Cillizza: “Obama got elected on competence. Now people are starting to wonder.”

The New Neo Posted on by

Chris Cillizza writes that now people are starting to wonder about Obama’s competence. You may shake your head in wonder at the word “now” and the word “starting”—how could people not have noticed long ago?

But even more curious is the “got elected on competence” bit. Really? Really? And yet, absurd as it may seem, Cillizza’s actually got a germ of an idea there. He writes:

A new CNN/ORC national poll reveals the problem. Asked whether Obama can “manage the government effectively,” nearly six in 10 (57 percent) say that statement didn’t apply to the president. Compare that to where Obama stood just before he was inaugurated, when 76 percent of respondents in a December 2008 CNN/ORC poll said he was an effective manager, and you see just how far he has fallen…

Here’s why that number…should scare President Obama and the Democratic Party. It goes directly to the heart of why he was elected — as an anti-George W. Bush, a person who, above all else, was competent at handling the basic affairs of government.

The poll numbers from 2008 referenced in the first paragraph bear out Cillizza’s contention in the second: that Obama was originally elected as someone “competent at handling the basic affairs of government.” That’s not the only reason he was elected, of course (and it couldn’t have been the reason he was re-elected). But clearly, it was part of the reason in 2008. The million-dollar question is why anyone would believe such a thing even back then of a man who (like him or not, agree with his politics or not) clearly had no track record of handling the basic affairs of government—or managing much of anything else—at all.

What the public perceived about Obama was not a track record, but a powerful impression of competence, apparently powerful enough to be instrumental in getting him elected. Obama was able to project an air of competence, and take advantage of the fact that a great many people seem unable to tell the difference between an act and the real thing.

A projection of competence without a track record requires the ability to resemble an actor in a TV show or movie who plays the role of president. Barack Obama was apparently very good at it. His voice was right. His height was right. His coolness and calm were right. He’d been to the right schools. His color, although unprecedented, seemed “right” also in the sense that its time had come and Americans were ready—nay, eager—for it.

I’ve seen many TV shows and movies where actors play presidents, and I’ve always been struck by how miscast they all seem. Comparing the actor-presidents I’ve seen to the actual presidents during my lifetime, the actors, almost to a person, seem too slick, too smooth, too generic (although Peter Sellers in the comic “Dr. Strangelove” seemed too bland). Real presidents have been, for the most part, far more idiosyncratic, with more complex energy and personality. But on the surface, Obama resembled the actors more than the presidents, and it impressed an electorate that favors role play over reality.

For all those who doubted my Sebelius/O’Toole…

The New Neo Posted on by

…separated at birth, there’s this, sent in by a helpful reader. On the upper right is an earlier photo of O’Toole, photoshopped to have brown eyes instead of blue, and on the lower right is the same photo, with Sebelius’s eyeglasses superimposed plus a little teeny tiny bit of the tops of her eyes to give his a slightly more hooded look (which he got naturally anyway as he aged).

I rest my case:

FiddledWith

Alinsky’s Rule #4 is a one-way street

The New Neo Posted on by

Excellent, excellent, excellent article by Jim Geraghty entitled “Unruly Progressives: why it’s so hard to make progressives live up to their own rules.”

First, a little review of Alinsky’s Rule #4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” Note first the word “enemy” rather than “opponent” or “adversary.” Alinsky knew what he was doing when he used language: the opposition is the enemy, according to the left. No beating around the bush; this is war.

Now note the idea that the enemy has rules it aspires to live up to. But really ruthless enemies in real wars are the ones who don’t mind bending or even breaking their own rules, if they have any at all in the first place. With the left, it’s hard to discern what their rules are except that the goal is to win at all costs. For the right, it doesn’t seem quite that way. It’s hard to make an enemy play by its own rules if abiding by the rules is not very important to them, and the left is that kind of enemy.

That’s why Geraghty writes:

James O’Keefe, the activist and journalist behind the famous ACORN videos, articulated the approach directly: “The Left doesn’t care about the laws or the rules. They are hypocrites, and the only way to win is to make them live up to their book of rules. I have found that the only thing they care about is racism, sexism and exploitation.”

Not to take away from O’Keefe’s work, which generates must-watch videos and scandal-inspired resignations with metronomic regularity, but there may be a flaw in this strategy. Ultimately, not that many liberals care whether their brethren are following their own book of rules. They’ve demonstrated a remarkable acceptance for one another’s hypocrisy.

That is their secret weapon, one that fewer on the right have mastered.

Which is why Richard Nixon resigned and Bill Clinton held fast, even through an impeachment trial. The first was abandoned by his own party because he had violated their principles, and the second was supported by his own party even though he had violated theirs (the ones they professed to have, that is).

[NOTE: On reflection, I think this has something to do with my change experience. Even when I was a liberal, I applied the same rules to both sides. I didn’t like hypocrisy and I didn’t like lies, no matter who was guilty of them. Once I got enough information to decide that liberals were more often guilty of them than conservatives were (not that either side is immune), it helped tip the balance for me.]

Whew!

The New Neo Posted on by

I saw an interview on CNN with Captain Brad Hawthorne of Houston, the fireman who was on the ladder during this video. His observation, “Most people will jump before they’ll burn.”

California State Senator Leland Yee (D) wins Hypocrite of the Year award

The New Neo Posted on by

It boggles the mind:

In a stunning criminal complaint, State Sen. Leland Yee has been charged with conspiring to traffic in firearms and public corruption as part of a major FBI operation spanning the Bay Area, casting yet another cloud of corruption over the Democratic establishment in the Legislature and torpedoing Yee’s aspirations for statewide office.

Yee and an intermediary allegedly met repeatedly with an undercover FBI agent, soliciting campaign contributions in exchange for setting up a deal with international arms dealers.

Not just any “international arms dealers,” but some special ones:

Yee had connection with Filipino rebel groups: “Keith Jackson advised that Senator Yee had an unidentified Filipino associate who was supplying ‘heavy’ weapons to rebel groups in the Philippines.”

Including Muslim terrorists: “According to Senator Yee, Mindanao was largely population by Muslim rebel groups who were fighting the federal government. Yee continued by saying the Muslim rebels had no problem ‘kidnapping individuals, killing individuals, and extorting them for ransom.”

In specific the Moro Islamic Liberation Front: “[The agent] asked about the major Muslim organizations in the Mindanao region of the Philippines. Senator Yee responded by saying ‘M.I.L.F.'”

Yee allegedly wasn’t making up the identity of his arms dealer: “This purported arms dealer was later identified.”

And, Russian arms dealers: “According to Senator Yee, the arms dealer source the weapons from Russia.”

In case you’re not familiar with California state politics (I certainly wasn’t), Yee was (is??) a prominent gun control advocate. As this piece suggests, “Maybe Sen. Yee came down so hard on private gun dealers because he wanted to muscle into the business himself.”

Clueless?

“It seems like nobody knew this was coming, and everyone is astounded by the allegations,” said Corey Cook, director of the University of San Francisco’s Leo T. McCarthy Center for Public Service and the Common Good. “I’m just astonished… Political corruption is one thing, but this is a whole other level.”

One should never be astounded at corruption in public officials, but maybe someone directing something called the “Center for Public Service and the Common Good” might be.

[NOTE: Here’s some background information on Yee’s career.]

Separated at birth?

The New Neo Posted on by

I know this one’s a stretch.

One was charismatic, one decidedly not.

One had riveting blue eyes, one not.

And then of course there’s that little man/woman thing.

But still—what do you think?

oToole

HHS Sec. Sebelius testifies on 2012 budget in Washington

STRENGTH IS WEAKNESS, WEAKNESS IS STRENGTH

The New Neo Posted on by

Scott Johnson writes the following about Obama’s recent statement “Russia is a regional power that is threatening some of its immediate neighbors, not out of strength, but out of weakness”:

You have to wonder just how weak Russia is, in Obama’s calculation. Is it so weak that it will invade the rest of Ukraine? Moldova? Estonia? Latvia? Maybe!

Obama didn’t have time to flesh out his thoughts into full doctrinal form. Is getting taken over by Russia a sign of strength? Does he stand in admiration of Crimea for being taken over, and of Ukraine for standing down? Their forbearance reflects strength.

Obama’s deep thoughts serve a useful purpose. It’s time to think seriously about weakness. Weakness takes many forms. Weakness doesn’t get much weaker than this.

That is followed by this video of Obama at the Hague making the point about Russian’s weakness, embedded in a statement so meandering that—well, watch for yourself:

There’s no question that countries sometimes invade other countries out of fear or insecurity. But weakness? Only of the moral sort, which is not especially relevant in the sense of geopolitical power struggle. Obama is either merely BS-ing here (always a distinct possibility), purposely abdicating US power and defining that action paradoxically as strength (very likely), or doesn’t even understand the Cold War or power struggles in the international arena. Because invading Ukraine does not indicate weakness, either of resolve or of drive to get what one wants through the raw exercise of force. And it has been successful, so far, although it may not remain so. But ask the people of Ukraine whether they think this is a show of weakness on Russia’s part.

The title of this post is modeled, of course, after the three slogans of the Party written on the wall of the Ministry of Truth in Orwell’s masterpiece Nineteen Eighty-Four: “WAR IS PEACE,” “FREEDOM IS SLAVERY,” “IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.”

It’s worth exploring a bit more about the Ministry of Truth:

The Ministry of Truth is involved with news media, entertainment, the fine arts and educational books. Its purpose is to rewrite history to change the facts to fit Party doctrine for propaganda effect. For example, if Big Brother makes a prediction that turns out to be wrong, the employees of the Ministry of Truth go back and rewrite the prediction so that any prediction Big Brother previously made is accurate. This is the “how” of the Ministry of Truth’s existence. Within the novel, Orwell elaborates that the deeper reason for its existence is to maintain the illusion that the Party is absolute. It cannot ever seem to change its mind (if, for instance, they perform one of their constant changes regarding enemies during war) or make a mistake (firing an official or making a grossly misjudged supply prediction), for that would imply weakness and to maintain power the Party must seem eternally right and strong.

Sound familiar? I thought so.

By his own definition of strength/weakness, this must be a very strong recent move by Obama:

Obama’s FutureWar Battle Plan:
Step 1. Reduce the Military Budget By Relying More on Stand-Off Weapons Like the Tomahawk and Hellfire Missiles
Step 2: Slash Funding for the Hellfire Missile and Eliminate the Tomahawk Entirely

President Barack Obama is seeking to abolish two highly successful missile programs that experts say have helped the U.S. Navy maintain military superiority for the past several decades.

The Tomahawk missile program””known as “the world’s most advanced cruise missile”””is set to be cut by $128 million under Obama’s fiscal year 2015 budget proposal and completely eliminated by fiscal year 2016, according to budget documents released by the Navy.

…The Navy will also be forced to cancel its acquisition of the well-regarded and highly effective Hellfire missiles in 2015, according to Obama’s proposal.

…Nearly 100 of these missiles are used each year on average, meaning that the sharp cuts will cause the Tomahawk stock to be completely depleted by around 2018. This is particularly concerning to defense experts because the Pentagon does not have a replacement missile ready to take the Tomahawk’s place.

“It doesn’t make sense,” said Seth Cropsey, director of the Hudson Institute’s Center for American Seapower. “This really moves the U.S. away from a position of influence and military dominance.”

Cropsey said that if someone were trying to “reduce the U.S. ability to shape events” in the world, “they couldn’t find a better way than depriving the U.S. fleet of Tomahawks. It’s breathtaking.”

The military always squawks when cuts are being made. This seems—different. Very different.

But let’s just remember: WEAKNESS IS STRENGTH. Apparently we are so strong in the geopolitical sense, thanks to Obama’s wonderfulness, that we don’t have to worry about that sort of thing.

Another Obamacare extension

The New Neo Posted on by

Another day, another Obamacare extension, decided by the president himself—thus further justifying the fact that the law is called by his name.

The thing that bothers me most about this extension of the deadline to April 15 is, once again, the procedural overreach by Obama and the unconstitutionality of his declaration. The actual content of the change makes more sense than the March 31 deadline ever did, because pre-Obamacare, individual health insurance could ordinarily be purchased by the fifteenth of the month effective the first day of the next month.

The new Obamacare extension only applies to people who’ve had trouble signing up on the federal website, so I assume that people in states with functioning state websites still supposedly have to sign up by March 31. I suspect such a distinction would be unconstitutional, but isn’t most of what Obama’s been doing with Obamacare rule changes unconsitutional (not to mention Obamacare itself, whatever SCOTUS says)? The deadline change is also on the honor system, which would make it almost humorous if this weren’t a very serious business indeed.

I’m with Boehner here:

“What the hell is this, a joke?” Boehner said at his weekly press conference.

…The Speaker called the move “another deadline made meaningless,” adding it to a litany of unilateral changes that the administration has made to the law.

“This is part of a long-term pattern of this administration manipulating the law for its own convenience,” Boehner said. “It’s not hard to understand why the American people question this administration’s commitment to the rule of law.”

The Speaker mocked the use of the “honor system” to determine who was eligible for an extension after the administration said it would make no effort to ensure that people had actually begun the process of signing up by March 31.

“Why don’t they just say, ”˜We’ve moved the date to April 15’? Because that’s in effect what they’ve done,” Boehner said.

Boehner said, “It’s not hard to understand why the American people question this administration’s commitment to the rule of law.” However, I would amend that to read: “It’s not hard to understand why Republicans question this administration’s commitment to the rule of law, and why conservatives and Jonathan Turley (strange bedfellows) realize that he has none.”

[ADDENDUM: A history of Obamacare extensions.]

Debris field spotted

The New Neo Posted on by

We won’t know its identity until some ship manages to snatch some of it up for analysis, but this sounds like the most promising find so far:

New satellite images show a debris field of 122 objects floating in the Indian Ocean potentially connected to doomed Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, officials said at a news conference today.

Obama: pay no attention to that Russia behind the curtain

The New Neo Posted on by

A nugget of Obama wisdom today on Russia [emphasis mine]:

Russia is a regional power that is threatening some of its immediate neighbors, not out of strength but out of weakness,” Obama asserted, as though he was talking about the psychological insecurities that plague the average playground bully.

“The fact that Russia felt compelled to go in militarily and lay bare these violations of international law indicates less influence, not more,” Obama insisted.

The mind boggles.

And Obama’s motivations? Take your pick, or you can answer “all of the following”: purposely enabling Russia in its power grabs, maintaining the consistency of Obama’s own worldview (asserting he’s right and Romney was wrong), his belief in the power of “dialogue” and international law, stupidity, ignorance, and/or evil.

One thing is certain: this sort of attitude on Obama’s part was foreshadowed way back in 2008:

Barack Obama gave an interesting description of Iran and the threat it poses to the United States and our national interests at an appearance in Oregon last night. “They don’t pose a serious threat to us in the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us,” Obama told a cheering audience, explaining why he doesn’t think we need to worry about “tiny” countries like Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, and Iran. Obama also displays a weird sense of history when he suggests that the Berlin Wall fell because we engaged Mikhail Gorbachev…

The Soviet Union collapsed economically; they did not just decide to capitulate. The Berlin Wall did not fall as a result of negotiations, but because the regime propping it up ceased to exist. Why did the Soviet Union collapse? Because Ronald Reagan won an economic war with Moscow, forcing it to spend more and more and falling further and further behind. The Strategic Defense Initiative provided the coup de grace to the Soviets, who knew they could never match us in missile defense, and tried negotiating an end to the economic war instead, with disastrous results.

That would be the same SDI that Democrats staunchly opposed, sneeringly called “Star Wars” and proclaiming it a threat to peaceful coexistence. They wanted a decades-long series of summits instead of the end of communism, which sounds strikingly familiar in Obama’s speech. Reagan had to fight the Democrats to beat the Soviets, not through presidential-level diplomacy but through economic isolation and military strength.

Obama is consistent.

Reporter James Risen…

The New Neo Posted on by

…calls the Obama administration “the greatest enemy of press freedom that we have encountered in at least a generation.” The impetus for his statement was this situation:

…[Risen] is fighting an order that he testify in the trial of Jeffrey Sterling, a former CIA officer accused of leaking information to him, The administration wants to “narrow the field of national security reporting,” Risen said, to “create a path for accepted reporting.” Anyone journalist who exceeds those parameters, Risen said, “will be punished.”

The administration’s aggressive prosecutions have created “a de facto Official Secrets Act,” Risen said, and the media has been “too timid” in responding.

I submit that the Obama administration is not the greatest enemy of press freedom in a generation. It is the press that is its own greatest enemy, not in a generation but in a century or more. The press has enabled and promoted nearly everything that Obama has done no matter how bad the violation, the lie, or the error. He is their creature and their creation, and they have reaped what they have sown. Unfortunately, the rest of us have reaped it too.

[NOTE: Perhaps the Obama administration is confusing James Risen with James Rosen?]