Obama the never-ending politician
This Investor’s Business Daily editorial points out that Obama’s number one goal in his second term is ” to do whatever it takes to destroy Republicans and win back Democratic control of the House in 2014, giving him two more years to enact his agenda without any GOP meddling.”
In a way, there’s nothing so remarkable about it. All presidents are politicians; how else could they get elected? And all presidents are members of a party, a group they are not only affiliated with, but one whose causes they wish to advance and whose power they wish to increase.
But Obama differs in the laser-like intensity of his focus on those goals, as well as the enormous and completely shameless disparity between his goals and his unifying, inclusive rhetoric.
I have never agreed with those who don’t think Obama is smart. On the contrary, I’ve always maintained that he’s very smart. It’s just that he’s smart about what interests him, which is not what we think a president should be interested in. What he’s especially smart about is getting power and keeping power, about politics, and about appealing to both the lowest and the highest parts of people simultaneously.
You call Armstrong “reptillian” but not Obama?
It is past time to take the gloves off. The nation is in mortal peril, and those who don’t see this will suffer more, much more, than those who do.
Don Carlos: Haven’t I said enough bad things about Obama to satisfy you?
Sometimes I get tired of writing about Obama, and want to write about other reptilian sociopaths :-).
The Baraka is intelligent in that he does not believe 2 + 2 = 5 and shrewd in believing there are enough people out there who do. I guess that passes for smart. At a time and in place where the ordinary skepticism of the ordinary man is nearly extinct it’s no surprise Obama seems smart – the stupid have made it seem so. Make the mean national IQ one standard deviation away from where it is now and Joe Biden, in 2016, will be the smartest man to have ever become president — relatively speaking.
I don’t think O is a dummy but I think there’s probably a reason we never saw any transcripts. He’s always struck me as a puppet.
He didn’t knock off the Clinton’s and run for president after a 5 minute Senate career without a lot of help from very powerful people. Being the perfect candidate at the perfect time makes you lucky, not necessarily smart. Likewise ruthless isn’t the same thing as smart.
Some of this is probably semantics. But, I went to high school in Hawaii just a few years after Obama – and there was definitely a group of heavy stoners we referred to as burn-outs.
I think his career says a lot more about us that it does about him.
KL Smith: I know the “puppet” theory is a popular one, but I do not subscribe to it at all. I do think Obama also had mentors and people who shared his point of view and helped promote him, but he is very much a mover and shaker of his own strategies, and very skillful at what he does. He does not just do what people tell him; not at all. He seems very cerebral, planned, strong-willed, and strategic to me, as well as intelligent about strategy and mass psychology.
I used to work for a company with an advanced technology department full of PHDs. I did a lot of work for them and Obama doesn’t demonstrate that he is very smart in an intellectual way. Now sly, cunning and ruthless, AKA street smarts, I’ll agree. As mentioned above, there is probably a good reason we have never seen Obama’s grades. I found it amusing the reporters could find out what Romney did in high school but can’t find out anything about Obama.
Neo: I agree to disagree 🙂
I think you’re giving him too much credit. “He seems very cerebral…”. Exactly, he “seems” that way. Especially when he’s using his nerdy white guy voice. Still not seeing how having a plan, being stubborn, reading a teleprompter, etc. equates to intelligence
And I do think there is a very natural inclination to think/hope/assume that a man given so much power and the ability to inflict so much damage HAS TO BE intelligent.
IMO he’s probably slightly more intelligent than average but that’s not my definition of smart. I’ve got high standards!
And, if he hadn’t been at the center of the perfect political storm he probably would have had an unremarkable career as the black Senatorial version of Nancy Pelosi or someone like that. Or the mayor of Chicago. Lucky us.
Coming soon:
don-Carlos-sez-i-hate-that-emeffing-ahole-shitknob-obama.blogspot.com
What we do know for certain about BHO is that he is cunning, manipulative, arrogant, narcissistic, and well schooled in the Chicago style of politics. He operates in the general manner of Chicago mayors by using cronyism to gain the support of as many loyal benefactors as possible and uses not so veiled threats against anyone that stands in opposition.
And as we all know, he would never have gained a prominent position on the national stage without the MSM propaganda machine. (And, I still want to see the transcripts.)
Amoral, dishonest, thuggish behaviour can be stunningly effective in the short term because it catches people by surprise, they don’t recognize what they are dealing with, and they don’t want to put out the effort needed to resist. Thus such behaviour often looks like genius in the beginning, but the long term consequence can be horrible failure. The radical left has a long term history of such genius and I’m sure you can think of others from that faded age of glory, the 1930’s.
Such behaviour is certainly compatible with smarts, but I don’t think succeeding by such methods requires smarts. Chutzpah or a certain crazy conviction, yes, but not smarts.
Vanderleun:
Your point is what? My views are my own, but your posts usually strike me as glib and tangential. I normally ignore them.
I agree with Ray (and probably some others):
The incumbent is not intellectual; he’s no more the smartest man ever to be president than Hillary was/is the smartest woman EVAH.
He does deliver a good prepared speech, and he does hire on good speechwriters who are tuned in to what the low-information electorate will buy.
The incumbent was never a constitutional scholar, nor a law professor: he was a lecturer . . .
Which ^probably^ means an IQ above the mean, although with affirmative action, one will never quite know.
He shows no evidence of being brilliant, or even of being well-schooled, ^except^ for being well-schooled in the ideology in which he was marinated since babyhood.
But in terms of politics, he ranks with Bill Clinton — and ^far^ below most Republicans — in knowing what the h#ll he’s doing politically.
Credit where it’s due . . . before I gag.
M J R: Note that I never said he was an intellectual, much less the smartest man to be president, or that his intelligence was wide-ranging. But he is very very smart at what he is smart at, which is ideology, politics, the strategy of politics, gaining power, and how to appeal psychologically to what the left might call “the masses.”
This definitely takes a certain amount of intelligence, and he has that intelligence. I think all his opponents—from Hillary to the Republicans—have underestimated him, much to their detriment.
First —
My ^goodness^: when I wrote “he ranks with Bill Clinton – and ^far^ below most Republicans”, I meant be writing “he ranks far ^above^ most Republicans . . . .”
Now —
neo-neocon: Yes. My intent was to expand the conversation (“intellectual, “smartest”), including points I saw as being touched on my earlier commenters: my intent was not to contradict what you (neo) were writing.
For what it’s worth, I agree with you [that and a subway token gets you a ride on the subway]; I was making a little conversation along the way, that’s all [smile].
“BY earlier commenters”; ^not^ “my earlier commenters”.
[self-grumble]
M J R: don’t mess with neo-neocon :-)!
Depending on one’s definition of smart, he’s smart. Is he evil? Or just wrong.
Not wrong.
neo-neocon — [ wink! ]
See ya . . .
It is ironic perhaps that the St. Louis Cardinal Hall of Famer Stan Musial has just passed away, I have learned. Musial was one of the greats when I was a little boy and had a reputation for being a gentleman as well. It is an era that now seems long ago and far away.
Oops, meant that last one for the Lance Armstrong thread …
I suppose most all con men might get labeled as “smart” up until the point they’re exposed as con men. Then it’s revealed they were very stupid.
I reserve the definition of smart to those that refrain from the harm and manipulation of others for personal gain. It’s the basis of mature intelligence to know there’s a bigger picture to this fleeting life we all experience. And the smartest people through the ages have consistently pointed out this bigger picture is about miraculous love.
Obama excells at deflecting attention from what he doesn’t know. He picks people with certain academic creds (who may not be wise on a larger scale) such as Chu, and then he cons people into thinking he can converse with them as an equal. He drops names into interviews about philosophers and then is assumed to have read these people intensively: thus he is a philosopher. He has never demonstrated any depth, nor does he have life experiences that allow him to question the clichees he has learned all his life. He clings to his mother’s comments about the big bad capitalist West that oppresses and destroys the pristine cultures of the third world and minorities in America. Every once in a while, a bit of common sense affects his perceptions of life, but he doesn’t try to put any of this into a coherent philosophy or program. Basically, he is a name dropper.
His Infantile Majesty’s 2nd Immaculation tomorrow and, by Gawd, Lady GaGoofball is entertaining in that wonderfully classy & clean American Way at the Regurgitation Ball. Are we not blessed?
And, recent al Qeada events in Algeria show the Boy King’s ‘give a shit’ level re-American Hostages,’Yo. Are we not comforted??
Cherchez la mama.
Obama is a zeolot whose never-ending campaign seems to be driven more by belief than by reason. Anyone who might discount the influence others (Alinsky, Aryeh Neier, Ayers, and George Soros) have had on him would be mistaken.
Neo-neocon’s post is an important one. Irrespective of Obama’s intelligence, he’s had significant help and support along the way from very bright people.
“the enormous and completely shameless disparity between his goals and his unifying, inclusive rhetoric.”
This is what sorta drives me nuts. And it drives me even nutser that his supporters, especially those I know personally, don’t see it. I decided some time ago that he quite explicitly believes that unity is only to be obtained by everyone submitting to the liberal agenda. I resisted the conclusion that my liberal acquaintances believe that, too, but I’m afraid they do, though they might not be willing to put it so bluntly.
A link to Breitbart: http://tinyurl.com/aunp7d7
Slick Willy remembers being burned over gun control. Arrogant BHO believes he is above the fray; we shall see if he and his fellow travelers can hide behind the children in 2014.
The GOP needs to deploy a death by 1,000 cuts strategy. Gingrich recently suggested the house republicans hold hearings on the criminal use of guns in Chicago. Chicago offers an ideal setting to demonstrate the futility of strict gun control. Let multiple hearings commence: F&F, 4 dead in Benghazi, Solyndra, inner city gang wars, etc.
“What he’s especially smart about is getting power and keeping power, ”
When I read this, I thought “sociopath”.
Wondered if there wasn’t a more accurate term.
‘reptilian sociopath” works. 🙂
Venomous reptilian sociopath works even better.
When I heard Owebama say, ‘Profits to earnings ratio’, I knew he was dumber than a box of rocks (Boxer). He has no innate intelligence at all, just determined dogmatic demogoguery.
There is a reason he has TOTUS: He could not speak coherently for more than a minute without it.
Every presser he holds, when he deigns to hold one, is a detailed exposition in filibustering answers. He simply is not smart nor intellectual. He’s smart like a pit viper in the grass is smart: He can kill you with one (drone) strike. But that is not my definition of smart, just instinct, malevolent instinct in King Putt’s case.
I’ve said it before and it remains true: Owebama was never told ‘NO’ in his entire affirmative action life and career. That makes him think he’s a genius. Plus getting by on skin color allows him to hate whitey even more (if the anti-colonialist Owebama can hate us patriots any more than he already does).
We are in for a rocky ride, at best. This year, the OwebamaCare unemployment/underemployment bomb is going off. Next year, the OwebamaCare taxes kick in. Those are two job crushing facts that have been deliberately not reported on by the Democrat-Media Complex. It might make lawmakers and a Precedent who passed and sign into law a bill which they never read, and probably still have not read it, look grossly incompetent.
Owebama wants civil war, he wants armed resistance to his Tyranny. He thinks he can win. He should be careful what he wishes for. His scraggly @ss is no safer than Madame DeF– Pelousy or any of the other Democrat/progressive/commie hacks should Government push come to armed citizen shove.
Obama is really just a lens through which the Left’s destructive energies are focused. If Obama is “clear” and “not present”, it is for that reason. Simply because a lens is designed to not be there in the way. And if you broke one lens, another will replace it, maybe better, maybe not.
Whatever Obama’s cunning strategic outcomes came from, is due mostly to his handlers and the Democrat alliance with the Left. The person’s individual abilities are wasted too much by his frivolous golfing, entertainment, and sadistic glee in torturing and seeing Americans killed.
Have the inaugural speech on in the background. Rather not have to hear it – waiting for Mark Steyn doing Rush’s show today.
Question : how does a smart person give the same speech for five years? He’s our Hugo Chavez. Our Castro.