Standing up to moderators, standing up to Putin
Obama the class act likes to ridicule the opposition:
“Have you noticed that everyone of these candidates say, ‘Obama’s weak. Putin’s kicking sand in his face. When I talk to Putin, he’s going to straighten out,'” Obama said, impersonating a refrain among Republican candidates that he’s allowed Russian President Vladimir Putin too much leeway.
“Then it turns out they can’t handle a bunch of CNBC moderators at the debate. Let me tell you, if you can’t handle those guys, then I don’t think the Chinese and the Russians are going to be too worried about you,” Obama said.
Of course, Obama has never had to handle anything even remotely like the questions at that CNBC debate, since the MSM is respectful to him to the point of obsequiousness, and debate moderators have gone so far as to carry his water when he seems about to falter. In 2007, he and Hillary Clinton boycotted a debate that had been scheduled to be co-hosted by Fox News; the other co-host was the Congressional Black Caucus, but apparently even that hosting balancing act wasn’t quite friendly enough.
Obama has been protected from anything like those CNBC questions from the press for much of his public life, and as president he has assiduously avoided (and criticized, as well as banned) press members who might even come close.
As for his assertion that the Republican candidates “can’t handle” the moderators of CNBC, the overwhelming consensus among all but the most extreme pundits on the left was that the Republicans’ attack hit its mark and drew metaphoric blood.
And then there are the Chinese and the Russians. Does anyone on earth except Obama (and perhaps Valerie Jarrett) believe that the Chinese and Russians are afraid of him, even one iota? They might be afraid that his policies will end up causing some sort of conflagration, and/or the escalation of Islamic terrorism, of course. But afraid of negotiating with Obama, or of him calling their bluffs? It’s laughable. And we can certainly include the Iranians in that group, as well.
I would wager that the Chinese and Russians would be a great deal more afraid of the toughness of almost anyone on that debate stage last Wednesday than of dealing with Obama. Which of the Republican candidates would they be most afraid of? I’m not sure, but it wouldn’t be Bush and it wouldn’t be Kasich. Trump, Cruz, and Fiorina might be the leaders in that regard, with Christie and Rubio somewhere after that. I’m not sure about Carson, but I think he’d ultimately be intimidating, too, of the “speak softly and carry a big stick” variety.
[NOTE: Obama is using an interesting technique—Alinsky’s rule #5 advocating the use of ridicule as a potent weapon—to attack Republicans in their strong suit. In other words, he’s well aware, I believe, that the Republicans are considered more intimidating to China and Russia than he is. He’s also well aware of—and has been instrumental in orchestrating and using—the fact that the press is generally very friendly to him. But he sees the CNBC debate as an opportunity to cut into that narrative by making a false and mocking assertion that Republicans backed off from and were somehow fearful of the CNBC moderators, and then another false equivalence between dealing with press insults during a debate that’s supposed to be a showcase for your thoughts in front of the American people, and the very different process of negotiation with a geopolitical enemy or rival.
Remember this example of Obama’s ridicule?]
443 days.
“Then it turns out they can’t handle a bunch of CNBC moderators at the debate. Let me tell you, if you can’t handle those guys, then I don’t think the Chinese and the Russians are going to be too worried about you,” Obama said.
The Chinese and the Russians certainly aren’t terribly worried about *him*. He is despicable/contemptible in virtually *everything* he says and does. There’s nothing left to add (that would be G-rated, anyway).
Sadly, infuriatingly, this will probably be effective. Really difficult to combat stuff like that from a person who has no shame and doesn’t hesitate to use such cheapness, knowing that he’s got the full support of the media.
Someone should challenge him o a debate….
I would wager that the Chinese and Russians would be a great deal more afraid of the toughness of almost anyone on that debate stage last Wednesday than of dealing with Obama.
You can bet the farm on this one.
The Chinese, Russians, Iranians, etc would much rather deal with a patsy like Obama who either gives away the store, or possibly has some hidden goals that are in accord with his putative opponents in the negotiation.
Now, that the Republicans have demonstrated that they are willing to stand up to the leftoids and call them out on their misrepresentations and lies, the Republicans damn well better be prepared for a little intentional “rope-a-dope”; wherein a moderator, news media figure, or obvious opponent, will offer up some outrageous and seemingly impossible assertion which looks like a home run pitch, but which either contains some equivocal reference which makes it plausible, or is backed by information sources not generally available or revealed, but which will be unloaded on the Republican candidate’s head.
The officials of other administrations have in the past found themselves constrained either by national security concerns, or by ethics, from playing these games. (Johnson and Carter both being an exception to the tradition of putting nation first, when it came to gleefully spilling technology for their political advantage, of course.)
I remember during the Dan Quayle era, there was one fellow at work — one fellow I have in mind, although he was merely representative of leftie/liberals generally — who was intellectually a pretty accomplished fellow. And yet he would delight as though anew in repeating variations on what was essentially the same Dan Quayle joke over and over.
My point is, this intellectually accomplished fellow, leftie/liberal to the core, was not so intellectual that he might ever weary of laughing heartily at whatever made fun of Dan Quayle, even if it was the same old repackaged sh#t over and over.
And over. Bo-o-o-o-ring.
Alinskyite ridicule can be very effective. Maybe our guys need to give it a whirl.
My recollection was that *Cruz did indeed ridicule CNBC minions before a national audience*
Obama can attempt to mitigate that ridicule by offering *his* personal ( totally odd) observations but the more significant ridicule was
the one that hit first & that was Cruz !
Obama the class act likes to ridicule the opposition:
This, like many insults, falls apart under the light of reasoned examination: in the debate, Republicans forcefully rejected questions and behavior based on biased, fallacious assumptions. This is precisely what needs to be done in a negotiation when the other side makes demands, offers or statements based on biased, fallacious assumptions.
“Alinskyite ridicule can be very effective. Maybe our guys need to give it a whirl.”
Conservatives are conservative because they generally have minds that do not delight in ridiculing; they generally have less interest in social crap and the joys or rolling around in it. In fact, they probably consider it objectively immoral.
For the “progressive” it is simply one more technique in their arsenal of realizing “the world they dream”.
Reading, “The Most Famous man in America”, for all the book’s serious flaws, and they are many, reminds me just how different the political progressive’s mind actually is, and has been for 150 years.
They demonstrate a frantic emotional neediness for recognition and affirmation, that normal people, given the same rights and access to land and materials, just don’t manifest.
Obama’s targeted audience is the LIVs. It is essential to his agenda that the next President be a democrat. And, Obama is well aware that it is the LIVs who will determine his successor. Along with the schools, the media is most responsible for establishing, advancing and sustaining that agenda.
If, “the truth shall set them free”, then for the Left, obstructing the truth, most of all from the LIVs is of critical importance. Reality however, will have its say and reality more than anything else is why the left’s agenda is ultimately, unsustainable.
The greater the denial and resistance, the harsher reality’s lessons.
Saw this clip on the morning news and my first thought was, “what a despicable little man.” He truly is such a small, small person.
His character (rather lack of) has always been apparent, and it continues to baffle why more people don’t see it. He really has damaged and diminished the office of the presidency, hopefully not beyond repair (sadly, I don’t think it will ever fully recover.)
The Other Gary, 4:06 pm — “This, like many insults, falls apart under the light of reasoned examination . . . .”
“Reasoned examination”? To that ilk, what the h#ll is that??
Older conservatives are prone to obeying the law of niceties when it comes to internal enemies, especially the vendetta and bounty prone Democrat South before Reagan. But generations and pops change, and the new conservative generation will not be so nice as the older ones.
Bho believes anyone who disagrees with his royal wisdom is a fool wrapped inside a knave. All his affirmative action life he has been told he is the most brilliant of them all, and he believes it.
M J R wrote (5:59pm):
“Reasoned examination”? To that ilk, what the h#ll is that??
To Allinsky progressives, it means nothing.
I was just making the point that the insult doesn’t even make sense, not that I expect supporters of King Barack to realize this or do anything other than laugh along with their Great Leader.
Ann: “Sadly, infuriatingly, this will probably be effective.”
The Other Gary: “Republicans forcefully rejected questions and behavior based on biased, fallacious assumptions.”
Republicans are being forced to do the kind of work that Right activists should be doing but the Right refuses to do – the kind of work that Left activists do in order to set the stage and arm Democrats (to do their part for the Left).
In combo with Alinsky Rule 5, Rule 12 is also applied here.
Set the narrative to keep the accusation spotlight fixed on your target. On the GOP candidates, instead of obviously biased media. On Bush, instead of obviously guilty Saddam.