Posted on 10/08/2011 7:14:35 AM PDT by MontaniSemperLiberi
Beyond the economy, the wars and the polls, President Obama has a problem: people.
This president endures with little joy the small talk and back-slapping of retail politics, rarely spends more than a few minutes on a rope line, refuses to coddle even his biggest donors. His relationship with Democrats on Capitol Hill is frosty, to be generous. Personal lobbying on behalf of legislation? He prefers to leave that to Vice President Biden, an old-school political charmer.
...
But inside the Beltway, the legacy of his relationship, or lack thereof, with Democrats on the Hill remains a problem for his jobs plan — and, by extension, his political future.
A senior Democratic strategist told my colleague Chris Cillizza recently that “the person running out of air most quickly” is Obama himself, and there may not be many who come to his rescue.
“We’re about a year out from the elections, and the senators are turning to their own races,” the strategist said. “They don’t have a lot of energy or political capital to spare for the president at this point.”
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
He could have really been a person everyone liked? People in hell could be served icewater but we know that’s not happening. You must be kidding. Maybe not, if it took you until inauguration day to catch on.
I do agree it is all too bad. . .for us.
After such success pronouncing “nuclear”, maybe now he’ll work on “corpsman”.
The author left out Obama's most important support system, the quislings in the MSM. Even with the few articles that are now seeping out about his failing presidency, in the end Obama knows they will never abandon him even if the electorate does.
Take out the names in the article and I’d swear someone would have been writing about Kim Jong il?
I suspect you’ve been spending too much time watching MSNBC and posting on DU.
There is no good reason for that, IMO.
Their book is available in pdf form (it might be condensed but is still 126 pages.
http://www.nber.org/~wbuiter/cr1.pdf
*shrug* I have an inability to resist a good pun.
Thanks for the Dunning-Kruger info. It correlates with my studies of IQ.
Excerpt: “A Framework of Intelligence
If a person has a low verbal epistemic intelligence he is not able to think realistically about his own thoughts (which is a flow of visual/spatial images). In addition to that the quality of his thoughts is also low. He may know how to react (what to say, how to say it, what to do- which is analytic intelligence) to his environment, but the justification he has is completely self-centered and selfish. Ethical thinking is complex thinking. A person with a low verbal epistemic intelligence can not think ethically. That causes most (severe) criminals to be therapy resistant. They just do not understand what the therapist says, although they may know what behaviour is expected from them. (Of course an antisocial person is not just antisocial due to his poor epistemic intelligence. Temperament is also important, or being a thrill seeker.) (On average:) An antisocial (which has a low epistemic IQ) with a lower analytic IQ will have a greater change of being caught. If he has a higher analytic IQ, he will get more of what he likes and he has more to loose. (They may become criminal when it is an anarchy.) They both have equal difficulty with understanding their own emotions and thoughts and those of others. They have equal difficulty with controlling their emotions and refraining from impulses. A person with a higher analytic IQ will try to ‘get even’ nonviolently.”
http://home.hccnet.nl/robert.kamp/AFrameworkOfIntelligence.htm
Obama removed him self from the day to day stuff and just handled the big issues.
**
As dictated by Soros.
If Obama is aloof and uninterested in the drudge work needed to push his agenda, we should all be thankful.
What if Obama were a roaring freight train like Lyndon Baines Johnson? LBJ was already an experienced senator then Senate majority leader, spent a hiatus as VP then following the JFK assassination jumped into the saddle and took off, dragging Congress behind him. Cajoling, pressuring, armtwisting, LBJ did it all pushing liberal legislation through like a flood. Unfortunately for LBJ, this included escalating the Vietnam war until his entire presidency choked on it and he chose not to seek a second term. The train wreck known as the late Sixties followed in his wake.
Again, let us be grateful that Obama is no LBJ.
He chose his advisors primarily based on ivy league academic pedigree, regardless of their history of advocating disastrous policies....
&&&
How I wish you were right, Rev. Wright. Actually, Obama chose the advisors that Soros told him to choose. And the primary criterion for choosing them was precisely because they would orchestrate disastrous policies that are guaranteed to bring down our culture.
But Obama, a late boomer, had more of a Gen X upbringing: divorce, hippy mom, absent dad, college in the '80s, multiculturalism and affirmative action.
Living with his grandparents may have given him a little more stability, but the contrast with his own parents may only have underlined his Gen X-like parentage.
In his younger years, though, Obama did look up to the radical 60s generation and wanted to be like them, so he was a boomer in that respect.
Well he already has said Tea Partiers were Terrorists! And his panel has the power to decide an American citizen “Terrorist” can be killed.....He has his “mob” of willing Marxists ready to Kill the “Rich”....It’s not hard to imagine things getting bad
LBJ had years as majority leader to hone his political skills. Obama had hardly any experience leading anything.
If Obama is aloof and uninterested in the drudge work needed to push his agenda, we should all be thankful.
Look at it this way, Jimmy Carter was an awful, abysmal president. But a Democrat was going to be elected in 1976 anyway. A Southerner with a military background was probably not the worst Democrat we could have elected, even if he was more incompetent than the others.
Sooner or later, the country was going to elect a Northern Democrat again. Sooner or later we'd have an inner city Black President. And at some time or other, someone with a radical left background would make it into the White House.
Given all that, an incompetent, inexperienced Northern Democrat, an inner city African-American raised by a White mother and grandparents in Indonesia and Hawaii, and a sometime follower of radical causes who wins because of contributions from investment bankers may be a disaster, but not the worst of all possible disasters.
If zero has lost the WaPo, he’s lost.
I’m sure they intended this as a “Wake up and smell the election, Mr.President!” piece, but it comes off very differently.
“(Obama).....may be a disaster, but not the worst of all possible disasters.”
Well, that is my point, thankfully, but I detect a note of inevitability in your characterization of the election of Democrats of various stripes. I would observe the opposite: Carter won because Ford, otherwise experienced and well liked, ran a nonideological campaign. Clinton beat a split ticket (he won with 43% where Dukakis had lost with 44%) and later defeated another well liked Republican who was also ideologically incompetent. And Obama defeated an anti-his-own-party maverick.
Anyway, Obama’s dictatorial megalomania is far greater than the talents needed to achieve his overarching goals. Note his visible frustration when he reminds his base that the Constitution inhibits his desire to rule by executive fiat.
Less than sixteen months remain of this appalling presidency. That’s cause enough for hope.
He’s the clueless president. And a Marxist. And since it’s no longer 2008, he’s got big ears, communist parents, radical friends, and got through college on dope.
THERE I SAID IT!
My memory is that Bush Sr. wasn't all that well liked in 1992, and resentment against him had more to do with the economy than with ideology. If Perot weren't in the race he might have won, but I doubt a more conservative Republican running in that year, with everything else held constant, would have done well enough to win.
It would be nice to think that all Republican victories were foreordained and inevitable and all Democrat victories were accidents, but accidents do happen, and since the country's been more or less equally divided between Republicans in recent elections, you can count on such accidents happening sooner or later.
Obama is simply the man who wants to tell others what to do
He acts like an android.
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.