Sarah Palin, Obama’s needler-in-chief…
…expounds on the Obama Doctrine, and a few other things as well:
Such a relief that we dodged that Palin-VP bullet in 2008.
[NOTE: In the clip, Palin describes the Obama Doctrine this way (at 0:50-0:59: “coddling enemies and alienating allies.”
I’m not entirely sure, and I could be wrong about this, but I believe I just may have been the first person in the blogosphere or media (or at least one of the first) to use the phrase “Obama Doctrine” in that manner, back on September 17, 2009, when I wrote:
[Obama’s scrapping the missile shield for Eastern Europe] sends a larger signal to all the parties involved, one that is completely consistent with the one I previously stated here: offend our allies and friends, and cozy up to our enemies.
The Obama Doctrine.
I’m not accusing Palin of plagiarizing; not at all. I think it’s more a case of great minds thinking alike.]
[ADDENDUM: On further perusal, I managed to find this, from June of 2009. Perhaps the originator of the joke?]
Go Sarah Go!
Romney-Palin 2012
(or, maybe Pawlenty-Palin 2012)
Romney’s DOA a victim of Obama, nee Romney, Care.
But Palin doesn’t need to be on a ticket. She’s doing just fine from her kitchen table way up in Alaska.
She’s indeed doing a yeoman’s job of needling Obama, and obviously drives all Reds nuts.
They overplayed their hand. By heaping so much vituperation on her for so long, they a) gave her nothing to lose, b) failed to keep their powder dry, and c) raised her public profile sky-high.
Now when she gives a speech, they can’t express any more outrage than they did before her speech, because they’d already pinned the meter. Furthermore, now everyone – even the Reds – hangs on her every word, and so the MSM cannot simply ignore her.
Karma’s a bitch, eh comrades?
You betcha! Sarah knows how to put the bait out there. Obama rose to it like a hungry trout to a dry fly. And confirmed his total lack of class.
Here you are J. L. :
Palin – Brown 2012
[Remember, you heard it here first.]
Rabbit ears. Glass jaw. Obama is weak, weak, weak.
Rabbit ears is exactly right. Obama must never have played competitive sports, or he’d know that responding to some ragging absolutely guarantees you’ll get lots more.
In this context I note that while the MSM gushes over Barry’s great basketball skills, we’ve never actually seen him on the court. In view of his hopelessly uncoordinated essays into bowling and baseball (not talking about skill here, but just basic coordination and athleticism that transcends any one sport), I suspect he’s not that good at basketball either, and his handlers just threw in the basketball business so the brothers would relate to him. Maybe Palin should challenge him to some one-on-one!
Sarah Palin can track a moose, kill it, skin it and, serve it to you as a delicious stew …
Yes she can.
Occam’s Beard: Scott Brown already challenged Obama to that game of hoops. Obama has yet to take him up on it.
And I predict Obama never will.
I think that, as a fundraiser, the Republicans should have a basketball game either between Scott Brown and Sarah Palin, or with them as some sort of team going against two other celebrities. I think it would raise big bucks.
Get Scott Brown’s daughter in that game. 3 on 3.
gcotharn: Brown’s daughter was part of the original challenge to Obama. It was Brown and daughter vs. Obama and player of his choosing (not sure whether NBA members would be excluded, but Michelle’s brother might be a good candidate.)
neo, thanks, I hadn’t known that.
Out of curiosity I just Googled Obama and basketball, and it seems he did play back in the day. So even discounting the Dear Leader-esque hagiographies of the MSM, he’s legit, and I take it back.
Occam’s,
If only he had run for basketball player in chief and stayed out of government.
Occam’s Beard: yes, all of them played.
Obama’s basketball record is one of the few things he hasn’t hidden.
Please, not Romney. Please. And also please, not Gingrich. Please. I hear he’s making noises as well.
I like Palin – Brown, but still I’d rather see Mitch Daniels somewhere on the ticket. We need some anti-charisma, for one thing, and for another, I’m sick of Republican re-treads (I don’t class Palin as a re-tread, btw). And I wouldn’t rule Paul Ryan out, either.
It is absolutely snicker provoking to place a picture & resume of the weakness worshipping, wishful dreaming, wonkish, America apologist, utterly clueless Bammy next to Sarah. She of the sleeves rolled up, self-made, fishing, hunting, shooting, executive experienced, tough, resilient, Liberty Loving, corruption purging, gorgeous, smart, savvy Girl. She takes 15-times the virulent punches on a given week the The One does and simply keeps trudging straight ahead without so much as a nod to the Vipers. NOT a skintilla of narcissism on her hide. He & his nancy boy-girl keepers awaken offended each morning and dedicate their day to energy wasting, egomaniacal malignant lash back.
Sarah is REAL. Obama is entirely Opaque, smoke & mirrors, flim-flam and perpetually Self-Regarding.
She’s strong. He’s weak. Baa-Daa-Boom.
NCS: Although I think I know what you mean, I must say that there are many things I would call Obama. Weak is not one of them.
Betsy…Weak of character. Absent integrity. Pathological liar. Flabby of resolve for strength and Good.
WEAK. Trust me.
Betsy II..Weakness can do great and profound harm. It leaves the weak and defenseless to the mercy of the sharks. In His Majesty’s case, he has chummed the water with blood spoor.
Weak is not one of them.
Why not?
I’d define strength as the ability to subordinate one’s basic animal nature (to seek ease and acceptance) to a higher principle, and thereby to persevere and overcome obstacles despite adverse circumstances. Note that that definition spans everything from squeezing out a last rep of heavy squats to restraining the impulse to flail (physically or verbally) at an adversary.
By that definition, Obama is weak.
Palin-Ryan 2012!
Romney or Gingrich? No f’ing way. They are permanently damaged goods to millions of conservatives. If the Republican Party nominates either of them, then vanderleuns’ phrase will come into play: “Republicans, they thirst for death.”
I think we’re just differing understanding of “weak.” I think he is a man of poor character, absent integrity as you say, a pathological liar. Flabby of resolve for strength and good? I think he has no resolve whatever for good, but such resolve as he does have is not at all flabby. He has an uncommonly thin skin, but he knows what he wants, and he doesn’t appear to care what it will cost to get it. He’s not easily rolled. He’s a thug. In the international arena, I think it’s maybe tempting to see weakness (which is, indeed, capable of great harm) when what we’re really looking at is malicious intent, and particularly directed malicious intent. He has some particular targets (the Brits, Karzai, and most particularly Israel), and with them he may be stupid, but he’s not weak.
I agree that he has chummed the water with blood spoor.
But really, I think we may just be differing over semantics.
This sounds like a meeting at work. Betsy might you be conflating strength with simple stubbornness? Obama fixates. Fixations easily become stubbornnations which might have a little to do with strength.
OB: You define strength as “the ability to subordinate one’s basic animal nature (to seek ease and acceptance) to a higher principle, and thereby to persevere and overcome obstacles despite adverse circumstances.” I don’t disagree, but I suggest to you that that’s just what Obama is doing. Do you doubt that he is animated by a higher principle? I don’t. He is committed to a vision, one that he absorbed from Frank Marshall Davis, among some notable others. He showed no weakness in the health-care reform battle. Do you deny that he persevered and overcame obstacles despite adverse circumstances? I don’t. The thing was declared dead, especially after the Scott Brown triumph. Yet he showed strength, resolve, and a willingness to do whatever it took to gain the day.
We are free to define weakness as we will, within certain linguistic limits, but I would suggest that we shouldn’t define it (somewhat arbitrarily) in such a way as to include the Obama we see in action, and then declare, “Ergo! He is weak!” Doing so reminds me of the dreaded self-fulfilling prophecy.
Please realize that one of the greatest reasons we are headed for the fight of our country’s life is that the man is notweak.
Please don’t misunderstand me. I’m emphatically not saying that the man has no weaknesses–everyone has weaknesses. But he’s not weak.
JohnC: Well, I don’t know. I agree that Obama fixates. And certainly we all might have experiences at work that mirror on a relatively trivial scale things that go on at more momentous scales. All I’m saying is that I think Obama has tyrannical motives, objectives, and methods. And the fact that we’re even talking about all this, with a very real concern towards preserving our country in the face of his threat, suggests that whatever else we may be dealing with, it’s not weakness.
Was that Artfldgr?
Obama is weak. He is insulated. The resolve is part and partial of being behind a shield. Take him out of that, put him in front of someone who will really challenge him and the weakness will be revealed quickly, just like it has been whenever something slips and he is confronted with a strong challenger.
Forgive me Betsy if I came across sarcastic. I apologize. I hear you. It is a complex picture as Neo has shown us many times.
JohnC: Well, it’s true that the man is insulated. The presidency will tend to have that effect. But otherwise, you seem to be saying that if things were different, things would be different. It’s a tautology. We could reveal Obama as a spineless schlub if we could only put him somewhere other than where he is.
But that is not the situation we face.
Betsy..You may be right in saying we’re differing on terminology. But, I’m using it the way JohnC & OB are. He demonstrated pettiness & snotty rudeness to a man of true strength and character, Bibi Netanyahu, 2-weeks ago. He was obsequious to the Russian oligarchs days ago. He was thrilled by the red Butcher Castro’s praise for his Health Ponzi. WEAK of character. But, yes, his eyes, I believe, are very much focused on a Liberty Diminishing goal of Statist Dependency and Control. He quietly(opaquely)admires Robespierre & St-Just, but possesses none of their character.
He sure asked for this. Invited it, even.
I wonder how hard his handlers will try to keep him from saying the name “Palin” in public for quite a while. And I wonder if they’ll succeed.
I do think the discussion about Obama being weak or strong is largely a matter of semantics, perspectives, and issues. He is strong and inflexible in seeking to impose Marxism in the US, but is also making the US look weak to our enemies, for example. And he gets whiny and petulant whenever he is criticized.
On the other hand, the debate over “knave vs. fool” is decisively settled, IMHO.
It’s not a tautology. Of course, the presidency is an insulated position by definition, but the protection that is given to Obama by the press and by those afraid of being called a racist and by opportunist like Hilary is simply unprecedented. I believe the strength you identify comes from not being challenged, from his narcissism, and from his sociopatplogy. You and I would be defined as strong by some in those circumstances too. The difference is that you and I would know that it’s not real. You and I would know that it’s weakness. He doesn’t know that and that’s just another demonstration of a weakness.
Regarding Sarah, Neo’s previous posting, and the cartoon linked to: that has been in the air for quite some time. It is similar some thinking, myself included, that he considers Rush and the Tea Party people more his enemies than he does the Mullahs and Osama Bin Laden.
JohnC: Excuse me, but as I understand the term, your statement, “The resolve is part and partial [sic] of being behind a shield. Take him out of that, put him in front of someone who will really challenge him and the weakness will be revealed quickly, . . .” strikes me as a tautology, seeming to say that if things were different, they’d be different. I’m no rhetorician, though, and maybe someone can show that that’s wrong.
Do you really think that Obama only seems to be strong because he hasn’t been challenged? He’s a narcissist, I grant you that. He’s a sociopath, I grant you that as well. But can you possibly think, or do you imagine that he can possibly think, that he hasn’t been challenged?
I don’t think so.
Gringo: I agree that the man has some serious problems understanding reality and seeing who our true enemies are. I don’t think, though, that he has any problem understanding who his true enemies are–he identifies those pretty correctly.
The inevitable conclusion from those premises is that his enemies are not ours; i.e. he doesn’t identify with the United States of America in any meaningful way.
rickl, I agree that the “knave vs. fool” argument has been settled. But there’s another one we must address: Winner or Loser? 🙂
Sarah Palin,
OK, Sarah enough is enough! You seem to have a comment and opinion on everything President Obama does. It is a bit frightening to imagine you as a President. I did not believe your son-in-law and the accusations he made about you. However, after hearing and seeing your actions as you keep targeting the President of the United States, I do believe he was right on the money about you.I personally did not vote for President Obama as well, but I respect him and the authority given to him by the good people of the USA and God. If you are a God fearing woman, then respect his decisions and the word of God. The word states obey the laws of the land. If McCain would have won and became President and made the same decisions as Obama, would you have attacked him? My opinion of you is that your are a frustrated woman who needs to learn love and let your deep anger be focused on those who think you are a whack job, and not focused on a man doing his job. (Let your hurts and anger go) life is too short to be in disagreement and debate with every law that does not fit your lifestyle. My advice to you would be to buy a Joyce Meyer CD and let God, take your hurts away.
T. Noran: I gotta wonder why you’re addressing Sarah Palin here, as she doesn’t post at this site.
As for buying CDs, let me suggest to you an early Genesis one, Nursery Cryme.
The Harold the Barrel cut, in which we find the phrase, “You must be joking. Take a running jump!”
Neo: Can we get an assortment of smileys on your blog?
A LOL and a facepalm smiley would do about now. kthx.
I saw Obama shooting some hoops during one of the NCAA Final Four pre-game programs. The guy was throwing bricks. He plays some at the White House. Maybe he is as good at basketball as Clinton was at golf. Can anyone say “mulligan?”
T. Noran Says:
April 10th, 2010 at 10:36 pm
Point of order: The authority was given to him by the idiots of the USA, rather than the ‘good people’, and God had nothing to do with it.
Are you arguing for rule by divine right?
Never mind. Rhetorical question. Insert ‘lol’ and ‘facepalm’ here.
Betsy, I don’t credit Obama as strong on healthcare. Hell, he had whacking great majorities in the House and Senate, and the backing of the MSM and the liberal elites, and only just managed to squeak it through (and Pelosi deserves a lot of the credit/blame for that).
All Obama has done thus far is overcome some inconvenience and delay. I want to see Obama overcome real adversity, something where his position is unpopular in the country, in the House, in the Senate, and in the Democrat Party, before I credit him with strength. Can you imagine him doing something profoundly unpopular, as defined above, just because he thought it was right?
I cannot. And therefore I consider him weak.
Betsy – I don’t believe you got my point, but it doesn’t matter. NeoConS got it and improved on it too.
I like Ryan. I listened to him the other day and he is bright and articulate. No doubt about that. I hope to see / hear more of him. I like Brown too, but I want to hear more him.
Rickl: please NO smileys.
more him = more from him
What we need is preview.
OB, you make some fair points. And, just for the record, I don’t count what I see as his lack of weakness as an, um, strength.
But I’m concerned about how much trouble we might have getting rid of this purported weakling, and furthermore how much trouble we might have undoing the damage he leaves in his wake. I think it’s fair to say we’re all concerned about that.
Do you really think he might find any of his positions unpopular in the present House, Senate, or Democrat party? Name one, even as a possibility. You may be demanding evidence of an adversity that will never exist. That is exactly the sort of thing that seems to me to be defining weakness in such a way as to inevitably include him, and so make him weak by definition.
The rest may be just an argument about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It’s Pilpul, and it probably doesn’t matter in anything like the real world.
Yikes. There’s nothing quite like a good internecine squabble, is there?
We must just remember that, when the fine point comes (and it will), we’re all on the same side!
JohnC Says:
April 10th, 2010 at 11:20 pm
Preview and smileys! 🙂
$arah Palin/Tonya Harding 2012!!!!
betsybounds,
Your point, I think, amidst a single malt Saturday night haze, is that we ought not underestimate Barack. I agree.
However, that Barack is weak does not mean he will be easy to defeat. He will be easier to defeat than a strong person, yet he will still be difficult to defeat.
So, I agree with your warning: Barack will not be easy to defeat! And, if you said more than that, I cannot comprehend it on this particular evening.
I will add, with malice towards Barack: the man is a front-running bully, and I absolutely detest a front running bully. Always have, since childhood. Bullies are weak. Bullies do not relish either combat or competition. Bullies are afraid. Axelrod worried about Barack’s weakness in 2006.
re Healthcare: I give some credit, yet not a bunch of credit. What choice did Barack have? He is grandiose. He had to go all in. His only choices were victory, or nursing his defeat and his rationalizing grudges for life. Being an efficient POTUS is not an option for Barack. For him, it’s “Give me grandiosity or give me death!” There is no in between.
Cheers. I have to go now, before I start drunk-typing about how I love you guys.
Weak, not in the pursuit of his objectives, which are to undermine democracy here and aboard. The fact that he was able to force so many democrat congressman to act against their best business suggests an almost Hitlerian ability to dominate weaker personalities.
We cannot depend on his stupidity either, he is smarter than the millions who voted for him.
Gringo brings up a good point.
Obama’s theoretical enemies are the mullahs and Bin Laden, his real enemies are Palin and the American people who don’t buy his bullshit.
His theoretical enemies can’t hurt him, he has no fear of them. In a way they don’t even exist any more than a monster under your bed does after you become an adult. But his real enemies can do him real harm. They threaten his self esteem, his place in history, his pride and sense of well being.
His real enemies will attract his focused attention and trigger his defense mechanisms. They are the threat he will constantly be addressing and planning to counter. The defeat of and defense against his real enemies is job #1.
The previous debate of strength vs weakness is worthwhile from the standpoint of crafting tactics to restore the Republic from Obama’s socialistic transformation. It is wise to remember that one of the more dangerous creatures in nature is an animal that is scared and backed into a corner.
Since the chances of utterly destroying Obama are slim it may be in the nation’s best interest to leave him a way out of the corner. How can we minamize the harm and move on. I don’t know what the correct path is. I suspect my most emotionally satisfying outcomes may not be the most pragmatic choices.
The stakes have never been higher. The Civil War on at least one level only threatened the eventual size of the nation. The political battle we now face threatens to corrupt no destroy the charactor and functioning principles of the whole nation. It threatens the very existance of the grand experiment we have ben conducting the last 200 odd years.
As I said, I don’t know what the correct path is. I sincerely hope someone will emerge to lead us to success. We have been blessed with the right man at the right time several times before in our history. History shows us that not always happens. I remain hopeful, the alternative is unbearable.
On a lighter note it may not be a man this time! The girls have been doing very well in the Tea Party movement.
Why do the typos never attract your attention till it’s too late? Apologies.
Amused Observer,
I think you are right. Against the mullahs an Bin Laden, Obama has almost the whole country on his side, but against Palin, he stands alone in defending his self image.
gcotharn’s Axelrod link was interesting. Obama has learned how to hit back. Unfortunately he does so in the mode of a six year old throwing a tantrum. When he has three months to evaluate something like Afghanistan policy, it is possible for competent advisors to influence him. But for 3 AM phone calls, he is likely to throw another devastating tantrum.
One last comment on the next candidate: We need Romney’s brains and No Apology approach. We need Sarah Palin to make government treat ordinary Americans with the respect they deserve. We need Paul Ryan’s willingness to dig into the small print paragraphs of complex legislation. We need Rudy’s wilingness to go after thugs and fix broken windows.
We have a couple of years to test who will be best able to combine these people and their valuable attributes into a coherent plan of government. Let’s not divide the party into Messiahs and Satans at this point. That could lead to Obama II.
expat: Romney brains gave us Massachusetts’ Health Care. Etc, etc, etc.
True, but he did save the Salt Lake City Olympics. I didn’t say he was perfect, just that he had talents we should be willing to use. I want someone who knows how to do this.
WHEW..!
Reading this thread this Sunday a.m. makes me think I finally may have passed a Hump around here. Recognition from the Old Breed here that I DO have something to say. Me, a 30-year Evil Neoconservative with sterling credentials from the Dark Side, suspect I may have been let outta the danged servants quarters. Nice. I’ve liked this site since I came across it early this year. But, WHEW, it’s definitely felt like Insiders Only.
Betsy & JohnC, this was Fun. Thanks.
T.Noran…Shady Oaks Asylum is a quiet place. Real peaceful and agreeable. You’ll come with me there, won’t you. Gooood.
The post and follow up comments were a pleasure tio read. Even t noran gave me a chuckle with his premise of the “Divine Rights Of Kings”. I finished with the thread feeling better informed than when I started.
I love how Ms. Palin refuses to be silenced or cowed. I love how she takes one broadside after another, returns a ranging shot and the fires for devastating effect. i was not a Romney fan before…I am starting to be won over.
Like everyone else here Mr Ryan impresses the hell out of me. Until the entitlement fiasco is addressed our economy will be fighting for its life. is Obama tough…let see him make that fight, Won’t happen. Both for political and socioeconomic reasons.
Neo….keep up the good work. Everyone else, THANK YOU!!!
Amused Obs: You are soo right. We are in the nation’s greatest crisis ever, much greater than in 1861. What will our Fort Sumter moment be? The coming November vote fraud?
Romney strikes me as having the morals, smarts and real world experience to be President. He’ll work more and hog camera time less. Theres something about his personality that also seems to disarm his critics to a degree, much like Reagan had. Plus he won’t hurt in the area of the 8 million more women than men that voted for Barak Obama.
Again: Please, not Romney. Please.
Betsy: once again, Hi5. No more Romney, please. Enough of sleek lawyers already.
Been reading about what is happening with the insurance companies in Massachusetts?
Romney gives the Zero a stick to beat us with every time he defends Romneycare. In my opinion, he is a non-starter until he repudiates that. No more “half-as-much Republicans.”
“”Romney gives the Zero a stick to beat us with every time he defends Romneycare””
But elections aren’t won on the intricacies of policy, or else we wouldn’t have a marxist in the WH right now. I’d bet 10 times as many voters know Sarah Palin had a bad interview with Katie Couric than even know what state Romney was a governor of.
We can just about safely deduce that image in elections is almost everything. If so, let it be an image with actual leadership substance behind it. Just my two cents.
I didn’t realize that Mitt had a Law Degree until I wikpediad him a minute ago and found that he earned both a Juris Doctorate and MBA from Harvard Law and Harvard Business School.
In the ’08 campaign I was a Rudy guy, then a Mitt guy and only McJuan as the last dog standing. When he picked sarah, my enthusiasm went WAY up.
Excellent observations Amused Observer, there is some good news in the offering. The Real Clear Politics summary of all polls, including the nonsensical media polls of Obama lovers, show the O in the negative (of course there is no Washington Post poll to corrupt the findings).
This is interesting if true, from AtlasShruggrd2000″A new report circulating in the Kremlin today authored by France’s Directorate-General for External Security (DGSE) and recently “obtained” by the FSB shockingly quotes French President Nicolas Sarkozy as stating that President Barack Obama is “a dangerous[ly] aliéné”, which translates into his, Obama, being a “mad lunatic”, or in the American vernacular, “insane”.”
re the discussion on whether Obama is weak or not: he’s both. Obama is a sort-of bully-boy strong and weak. Lets face it, he pulled off something incredible to get himself elected. Pushing through the stimulus bill, health care, his foreign relations programme, getting heavy on Israel, pushing ahead with cap and trade: none of this is weak. It might be wrong (I think it is pretty much all wrong), but not weak per se.
Yet Obama is weak in many ways. He had a great asset, in that he could deliver a good speech, and in limited doses that had a lot of power. But he’s overused it, and the magic is fading. It highlights that Obama doesn’t have a whole lot else going for him. He has had too much help getting to where he is, and that is the source of his weakness: he’s never had to stand on his own before. He’s been spoiled, and he is now dependent on others delivering for him.
The bully aspect comes from the fact Obama has always had people to smooth the way for him, to get things done for him. He confuses saying “make it so” with actually doing it. Obama’s is a bully in the sense that if you cross him, his followers and supporters will get you for him. Obama said virtually nothing about Sarah Palin during the election, and yet she got pilloried worse than any candidate I can recall. Others who have copped it in the past (eg Quayle, Kerry etc) had it as the result of a build up, whereas for Palin it was over a weekend. Obama didn’t do the hatchet job, but his (broader) team did. People who cross him get dealt with. Obama has surrounding himself with bullies, and he is the chief one.
But get Obama on his own, and suddenly he isn’t so tough. Pit him against someone who can and will stick up for themselves, and he isn’t so tough at all. The Obama team tilt at Fox was instructive in how easily and comprehensively Fox batted the attack aside. It’s the old rule: inside, bullies are weak, but you might need to cop a few bruises to prove it. And bullies can also be vindictive, so watch your back later on.
Obama is like a wall in the Maginot Line sense: a tough, difficult obstacle, and that is the toughness. But if you can get past the wall, past the superficial toughness (bearing in mind getting past is not necessarily an easy matter), there are no more obstacles. There is no depth to the man. There aren’t any deep wells of reserves: when the going gets tough, he falls apart.
I have no idea what sort of President Palin would make, but I do get the distinct impression she’s tough and well balanced. She has depth. When the going gets tough, she starts to warm up!
Rathtyen provides some heartening insight. I am eager to see an expanded view on ways to defeat Obama.
Ridicule might be a powerful weapon in this fight. He seems vulnerable, thin skinned, with a tendency to act rashly. He seems fairly easy to provoke. Limbaugh and Palin have both toyed with him a bit. How do we provoke him into self destruction?
Another thing that strikes me is the idea of hammering him on his long string of broken promises. The point being not that he said this and did that but to firmly establish the narrative that with his record his word is no good. Turn his oratororical abilities against him. Done correctly it wouldn’t matter what he said, it’s just two faced Obama blathering on again.
Obama favors a fixed game. An affirmative action posterchild he never had to compete on his own merits. Witness his past, the pivotal election in the beginning when he rigged and cleared the field in Chicago. The way he brilliantly sidelined Clinton in the Democratic primaries. He looks for the fix. How do we turn that against him?
It’s funny, Jon Stewart could probably single handedly bring this administration down in about 2 weeks. Not going to happen, I realize that. A big danger with a glass jaw is a knockout punch coming out of nowhere.
“”I realize that. A big danger with a glass jaw is a knockout punch coming out of nowhere.””
Amused Observer
We just got a hint from Sarah on how Obama will get brought down. By being poked and teased out of his little cool dude facade. The man deeply resents his coddled and privledged life being exposed and made fun of.
To a narcissist, everything is personal. And attacking his personal shortcomings will amplify this until he says or does something game changingly stupid.
Ratheyn:
Very well said. I agree with you completely. We should attack his weaknesses. But we’d be fools to think there isn’t any strength there. The guy is seriously damaged, psychologically. But he’s not gonna be a pushover.
Re: Obama’s strength
Let me admit that I have repeatedly underestimated Obama. He has repeatedly showed a wiley-ness and strong-headedness about him that has brought victory for his side even when it was not expected. He does have an ability to lead that exceeds what I would have expected from a mere “Community Organizer.” Of course, he’s leading the country in the wrong direction.
But, this surprising wiley-ness and strong headedness does need to be acounted for so he can be deafeated. I guess this is the Maginot Line Ratheyn writes about.
As for his weaknesses: perhaps the fact that he has managed to outrage a majority of the electorate in the process of his victories. This outrage.. this opposition of the majority… needs to be shepherded wisely in the next 2 elections. We cannot drop this ball.
This weekend, Hillary backtracked on our response to an attack to biological weapons. Gates is emphasizing the militaries good relationship with Karzai. It is interesting that Obama never corrects his own lousy decisions, but it is more important that he lets others correct them when he feels heat. I think the best we can hope for in the immediate future is to weaken his self confidence enough that he turns to sensible advisors before blurting out the stuff mommy told him about America and the world when he was 8.
Sorry about militaries. I do know about apostrophes, singulars, and plurals even if it doesn’t show.
SteveH, Amused O & Betsy…Good points all, I think. I was remembering the horde of Dem Ambu-Chasers flying to Alaska for ANYTHING on Sarah 10-minutes after she was announced for VP. Gov.Palin, neither a narcissist nor a slimy politico, had nothing to fear–Until, of course, they started searching for ANY hint of specks of fly poop in the bottom of the sugar bowl. Remember their inventiveness in Florida, November 2000? I hope that Republicans have learned some bare knuckles and shivs & Take No Prisoners from the sewer dwelling rats of Lib-Left World. Bullies have to be put on the ground and then stomped to stay there.
Your musings on going after His Majesty where it’ll outrage his spoiled, rarely disputed ego are really Good. Keep at him in valid, vulnerable places that’ll kick his frail narcissistic “self-worth”, ie-his carefully constructed survival system of lies and mythologies, the better. The more he lashes out and cries like a defiant infant, The Better. Oh, I like that.
The great appeal of Sarah Palin is her “folksy connection” to everyday people. It resonates with those who are fed up with pandering from seasoned politicians who condescend to their constituants. When Obama looks down upon the concerns voiced by Palin about his Nuclear Policy, he is asctually snarling at American citizens, infering that ordinary people lack the sophistication to discern whether his policy is a smart one.
When I saw one article on the subject qoute a “Non-proliferation Expert”, I nearly fell out of my chair. Who are these people kidding. Someone needs to tell Obama, the 2008 election aside, most Americans are not as dumb as he looks.
I agree Adrian. It’s obvious that Palin has the political instincts that the Obama Admin. (and most Repubelicans) has demonstrated time and again that it lacks. Plus, for my money she has charisma and wit, a folksy wit that narrows disconnect between politician and constituent. I like her. I like her freshness of approach in particular and many of the things she brings to the table including not pandering to other females (re: no need for bonding) nor pandering to the perceived strongest male around. I believe she is a force and will continue to be. I hope so. And I like the idea of a Palin – Brown or a Palin – Ryan ticket in 2012, but unfortunately, I don’t think it’s going to happen.
buy best chanel fake for more detail MFLJTZHN http://fakechanelbags.yolasite.com/