May 21, 2009

Weird Article About Obama - Deconstruction in F Minor

This article is called "Notes Toward a Theory of Obama. What we've learned so far about the president." Because they're just NOW trying to actually learn something about him or even formulate a theory about the guy. They didn't give a shit about that when the election was on the line.

Barack Obama began his presidency with an unusual attribute: that the country already understood him, or thought it did, from his books.

Yeah, right. The only people who read those things were the conservatives, and they didn't find much to be happy about inside them.

The story he told in Dreams From My Father and reinforced in The Audacity of Hope was about a man of multiple worlds who struggles to come to terms with his father's abandonment and a confounding racial identity. Obama resolves his rootlessness and anger by committing himself socially, religiously, and, eventually, politically. He depicts his mature self as unusually grounded, able to see other points of view and to bridge chasms.

Uh-huh. Yeah, see 'cause I sort of had the picture of a Marxist Alinsky-ite supporter of Ayers' Prairie Fire who was a third-generation communist red diaper baby radical deconstructionist along the lines of Hillary only worse. One who was raised solely by the white side of his family, learning communism at his grandmother's dear white knee, then throwing her under the bus. Of course, you could have learned all this if you'd bothered reading them or engaging in any research BEFORE it was too late, but that would have been too hard. Then Palin might have been VP and blown up the world with her stupidity! Also, I'm pretty sure Obama was also pretty committed to the pipe for a while there. You forgot to mention that. I'm sure he could bridge a chasm from the alley to the nearest crack den. If they made it into a Wii game.

The protagonist of these books is a persuasive and appealing character—so much so that he left little demand for alternative explanations.

Don't blame him, MSM. You did that all by yourselves. You put your hands on your ears and screamed "LALALALA PALIN IS STUPID HILLBILLY! BURN WITCHES!" instead of your JOB investigating this guy and his associations and what he might actually DO if he were elected. After all, he hadn't done anything in any office yet except leapfrog up to the next office...what to do when one has reached the top with no record to speak of?

As time goes by, though, Obama's Obama feels less and less satisfying.

Bwahaha! Wiping eyes. Oh. You were serious. How bizarre.

It's not that the author's projection of himself is distorted in any obvious way

Well if it isn't, then you people have a HELL of a lot of explaining to do. Why on EARTH didn't you warn the people what he is? Oh, you're Marxist? You WANT a fascist totalitarian state and liberty means nothing to you? Social justice trumps liberty? Yeah I guess so.

but rather that it leaves too much unexplained—his ambition, his aloofness, his fundamental beliefs, if any.

Oof. IF ANY, huh? Yeah, except you're full of shit. Obama put plenty in there about his beliefs, if any - how about the bit about in order not to be seen as a sellout he chose his friends very carefully, like the Marxist professors? That raised a few alarm bells to those who actually, you know, READ it. Parse that claim, by the way - is he a sellout; was it only about image or was it about belief? He chose to cultivate a reputation as a Marxist, but is he? No, I think it's worse than that. He's a megalomaniac. But I get ahead of myself.

It's too soon to offer an interpretation of our president. But after four months in office, we can see some emerging themes.

It's not too soon. The day after the inauguration was not too soon. Until Jan 21st he kept stringing us along, REFUSING to say anything concrete about what he intended to do, just sort of going along with the reassuring theme, but peppering it and souring it with more pessimism so we wouldn't be too shocked. But we had NO idea what he would do because he wouldn't say. Within days it became clear that this was full-out Alinsky Rules for Radicals Cloward-Piven Strategy and we had lived to see it. A new foreign relations nightmare, attacks on the CIA and prior administrations (something you seldom see outside those 3rd World Countries - and don't give me that "developing nation" bullshit because we're well on our way to becoming a 3rd world country ourselves with these economic plans and the squatters movement and Acorn and politicizing the census and everything else - so you'll learn the difference SOON ENOUGH.) No, it's not too soon to judge Obama by a longshot - he has committed the most HISTORIC level of spending madness and the most enormous power grab - in fact, more than any of the 40+ presidents before him COMBINED. For 200 years none of them have managed this and all within the first 3 months. Oh yeah, we can judge. Maybe you can't, but you're an MSM drone.

But no, seriously, I can't WAIT to see what you THINK are emerging themes from the Obama administration. What do you want a bet that you are NOT coming to the same conclusions I could have told you 8 months ago, 4 months ago, 3 months ago? What do you want a bet that you still don't see what's right in front of your fucking face and will continue with your inverse relationship* with the truth that the left always has?

*I have been developing a simple theory about the inverse relationship the left has with the truth and reality. I'll give you the mathematical formula soon, though I may simplify it.

He sees the middle ground as high ground. Candidates who talk about bringing people together, being uniters not dividers, or changing the tone in Washington are usually blowing happy smoke. At this point, however, Obama's focus on reconciliation is clearly more than shtick. We saw this impulse at work when he made pre-emptive concessions on his stimulus package in an unsuccessful effort to win Republican support.

Theorem proven and I haven't even postulated it yet in print! Holy hell. THAT is the middle ground?? This guy? The most radical president we've EVER had in our entire history, is the middle grounder? So Bush was blowing smoke when he talked about being a uniter, and that was a bad thing, but Obama really IS a uniter, and that's a bad thing. (You'd have to invert everything IN that sentence to make it true at all.) Um...are you people mental? So...he made some concessions in the stimulus bill and got it from a trillion down to slightly less than a trillion. You realize that's like giving me a penny out of $100,000 and telling me I should be grateful right? And I'm sorry, not a single fucking legislator got to READ the thing before they signed it - the concessions were obviously the original plan - ask for a hugely scary amount so that you can get a slightly smaller hugely scary amount because then it doesn't sound as scary - it's a tactic children know how to use, you idiot. Most of the things that were debated and taken out were put back in, you know. Like the contraception shit and what the fuck else ever. I can tell you for sure there's no help for you if you're losing your home unless you have a loan through Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae, and even then there's nothing. The whole stimulus was a huge scam and not one of us is to be helped by it, including people who needed help. Not that spending a trillion to stimulate the economy was sane to begin with. Then the guy pushes for and gets a multi-trillion dollar budget - and you call that MIDDLE GROUND? You're truly fucked in the head.

Every few days, it seems, Obama, tries for a "new beginning"—with Iran, Cuba, the Muslim world, even Paul Krugman. Engaging with opponents animates him more than hanging with friends.

First of all, we get it already. Obama wants to curry favor with and kowtow to our enemies while alienating our friends. This is nothing to be pleased about, but you don't seem to "get" why. And get serious - Paul Krugman is NOT Obama's opponent - Paul is just pissed that Obama isn't quite socialist ENOUGH for his liking and Paul is nothing but a leftard political shit-stirrer to begin with. He's no economist.

This is a wonderful instinct that is bettering America's image and making domestic politics more civil.

Uh...what? Yeah, not from this side of the aisle. I don't see anything "civil" about selling out the CIA and our national security, vilifying anyone who happens to actually be conservative, ordering fatwas against private CITIZENS who happen to be conservative (Rush Limbaugh, for example) or the way conservatives are portrayed in the media, by the left and the alleged "moderate" RINOs. I'm sure it all feels very cozy and civil to the left, but not from where I'm standing, with you all destroying national security AND trying to ban our guns and destroy the economy.

But listening is not a moral stance, and elevating it to one only highlights the question of what Obama really stands for.

You thought it was a moral stance when you CLAIMED that Bush wasn't listening to you. (Which is such nonsense - one of the first things he did was YOUR abominable education bill with Ted the Swimmer Kennedy - and then you've spent the last 6 years excoriating BUSH for what a horrible bill it was.) I know what you really mean, assmunch - you're mad that you think Obama's listening to the conservatives. Stfu and stop wringing your hands - he's NOT.

The consensus-seeker repudiates torture but doesn't want to investigate it; he endorses gay equality but not in marriage or the military; he thinks government's role is to do whatever works. I continue to suspect him of harboring deeper convictions.


He's the decider for real. Accounts of Obama's decision-making depict him driving process as well as result. Faced with a tough call about whether to declassify additional Bush administration torture memos, Obama called a debate, listened intently, and finished by dictating the next day's press release announcing the release of the documents.

So he called a debate with 5 CIA directors including Leon Panetta all dead set against this attack on our Intelligence, and with his own people, then did exactly what his people thought he should, immediately upon this intent "listening." So your complaint that listening is not a moral stance is moot, because it doesn't matter how much he pretends he listens; he does exactly what he wants, what he intended to do from the beginning, and generally exactly the wrong thing. I'd say he has his stance pretty well fixed. Oh, except for the fact that he backed off on releasing the pictures because if he did that, Pelosi was going to go down in flames. (Contrary to popular belief, she will not melt when doused with water, but she will multiply. And who fed her after midnight anyway?)

Another insider ticktock has him personally directing the futures of GM and Chrysler.

You say that like it's a good thing.

The president's knack for deep dives into policy questions is undeniably impressive. But as quick a study as he is, his supreme self-confidence may shade into overconfidence. He shows signs of suffering from the arrogance that often accompanies brilliance. It's unlikely, for instance, that Obama can function as his own grand strategy guru on foreign policy. But he doesn't seem inclined to give that job to anyone else.
You just realized NOW he's arrogant? See, the rest of us have gotten past that a long time ago. We're just realizing it's way beyond arrogance - there's actual megalomania here. I wish you people would keep up once in a while. WE told you he was arrogant a year ago.

He was quickly bored in the Senate, where it took too long to get things done. When he was thinking about running for president, his question was whether the moment would be ripe for a great leader.
He didn't DO anything in the senate - it was a stepping stone, and in his infamous interview on Chicago radio from 2001 shows, that was the plan all along. Duh. Each step was just a rung on a ladder to get executive power with huge ground support - my God, don't you people even read what the man has SAID before you report on him? He used to be really pretty open and aboveboard about his plans, you know. It just takes a little bit of research. And the bit about the great leader made me throw up in my mouth a little. Thanks a lot. The idiot young masses were ripe for a change of any sort - every 4 - 8 years it happens; the word "change" becomes THE word, the only word, that is needed to bring all the dipshits into action. I've seen it many times and expect to see it many more.**
One day last month, he faced decisions about the fate of the auto industry, a new strategy for the war in Afghanistan, a North Korean missile threat, and a flood in Fargo, N.D.
Maybe the president shouldn't decide the fate of the auto industry - was that the day he fired the CEO or whatever? Yeah, real powermonger we got. There is nothing worth fighting for in Afghanistan; redoubling our efforts there is stupid and a smokescreen. And Pelousy already blew the help we had from Pakistan in dealing with terrorist cells still coming out of Afghanistan, you fools. The North Korean missile threat? He didn't give a damn. They asked if he wanted them to shoot it down and he said "Oh hell no. Kim Jong Il, Don't MAKE me have to issue a statement!" Considering his lack of response to the people who were freezing to death in Kansas I don't want to know what he didn't do about the flood. The press is never going to eat him alive like they did Bush on Katrina - blaming HIM for the weather and the city's lack of planning and competency for emergencies despite being below sea level in a hurricane zone - puhlease. Obama could preside over thousands of deaths and destruction like that, do nothing, and still won't get the same shit Bush has.
The question here is capacity, not capability. Can any one person simultaneously manage so many issues in the hands-on way Obama insists on managing them?
Two words again - Cloward-Piven Strategy. He doesn't want them taken care of; that isn't the purpose of this administration. The purpose right now is to break it all to pieces so that it can be remade in his image. The time of occupying from the inside, a la Alinsky, is complete. Now it's smashing time.
He's ruthless.
No argument there.
He's ruthless. In a recent interview with the New York Times, Obama described his economic policy as "ruthless pragmatism."
Bwahahah! I never knew reckless abandon towards the goal of utter dismantlement was pragmatic - only he could have said such a thing with a STRAIGHT FACE. Though he has been known to cackle inappropriately about the economy, I can see him in utter seriousness calling this rampant mad lunacy of a spending spree "ruthlessly pragmatic" without cracking a smile. Though he might scratch his face with his middle finger while he said it.
Interesting choice of modifiers. Obama has a healthy disdain for the overrated virtue of political loyalty. Around the nomination process, this has been slightly chilling to watch. If you're useful, you can hang around with him. If you start to look like a liability, enjoy your time with the wolves. Before the inauguration, Christopher Hitchens described Obama as feline in his demeanor. The president is catlike also in his lack of evident affection for the people who take care of him. His cracks at the White House Correspondents' Dinner about Hillary Clinton being an envious loser, Larry Summers' woman problem, and training his dog not to pee on Tim Geithner skirted cruelty. Obama's jokes about himself were about how great everyone thinks he is.
Hmm, you didn't get the hint when he threw his grandmother and Rev. Wright under the bus? As well as Ayers? Morons. And that last sentence, I've read a column about that somewhere...where did I read that? Oh, yeah, Ann Coulter wrote it a while ago. Thanks for noticing. Starting to realize we were right, juuuuust a little bit, aren't you? Except no, you can never ever allow yourself to think that, so you come up with this stupid shit. Enjoy the mess you've caused - you'll get no pity from me. Ever.

**I told my son sometime in January 2008 that I was dreading this election, because at some point the left was just going to stop talking and start screaming the word "CHANGE!" and that was all it was really going to take. I was right to dread this election, and for many moons refused to even hear a word about it from anyone, until Sarah Palin was announced. But I called it. These people are predictable as balls rolling down slopes - and there's nothing "new" or "changey" about it. It's just another word they use for leverage.


cmblake6 said...

I feel so bad for not visiting here more often! This was an absolutely SUPERB article, one I wish could have been out there in the sphere long ago. Problem was, the commies in the media had to be smacked across the face with the fish before they realized what it was. This one is now linked at mine.

Anniee451 said...

Why thank you! Deconstructions of this sort are my favorites to write; but sadly few people like to read them. Thanks a bunch for linking it though! :)