Posted on 11/26/2010 5:19:16 PM PST by Sub-Driver
Liberals resort to conspiracy theories to explain Obama's problems
Following two years of poor economic performance and electoral repudiation, liberalism is casting around for narratives to explain its failure - narratives that don't involve the admission of inadequacies in liberalism itself.
For some, the solution is to lay the blame on President Obama. He hasn't been liberal enough. He can't communicate. "I cannot recall a president," Robert Kuttner says in the Huffington Post, "who generated so much excitement as a candidate but who turned out to be such a political dud as a chief executive." Obama is "fast becoming more albatross than ally."
This is an ideological movement at its most cynical, attempting to throw overboard its once-revered leader to avoid the taint of his problems.
But there is an alternative narrative, developed by those who can't shake their reverence for Obama. If a president of this quality and insight has failed, it must be because his opponents are uniquely evil, coordinated and effective. The problem is not Obama but the ruthless conspiracy against him.
So Matt Yglesias warns the White House to be prepared for "deliberate economic sabotage" from the GOP - as though Chamber of Commerce SWAT teams, no doubt funded by foreigners, are preparing attacks on the electrical grid. Paul Krugman contends that "Republicans want the economy to stay weak as long as there's a Democrat in the White House." Steve Benen explains, "We're talking about a major political party . . . possibly undermining the strength of the country - on purpose, in public, without apology or shame - for no other reason than to give themselves a campaign advantage in 2012." Benen's posting was titled "None Dare Call it Sabotage."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
I’ll check out the link to that jazz group. Thanks.
I'd have to agree with the libs on that one.
For all the talking he does, I've never seen anyone who says so little. You can listen to him for an hour (if you can possibly stand it) and come away with maybe a couple of fully formed concepts.
Leading up to the 2008 election, I'd force myself to actually listen to him in interviews and such. No matter how long he talked, or how eloquently he expressed himself, I always found myself wondering what the hell he was talking about.
I'll say one thing for the Punk. He's mastered the art of BS, and taken it to a whole new level. He conned half the country into believing that he's some sort of brilliant megawatt intellect, when nothing could be further from the truth.
He is definitely not a great communicator. I wonder if the Alinskyin angle is part of the reason? According to Rules for Radicals, the Organizer/Agitator is never supposed to fess up to his radical objectives. He’s supposed to come across as an unthreatening entity who’s ‘just like you’, except he has ‘hope and change’. [Alinsky hypes ‘hope and change’ on every other page.]
So Obama is constantly walking a tight wire between concealing his true radicalism and attempting to portray himself as an every day, ordinary American. It would be tough to communicate interesting, powerful, and memorable themes under those constraints.
I depart from your analysis a bit on the final point. I don’t think Obama mastered BS or conned half the country. I think that was entirely the MSM’s doing. They shielded him from even a cursory vetting, and they never once asked him a difficult question. When the Saddleback man asked about abortion, and Joe the Plumber asked about wealth redistribution [the two most difficult questions O faced in the entire campaign] Obama blew both answers, and lost ground with the electorate. If he’d had to cope with tough press, a thorough vetting and difficult questions throughout, he’d have wilted like three day old arugula.
So we can thank the miserable knee-padders in the press for what we ended up with. That, and the lousy campaign/candidate that was McCain. That’s how I see it, anyway.
Well, isn't that interesting? I had no idea.
Even more 'interesting', is that the mainstream media failed to make the connection between that quote from Alinsky, and Obama's campaign theme.
Had a Republican used an oft-repeated phrase from some conservative writer as a campaign slogan, you can bet the media would have pointed it out right away. They would have then done night after night of egg-headed analysis on what it all meant.
I don’t think Obama mastered BS or conned half the country. I think that was entirely the MSM’s doing. They shielded him from even a cursory vetting, and they never once asked him a difficult question.
You're correct about that. Obama flubs on any sort of straight pitch. Give him an honest fastball, and he'll choke. He'd fall flat on his face, just like he did at Saddleback. I know of one incident after he was president, where he actually laughed out loud when an interviewer asked him a straight question about a very serious matter (forgive me, but I don't recall the details).
In friendly, relaxed settings, where he's allowed to go on at length, he can sound quite the intelligent scholar. It's these moments I was referring to in my earlier post, and it's those types of performances that sold much of the public on him, in my view.
Again - after listening to one these rambling soliloquies, it's hard to put together exactly what he was trying to communicate, but it sure sounds good going by. It's the style masquerading as substance that I think sold his voter base.
Has juvenility ever harmed Rush Limbaugh’s effectiveness or his success?
He does parodies, makes up nicknames (N.A.G.s, Joe Bite Me, etc), and employs a very childish delivery at times.
Like it or not, ordinary people relate to that sort of thing. I haven’t changed my way of expressing myself much since Jr. High School and nobody ever calls me on it. It’s just part of later-day American informality.
Being too stiff-assed on this forum seems to be favored by some and that’s their choice. All we’re doing here is expressing our opinions on a message board and not writing research papers or engaging in high class journalism.
Your point about Obama laughing at an inopportune moment was a really excellent one. He was on 60 minutes getting interviewed by Steve Kroft about how bad the economy was. Obama cracks himself up with a ‘joke’ about the only thing more unpopular than bailing out the banks is bailing out the auto industry. If you watch it on Youtube, you think, ‘This guy is mentally or emotionally Just Not Right’.
Not even Kroft could let it go completely; he pointed out the gravity of the subject matter and asked Obama if he was punch drunk.
Now just ask yourself what would have happened if this was a Republican. There he is, laughing his butt off about using billions of taxpayer dollars to bail out banks and labor unions, etc., meanwhile unemployment and debt are through the roof. There would have been ‘egghead analysis’ (your phrase but I loved it ;) night after night, debating whether the man’s mental and emotional health. ‘Is he really up to the job of POTUS?’
With Obama, nothing. All his gaffes and weirdisms are swept under the rug, and we get pure propaganda in place of news and analysis (at least from the MSM). These chickens will eventually come home to roost. Can’t happen soon enough, imho.
Rush is not an even comparison, as he is skilled and discerning in his use of name calling. I wasn’t referring to his type.
For example, calling Lindsay Graham Lindsay Grahmnisty is extremely clever, descriptive, and mocking all at the same time. It’s a very good use of the art of name calling
That’s why I carefully said that not all name calling it bad.
However, there are lot of people who can’t come up with a clever name, but name call anyway with something really lame. It comes across the same way the overuse of four letter words comes across.
“A recent “study” claimed that 20% of the people in the US are mentally ill.”
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
That seems a very optimistic assessment.
Indeed!!! The democrats have been doing that for quite some time...and the libs have just realized it's happening, but true to form can't identify the real culprits. Liberals are such idiots.
“I am an old man but extremely juvenile where he is concerned.”
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Me too, this is the EARA of Obamalamadingdong and the more names he is called the better. It is positively terrifying to realize that there are still people in this country who think he is a good president. No one will ever go broke by UNDERestimating the intelligence of the American voter.
There you go...
The lefties themselves practically invented the idea that ridicule is the best weapon for undermining an adversary.
You know it grates on them to read all the unflattering names the right has stuck on their messiah-—”Obozo,” “President Jackass,” “Bullsheikh Barack,” “Zer0”-—and most inflammatory of all, “Hussein,” which isn’t ridicule at all but simply the use of his actual middle name yet maddening to lefties. As is “The Kenyan” and it’s derivatives. Cutting too close to the truth elicits squeals every time.
The left did its best for years to associate Bush with the word “liar” and I think it worked for them. There are doubtless lots and lots of poorly informed people who found “Bush lied; people died” a catchy phrase.
“We’re talking about a major political party . . . possibly undermining the strength of the country - on purpose, in public, without apology or shame - for no other reason than to give themselves a campaign advantage....”
PROJECTION!!LIBERAL PROJECTION!!!
Exactly what the Dems did when they assumed leadership of Congress in 2007.....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.