Events of just the past 10 days have contributed to the shift. There was the open-mic conversation with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in which Mr. Obama pleaded for "space" and said he will have "more flexibility" in his negotiations once the election is over and those pesky voters have done their thing. On tape it looked so bush-league, so faux-sophisticated. When he knew he'd been caught, the president tried to laugh it off by comically covering a mic in a following meeting. It was all so . . . creepy.
Next, a boy of 17 is shot and killed under disputed and unclear circumstances. The whole issue is racially charged, emotions are high, and the only memorable words from the president's response were, "If I had a son he'd look like Trayvon" At first it seemed OK—not great, but all right—but as the story continued and suddenly there were death threats and tweeted addresses and congressmen in hoodies, it seemed insufficient to the moment. At the end of the day, the public reaction seemed to be: "Hey buddy, we don't need you to personalize what is already too dramatic, it's not about you."
Wow, she caught two in a row!
Then she looks back to prior events, seeing that Hussein ignored the very core of his job description and pursued a personal agenda. What she either missed or is not mentioning is WHY he did that.
The president had his mind on health care. And, to be fair-minded, health care was part of the economic story. But only a part! And not the most urgent part. Not the most frightening, distressing, immediate part. Not the 'Is America over?' part.
And she even projects into the future, obtaining the same results.
As a former president he'd be quiet, detached, aloof. He'd make speeches and write a memoir laced with a certain high-toned bitterness. It was the Republicans' fault. They didn't want to work with him.
She has a second brush with her devil as a parting shot.
But we've strayed from the point. Mr. Obama has a largely nonexistent relationship with many, and a worsening relationship with some.
She can see the defect (nonexistent relationship) but does not seem to be able to make the connection to the cause.
It is not that he failed to knit together a relationship with the American People. It is he never really wanted a relationship, he wanted the American People to adore him.
" If you love me, you've got to help me pass this bill. "
Clang... THAT should have been the fire bell in the middle of the night for everybody.
A few more examples...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2864895/posts?page=6#6
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2862565/posts?page=14#14
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2862500/posts?page=11#11
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2862444/posts?page=12#12
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2854326/posts?page=31#31
A real bullseye here from Michael Medved. There is red meat on page one and two.
.
I don't think he was ever interested in having a relationship with the American people as Noonan thinks. I think he wanted to fundamentally transform America and it meant crushing Americans and the American Dream as he burned the Constitution.