Feet of clay and naked emperors
Even the WaPo seems to have noticed that Obama has been attacking a host of strawmen. And the WaPo is not alone; the NY Times suggested something similar when it wrote, as part of its editorial about Obama’s West Point speech: “In some ways, that was a straw-man argument…”
Obama’s actually been attacking strawmen from the beginning; it’s one of this favorite ploys. But something has changed ever-so-slightly lately, something in the air. Even the left is frustrated with him, and the frustration has been growing.
Why, I wonder? Do they think he looks dull and disorganized rather than smart at this point? Were they still expecting more from him in that speech at West Point? Not necessarily different content, but just something more resolute, more eloquent, more firm? Are they now embarrassed about their previous fulsome over-the-top support for him?
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t for a moment think that they are changing their politics; they’re not about to come out for Republicans or conservatives. I think they have just become more and more disgusted with Obama’s weakness and repetitiveness, and his reliance on words, words, words.
Of course, that was always true of Obama. But previously they believed he could deliver in many areas, and most definitely in this one area in particular: making the world respect us, getting along well with other countries. He’s not been doing that, has he? And so when NBC’s Richard Engel says he’s “hard-pressed” to find one country where relations with the US have gotten better under Obama, you know that the disillusionment has grown so large that some can no longer pretend as well as they did before. They’re exhausted with the effort it requires.
Barack Obama’s speeches have always been composed—from the very start of his national campaign, when I first began to follow him—of some combination of these things: platitudes, self-references, outrageous statements (lies, or promises that turn out to be lies), passing the buck to others, criticizing the US, ascribing bad motives to the opposition, and attacking strawmen. Has he ever had any other arrows in his quiver? I can’t think of any.
He’s still doing all of this, but even the left seems to be getting a little bit sick of it (does that mean they’ve turned into racists?). Oh, I suppose it would still be okay with them if his accomplishments were more obvious. But the biggest one so far, Obamacare, may turn out to be a pyrrhic victory.
That could all change, of course, if immigration “reform” passes. Ensuring a permanent Democrat majority and making the American people more and more dependent on big government would be the biggest accomplishment of all.
They’re exhausted with the effort it requires.
Exactly. They have had to make defense plans as well as go on the offensive. This is how the Left’s armor deteriorates. If people just launched some facts at their Dem friends, waited until the fire died down, all the damage sustained would be regenerated next time.
Why is everyone being so mean to Obama? The man is doing everything he can. He is on the golf course every weekend looking for the real killers. What more do you want?
I think they have just become more and more disgusted with Obama’s weakness and repetitiveness, and his reliance on words, words, words.
The irony here is that “words, words, words” is just about the only thing Barack Obama is any good at. His supporters are slowly realizing that he’s not even very good at that.
Do I recall the expression “willful suspension of disbelief” being uttered?
LOL recall when Hillary was going for the nomination against him, she even played *the empty rhetoric card*
Amusingly even her MSM sycophants declined to take that & run with it, must have been quaking with their note pads afraid of being called RAAAACISTS !!
I think I’ve got this Obama thing down. Here goes:
How’d I do?
If I had to guess, it would be that they’re experiencing the fatigue typically experienced halfway through a president’s 2nd term. Isn’t this about the time most presidents have scandals?
I recall how little the MSM cared for Bill Clinton during his last 6 mos in office (remember all of those scandals – the pardons, the missing furniture, etc.?), yet they’ve managed to since forget all of that disappointment and once again embrace him.
”have just become more and more disgusted with Obama’s weakness and repetitiveness, and his reliance on words, words, words.”
Christ! The same thing happened to… well… Christ. Hard to be a messiah — even more so without the miracles.
My 2 cents?
I’d say that the left believed that Obama could truly deliver on his promises. They still believe that utopia can be legislated and engineered. That stubborn thing called reality is now getting in the way — you can only believe so long without any positive results.
My thoughts are we’re about to see a shift in gears. You know, the old “if we only had more money (the stimulus just wasn’t large enough),” except this argument will mean that the theory is still sound, Obama just couldn’t overcome the obstacles of (among other things) the obstructionist Republicans.
Now the next step will be that since the theory is still sound “. . . Hillary will be able to do precisely what Obama could not. After all Bill worked with the Republicans.” Wait for it . . . in 3 – 2 – 1 . . .
Neo: “when NBC’s Richard Engel says he’s “hard-pressed” to find one country where relations with the US have gotten better under Obama, you know that the disillusionment has grown so large that some can no longer pretend as well as they did before.”
It’s inaccurate to imply that Richard Engel has been a cheerleader for Obama’s foreign policy, at least for the last 2 years. Example:
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/07/13686562-the-arab-spring-is-dead-and-syria-is-writing-its-obituary
I wrote on my blog regarding Engel’s column:
Lizzy: “yet they’ve managed to since forget all of that disappointment and once again embrace [Clinton].”
Yep.
Beyond the domestic scandals, within the scope of foreign affairs, the media glossed over that the al Qaeda and Saddam problems matured on Clinton’s watch. Which is not to blame Clinton for them. However, it does mean Bush inherited the problems and reacted to 9/11 by faithfully carrying forward Clinton’s counter-terror and Iraq policies for those problems.
Furthermore, Clinton endorsed Bush on Iraq through at least 2004 by referring to Clinton’s own presidential experience and case versus Saddam, before Clinton adopted the Dems’ false narrative with a 180 degree flip that included brazen lies about his own recent position.
Despite making the flip from honest integrity to lie out in the open, Clinton was passed by the media in order to boost the false narrative on Bush and OIF.
The activist game is adversarial, not inquisitorial. It isn’t HS debate club. It’s military maneuver.
So, it’s not enough to hold the Dems, Left, and their allied media up to their prior narrative frame and their own rules. They’re too elastic. Instead, you must reframe. The opposition must be compelled to be, move, and react inside your narrative frame and play by your rules.
With the binary political choice, keep in mind the Dems’ pegging defense strategy by which Obama can afford to disappoint as long as the GOP is automatically pegged as worse, which in the scope of foreign affairs, relies on the fundamental assumed premise of strawman-Bush.
The pegging defense needs to be broken.
Therefore, the critical missing piece in Neo’s observation of discontent over Obama’s foreign affairs is a rehabilitation of Bush’s legacy that counters the fundamental premise that ‘no matter what, Bush (on foreign policy) was worse’, particularly regarding Iraq.
To flip the binary positions, it’s not enough to discuss disappointment with Obama. In order to break the Dems’ pegging defense, It needs to be established explicitly in the popular narrative that Bush was right and Obama’s deviations from Bush have been harmful.
Once reframed, then it can be emphasized that the Dems lied about Bush and because of changing course from Bush, Obama has harmed our international position and all who rely on robust American leadership. Correct the premise and we can begin trying to re-right our foreign policy.
I watched very little of his West Point speech, but my first impression, aside from the pitiful content, was that his manner was very disengaged. He could very well be winding down. If the Congress can just do their constitutional duty for a short period, he may well retreat into his narcissistic inner self.
Surprise. Apparently this morning at the non-firing of VA Sec Shinseki, Obama revealed that the problems at the VA pre-dated his Administration. Who knew? I guess he did not, even though he campaigned that he would fix those problems.
One last thought about our Leader. I read today that we need not worry that the GDP retreated in the 1st qtr; it was all because of the terribly cold winter. Who knew that winter would be cold this year? Apparently not the President, because he was berating the Nation that we would destroy the world if we did not change our life style and arrest Global Warming.
If only he could have enjoyed all of those perks without all of that damned responsibility. It really isn’t fair. He has never been tasked with actually performing in the past.
Neo – surely you would credit BO a victory if immigration reform were to pass. Were it not for Bohner and a few other idiot Republicans bent on the suicide of their party, Obama would have no chance of passing it. He had the chance when he had both houses of congress, and did nothing.
Any movement on that front is, and has been, up to the Republicans. Obama’s has not done a thing to “succeed”, except wait and hope and pray that the biggest bunch of dummies in Washington will do what he is unable to do himself. In fact, his unilateral actions with ICE have been political blunders in the context of passing immigration reform. If he had the brains you believe he does, and was not such a supremely arrogant fool, he would have feigned a serious approach to immigration law and border enforcement. Had he done that, the Republican leadership would not have had the kind of opposition it has seen from the conservatives who have successfully argued that Obama can’t be trusted to enforce the existing laws, making any deal a bloodbath for the Republicans.
A clever knave would have played along and won their confidence to get what he wanted. If immigration reform happens, it will be in spite of Obama’s blundering, and not because he won at anything. If immigration reform passes, it will be due to the monumental stupidity of his foes, who are dumber than Obama is inept.
You make a very strong case, southpaw.
We are, I fear, in a political Perfect Storm, the evil Leftist POTUSSenate vortex merging with the braindead BoehnerMcConnellCantor GOP vortex.
Compare Obama’s 2014 USMA graduation speech to JFK’s 1962 USMA graduation speech and apply both speeches to the current-day geopolitical situation:
http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/this-is-another-type-of-warfare
JFK had a better handle on today’s challenges over 50 years ago than the current president.
Engel’s analysis may be the key:
Liberals love to see themselves as worldly; they seek out confirmation of this. Criticism from within America (the political right) is dismissed as jingoistic, unrefined, or proceeding from ill intent.
The praise they crave is from abroad.
The Obama administration has had a parade of abject failures in international politics. The initial ones could be rationalized away: Libya, the Arab Spring, the Russian reset.
Starting around the time of the Syrian crisis, it became obvious that the administration was blundering badly.
The Iranian negotiations continued to be fruitless.
Boko Haram was partially the result of the Libyan failure, and was one more data point proving that AQ was not dead, but spreading.
The latest and greatest blunder was Ukraine. The parallels between that conflict and the Sudetenland crisis are obvious to everybody, and Obama put himself comfortably in the role of Chamberlain.
I think the left is losing faith because Obama is inviting the ridicule of the rest of the world. They’re laughing at us, and that’s the one thing liberals cannot tolerate.
Note that for her part in this, Hillary will be blamed, too. Her poll numbers seem to be coming down already.
I also agree with southpaw, and was going to make the same point: if amnesty passes, it won’t be due to anything Obama has done. Not so much a “victory” on his part as a surrender on ours.
Congratulations, alanstorm. You’re qualified presidential material.