Yesterday, Rick Klein's write-up for ABC News of the new book by Bob Woodward (of the Washington Post's Watergate fame) was full of lurid details (from Democratic sources) about President Obama's empty-chairness. It was not a welcome intro for Obama's big speech tonight. So, the NYT weighs in today with an account of the book as a predictable he said-he said account. Nothing of interest here, just move along!
Woodward Book Details Battles Over Deficit
WASHINGTON — A new book by the journalist Bob Woodward chronicles the descent of Barack Obama’s Washington into partisan trench warfare and mines the minutiae of the largely failed negotiations between House Republicans and the White House to tame the nation’s deficit problem over the last two years.
In details down to the gum chewed by President Obama (Nicorette) and the wine sipped by the House Speaker John A. Boehner (merlot), “The Price of Politics” paints a portrait of dysfunction that began even before Mr. Obama was inaugurated and has only grown worse.
The book highlights problems that are well known in Washington
Such as?
Obviously, there is no need to explain Obama's weaknesses, since they are well known in Washington. As for you poor dumb voters, well, if you want to know what Washington knows so much, well, then you'd be in Washington, not reading a newspaper.
, but Mr. Woodward manages to get the president, Mr. Boehner and their inner circles to talk about them. Mr. Boehner criticizes the rudderless leadership of the White House staff while President Obama maintains that the speaker never really wanted to cut a deal last summer when the two tried to negotiate a “grand bargain” to lower spending, raise revenue and increase the nation’s debt limit.
The book goes on sale next Tuesday, but The New York Times was able to buy a copy on Thursday from a retailer.
With the presidential election weeks away, the book will do little to reshape Mr. Obama’s image as a powerful man steering the government forward
Huh? I guess what they are saying is that Obama supporters who are hoping that this book will give Obama a new image as a "powerful man steering the government forward" will be disappointed. In other words, as everybody in Washington knows but can't say, Obama's an affirmative action President. But somewhere in the writing-editing process the sentence got turned into word salad that can't be used against Obama.
In general, opaque prose styles, from Dreams from My Father onward, have been essential to the Obama Myth. I have pretty good reading comprehension skills, so I've long been pointing out: "You see what is being said here, right?" But, it's a pretty hopeless task.
but it is also unlikely to engender much support for Republican leaders in Congress who seem unable to control their members. ...
Last summer’s bitter budget negotiations have been hashed over in several lengthy news accounts and Mr. Woodward’s is the most exhaustive, although it is not clear how much new information, if any, he has uncovered. ...
The ultimate problem, the book suggests, was a lack of leadership by both Mr. Boehner and Mr. Obama.
Mr. Boehner said that none of Mr. Obama’s staff — including William M. Daley, then his chief of staff — were “steering the ship underneath him.”
“They never had their act together,” Mr. Boehner tells Mr. Woodward. He added: “It’s not that they’re bad people. But there’s no structure.”
High-ranking White House officials laughed off Mr. Boehner’s criticism, saying that Mr. Boehner was the one who did not steer his own ship, a view Mr. Obama also seemed to ascribe to.
“I think John wanted to get a deal,” Mr. Obama said in an interview with Mr. Woodward. “And I think that, had he had more control of his caucus, we could have gotten a deal done a month earlier.”
The need to make Obama boring has been a priority for the press ever since Obamamania evaporated.
Posts
60 comments:
Nothing to see, move along...just some more minutiae mining here.
Obama most certainly does not need help being boring. He is also capable of being malevolent all by himself; but he has plenty of help with that.
OT
According to the BBC: An impressive 84% of the 2.85 million-strong Indian-American community voted for Mr Obama in 2008,...
That term "Indian-American" fills me with despair: not only did I have to put up hordes of them in the tech industry, now they're hanging around and becoming 'Americans', and voting en masse for that cretin Obama.
Barry's speech was like white cotton sheets in Albertosaurus' dominatrix' bedroom:
Clean, functional, but just didn't match the buildup.
"With the presidential election weeks away, the book will do little to reshape Mr. Obama’s image as a powerful man steering the government forward
Huh? -- I think what they mean is that it is "well known in Washington" that Obama is not a formidable man and is therefore not steering the government forward, but somewhere in the process the sentence got turned into word salad that can't be used against Obama."
That sentence is where the confusion would have caused me to yawn deeply and stop reading. I admire your indefatigable focus.
I guess the NYT couldn't publish a review of the book based on their embargoed review copies before the official publication date--for ethical and possibly legal reasons. So they sent a flunky to The Strand or wherever to buy one of the review copies predictably on sale there. That way they're ethically spotless, you see.
The Gray Lady is way funnier than her reputation would indicate...
Years ago, the media really didn't want an incompetent Prez.
Now? Hell, I don't know. Why DO they want the guy?
Barry's speech was like white cotton sheets in Albertosaurus' dominatrix' bedroom:
Clean, functional, but just didn't match the buildup.
_____________________________
You're giving it too much praise. It was "functional" for most of his base and that's it. He could burp and fart up there all night and they'd vote for him, but no way did that speech play in Ohio.
The NYT's writing here is intentionally soporific, but it also contains this sentence's glaringly misused concluding word:
"White House officials laughed off Mr. Boehner’s criticism, saying that Mr. Boehner was the one who did not steer his own ship, a view Mr. Obama also seemed to ascribe to."
One does not "ascribe" to a view - one subscribes to a view. One ascribes a view (or any other apprehension, or behavior, &c.) to another person or group.
No surprise there from the paper that had to fire a couple of plagiarists and fabricators.
Dull obfuscatory article on a dull president. For goodness' sake, Gerald Ford was far more exciting than Obama's been! Three and a half years now and Obama's skull hasn't yet attracted a single gold ball.
"With the presidential election weeks away, the book will do little to reshape Mr. Obama’s image as a powerful man steering the government forward"
That doesn't sound opaque to me, Steve. It sounds like the NYT is saying two things, the first of which the book apparently contradicts:
1) Obama has an image as a powerful man steering the government forward.
2) The book won't change that perception much before the election.
"Barry's speech was like white cotton sheets in Albertosaurus' dominatrix' bedroom:
Clean, functional, but just didn't match the buildup."
You're automatically associating whiteness with cleanliness. That's raaaaacist.
slumber_j: in the memorable words of their managing editor to the Politico media column, "The optics aren't what they look like"
Barry's speech was like white cotton sheets in Albertosaurus' dominatrix' bedroom: Clean, functional, but just didn't match the buildup.
Was that really OUR Truth who just said that?
His account didn't get hijacked, did it?
That was a remarkably honest and funny thing to have said.
Strange New Respect Award.
)" Obama has an image as a powerful man steering the government forward."
Where do you get these ideas? The little red Obot book?I don't belong to either party, but that assertion just has me laughing with tears. Is there an anagram for that? LUIC? Laugh until I cry?
No Peter Pan. No matter how many times you say it, there is no fairies. At least no powerful ones steering the country forward. Just a very mediocre narcissist exceptional only in his ghost-written and faux memoires, running on his color.
The speech didn't have to be great, it just had to not fuck up. The theme of the whole presidency has been to not fuck up. The first black president can not lead the country to a disaster. That explains Obama's kissing up to Wall Street, or failure to deal with the deficit, or modest foreign policy. He'll do whatever it takes to not let things go to hell.
"Truth said...
Barry's speech was like white cotton sheets in Albertosaurus' dominatrix' bedroom:
Clean, functional, but just didn't match the buildup."
- Wouldn't know, didn't listen. At this point I'm so used to gilded horsesh*t rolling from the mouths of politicians that I rarely bother to listen to their speeches any more and judge them by their actions, voting records and who they are associated with.
This seems to be particularly the way to go with Obama, who changes his stripes more than a chameleon depending on what group he is talking to and what he is trying to accomplish.
In fairness to Obama, he rode the AA wave better than the rest of ´em.
Also, I couldn´t imagine a worse president than McCain. Americans are stupid, but shit,, not that stupid.. thank godd....
Barack's curious career has reminded me more than once of that line from somewhere in Moneyball (earlier part of the book, obvs) where a manager/scout comments that some prospect had "a body you could dream on"
Barry's speech was like white cotton sheets in Albertosaurus' dominatrix' bedroom: Clean, functional, but just didn't match the buildup.
Was that really OUR Truth who just said that?
His account didn't get hijacked, did it?
If you're surprised by black folks talking trash and fancying themselves as clever you may not know black folks very well.
"With the presidential election weeks away, the book will do little to reshape Mr. Obama’s image as a powerful man steering the government forward"
That doesn't sound opaque to me, Steve. It sounds like the NYT is saying two things, the first of which the book apparently contradicts:
1) Obama has an image as a powerful man steering the government forward.
2) The book won't change that perception much before the election."
The meaning of the sentence depends on what the meaning of "as" is.
The sentence could be interpreted the way Dave has done.
But consider: what they could be, sneakily, implying is that the *goal* is to reshape BO's image intoa powerful man steering gov't forward -- but that regrettably this book isn't going to help much.
I think somebody at NY Times is more adept at crafting ambiguity than we give credit for.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErPMW9QBUWs
I hate Haynes but this was good.
"In other words, as everybody in Washington knows but can't say, Obama's an affirmative action President."
You have this habitat of believing that everybody (or at least all white people) really agree with you if only they were honest with themselves. It makes you sound both arrogant and delusional. Also, what do you mean by "affirmative action President"? I didn't realize Obama was appointed to the Presidency.
http://www.vanityfair.com/online/wolcott/2012/08/The-Gore-Supremacy
http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/13/after-244-years-encyclopaedia-britannica-stops-the-presses/?hp
"Anonymous Anonymous said...
Years ago, the media really didn't want an incompetent Prez.
Now? Hell, I don't know. Why DO they want the guy?"
Because he is an upraised middle finger to white America.
I get the impression that the "problems" are supposed to be "gridlock" and "obstruction" and all the other buzzwords, not problems specific to Obama. Whether this reflects the actual contents of the book, let alone the reality of real life, is a different story.
http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/science/2012/09/new-study-nfl-players-may-be-more-likely-to-die-of-degenerative-brain-diseases/lytodieofdegenerativeBrainDiseases2
Weak tea. Obama has had so many opportunities to act unilaterally (The government doesn't actually have to borrow its own money. As I pointed out last year, the Secretary of the Treasury has legal authority to mint platinum coinage of any denomination and quantity).
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2011/08/how-is-that-debt-crisis-thing-working.html?showComment=1312354682049#c145510827583344689
Instead, the only time he's willing to act by executive order is to give amnesty to illegal aliens who came here as children. Swell, just what we need, more low skill workers to flood the lower end of the job market (which of course has the highest rate of unemployment).
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/security/01/09/nypd-kfar-saba-branch-new-york-p.html
OT, here is a peculiar article from the intersection of sports and race. It's perfectly fine for black people to think racially! Just don't think this way if you're white.
Years ago, the media really didn't want an incompetent Prez. Now? Hell, I don't know. Why DO they want the guy?
Because he's an SWPL status marker. It's so easy for the SWPLs in the press (like 98% of the MSM) to raise themselves above the white trash Bible-beating, gun totin' flyover country Sarah Palin-ite retards that soil the national fabric, and it's as simple as saying "I'm voting for Obama." SO many valued things come along with that simple phrase.
Because he is an upraised middle finger to white America
And why would the media want to give the middle finger to white America? What's in it for them?
slumber_j: in the memorable words of their managing editor to the Politico media column, "The optics aren't what they look like"
Yeah. They weren't worried about the ethics of advance copies, they were worried about getting one to the CIA first.
Because he's an SWPL status marker. It's so easy for the SWPLs in the press (like 98% of the MSM) to raise themselves above the white trash Bible-beating, gun totin' flyover country Sarah Palin-ite retards that soil the national fabric, and it's as simple as saying "I'm voting for Obama." SO many valued things come along with that simple phrase.
So does that mean that if the white trash started to like Obama, the SWPLs would dump him?
"If you're surprised by black folks talking trash and fancying themselves as clever you may not know black folks very well."
Don't hate me 'cuz you ain't me.
And why would the media want to give the middle finger to white America? What's in it for them?
First time on the Internet?
The speech didn't have to be great, it just had to not fuck up. The theme of the whole presidency has been to not fuck up. The first black president can not lead the country to a disaster. That explains Obama's kissing up to Wall Street, or failure to deal with the deficit, or modest foreign policy. He'll do whatever it takes to not let things go to hell.
That's right, with the major exception of ordering the Bin Laden raid. That did take some balls, it was deep in Pakistani territory and they (correctly) did not even inform Pakistan's government about it.
And let's not underestimate the value of not fucking up. Not fucking up represents a significant improvement from Bush I. It's not a simple thing to avoid fucking up as president.
"So does that mean that if the white trash started to like Obama, the SWPLs would dump him?"
Yes, and they would find someone more outre whose background, views, or beliefs were even more unconventional...
I dunno ... maybe like a half black half Jewish Lesbian Satanist...use your imagination.
Obama would be toast ... like yesterday's stale fashion statement.
It would have to be someone who by supporting SWPL could cluck their tongues and prove to themselves and others via one-upmanship that they were not bigoted fuddy duddies like the other White trash.
I know it sounds crazy ... but it would happen.
Cultural Marxism mixed with social preening and bread and circuses will not recognize limits ...if the culture does not collapse first we will eventually get to recognizing cannabalism as an inalienable right ... I promise you.
If you doubt me, just read a little history about the Roman games and gladiators. In order to keep the people interested they had to eventually hold combat contests like "Amazonian Women versus Dwarfs..."
No doubt their were conservative Romans who found such events abhorrent... but such is life,..
When traditions start to slide they can really slide.
Also, what do you mean by "affirmative action President"? I didn't realize Obama was appointed to the Presidency.
Have you ever spent time in a large organization? You've really never heard of the term "AA hire?"
You'll inevitably run across some manager who was put into his position to prove the organization is "diverse". They're often markedly less competent than their peers. Often the people being managed have to cover for him, or his peers and superiors do. They're in a position way above his competency level. Often they can be stuffed into a position where they can't do much damage, but not always.
Obama was elected because he's black, McCain ran a lousy campaign, and the world happened to implode right before election time. Obama accomplished nothing that would have warranted him being elected president, or for that matter running for president. He won a lot of votes because a bunch of SWPL decided they needed a black friend to prove they weren't racists.
Obama was elected because he's black, McCain ran a lousy campaign, and the world happened to implode right before election time. Obama accomplished nothing that would have warranted him being elected president, or for that matter running for president. He won a lot of votes because a bunch of SWPL decided they needed a black friend to prove they weren't racists.
It helped that he's arguably the most SWPL NAM the world had ever seen.
"if the white trash started to like Obama, the SWPLs would dump him"
Yes.
"You'll inevitably run across some manager who was put into his position to prove the organization is "diverse". They're often markedly less competent than their peers..."
And what does that have to do with winning a majority of votes, again?
"You'll inevitably run across some manager who was put into his position to prove the organization is "diverse". They're often markedly less competent than their peers. Often the people being managed have to cover for him, or his peers and superiors do. They're in a position way above his competency level. Often they can be stuffed into a position where they can't do much damage, but not always."
This is also true of almost all the women I've run across in the large company I work for. Even women don't want to work for other women.
Dominatrix with white cotton sheets? Really?
"So does that mean that if the white trash started to like Obama, the SWPLs would dump him?"
Yes. Of course, that wouldn't happen in a vacuum. Let's consider the kind of things he could do to get "the white trash" to start liking him:
* Close the borders tight and start deporting large numbers of illegals, also putting their employers in jail. Apologize to Arizona and offer troops to help on the border.
* Sign an Executive Order requiring the Pledge of Allegiance to be said in every public school classroom -- including "under God."
* Sign an EO repealing all federal gun ownership restrictions, waiting periods, and hunting restrictions on law-abiding citizens.
* Cut foreign aid to the bone, and tell the UN they have a month to pack and get the hell out.
* Start hanging out at NASCAR events more often than golf courses.
If he did all those things, "the white trash" would start cheering for him, and you're damn right the whiterpeople would turn on him. They'd probably decide that the same CIA agents who invented crack and AIDS replaced him with a robot under their control.
"You'll inevitably run across some manager who was put into his position to prove the organization is "diverse". They're often markedly less competent than their peers."
This is practiced to the nth degree in public education, from the district office people to prinipals and, especially at the secondary level, the vice-principals. At least 1/2 of them are identified by staff all the way from janitors, secretaries, and teachers as incompetent AA show dogs who are incompetent.
"if the white trash started to like Obama, the SWPLs would dump him"
Would make a great bumper sticker if only it were shorter and if only most people knew what "SWPL" meant.
I propose bumper stickers and yard signs which read, "White Trash for Obama" and that would do the trick!
Because he's an SWPL status marker. It's so easy for the SWPLs in the press (like 98% of the MSM) to raise themselves above the white trash Bible-beating, gun totin' flyover country Sarah Palin-ite retards that soil the national fabric, and it's as simple as saying "I'm voting for Obama." SO many valued things come along with that simple phrase.
It's still about race since neither Romney nor Ryan remind them of Palin.
The only solace I might take in another Obama victory is that the SWPL "journalists" don't seem to understand the locomotive is about to run them down too. They won't have jobs in front of a camera or be writing for dinosaur rags like the NY Times.
How sad it it that the NYTimes is nothing more than the National Enquirer on political steroids. Dinosaurs.
"Anonymous said...
If you doubt me, just read a little history about the Roman games and gladiators. In order to keep the people interested they had to eventually hold combat contests like "Amazonian Women versus Dwarfs..."
I think I saw that movie on the "SyFy" channel.
And what does that have to do with winning a majority of votes, again?
Well, voters are simply people who "hire" the government. They're saying Obama was largely hired because voters and the media (oprah) wanted diversity in the white house, which by definition would make him an affirmative action hire.
However the advantages of affirmative action do not negate all the privilege and connections that come with being white. An analysis in "the bell curve" showed that when whites and blacks are matched for IQ, whites STILL have much more wealth and employment.
But then Obama was the first famous black to look and act super SWPL so he had both the cultural benefits of exotic blackness AND SWPL whiteness, so it's not surprising he went so far in life.
It's very disappointing to read such ignorant drivel from the esteemed readership of this blog.
A Dominatrix is a woman who assumes the Dominant role. Such women are very popular in the press but are not a major constituent in the BDSM mix. One reason they are celebrated in media is because this is just about the only role that can turn a profit. All other roles are volunteers but some women can support themselves by abusing men for pay.
When you go to a local dungeon you don't meet Dominatrix's much. They are in their own homes with their clients. Most BDSMers follow the natural path. Males are Dominants and females are submissives. This is the exact same pattern you see in the primates.
As it happens I have cotton sheets for sleeping alone and I have a set of satin sheets for entertaining.
There are now forty nine comments to Steve's posting. That probably represent thirty individuals. That means approximately ten of these individuals are at least interested in BDSM. Most commenters are male so most of these - maybe all - are Dominants. BDSM is possibly ten times as prevalent as homosexuality.
Some advice. Life is short. If you think you might be interested in BDSM - give it a shot. There are hundreds of thousands of lonely submissive women out there looking for a man who will spank them. BDSM sex is just like regular vanilla sex - on steroids.
The reason that people who have experienced BDSM sex don't go back is that it is the natural sex. Vanilla sex is the PC sex - gray and muted.
I too didn't listen to Obama's speech. I know I should but he makes me nauseous.
Albertosaurus
Albertosaurus
"I too didn't listen to Obama's speech."
I'm sure you didn't. You're Dominant, not a masochist.
Albertosaurus with the Post of the Year.
Sitting here LMFAO'ing.
F-ing hilarious.
Whiskey, Svigor, Mr. Anon, Simon in London, Daevin, James; you HEARD the man, give it a shot!
"Like Barry Goldwater said "Deep down, you know I (Albertosarus) am righ."
(Aaron, it will get you a girlfriend).
"That's right, with the major exception of ordering the Bin Laden raid. That did take some balls..."
He may have approved it, but he didn't order it. And even a failed (but bloody) mission would have established a tough-guy image, so it was a cheap enough gesture on his part (not on the part of the men involved of course), which he exploited to the full. Now, calling off the attack with the risk of having the public find out, that would have taken balls of steel. The wrong choice, but balls of steel.
Cennbeorc
Albertasaurus:
"The reason that people who have experienced BDSM sex don't go back is that it is the natural sex. Vanilla sex is the PC sex - gray and muted."
I saw survey result suggesting that interest in BDSM was highest in men in late middle age and second highest in women in their early 20s. If so, it suggests a correlation with sexual dysfunction: middle-aged men have problems with erections, young women have problems with orgasms. They find, it seems, that stronger measures are required.
Of course, if this was a sure-fire for middle-aged men to bag girls in their early 20s... hmm... maybe this talk of it being the "natural way"...
Cennbeorc
"Truth said...
Whiskey, Svigor, Mr. Anon, Simon in London, Daevin, James; you HEARD the man, give it a shot!
"Like Barry Goldwater said "Deep down, you know I (Albertosarus) am righ."
(Aaron, it will get you a girlfriend)."
A black man's morality on display.
"Truth said...
""You'll inevitably run across some manager who was put into his position to prove the organization is "diverse". They're often markedly less competent than their peers...""
And what does that have to do with winning a majority of votes, again?"
Right, because who get's elected President has NOTHING to do with whom the big party contributors decide to back, or whom the press decides to shove at us. We all just go to the polling place one November morning and decide which of the 300 million of us will become our new emperor.
I'd say that "Truth" is naive, except I know better - he's just dishonest. And what's this - Mr. "I never voted for Obama" sticking up for his race-brother again? Never a good word for McCain or Bush, or even Clinton, but "Truth" can always be counted on to stick up for that guy he never voted for. What's Obama ever done for him? By "Truth"'s own standards, I'd say that makes him a putz.
"Some advice. Life is short. If you think you might be interested in BDSM - give it a shot."
"A black man's morality on display."
Albetosarus is black?!?!?!
Well that explains a lot.
" And what's this - Mr. "I never voted for Obama" sticking up for his race-brother again? Never a good word for McCain or Bush, or even Clinton, but "Truth" can always be counted on to stick up for that guy he never voted for."
Do I have to define the term "stick up" again?
Did you take that vocabulary test Steve posted upon a few days ago? What did you score, a 300?
"This is also true of almost all the women I've run across in the large company I work for. Even women don't want to work for other women."
Really? Well I can see why you like to think that, but I just don't agree, and I am just as much a woman as they are, I'll bet. And I've even had a female boss or two I wanted to punch out.
I've worked for large and small companies, and I've gotten far more complex and nuanced opinions on the subject. All due respect, I'll put more faith in my own experiences than yours, or what you say yours are.
It's called the philosophy of divide and conquer. Sometimes the peons do it for you.
I worked at a hospital reception desk where one of the male doctors mentioned the director, a female doctor, was the best they'd had. Universally loved apparently.
I just came off a project where all 4 team members, including 2 men, said the lady bosses were the best they'd ever had. Well, it was a library/achival project, but still.
I have a physics friend who is at a very level in the space program and is absolutely brilliant, as well as gorgeous, and who does mind-boggling things for her friends--mostly female--including finding jobs for them; she still found time to marry 3 times and have 3 children. I do know there were some women who didn't like her, but knowing what they were like, I can see why.
As with men bosses, there are reasons--personality, chemistry, class, etc.
Another friend always used to think female bosses were jealous of her; maybe, but lately she is as likely to like the ladies as the men. In fact, her two best friends were women in non-traditional jobs, both jaw-droppingly smart, and both rock solid friends.
And we're talking about lawyers and IT nerds. Both were very attractive too. Nowadyas, there are just more females in higher positions, and as a result, more varied personalities.
And to round out my anecdotal rebuttal, a man once told me that Libby Dole was the best director the Red Cross had had up till then and he, not a gushing type, admired and supported her decisions totally. Mrs. Dole made time in her busy schedule to have tea with the said gentleman's mother, when told that the elderly lady admired her.
Your comparison of women managers to affirmative action hires is also manifestly absurd. Yours truly would make a terrible manager, but many women I've known have done very well. I don't need some Mr. Anonymous telling me that women tell him (of course) that my gender can't work together when I've seen them do just that over and over again for the past 35 years I've been in the workforce. Is there fighting and mayhem. Well yeah. It happens. But somehow the work gets dones, cakes get brought to birthday parties, and everybody goes home in one piece, sometimes to bitch about their bosses, not all of whom are women.
Post a Comment