RSS feed for comments on this post.

The URI to TrackBack this entry is:

  1. My take on the narcissist in chief is that he and his handlers do the Lincoln/Reagan comparison to simply prepare for his lasting legacy. Laugh at me if you will, but he and his minions are setting us up for a push for him to be on Mount Rushmore or something very similar, and to have a national holiday established for him by himself. Most of us will be gone in 50+ years(speak for yourself mixitup!!), and with a minority driven populace, our heirs will be saddled with him being canonized.

    You heard it here first!!!!! OMG

    Comment by mixitup — February 16, 2013 @ 1:52 pm - February 16, 2013

  2. This is a wonderful analysis worth a careful study.

    ….the message ought to be clear: this is not any sort of “new birth of freeom,” it is not “government of the people, by the people, for the people,” it is a prescription for increased dependency from someone who dismisses principled disagreement as “absolutism” and who believes it is his role to tell us how to live our lives.

    Here I disagree slightly concerning just how Obama operates in regard to “telling us” as opposed to “manipulating” us.

    Obama has taken his “community organizer” role to the national level by sticking with his game plan of organizing our lives according to his whim, but not by his decree.

    Obama assiduously avoids leaving any sort of fingerprints. He has no college records. He has no body of writing. He voted “present” and moved up through the back corridors of power. Others have always done his work for him. He told us what Obamacare would and would not be without any specifics and without any paperwork to study.

    He is constantly identifying the opposition and campaigning against it while taking no actual stand or governing position. The buck never stops with Obama. Obama never accepts the “buck.”

    He mouths the words about his responsibility and what he will demand and will not tolerate. He talks the talk. But, when the decision point arrives, Obama steps aside.

    The one instance Obama “decided” and took the responsibility of being President was in authorizing the Navy Seal Team 6 action on Osama bin Laden.

    On the other hand, when he was required to make choices on Benghazi, he went to bed and “authorized” everyone else to bumble around and take the heat for what only the Commander in Chief could authorize.

    What followed was deception, cover-up, feints, dissembling and lying. But nothing that was stirred up by testimony, opposition research or criticism has stuck to Obama.

    Obama is ruling by regulation and manipulation. That is not only his style, it works to his advantage because the MSM is on his side and will neither explain, expose nor criticize his methods.

    Here, I will turn it over to Rush who encapsulated Obama’s method perfectly on his Friday broadcast:

    He only wants to campaign because governing would make him responsible for what is happening. He doesn’t want to compromise. That would put his name on something.

    So he doesn’t want to govern. He only wants to campaign. As he campaigns, he’s always opposing these mythical, mysterious people, powerful forces who are actually the ones doing all this stuff to the country. They’re the ones causing unemployment. They’re the ones causing the housing crisis. They are the ones, whoever they are. But Obama’s fighting ‘em. He’s been fighting ‘em for four years and they’ve been around a lot longer than Obama. It goes back to Reagan, as we will learn here in a moment.

    He’s not trying to accomplish anything. Therefore there will be no compromise. (…) President Obama will never again be an election candidate but, for now at least, he has the look, and sound, of a man on the campaign trail. Thursday brought the latest example, with a rally-style event in Decatur, Ga., intended to build support for the administration’s proposals on pre-K education. But there won’t ever be any governing. If Obama ever settles in to where he’s perceived to be governing, that means he’s in charge, that means he’s responsible, that means he’s accountable. That’s what he’s avoided.

    That’s what we all missed for four years. That’s why you can have polling data that show 55, 60% of the people oppose Obama’s agenda and still support him. They don’t associate his agenda with the problems in the country. They don’t believe, they don’t understand, they don’t think that Obama’s policies have had any of the negative impact on the country. Somebody else did that, other presidents did that. They view Obama as trying to fix it.

    We should be realistic about how crazy the extreme leftists are. Tony Kushner, the Lincoln screen writer, said this to Charlie Rose:

    What I think he’s done [Obama] that Lincoln did was to constantly articulate for the people while making sausages, while making these compromises. The place that we’re ultimately headed for, he’s been very careful to say that he rejects the idea that government is evil. There’s a rejection of the sort of basic idea of human community behind the Reagan, behind Reagan era ideology that is really frightening and that leads us to terrible, terrible places. We have no hope for survival as a species if we continue down the path of this kind of psychotic individualism.

    Lunacy, feelings, “people who need people” and the velvet glove of community organizing the sheeple for their own good. That is the Obama world. Government by the right people, the smart set, the crème de la crème, who intuitively know what is best for the little people.

    The famous exchange with Benjamin Franklin: “Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”

    “A Republic, if you can keep it.”

    These people are not interested in “keeping the Republic.” They want an oligarchy in which the government machine organizes, directs and micro-manages the society.

    Comment by heliotrope — February 16, 2013 @ 1:54 pm - February 16, 2013

  3. it does not mean we all define liberty in exactly the same way

    This line really bothers me. It just shows what kind of person the President of the United States is. He is a relativist. In reality, liberty has only one objective definition. It also shows that he really doesn’t believe in real liberty; he just wants to dress his pernicious, fundamentally un-American beliefs up as “liberty.”

    Comment by Rattlesnake — February 16, 2013 @ 1:59 pm - February 16, 2013

  4. All excellent points made so far. Mixitup–I don’t think that sounds ridiculous at all. Sure, it is ridiculous, but given Obama’s ego and the devotion of his sychophants in the media, I have ever expectation we can expect the calls for all sorts of tributes and for many things to be named after him in years to come.

    Heliotrope–It is true that Obama always goes back to his Alinskyite roots as a “community organizer” and that all he knows how to do is to “campaign,” or should I say, to agitate for more redistributive policies. I would add, though, that he also has an unshaken faith in the tired, old nostrums of the left (despite their having been shown not to work time and time again). He still believes in them, plus he’s got the ego to believe that he can get them to work this time. So that’s part of what I meant by referring to his seeing his role as telling us how to live our lives.

    Rattlesnake–You are exactly right about the relativism. That’s why, you’ll notice, he casts his opponents as “absolutists” in the next paragraph. To a relativist, few things are worse than an absolutist, though of course, most so-called relativists on the left are too committed to their own absolutes to appreciate the irony of their situations.

    Comment by Kurt — February 16, 2013 @ 11:14 pm - February 16, 2013

  5. most so-called relativists on the left are too committed to their own absolutes to appreciate the irony of their situations.

    Hear, hear!

    For the relativist, you are absolutely wrong and he (the relativist) is absolutely correct. And then he goes all snarky about how absolutely stupid you are not to understand clear and precise and absolute truth of the matter. Relativists usually and fairly quickly display their talent for being the town idiot of “nuance” and “informed thinking.” Often as not, if you don’t get it right away, they will tell you in short order.

    Comment by heliotrope — February 17, 2013 @ 11:55 am - February 17, 2013

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

**Note: Your first comment is held for moderation. Avoid profanity, avoid personal attacks on fellow commenters, and avoid complaining about personal attacks (even on you). Feel free to disagree with anyone, but focus on their ideas; give us the information that you think they overlooked.**

Live preview of comment

Close this window.

0.128 Powered by Wordpress