The Obama Administration has leaked a bunch of memos with Obama's comments in the margins to Ryan Lizza of The New Yorker, who has written them up as best he can as a story of Republican intransigence.
Mickey Kaus responds:
What does he do all day? Are you impressed with the image of Obama-at-work left by Ryan Lizza’s “Obama Memos” piece in the New Yorker? The President’s decision-making method–at least as described in the piece–seems to consist mainly of checking boxes on memos his aides have written for him. … They offer him four stimulus packages, none bigger than $890 billion. He does not ask for more but does push for an “inspiring ‘moon shot’” initiative. At first it’s a “national ‘smart grid’”–hard not to get inspired just hearing those words! When aides explain that this isn’t stimulating enough, he settles for “high-speed trains.” … He’s presented with a list of $60 billion in cuts to his core stimulus policies, and writes “OK.” … He “authorize[s] his staff” to plan a likely-to-be-useless “bipartisan ‘fiscal summit,’” asks “what are the takeaways”” is told he could “ask .. for continued dialogue,” and doesn’t write “this is all BS” and cancel the summit, which in fact proves useless. … He’s offered a box to extend a one year non-defense spending freeze into a three year freeze. He doesn’t ask for a bigger, smaller, longer or broader freeze. He draws “a check mark.” … Finally, he’s presented with a classic three-box-con memo–two extreme boxes (big new jobs package, big new deficit package) and a safer middle box (“smaller, more symbolic” deficit efforts), a matrix clearly designed to get him to choose the middle option. He chooses the middle option.
I’m sure Obama is smarter than this. He can’t be an executive who spends his days checking boxes, accepting the choices presented by his aides, never reaching outside them through unconventional channels or reaching unconventional thinkers, never throwing over the framework with which he is presented.
I’m sure of it, but I can’t find much evidence for it in Lizza’s piece. The aides who leaked him the memos didn’t do Obama any favors.
If you are trying to do Obama a favor, why leak it to Lizza? My impression since 2008 is that Lizza is a closet cynic about Obama. Lizza put into print some of the more revealing stuff about Obama, such as this classic Obama quote: "I think that I’m a better speechwriter than my speechwriters. I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I’ll tell you right now that I’m gonna think I’m a better political director than my political director." Granted, most New Yorker readers were so invested in Obama that they never noticed anything subversive in Lizza's articles (who knows, Lizza may not have, himself).
Here's a key portion:
Each night, an Obama aide hands the President a binder of documents to review. After his wife goes to bed, at around ten, Obama works in his study, the Treaty Room, on the second floor of the White House residence. President Bush preferred oral briefings; Obama likes his advice in writing. He marks up the decision memos and briefing materials with notes and questions in his neat cursive handwriting. In the morning, each document is returned to his staff secretary. She dates and stamps it—“Back from the OVAL”—and often e-mails an index of the President’s handwritten notes to the relevant senior staff and their assistants.
This sounds like how I would be President (except that my wife wouldn't insist I waste a big chunk of the evening on her the way Michelle requires Barack to spend 6:30 pm to 10:00 pm with her at least five nights per week, most of them without any company other than the Nesbitts or Whitakers, the two rich black couples from Chicago who frequently fly to D.C. so that Barack has some friends). But the staying up late reading by myself part: yeah, I would totally do that. Also, in Jodi Kantor's The Obamas, one of Obama's best friends talks about how he thinks that when he's no longer President that he can just go back to walking down the street to the book store, which is also my favorite thing in the whole world to do: walk to the Barnes & Noble that about 25 minutes away.
So, Obama and I share a lot of traits. And, no surprise, I would be terrible at being President.
Most executives are morning people, not night people. Being a night person is fine if you are, say, a blogger. I look at the articles that come out in the Big East Coast newspapers at midnight EST and sometimes I'll have a cogent response posted by the time Easterners are getting to work. But that's no way to run a railroad.
As an executive, you can get a lot done as a night person if you are a jerk and insist that lots of people stay up with you.
Churchill, Stalin, and Hitler were all night people and they all got lots done, but they weren't polite loner dweebs like Obama is. For example, Churchill was just awful to his secretaries and other servants. When one of his staff of 22 that he maintained as a private citizen backbencher during the mid-30s objected to his lack of consideration, Churchill responded, "But, I am a great man." He just wore out his secretaries with late night dictation. He generally had one taking dictation and the other typing up what he had just dictated. In contrast, it appears from this that and from Jodi Kantor's book The Obamas that Obama stays up alone without even a secretary. Michelle would probably object, but Barack needs his alone time anyway.
Obama has the ego, but he lacks the force of will required to impose his personality upon others. Stalin and Hitler found late night meetings terrific for terrifying others into doing their will, but Obama is way too polite and too much of a loner to insist upon meetings in the wee hours. To make big decisions, you have to confront people face to face ask them tough questions. But during office hours, Obama usually comes in late and is tired from staying up reading his memos and checking his boxes.
He's just not a big man. Big ego, big ambition, but as his track record of once helping get some asbestos partially removed suggests, not much psychic energy.
Posts
102 comments:
It's interesting how stereotypically "white" Obama appears to be as a leader. When you think of black leaders, you typically get extroverts who are very good at imposing their will on others but not so attentive to detail or consistency - Jesse Jackson, Idi Amin, Mugabe, etc. It's not really clear to me why a disenaged introverted President is a bad thing. Do you really want Obama pushing hard for leftist policies? The US is traditionally not a country that needs strong leadership. We need pretty well from 1866-1900 with a bunch of non-entities in the White House. Better to have power as diffuse as possible. One problem I see with Obama's introversion is that it probably encourages his love of secrecy, which is why he has kept every one of the Bush Administration's encroachments on our civil liberties. Obama can't impose his will on Congress, his Party or even his own staff, but he can damn well order to have foreigners and even suspicious American citizens killed without due process, and I guess that's how he convinces himself he is a powerful man.
"Obama can't impose his will on Congress, his Party or even his own staff, but he can damn well order to have foreigners and even suspicious American citizens killed without due process, and I guess that's how he convinces himself he is a powerful man."
That's a theme in Jodi Kantor's book: Obama much prefers ordering somebody killed to having to deal with a bunch of politicians in Congress. It's not a big theme, because mostly the book is about Barack and Michelle's relationship, but it's pretty eye-catching when it comes up two or three times.
I once counted up the number of times the word "power" is used in Dreams from My Father, and it was a big number, like 73.
...hard not to get inspired just hearing those words!
I'm inspired to continue not voting.
I once counted up the number of times the word "power" is used in Dreams from My Father, and it was a big number, like 73.
There's a picture that's been used in articles about Obama's teaching days at UChicago. It has Obama teaching in front of a blackboard with "power" or "power relations" or something like that that he wrote on it.
Steve, you've never really ever discussed this in detail, but what do you make of the "Man's Country" and gay rumors?
Chicago doesn't have many celebrities, and there are lots of rumors about practically every celebrity in Chicago other than maybe Mike Ditka being gay.
"He's just not a big man. ... not much psychic energy"
This aspect of being willing to impose yourself on others and the world is fascin'ating. The term 'psychic energy' suggests that it is not a concept well understood. I would very much like more discussion on this aspect of personality.
Is it related to dominance in general? To "disagreeableness"? Or is it a another dimension that isn't well understood? I wonder if it is similar to the prey drive that animals have (at least predators). Maybe what is commonly called "killer instinct".
Wes,
Lots of good questions.
When I was a staffer in a medium sized corporation sitting in on most of the high level meetings, it was pretty easy to come up with the pecking order of the top six executives. The Chairman / Founder was #1, a classic big man, but the Executive VP, nominally the lowest ranking of the Big Six, wasactually #2 through his phenomenally fast intelligence and his Lebanese brusqueness. He was clearly headed for bigger things, and, indeed, is CEO of the most important successor firm.
"This aspect of being willing to impose yourself on others and the world is fascin'ating. The term 'psychic energy' suggests that it is not a concept well understood. I would very much like more discussion on this aspect of personality. "
A major distinction here. Some people just want to boss others around without being particularly gifted or having a vision of success or a plan of action. Others have drive and charisma and inspire their underlings. They're going somewhere great and taking their followers with them (Steve Jobs) others sit atop the hierarchy as if mounted on a horse generally motivating with the equivalent of sharp spurs and a heavy hand on the reins.
"The Chairman / Founder was #1, a classic big man, but the Executive VP, nominally the lowest ranking of the Big Six, wasactually #2 through his phenomenally fast intelligence and his Lebanese brusqueness. He was clearly headed for bigger things, and, indeed, is CEO of the most important successor firm."
I keep thinking a Greek should be in there somewhere. Though I'm not sure why. Just seems to make mathematical sense.
I've often been amused at males whose egos lead them to believe that their accomplishments interest anyone who isn't related to them or working in a similar field.
I had a boyfriend in high school, believe it or not, who was so obsessed with my father that he showed up long after our relationship was over to try and impress my dad with his business acumen. My dad was hard to impress anyway but this guy's assertions were pretty vacuous. It was sad really. Then it dawned on me this doofus had dated me because of who my father was (successful but not rich and famous by any means).
I wonder if anyone else here on iSteve has faced similar romantic complications sort of like when Bob Dylan aficionado Steve Jobs dates Dylan's ex Joan Baez. Have any of you been used so that your bf/gf could get close to a member of your family they greatly admired or have you done this yourself?
I guess I did get used a couple of times by pathetic individuals who were trying to get at my father either for approval or a sort of revenge. It must be even worse for the daughters of powerful, famous men. I'm sure Obama's children will have to field any number of boyfriends who don't care about the girl so much as being associated with Obama. Worse, if one of these rich, powerful guys humiliates a monster with an inflated ego, his daughter might end up targeted for revenge in his place. What these losers don't get is that even being able to hurt such a man or one of his loved ones doesn't make them equal. Being that concerned about another person's opinion, to the point you'll cause serious harm, always keeps you the inferior. Not caring. Getting over it. Wondering why it was so important to you all those years ago signifies equality.
Living well is always the best revenge, assuming someone actually wronged you in the first place.
"...Michelle requires Barack to spend 6:30 pm to 10:00 pm with her at least five nights per week, most of them without any company other than the Nesbitts or Whitakers, the two rich black couples from Chicago who frequently fly to D.C. so that Barack has some friends)"
Sounds like a healthy love life which could keep him pretty mellow.
I think Steve is reading too much into this. My take was the same as Kaus, according to leaks from the Obama's White House, Obama's method of governance is to check boxes from a series of options presented by other people. This is how liberals thought that Reagan governed! Though in fairness I suspect that that most presidents are figureheads to a much greater extent than the public agrees.
Steve's take, that Obama's problem is that he is a night person, is immediately undermined by his observation that Churchill, Stalin, and Hitler were night people. My own experience is that being a night person makes it much more difficult to become an executive -all the people you have to impress to get there are morning people- but not more difficult to function as an executive, in fact the "out of the office by 4" mentality of alot of morning people is a serious handicap in that regard.
Churchill, incidentally, did alot of his governing via late night memos (many stamped "Action This Day"), though they were often written himself and involved more than checking options given to him by other people. When Churchill was First Lord of the Admiralty during World War I, the senior service chief, Admiral Fisher, a morning person, would come into the officer early in the morning and leave early afternoon. Churchill would come in around noon and leave late at night. They would overlap in the office by about an hour. This broke down eventually, though most of the blame seems to belong to Fisher. Maybe he got pushed over the edge by having too many of the decisions he made in the morning overridden by Churchill in the evening.
Incidentally, what I also took from the Kaus and Lizza accounts is the extent to which the President is being presented with options for decisions that, if we actually followed the constitution, should be made by Congress. Really, the President's involvement should be "sign" or "veto". But I realize the government hasn't actually functioned that way for over eighty years.
I definitely think people are trying to overanalyze this administration, a tendency that becomes even more ridiculous when done through partisan and/ or racial lenses, to judge from the comments on Kaus' site. The way the federal government is run at the senior level, for whatever reason, has worked pretty poorly for some time. Obama apparently came into office thinking it was still the 1950s, the system worked, and he would be fine operating within the existing political paradigm. But the system doesn't work. I don't think this is a perfectly sufficient explanation for the somewhat depressing character of this administration.
His relationship with his wife is not very black either. He seems like a typical white suburban beta being cajoled into buying a new couch when the old one is just fine, in between hearing bullshit about how he works too hard. Most black men I know keep their women in line pretty well. But Obama is being treated like a bitch half the time, often in public. It's disgusting.
How long will it take for people to stop saying, "I'm sure Obama is smarter than this"? There's never been any evidence of that, but they're just *sure* he must be.
It's not that we need a genius as president, but a big theme of his campaign was that he was so much smarter than the "Shrub." If he's not -- if he's actually pretty clueless about everything outside a couple of pet issues, and his aides have to give him multiple choice quizzes to get decisions -- what does that say about why they really voted for him?
During the 2008 presidential election, President Obama had David Axelrod to do the heavy lifting and make things happen while President Obama functioned as a front man.
In the White House, it is obvious that President Obama still depends upon a few key advisers to do the heavy lifting.
Maybe the Bush II and Obama Administration just demonstrate the importance of the advisers over who is actually president.
From the Lizza article:
"Obama’s homily about conciliation reflected an essential component of his temperament and his view of politics. In his mid-twenties, he won the presidency of the Harvard Law Review because he was the only candidate who was trusted by both the conservative and the liberal blocs on the editorial staff.
Uh. Not quite. As best I remember they beat each other over the head for something like two days locked up in the castle, haranging and bludgeoning each other until they were utterly exhausted. After something like the seventeenth or twentieth ballot (!), they elected Obama as a neutral, non-aligned house Negro. Obama didn't "bring them together". He was the candidate of utter exhaustion. They could also claim a "first" for the HLR and score diversity points if they voted for him rather than some white guy.
No one had any illusions about his being the best candidate, only that he was reasonably inoffensive to both sides, and (as at least a couple suggested at the time) he committed to being a placeholder for his term of office who would not rock the boat. As a black gentile he was pretty much outside both camps.
Nice job if you can get it: "We don't want you to do anything or say anything, just sit there for a year while we regather our forces and renew our energy for the next round of battle."
At least that was what some HLR folks were saying at the Hark.
I wouldn't know from firsthand experience. I had better things to do than hang out with a bunch of neurotic, high-strung ultra high-g urban elite ideologues (both male and female) who had never worked a day in their lives. If they scored 15 on Murray's test I would be surprised.
The lesser faculty and staff were much more fun to hang out with. One could learn more about Harvard from Arthur Miller's ex-wife over a glass of wine at a reception or the staff at the Communications Department than one could ever learn from the kiddies who attended HLS.
PS: The "conservatives" weren't conservative by any real measure. They were libertarian liberals.
"My impression since 2008 is that Lizza is a closet cynic about Obama."
To be fair, you also think that Obama wrote 'Dreams', when it's obvious in intertextual analysis that the Ayers is its author. Then again, it would be pretty embarrassing at this point to admit that the fulcrum of your thesis on Obama's psychology -- and your only published book -- was a poorly-researched piece of pop psychology worthy of an Oprah segment, outside its politically incorrect questions about its subject.
The real irony of this piece is that, like your deconstruction of Obama in 'Half Blood', you put forth the rather risible idea that he's the author of his own story. Or that he's actually powerful enough to change much of anything; note how little his economic and foreign policy standards have shifted from Bush or, for that matter, Clinton. The CFR and Fed run things, but that's evidently over your pay-grade to even discuss..
Also, it would be helpful and elucidating -- not to mention still highly relevant vis a vis the Fall of the West and America -- if you cared a hundredth as much about Eustace Mullins as you dp about Obama-celebrity-clippings-posing-as-DEEP-psychological-deconstructions.
But that might require courage and real interest in baseline causal values, in place of reductive smugness.
"He's just not a big man"
He even looks little, like the wind might blow him away.
For all of Bush's faults, it was common to read in the paper about him trying to create friendships with people based on any common interest (sometimes religion, sometimes baseball) to create the alliances you need for strong political changes. Obama seems to have done what he did because he had a massive mandate from the economic collapse, that without it, there would not have been any drive for a large policy that requires intense politicking.
An anecdote in Donna Tartt's "The Secret History" has it that Tojo would keep his staff up nights, compelled to play cards.
All things being equal, I prefer the idea of a President who slaves over details and likes the exercise of his office.
Of course, there's been a big meme against this. Andrew Sullivan, back in the day when he would get all excited about this and that, was enthusiastic that George W. Bush, like Reagan and unlike LBJ or Nixon, was no power-hungry neurotic obsessed with minutiae.
Paul Johnson's little Napoleon bio has many fun passages in which he strains to find fault with these micromanaging tendencies too; but it doesn't persuade. All that dictating memoranda to his departements while he paces back and forth--it's like the SNL skit with Reagan (Phil Hartman) masterminding Iran-Contra. At some level, surely we want leaders to do stuff like this.
In truth, I think Bush 41 had it best. Domestic policy is a meeting with Sununu and Darman--once a week, maybe? Otherwise, you're doing foreign policy, intuiting the other guy's next move, cashing in favors, being the tough guy, totally immersed in a game of Risk with real countries. That has to be the fun part. Whyever would anybody ever want to be a domestic policy President?
Whyever would anybody ever want to be a Democratic President?
Oh man, dweebs are even lower than nerds. At least nerds are smart and know stuff.
Really good entry. This reminds me of all the generals I knew when I was on staff at one of the US Army's division headquarters.
You really could tell who was going places.
In Ron Suskind's Confidence Men, he spends hours of his workday sitting in pointless staff meetings...
Obama is often seen as a distant, poor moderator, "who would sit on high, trying to judge if there was any shared ground between the competing debate teams that might coalesce into a policy," Suskind writes.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/sc-ent-0928-books-confidence-men-20110930,0,7829674.story
Suskind's book was about Obama's first two years in office, maybe his Jimmy Carter-like management by memo approach is new. In any event, if Obama is actually making decisions at night (instead of socializing), he should spend his work day schmoozing by inviting congressmen and socialites in for coffees or lunch.
Its crazy that (per John Boehner), in the lead up to the State of the Union, the President and the Speaker of the House hadn't spoken for over a month.
Obama consistently polls 20 to 30 points ahead of: 1) his party; 2) his policies; and 3) the normal level of a president with a wretched economy. This would seem to indicate that, whatever the Democrats’ problem is, it does not involve Obama personally. Yet in the teeth of evidence and logic, liberal kibitzers are pretending that Democrats are in trouble because of either 1) racism or 2) Obama’s personal limitations as a politician.
Do not ask a liberal to make sense when his amour propre is involved. If Obama had enjoyed Clinton’s advantage of being the first president in 64 years to be inaugurated without either a major foreign enemy or a severe economic crisis, he would probably enjoy an approval rate in the 90s.
"But, I am a great man".
Now, that's egoism. Actually Churchill was anything but. He did immense harm to his country and the west in general. He took the 'great' out of Great Britain.
Wasn't Clinton also famously a night owl. Or infamously; the cigar incident happened late one night during the government shutdown I believe.
I can't recall what his decision-making style was like though.
"Stalin and Hitler found late night meetings terrific for terrifying others into doing their will."
Also, it helps if you have the power to shoot anyone you want.
Ahhhm but with all those people dropping out of the labor force, not even looking for work, and thus, the unemployment numbers ticking downward, and with Ellen and Jay Leno hosting Mr. and Mrs. O, they'll be back in the Oval for 4 more years.
Sigh. Glad my kids are grown, but it's my grandkids that I worry about big time. They'll have to support couch potatoes and those sucking on the welfare teats.
Actually, two of my sons are considering moves to Australia. At first, I thought it was just talk. Not so sure any more.
Let's not forget that BO's formative years were spent on the islands, and working too hard is simply not condoned there. He has a lot of the traits fostered by the Hawaiian idea of living life kicking back--a great idea if you can manage it, not so good an idea for a President.
In my eyes, he simply abdicated authority to loons like Pelosi and Frank and Schumer, et. al.
Steve,
What's the istevey reason for Obama laying the smack down on the Catholic Church?
I've long had a hunch that he is extremely pained by the sexual behavior of blacks and long ago accepted the liberal view of why they are this way, and especially accepted its recommended solutions. He goes full bore and doesn't look back.
It doesn't explain the smack down, though.
"My take was the same as Kaus, according to leaks from the Obama's White House, Obama's method of governance is to check boxes from a series of options presented by other people. This is how liberals thought that Reagan governed!"
This is how most leaders of large organizations govern. That's fine: they employ special people to be the experts and come up with the options. The job of the leader is to ask right questions and be able to see through BS. Is Obama up to the task?
Maybe he's still smarting from the 'the 3 am in the morning ad' by Hillary. He stays up late just in case.
I think one-on-one, orally, he feels not so bright surrounded by much smarter Jews. He's reduced to just listening cuz he doesn't know much of anything, or even if he does know, other guys know much more. Of course, this was the case with most presidents, but most presidents didn't have the ego of Obama. Reagan understood his advisers were experts on matters he didn't know much about. But Obama is the messiah who's supposed to know everything. So, he feels small talking with people. So, he would rather deal with written words at night because he has control over them.
"So, Obama and I share a lot of traits. And, no surprise, I would be terrible at being President."
Oh come on, Steve-O; you underestimate yourself:
I can see you running the The Derb as your Veep; your campaign slogan could be; saving America, one white mind at a time!"
"I've often been amused at males whose egos lead them to believe that their accomplishments interest anyone who isn't related to them or working in a similar field."
Yeah, like the POTUS. Those guys kill me.
A box-checker POTUS?
That suggests that he lacks the knowledge, curiosity, brain power and/or work ethic to delve into issues.
A POTUS who is unassailable in the MSM due to PC-dictum?
That sounds like the ideal POTUS for the powers that put him in office.
I can't image Obama's dopple ganger BushII getting away with all the expanded wars (secret and not), big government corruption (Solyndra), Wall Street Corruption, keeping Guantanamo open, executive power grabs, etc with the pass that Obama has gotten.
I think you misinterpret "politeness" for "don't give a damn".
When you're the One, you don't deign to argue with the shaved apes around you. You are above it all, especially since whatever you decide by definition is the best way.
Also, when you don't really know or care about most issues outside the racial racket it's hard to get riled up.
There were some practical reasons for Hitler, Stalin, and Churchill to work late. Often they were dealing with daily reports of combat actions that occurred during the day, and wanted to get out a response before the next day's combat--at least to give direction to staff.
This is not so much an issue when you're working on health care and need to arm-twist a bunch of congressmen.
Obama teaching in front of a blackboard with "power" or "power relations" or something like that that he wrote on it.
It's a somewhat famous photograph; Obama is teaching Alinksy's ideas of "power relations." The boxes in the photograph correspond to Alinsky's writings.
"'...Michelle requires Barack to spend 6:30 pm to 10:00 pm with her at least five nights per week, most of them without any company other than the Nesbitts or Whitakers, the two rich black couples from Chicago who frequently fly to D.C. so that Barack has some friends)'
Sounds like a healthy love life which could keep him pretty mellow."
Not if one partner consistently has to "require" the presence of the other. And particularly not if that other is also the POTUS.
Seems to me that with a job that's supposed to be so demanding, it'd be Barry making the requirements. Sure, a good, attentive wife might "require" her husband to take some much-needed breaks for relaxation. But she would also let him decide, within reason, what it was he found most relaxing--again, particularly if he is also the POTUS.
Oh yes Obama is GAY! Fabulously GAY! Why? Because there are no other women in his life, than Michelle Obama. None. He's Rockstar #1. With power rankings. You mean to tell me that NONE of his other girlfriends have wanted to spill the beans about dates with Barack Obama, and pick up a spare million dollars? One Million Dollars (cue Dr. Evil). Come on now.
Obama's decision making is a disaster because it led directly to:
1. Lead from behind in Libya.
2. Throwing Mubarak to the wolves.
3. Drift on Iran, letting IRAN and Israel decide the issue.
4. Drift on China in the East, do we engage, fight, both?
5. Drift on Afghanistan. Pullout, but what then? How is deterrence against future 9/11's maintained? Since the Taliban will win?
6. Drift on Pakistan. See #5.
7. Shutting down drilling for oil and gas at home, creating high energy prices = burden on the economy.
These are all bad. They push decisive factors to outside events.
After reading the Kaus piece, my take on Obama is of a front man who doesn't know he is a figure head. Smarter, more ideologically driven people are feeding him ideas that he likes to think are his. He himself is stuck in some 1983-ish idea of repealing Reaganism that he learned at Columbia, and if something sounds like it fits that general framework, it's fine with him.
The fact that he doesn't really get how much damage is being caused by the policies he blithely checks off on makes me hate him a little less. As does some pity garnered by his obvious challenges of living with his Bitter Half.
Still, enough's enough.
But Obama is being treated like a bitch half the time, often in public.
Yes, which I think supports my feeling that Obama is really essentially a white man with dark skin. He doesn't really have the testosterone or the temperament to handle a black woman.
" Sounds like a healthy love life which could keep him pretty mellow."
With kids? I haven't gotten laid between 6:30 am and 10 pm with all of us at home in years. Nature's little cockblockers
Chicago doesn't have many celebrities
The music scene comes and goes. The city was famous for the blues and then for being a fairly big part of the alternative music scene in the 90s (Smashing Pumpkins, Liz Phair, Veruca Salt). But that sort of stuff wouldn't seem to be Obama's thing. Kanye West is from Chicago.
He just wore out his secretaries with late night dictation.
I heard that Clinton used to do the same.
"Blogger Whiskey said...
"Oh yes Obama is GAY! Fabulously GAY! Why? Because there are no other women in his life, than Michelle Obama."
Gay, is that what you kids are calling it now? Back in my day they called that "married."
"Yes, which I think supports my feeling that Obama is really essentially a white man with dark skin. He doesn't really have the testosterone or the temperament to handle a black woman."
Yet they've been married 20 years and have two children. It will be a DISASTER when they figure that out!
@dogzdam
"I've often been amused at males whose egos lead them to believe that their accomplishments interest anyone who isn't related to them or working in a similar field.
I had a boyfriend in high school, believe it or not, who was so obsessed with my father that he showed up long after our relationship was over to try and impress my dad with his business acumen. My dad was hard to impress anyway but this guy's assertions were pretty vacuous. It was sad really. Then it dawned on me this doofus had dated me because of who my father was (successful but not rich and famous by any means).
I wonder if anyone else here on iSteve has faced similar romantic complications sort of like when Bob Dylan aficionado Steve Jobs dates Dylan's ex Joan Baez. Have any of you been used so that your bf/gf could get close to a member of your family they greatly admired or have you done this yourself?"
I will answer you this question about the male gender if you answer me the following questions about the female gender: Why is it that women for the most part only talk about other people's lives behind their back? Why do women seem completely intellectually incurious? Why is it that their lives revolve around petty vendettas and establishing their personal relations around who they hate and dedicate so much of their time and energy to hating people - especially other women? Also, why are women for the most part so mercenary and callously exploitative toward the opposite sex? Answer me these queries and I will gladly address your question about this flaw of the male gender.
"What's the istevey reason for Obama laying the smack down on the Catholic Church?"
I don't know the reason, but he's been doing that from the start. He went out of his way to appoint apostates to the courts and other positions, and he brought in radical Catholic-in-name-only groups to support Obamacare and muddy the waters when the bishops actually (for once) formed a united front against it. For her thirty pieces, Sister Carol Keehan got one of the pens he signed the bill with. So much for those conscience exceptions her kind claimed were written in stone. So much for attempts by the likes of Notre Dame to wiggle into his good graces by kissing up to him.
*Why* has he singled out the Church for abuse? I don't know, except that it's the one large organization that has held the line on abortion and contraception (officially, if not always from every pulpit). Since abortion is the Democrats' sacrament and contraception defines their lifestyle, it's not surprising that they'd have a special hatred for the Church. But Obama has been taking that an extra step.
He's not enough of a believer in anything *else* to hate the Church the way a fundamentalist Protestant might. Was that private school he attended in Hawaii a parochial one? Did nuns rap him on the fingers once or twice?
...Michelle requires Barack to spend 6:30 pm to 10:00 pm with her at least five nights per week,...
I thought the Constitution outlawed 'cruel and unusual punishment'.
Aaron B.
I'm going to question the premise of my own query. Perhaps it isn't personal against them. It only appears that way because it is, by its nature, highly visible.
Perhaps Obama really loves the state so much that anything at all that may subvert it must be crushed. If so, does he go all the way to being anti-family?
I just don't know. Steve?
Obama doesn't strike me as emotionally attached to abortion like Biden who threw away his Komen pink ribbon yogurt when hearing they were defunding planned parenthood.
That tempest in a teapot by Planned Parenthood seems to be just a delayed reaction with built up anger over the Lila Rose sting operation that put them on the ropes and launched a congressional investigation.
I recall that something similar happened when James O'Keefe did the same thing to ACORN and all they were able to do was take it. When he got into some trouble, there was an absolute roar and overreaction, too.
"I can see you running the The Derb as your Veep": I admire the subtlety of this attempt to resurrect the natural born citizen argument.
'Why is it that women for the most part only talk about other people's lives behind their back? Why do women seem completely intellectually incurious? Why is it that their lives revolve around petty vendettas and establishing their personal relations around who they hate and dedicate so much of their time and energy to hating people - especially other women?"
Because most women are 1) backbiting hypocrites 2) intellectually shallow and 3) vindictive?
I realize my reply is a tautology but it sure was fun typing it.
What is it about Sailer? He puts down Obama as a dweeb and then say he's like Obama.
I love the parallel universe here where it's accepted as gospel that Obama's the worst President ever, when in the real world, his administration has been at least a modest success. We're recovering from the biggest economic collapse since the Great Depression at a better clip than nearly any of the other western democracies, OBL is dead, we're out of Iraq without any ill effects and on a pretty clear path out of Afghanistan as well. Not bad, given the tremendous headwinds the US faced in Jan. 2009.
He's not enough of a believer in anything *else* to hate the Church the way a fundamentalist Protestant might.
Islam.
"What is it about Sailer? He puts down Obama as a dweeb and then say he's like Obama."
Uh, could I be implying that I'm obviously a pretty big dweeb?
Stop the false modesty, Sailer, when the broads saw your black leather jacket picture you started getting perfumed panties in the mail.
"I think that I’m a better speechwriter than my speechwriters. I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I’ll tell you right now that I’m gonna think I’m a better political director than my political director."
Yup, there's Obama, channeling his father.
-meh
Since abortion is the Democrats' sacrament and contraception defines their lifestyle, it's not surprising that they'd have a special hatred for the Church.
If this the the reason, then it invalidates the two points below.
He's not enough of a believer in anything *else* to hate the Church the way a fundamentalist Protestant might.
Islam.
Both Fundies and Muslims may hate the Catholic Church, but not on the grounds of abortion. Fundies, Muslims, and Catholics are known for their extreme anti-abortion stands.
The title of this post is: Obama is an overly polite loner night dweeb.
It needs to be reemphasized that "polite" is the opposite of Obama as Americans commonly understand the word. The first website using Google gave:
"1. Marked by or showing consideration for others, tact, and observance of accepted social usage."
Even this is at least a generation or two out of date. Polite used to mean "refined" more than it does today (eg an Emily Post complex rules and form over substance).
In my lifetime across the US, polite means a more emotional and content-based consideration of others. For example, someone who holds doors or turn's off their cell in a theater is more likely to be called polite than someone who knows where the fruit spoon properly sits.
Politicians tend to be aholes blinded by ego (eg not polite). However, they do have a survival instinct in listening to which way the wind blows and somewhat respecting the public will.
Clinton tacked center after his initial liberal thrusts at national healthcare and such. BushII pushed women, AffActtion and African Aid to try to win some love.
Obama seems indifferent to most every issues. It was Pelosi and Reed fought for "his" healthcare bill. He is however uncharactristically brittle and seems to take umbridge at anyone who would dare question his box check, expecially on the few issues that matter to him (Prof Gates).
I have no doubt Obama's handlers are smarter and bubble-free realists. Their manipulations are all the more easier when Obama is constantly bathed in the glory of his self-deception BubbleOne every evening with Michelle and friends or out vacaying, golfing or partying with celebs in all the hot spots.
But can one really say Obama is being manipulated when he doesn't really have much deep knowledge, passion or ideas on many issues that matter (finance, intl poltics, war, etc)? He's having the most fun with the least responsiblity of any POTUS in history and will likely be the richest after his term(s).
Again, Obama is the perfect candidate for the elites who put him there. Chicago style.
I can't say I'd do any better. If I were president I'd probably be up late reading iSteve and then in the morning my staffers would laugh at my ridiculous suggestions about ball peen hammers and white kids.
@dogzdam
I think I was friends with your boyfriend. Either that or it is a common enough situation.
@Kylie
"Because most women are 1) backbiting hypocrites 2) intellectually shallow and 3) vindictive?
I realize my reply is a tautology but it sure was fun typing it."
It was a rhetorical question. I was pointing out to her the obvious, that women are always pointing flaws in the opposite sex and blaming everything that is going wrong with their lives on them, but never aknowledge the many, many flaws of their own gender. Ever.
I can't say I'd do any better. If I were president I'd probably be up late reading iSteve and then in the morning my staffers would laugh at my ridiculous suggestions about ball peen hammers and white kids.
And they'd wonder who the heck Ernie Sailer was and whether he was a little old to be named director of DARPA.
:o)
Economy back on track. Dems will say stimulus did it. GOP will say GOP takeover of Congress and blockage of Obama-ism did it.
"@ Kylie
It was a rhetorical question. I was pointing out to her the obvious, that women are always pointing flaws in the opposite sex and blaming everything that is going wrong with their lives on them, but never aknowledge the many, many flaws of their own gender. Ever."
I understand. But I had fun replying to your rhetorical questions anyway.
Let me repeat, [most] women do that because they are backbiting hypocrites, intellectually shallow and vindictive.
We can do this again, if you like.
I will answer you this question about the male gender if you answer me the following questions about the female gender: Why is it that women for the most part only talk about other people's lives behind their back? Why do women seem completely intellectually incurious? Why is it that their lives revolve around petty vendettas and establishing their personal relations around who they hate and dedicate so much of their time and energy to hating people - especially other women? Also, why are women for the most part so mercenary and callously exploitative toward the opposite sex? Answer me these queries and I will gladly address your question about this flaw of the male gender.
Because all the women you know are stupid, because those are those are the ones who will spend time with you.
...Michelle requires Barack to spend 6:30 pm to 10:00 pm with her at least five nights per week,...
Is that when she feeds?
Obama's introverted tendencies are a major reason why I don't take him seriously. His whole re-election campaign strategy is based around complaining about how he has all of these obstinate Republicans who are keeping him from getting anything done. After all, if he actually gets the things done that he wanted, then our nation would be rejuvenated and he would be re-elected in short order. I mean, look at how well we were doing 2009-2010! The Republican gains in Congress were just a bizarre fluke.
In reality, Obama doesn't know how to work out plans. He just tells Congress what he wants and then leaves it to them to figure out what he meant, and how to turn that into a bill. So when Republicans naturally don't obey his edicts, but instead expect him to approach them, sit down and work with them to compose a bill that is in line with both of their interests, he cries Dolchstoss.
But I'm genuinely curious. I can understand Obama being an introvert, and not wanting to go to Congress, approaching Congressmen and working the room. What I don't understand is how a man with such an aversion to that game can end up as president. After all, the presidential election campaign means that you spend two years doing that kind of stuff with ordinary people who don't eat arugula like you do. Can someone tell me how that works?
"'...Michelle requires Barack to spend 6:30 pm to 10:00 pm with her at least five nights per week,...'
Is that when she feeds?"
Are you implying that she has vampiric qualities? Or merely that she needs help filling her nosebag?
@Anonymous 10:14 PM
"Because all the women you know are stupid, because those are those are the ones who will spend time with you."
I agree with this statement that only stupid women spend time with me. After all, you are spending time with me and you certainly fit the description.
Are you implying that she has vampiric qualities? Or merely that she needs help filling her nosebag?
She has extremely powerful forelimbs and mandibles.
"'He's not enough of a believer in anything *else* to hate the Church the way a fundamentalist Protestant might.'
Islam."
Nah, he's not a Muslim. To the extent that he's anything, he's an Oprah/Tolle-style New Ager. Their language showed up in his campaign quite a bit, like the stress on the word Now, or the time he defined sin as "being out of alignment with [his] values." That's classic New Agery. In short, they see themselves as God or an extension of God, so rather than looking to authority figures or praying to an external divinity for guidance, they look to their own feelings. Thus they reject tradition -- why would I care what my grandparents thought was right, when I can ask my own divine essence?
They'll attend a church if it makes them feel good, but they won't profess any doctrine (except the one that says there are no absolute truths; that one they're absolutely sure about), and they'll pop over to a new church the instant that one demands anything they don't like. It'll usually be some sort of non-denominational Christian church, since those tend to be the least demanding, but they wouldn't be averse to attending a temple or mosque or druid circle as long as they could be sure no one would preach to them about anything uncomfortable.
That's Obama. What does he believe in most of all? Himself. Not in the noisy, ego-driven way of the narcissist who insists that everyone love him; but in a subtler "I have the divine ability and right to decide right and wrong" way.
To Anonymous 7:24pm,
I never said liberals and fundies hate the Church for the same reasons. Liberals hate her because the Catholic Church stands against their creed of "expressive individualism," to use Derb's excellent phrase. Liberals believe that any individual urges you have are okay, as long as they don't involve hurting anyone else in a directly observable way. Not only that, but you have the right to express those urges without risking disapproval from your peers. The Church says just the opposite: there are absolutes of right and wrong, and if you have the urge to do wrong, too bad -- you don't have a right to do so. Even seemingly victimless acts like masturbation are forbidden. Liberals (to judge by their TV shows) think if you don't have sex or masturbate for a few weeks, you'll explode. Abortion is the centerpiece of this divide, since one side considers it murder, and the other side sees it as the ultimate expression of individuality -- you can decide, just like that, whether to embrace two decades of child-rearing or to stay a swinging single, and no one can overrule you.
Funamentalists hate the church for very different reasons, having to do with the pope and authority, and probably because it gives the numerous denominations a common enemy to rally against. That most of them agree with the Church on abortion doesn't keep them from hating her in other areas.
So my point was simply that Obama's anti-Catholic animus doesn't come from attending a nominally Christian church for twenty years, which might be some people's first guess. He doesn't hate the Church the way a Baptist might. His attacks have been for other reasons, probably mostly political, but also instinctive. When he (or any other modern liberal) looks on the horizon for entities that might stand in the way of the grand project to create heaven on earth through globalization of culture and government and allowing Man to reach his full potential by freeing him from out-dated concepts like sin, he sees one major figure standing there: the Catholic Church. Granted, that figure hasn't loomed as large in recent years, thanks to timidity and apostasy within its own ranks, but it's still there, and even now, the actual doctrines it professes haven't changed. Who else stands on that horizon at all, that must be knocked down for the grand liberal experiment to move forward?
"What is it about Steve...puts down Obama as a dweeb and then says he is like him." You may recall Steve's reverie as he basked in the memories of his boyhood high 'g' school where he was NOT dunked in the toilet for his intellectual pursuits. He knew,even then,it wasnt that way everywhere.When he read of young Barry being dumped in that pond in Indonesia,perhaps a thought flitted through his facile mind:"There but for the Grace of God..."
"Are you implying that she has vampiric qualities? Or merely that she needs help filling her nosebag?"
What he is brilliantly and maturely implying is that the morbidly, dangerously, obese first lady eats for three hour consecutively every night.
http://ajc.newsinc.com/access_atlanta_video.html?cid=1252&vid=23567338&cxntlid=sldr_hm
"I agree with this statement that only stupid women spend time with me. After all, you are spending time with me and you certainly fit the description."
LOL
I am going to make my son memorize this line!!
The best tag I've ever heard for Barack Obama?
an Edsel
Not so much an observation as a theorem: could it be that a significant factor in the greatness of great men is their high energy level? And Obama is a low energy guy?
re: " Anonymous said...[ it's said ] Obama's the worst President ever, when in the real world, his administration has been at least a modest success. We're recovering from the biggest economic collapse since the Great Depression [and more BS].2/2/12 6:15 PM"
The US is not recovering. The ship of state is listing more and more. Take the supposed improvement in the Unemployment Rate. There has been no improvement only statistical manipulation of the data. See here: http://tinyurl.com/73nfy8j
Dan Kurt
"'Are you implying that she has vampiric qualities? Or merely that she needs help filling her nosebag?'
She has extremely powerful forelimbs and mandibles."
True. Kind of like Jeff Goldblum in the latter half of The Fly. Boy, I bet she's a terror if a person gets between her and the dessert tray.
Steve said: That's a theme in Jodi Kantor's book: Obama much prefers ordering somebody killed to having to deal with a bunch of politicians in Congress.
Hunsdon replied: Oh my goodness, but doesn't that apply to us all?
" Abortion is the centerpiece of this divide, since one side considers it murder, and the other side sees it as the ultimate expression of individuality -- you can decide, just like that, whether to embrace two decades of child-rearing or to stay a swinging single, and no one can overrule you.
Funamentalists hate the church for very different reasons, having to do with the pope and authority, and probably because it gives the numerous denominations a common enemy to rally against. That most of them agree with the Church on abortion doesn't keep them from hating her in other areas."
Most fundamentalists don't hate the Catholic Church. It was more as the two religious cultures came into contact with each other, older Evangelicals were horrified at what they considered to be saint worship. Then the 70s came along and there was a proliferation of cults with ever stranger beliefs. The Catholic membership started dwindling as well. Ultimately fundamentalists came to ignore Catholics as sort of a relic. I'd say Catholics were more hyper-aware of the theological distinctions between them and other Christian denominations being surrounded and outnumbered by them for decades. The Catholic stance on abortion pretty much erased anti-Catholic bigotry among fundies in recent decades anyway.
The issue of birth control keeps the Catholic Church marginalized these days. Fundamentalists and Protestants both see nothing wrong with preventing pregnancy. That priests can't marry makes the religion seem archaic. Sexism is another modern concern wrt the issue of birth control and the fact that most other varieties of Christianity accept women in positions of leadership.
There are roughly 3 Christian religious cultures; Protestant liberal/libertarian, upper middle class, Evangelical traditional yet practical working class/middle class, and Catholicism's odd mix of the medieval combined with otherwise worldly sophistication. Generally only feminists and ex-Catholics will harbor any resentment. If you run into someone who's angry at the Catholics, it won't be over fine distinctions in theology rather the fact that the Church has made itself an obstacle or a nuisance in some way.
WRT Sailer's assertions that he's an "overly polite loner ... dweeb", dweeb yes, loner maybe, polite no. I wonder at him and some of you who think of Sailer as a nice guy. Nice people avoid confrontation unless it's necessary within their family. They don't play mean tricks on people nor do they dig up dirt on them for amusement. Mostly you can't be a political journalist or an iconoclastic realism-in-your-face type of pundit and be very nice either.
Ergo, Sailer is not a nice guy.
re: " Anonymous said...[ it's said ] Obama's the worst President ever, when in the real world, his administration has been at least a modest success. We're recovering from the biggest economic collapse since the Great Depression [and more BS].2/2/12 6:15 PM"
HUH? Recovering? 1.2 million people dropped out of the labor force in ONE MONTH and so don't count as "unemployed." This has been happening each month.
All this for a how many trillion in spending? And you call this a "modest success"?
Makes one wonder what a "failure" is.
Obama bores me (and it looks like he will continue to do so for four more years!).
"HUH? Recovering?"
The number of total private-sector jobs in the USA is the same in Jan 2012 as it was in early 2001.
Payroll Emplyoment: Jan 1995 to Jan. 2012
11 years of zero net growth.
30 million new people, no new jobs. The solution, clearly: More diversity, more aid to Israel, and more foreign wars.
I agree with this statement that only stupid women spend time with me. After all, you are spending time with me and you certainly fit the description.
I, sir, am a piece of rubber, while you, sir, are a piece of glue.
"The issue of birth control keeps the Catholic Church marginalized these days. Fundamentalists and Protestants both see nothing wrong with preventing pregnancy."
Uh, they are coming around.
The truth is that fundies and protestants are nowhere near the calibre of theologians that the catholics are, generally speaking. Go read humana vitae and compare it to the tripe at the local christian bookstore.
Sloppy theology is probably why the protestants and fundies have splintered so much here in the US and are so completely full of heresies. They are so ignorant they think their ideas are new or insightful when really they are just the latest iterations of heresies that existed before the council of Nicea.
No offense to those who are sincere but have listened all their lives to folks who themselves were sincere but ignorant. You can't know what you don't know. WRT birth control, Rome was right and some of the brighter bulbs in protestant/fundism are finally starting to catch on.
"Uh, they are coming around.
The truth is that fundies and protestants are nowhere near the calibre of theologians that the catholics are, generally speaking. Go read humana vitae and compare it to the tripe at the local christian bookstore. "
No, you're just a medieval mind planted in the 21st century.
Furthermore, those who go to seminary and/or major in religion usually demonstrate excellence in their thinking. You're comparing apples and oranges. The more appropriate comparison is between the lay Catholics vs lay Protestants. Protestants tend to be both more avid readers of the Bible and more knowledgeable about their specific theology. Comparative theology is something a little different, of course, and all seem lacking in that department.
...Steve's reverie as he basked in the memories of his boyhood high 'g' school where he was NOT dunked in the toilet for his intellectual pursuits.
When he read of young Barry being dumped in that pond in Indonesia,perhaps a thought flitted through his facile mind:"There but for the Grace of God..."
I doubt "being high-g" was the principal accelerant that propelled Barry into that Indonesian pond. Everything after that seems to have kicked him upstairs based upon AffAction into successively bigger positions that he accomplished very little and did little to deserve previously.
Barry's time in Indonesia was the only time I think he probably really faced racism.
That and the years he had to endure living off that cross-burning Grand Wizard of a Hawaiian bank VP grandmother who his mother dumped him off on to attend an elite prep school there.
"HUH? Recovering?"
The number of total private-sector jobs in the USA is the same in Jan 2012 as it was in early 2001.
Well it was above the fold on the WSJ this Saturday. Top Story - Incredible Jobs Recovery.
Once talked to a WSJ minion at a Yale reunion. He subtlely disavowed the OpEd team as a group of neocon idealogue hacks that shouldn't reflect upon the quality of the rest of the paper.
So it seems the OpEd page has expanded to include the Front Page and, in fact, the WSJ/MSM are entitled to their own facts as well as opinions.
Troofie, how long have the Clintons been "married"? When do you think Bubba last saw Hillary's vaj?
"Most fundamentalists don't hate the Catholic Church."
I didn't say they all did, but I guess I should have written more carefully.
My point wasn't to start a religious debate or make claims about fundamentalists in general, but simply to say this: If Obama hates the Catholic Church, he doesn't hate it for the stereotypical reasons that some Protestants do. So anyone who thinks, "Well, he went to a Protestant church of sorts for twenty years, so he probably thinks the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon or something," would be incorrect. Obama would probably find that kind of thinking as anachronistic as he finds people who "cling to God and guns."
But he has made a clear effort to attack and marginalize the Church. If he's not doing that out of hate -- and I agree that he's not -- then it must be out of fear. I would suggest it's the fear that the Church is the one organization that, despite how weakened it's been in recent decades by societal changes and its own mistakes, could still be strong enough to poke a stick between the spokes of the grand liberal plan from time to time.
That's the political explanation, anyway. The theological one is much simpler: "'And you shall be hated by all men for my name's sake.' -- Mark 13:13" Or to put it another way: he hates us because we're right.
"Troofie, how long have the Clintons been "married"? When do you think Bubba last saw Hillary's vaj?"
I don't think he's ever seen it, because Chelsea is some Jewish guy's daughter, but Barry's kids look just like him.
Post a Comment