give a darn. In fact, they will likely be impressed with what he was able to accomplish and think that is a positive trait.

  30. AMartel Says:

    A fine reptile indeed, very cold-blooded.

    I get the point: Don’t underestimate the enemy. It’s a great point. I just think that the enemy is not ONE guy. Obama is a community project, a totem and a spokesmodel. A means to an end. It’s the community’s rock solid allegiance to this ONE guy that’s interesting. I think that some people who view the U.S. as the enemy (while enjoying all the bennies, of course) recognized very early on that this man, Obama, would be an ideal vehicle for their message and groomed him from a child to spew that message effectively. The commie “uncle” guy (Davis?) and later Ayers and Dorn actively sought to move Obama up the education ladder before he even got to community organizing in Chicago. Ayers and Dorn stayed somewhat involved while the Chicago machine moved him further along and then “moveon” and the media took over on the macro national level. Remember how enraged Jesse Jackson was that he couldn’t get Obama to heel and kneel to him? That was a good moment, and a revealing one, because all these different agendas then proceeded to line up behind this ONE guy. The man himself is likely a complete borehole; self-involved, egotistical, petty, and simultaneously pedantic and narrow. Way out of his depth if there was a level playing field. (That first debate with Romney.) Now the community is fighting amongst themselves again. Why? What happened to the organizing principle/principal?

  31. G6loq Says:

    Sickening, really. You could point all of your Democrat friends to read all the links you provided on Obama’s background, and they really will not give a darn.

    Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives,

    socialists, Marxists and Obama supporters, et al:

    We have stuck together since the late 1950’s for the sake

    of the kids, but the whole of this latest election process

    has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know we

    tolerated each other for many years for the sake of

    future generations, but sadly, this relationship has

    clearly run its course.

    Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will

    not ever agree on what is right for us all, so let’s just

    end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up

    to irreconcilable differences and go our own way.

    Here is a model separation agreement:

    –Our two groups can equitably divide up the country

    by landmass each taking a similar portion. That will be

    the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come

    to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be

    relatively easy! Our respective representatives can

    effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such

    distinct and disparate tastes.

    –We don’t like redistributive taxes so you can keep them.

    –You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU.

    –Since you hate guns and war, we’ll take our firearms,

    the cops, the NRA and the military.

    –We’ll take the nasty, smelly oil industry and you can

    go with wind, solar and biodiesel.

    –You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore and Rosie

    O’Donnell. You are, however, responsible for finding

    a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of


    –We’ll keep capitalism, greedy corporations,

    pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart and Wall


    –You can have your beloved lifelong welfare

    dwellers, food stamps, homeless, homeboys,

    hippies, druggies and illegal aliens.

    –We’ll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms,

    greedy CEO’s and rednecks.

    –We’ll keep the Bibles and give you NBC

    and Hollywood.

    –You can make nice with Iran and Palestine

    and we’ll retain the right to invade and hammer

    places that threaten us.

    –You can have the peaceniks and war protesters.

    When our allies or our way of life are under assault,

    we’ll help provide them security.

    –We’ll keep our Judeo-Christian values.

    –You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism,

    political correctness and Shirley McClain. You can

    also have the U.N. but we will no longer be paying

    the bill.

    –We’ll keep the SUV’s, pickup trucks and oversized

    luxury cars. You can take every Volt and Leaf you

    can find.

    –You can give everyone healthcare if you can find

    any practicing doctors.

    –We’ll continue to believe healthcare is a luxury and

    not a right.

    –We’ll keep “The Battle Hymn of the Republic” and

    “The National Anthem.”

    –I’m sure you’ll be happy to substitute “Imagine”,

    “I’d Like to Teach the World to Sing”, “Kum Ba Ya”

    or “We Are the World”.

    –We’ll practice trickle-down economics and you

    can continue to give trickle up poverty your best


    –Since it often so offends you, we’ll keep our

    history, our name and our flag.

    Would you agree to this? If so, please pass it

    along to other like-minded liberal and conservative

    patriots and if you do not agree, just hit delete. In

    the spirit of friendly parting, I’ll bet you answer

    which one of us will need whose help in 15 years.


    John J. Wall

  32. G6loq Says:

    Why? What happened to the organizing principle/principal?

    Conservatives are Wimps

  33. neo-neocon Says:



    This post, however, was in answer to a specific question about Obama’s own abilities and what they might be. However, as I said, he has a lot of help, and I absolutely agree that we should never underestimate the left as a whole (and that includes that Gramscian march that a lot of people on the right were unaware of until it reached more than critical mass). This is a previous post of mine that ties in with this idea.

  34. neo-neocon Says:


    That is why I see the two posts I wrote yesterday (7/20/15) as companion pieces. This one, and the one about liberals and the left and “ends justify the means.”

    They work together to create that shoulder shrug, or even applause, for a man like Obama if he’s on their side.

  35. neo-neocon Says:

    G Joubert:

    No, it’s you who doesn’t get it.

    And one of the things you don’t get is that I’ve already said many times that he didn’t do it without help.

    And yes, you can indeed go from “stoner on the beach in Hawaii to Columbia and HLS” without somebody else’s major help, especially when you’re as lazy as we know he is.” However, that’s a strawman—because no one is saying he didn’t have help. For example, the Emil Jones story is a prime example of that “major help.” But it’s also a prime example of something else: how Obama sought out that help and told that help who he was and what he thought he could do, and how the help evaluated him as being worthy of help. Obama was a major player in being seen that way and being helped. He is smart; there is no evidence that he is not, and plenty that he is. He is “lazy” in the sense you mean of not wanting to do hard, detailed work on things that don’t interest him. He’d rather just pretend to do it and get the credentials for it. But things that interest him he has a lot of energy and drive for. What interests him is politics, power, and convincing others to give him power, or taking power from them. What interests him is how to creatively lie to get what he wants.

  36. LisaM Says:

    I learned a lesson in 2008. I had done my homework (and read this blog) so I knew what he was. I considered it in poor taste to talk politics in social settings, so I didn’t. No more, and if I lose friends, so be it. If Hillary is the nominee I’ll be shouting her past transgressions from the rooftops, leading with her joking and laughing about getting a child rapist off by attacking the child. Let’s see the college feminists who destroy “rape deniers” defend that.

  37. neo-neocon Says:



    I’d be curious to hear if you change anyone’s mind, or if they just deflect what you say or shun you.

  38. G6loq Says:

    LisaM Says:
    July 21st, 2015 at 1:14 pm
    No more, and if I lose friends, so be it.
    Welcome to the club!

    Do not keep Liberal pets, do not be any Liberal’s pet ….

  39. LisaM Says:

    I wasn’t thinking of Liberals (who are a lost cause) but low-information voters who are mostly apolitical. I’ll make sure they know who and what Hillary Clinton is.

  40. Ymarsakar Says:

    Some organizations can be destroyed if you get rid of the leadership or replace them. Other orgs, like Hussein’s Regime, can be limited if you get rid of their subordinates.

    A lot of people think fighting crime requires them to buy off the underlings and use that to get to the “boss”. That’s not Total War, not even close, which is why they aren’t effective. Getting rid of the small fry, has a consistent effect on the top.

  41. Ymarsakar Says:

    The Leftist alliance is much like a hydra, they cannot be destroyed because their regenerative abilities are high. Thus in order to take on the Left, people cannot be effective at doing small damage or trying to behead the snake.

  42. AMartel Says:

    Neo-Not meaning to miss the point. I don’t doubt Obama picked up some effective negotiating skills along the way and I don’t think he’s a stupid man. I just don’t think there’s much there there if you take away the various community support systems.

    The goal is to make all these awful people in the community look “cool.” It’s a tall order.
    -Hillary couldn’t do that in a freezer. Too much baggage and the War on Women was a big lie. Chicks, especially old chicks, are not cool.
    -Bernie Sanders is a horrible speaker and actually (gasp) speaks his mind. So scratch that as it is absolutely crucial to lie to the LIVs and each other in order to achieve consensus.
    -O’Malley is a retail politician cut out who ruined Baltimore and STILL can’t figure out why only black lives matter.

  43. Ymarsakar Says:

    For people that abdicate their independence so a “Hero Leader” can take charge, it is natural that they want that Leader to take charge and be decisive, be effective via ruthlessness. That’s why they gave their soul’s power to such a Leader, after all.

    The same phenomenon happened with Bush. Some people wanted Bush to be the Leader and fight for them using America’s power, no matter what it took. This is as opposed to some people who thought the leader shouldn’t have the power, because it is the duty of the citizens to win a war.

    Rather than being a political issue, it’s more like a human issue. The natural result of refusing to allow a leader power, is because you want to maintain your own power and ability to make independent judgments.

  44. Richard Saunders Says:

    Isn’t it obvious? He’s the Shadow — he learned in the Orient the hypnotic power to cloud men’s (and especially women’s) minds.

  45. AMartel Says:

    It is a human thing but the same phenomenon did NOT happen with Bush. The Bush years were nothing like the lockstep enjoyed by Obama. The opposite, actually. Fight, fight, fight. Republicans did not support the guy no matter what. He had to correct course on Iraq, among other things. If you’re talking about the accretion of executive power, they all do that. Dems are for it now and will be against it when there’s a Rep in office, if that ever happens.

    Richard Saunders, I’d say that the hypnosis worked better on men, who wanted to be like and be liked by Obama, than it did women, many of whom may have seen this play before. Men in general are not as used to being wooed. Women always vote in larger numbers for the leftier of two options. (Not a good thing but not necessarily an Obama thing.) Obama Voter wanted his/her dreams of a perfect government with a cool, respected leader to come true. That plays out differently with different people. As Obama himself once noted (paraphrasing the greator BO-rator here), people saw what they wanted to see in him.

  46. G6loq Says:

    -Bernie Sanders is a horrible speaker and actually (gasp) speaks his mind. So scratch that as it is absolutely crucial to lie to the LIVs and each other in order to achieve consensus.
    No need to lie:
    … The People for Bernie Sanders … posted a photo to their Instagram account of two young women holding up Sanders signs with the caption, “These posters are the best!”

    The problem? The women were actually a part of a larger group that protested the 2016 Democratic presidential hopeful last week in Northern Virginia.
    “Bernie-nomics. It’s Greek to me!” read one sign, a play on the current economic crisis in Greece.
    “Let’s not crash and Bern,” read the other sign.

    As for the young women in the photo … “I laughed when I saw that Bernie Sanders supporters praised my sign; they apparently misunderstood it,” … “The confusion of Bernie supporters over the meaning and intention of a protest sign is reflective of their flawed understanding of economics as a whole.”

    “I think the social media mishap with the Bernie Sanders support group just goes to show that not only do they not understand how markets work, but also how out of touch they are with global events and their own candidates platform,” ….
    Country’s awash in morons ….

  47. JuliB Says:

    Not that I follow 0’s family life, but I don’t think I knew he had a half sister in HI!

  48. Ymarsakar Says:

    The Bush years were nothing like the lockstep enjoyed by Obama.

    That had more to do with Bush the leader rather than the followers of Bush, like Noonen or other retards.

    When an enlightened monarch takes the throne, their followers partake of that majesty. When a bloody tyrant and retarded dictator like Stalin or Hitler takes the throne, their followers become washed in the darkness. The followers could be the same kind of person, merely the leadership changes in nature. But the result of the Bush years, better security, more patriotism, and better foreign policy objectives, were not the result of his followers. If anything, there was quite a disconnect there.

  49. Bellarion the Fortunate Says:

    I think in judging Obama’s abilities, you have to remember that it’s relative. Like the two men running from the bear, and one of them says to the other “I don’t have to be faster than the bear, I just have to be faster than you.” If you choose to think of Obama as lacking in skills (And I think this a mistake), keep in mind that he just has to be better and smarter than the current Republican establishment, and that’s a low bar.

    The Left, in general, and the Alinskyites in particular, have been supremely gifted at seizing political power and attacking opposing power bases. Their opponents have generally been lacking in leadership, tenacity, strategic sense, and judgement, and often have failed to even appreciate the peril they were in until it was too late. Obama is better at seizing, holding, and exploiting political power than his opponents. Whether his long term program is wise or sustainable is not relevant here. However deficient his skills at governing, he is better at getting power than his opponents. That may not be all that matters, but in the here and now, it matters more than anything else.

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=""> <s> <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.

Monthly Archives


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