"I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views ..."
Barack Obama
The Audacity of Hope
The Audacity of Hope
The concept of "projection" is one of the more empirically valid ideas that Sigmund Freud came up with. You can see it in the newspaper every day if you just look with fresh eyes: for example, that respected organization that is so angry all the time about "hate groups" -- oh, yeah, it is a hate group.
In recent months, we've been inundated with strident media assertions that Mitt Romney is a blank screen, an empty suit, a cipher, a nullity. Perhaps they are right, although Romney's long track record suggests that people who know him frequently turn to him when they have difficult problems requiring leadership and management chops to solve (something that does not seem to be true of Obama).
But, we shouldn't overlook the sizable element of projection in the pro-Obama press's attacks on Romney, which might help explain their rabid reaction to Clint Eastwood's improvisation with an empty chair sitting in for Obama. Clint's old and (judging by his last several movies) lazy, but he's still a cunning old bastard with enough on the ball to intuit one key insight into Obama: there's not a lot there.
Posts
85 comments:
The reaction to Eastwood by Obama partisans wasn't "rabid," it was gleeful.
It was objectively bizarre and overshadowed Romney's speech, and really the whole convention. It also made Romney look incompetent for letting him make the speech, and made the audience at the convention look bad for cheering the lame and vulgar jokes.
If it is projection, then why did people say the same thing about Romney when he was first running in 2007, when Obama was a long-shot to beat Hillary?
You seem to like Romney more than either the American public or GOP partisans, who explored every single possible Romney alternative before reluctantly going with him out of absolute necessity.
Romney also in his 50's made a change from being strongly pro-choice to strongly pro-life.
That's about as a strong sign of being a soul-less empty suit as I could think of.
Sigmund Freud projected pathologies of the jewish community in the gentile society.
Both of them are empty suits. They're just playing along the roles that have been assigned to them.
At some point this whole charade of having an election in which people have a choice between two parties should be dropped. America is in fact a one-party state. The Inner Party just likes to pretend America is still a democracy
You could neither be more off-the-mark and nor could your "criticism" be more weak. Leftist/equalist language is the opposite of psychological defense mechanism -- it is thoughtful and deliberate. That you can turn it around to aptly and better characterise those using such langauge means nothing. They, at least the ones who originate it are not unconsciously seeing aspekts of themselves in others but rather consciously controlling the debate frame.
I'd don't know. Romney had the "bland" stereotype long before Obama became the Prez.
I will say Obama's likability is far greater than Romney's ever will be.
I mean, even with a sluggish economy, Obama is still doing ok in the polls.
Crazy, but believable. With a legion of advisors the administration basically runs itself, and all BO has to do is sign on the dotted line.
I notice you've said absolutely nothing on Romney's change of heart fromAl immigration enforcer in the primary to yet another soft pedaling amnesty Republican.
But hey you say he's not an empty suit even though he can't hispander hard enough.
Eastwood's not lazy.
He and Woody Allen are of the handful of creators who put out a film a year. At that rate, most films will be forgettable, but lightning will strike every fifth or sixth year.
Spot on about Clint, Steve, and the rabid reaction.
the media is not pro-obama; it is pro-close race because a close race brings more viewers and more ad dollars into the media purse. And since romney is currently behind, they are pro-romney.
Follow the money, not the charade.
Steve, you may find this interesting...
"pro wrestling is twice as popular with the Hispanic audience in the U.S. than the white audience"
http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2012/10/4/3451586/mma-analysis-fan-data-shows-bright-future-ufc-combat-sports?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
"Clint's old and (judging by his last several movies) lazy, but he's still a cunning old bastard with enough on the ball to intuit one key insight into Obama: there's not a lot there."
Man his age who made GRAN TORINO, CHANGELING, and J EDGAR is not lazy. J EDGAR could have been a masterpiece if the screenplay didn't turn into little more than gay edgar in the seond half.
Even at his age, Eastwood works harder and makes more edgy movies than young directors.
Who is lazy? Lucas.
Yo, Zog! Do you accept even the slenderest possibility that --in Romney's or anyone's case-- evolving towards a strongly "pro-life" stance in the full flower of adulthood could indicate anything other than a cynical capitulation to the knuckle-dragging, know-nothing, tea-bagger, Christer morons who have regrettably subverted the Rethuglican party which no-doubt you used to dearly love and admire, but no longer?
but here is the difference. there may not be much there in obama but he reflects back 'radiantly'--at least to the suckers--what others project onto him. so superficially at least, he's a magnetic figure like a rock star or movie star.
romney, otoh, is more a bland screen than blank screen. even his supporters don't project anything(hopes, dreams, ideals) onto him cuz the romney mirror is dull.
obama is a faker but he is like a backstage mirror with lots of lights. people see a 'better self' in themselves when they look into it. Reagan had that quality too.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_GOrfgyQI_fk/SRmjB8f9QjI/AAAAAAAAA8w/SQajiRreuEM/s400/DSC00573.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNcl0L7eJUY
I don't see how the media has been calling Romney an empty suit. They have been calling him an evil job killing rich person.
The media has only two tropes for Republican candidates. They are either stupid or evil. When a Republican is particularly effective, like Reagan, they do the conjurers trick of calling them both stupid and evil, though they never address the contradiction of how, say, the nearly retarded Reagan could at the same time be an evil genius bringing fascism to America (and yes, if you were there at the time, the media did present Reagan as virtually retarded).
When a candidate is clearly not stupid and the stupid tag is unlikely to stick -- like Nixon or Romney -- they get hit with the evil tag.
Democrat candidates, on the other hand, are never rolled up into a single word, even though they often clearly good be. Stupid like Gore, Kerry or Obama, evil like both Clintons.
Obama decided to change from being white to being black.
Common, Steve, Eastwood has done more work than 99.9 percent of us will ever do. He's old and slowing down, but lazy people who reach his age don't leave their lift chairs very often.
"Anonymous Zog said...
You seem to like Romney more than either the American public or GOP partisans, who explored every single possible Romney alternative before reluctantly going with him out of absolute necessity."
Nonsense. The notion that Romney's nomination was some kind of fluke flies in the face of decades of Republican party tradition. The Republican party almost always ends up nominating the runner-up from the previous election, and that is exactly what they have done here. I don't fault Romney for getting the nomination. I fault the Republican party for giving it to him - for, in essence, being the Republican party.
"Zog said...
Romney also in his 50's made a change from being strongly pro-choice to strongly pro-life.
That's about as a strong sign of being a soul-less empty suit as I could think of."
That much is true.
Why the loyalty to the Republicans and fear of Obama, Steve?
What have the Republicans ever done but massively increase inequality and pauperize the former middle class and bring in tons of immigrants? - besides giving favors to the very rich men who bankroll them.
Wasn't George HW Bush a big enough a-hole for you, to have your fill of a-holes?
You came up with it first "Invade he World, Invite the World, In hock to the World".
This is an insightful post. Now that I think about it there is a ton of projection, with liberals assigning to Romney deficits that they are probably subconsciously fearful Obama suffers from.
For example I'm a huge fan of Chris mathews and he used to be pretty objective, but ever since Obama dominated politics, he's become hysterically pro-Obama ,partly because he hates neocons and Obama is the anti-neocon and partly because he loves what obama's rise says about America and partly because he loves blacks who seem intelligent (he also gushed over condi rice).
At first I didn't mind mathews' Obama gushing because I was an early Obama supporter, but once mathews started wildly exaggerating how brilliant Obama is and projecting obama's defects onto Romney (lack of spontaneity, can't think on his feet) I started to get annoyed.
So it was fascinating to watch mathews disillusionment with obama's dismal debate performance. Mathews looked like he was going to cry, as everything he had been saying about both Obama and Romney the last several months proved to be the exact opposite of reality. It was actually Romney who looked brilliant and Obama who couldn't think on his feet.
And as is often the case when cognitive dissonance is finally resolved, mathews went swinging to the opposite extreme and red faced and on the verge of tears started hysterically bashing Obama for missing the most obvious opportunities to score points.
Zog,
Your name is as offensive as your comments. Why choose to be perceived as a bigot and an ill-mannered fool in public?
Why troll this forum at all? If you enjoy anonymous confrontation rather than rational discourse go somewhere else. I enjoy reading reasoned arguments, not ad hominem attacks and malicious innuendo.
TWS
Bad day for all the Romney-Haters!
I maintain that as an actor and maybe even more importantly as a director (who must understand actors), Clint saw early that Obama's political rise grew from his acting ability, not his leadership ability.
It's the opposite with Romney--not a good actor/entertainer, which is why he's not a natural campaigner, but a good leader.
I think the "empty suit" tag that's been slapped on Mitt has totally been earned. He doesn't display much personality, everything he says seems rehearsed, and the way he went from Massachusetts moderate in 2004 to trying to sound like a Tea Partier in 2008 just came off as completely disingenuous, making it clear the man has no strongly held political beliefs. That's what people mean with the empty suit charge.
"Romney also in his 50's made a change from being strongly pro-choice to strongly pro-life."
No, because I myself did the same thing, in my 50s too. I used to be a lib, a politically active one, in fact.
One day, after several years of disgust at yet another program thrown down our throats, programs that used up millions of dollars and never_ever_ worked, I was forced to face truths about my party and their/my beliefs. A lot of soul searching ensued from that point on.
At about the the same time, I happened upon a rather scientific article about third term abortions. I never looked at abortion the same way again, although unlike some conservatives, I really don't believe we should actually make it illegal--because that will never work.
Rather, I don't think the Supreme Court should have decided the case at all and it really should be determined by the states. (I'll point out here that one realization I came to as I thought about my former beliefs and the efficacy of the programs they inspired is that today's Democratic Party doesn't really seem to think there's any reason for the existence of states at all. Their behavior surely suggests that it's the feds who should control everything, and further, they believe it's the courts that should have control --as long as it's their judicial appointees who have that control.
Anyway, I really can attest that people do change their views on very substantive issues, that they change their entire political philosophy, in fact. Call it maturing, whatever, but it does happen.
I'll throw this in too--in my job I did indeed witness girls who used abortion as nothing more than birth control, birth control others pay for. There's an entire segment of society that treats everything and anything, including children, as throwaways.
The media are biased in favor of Obama although they try to be subtle about it so as to maintain deniability about that. Having heard over and over that Eastwood had imploded onstage with his bizarre performance, I decided to watch it on Youtube. His delivery was bad; he should have practiced it beforehand. Otherwise, it was amusing and lightened things up a bit. It entertained and raised some questions; it was no biggie, certainly not like it was portrayed. Some critics of Romney point out he's changed his views during the course of his life. But what thinking person has the exact same views at fifty as they did when they were twenty-one?
Whoa, this is interesting, Steve.
Did you see this pic of Obama (courtesy of Gucci Little Piggy)in the Occidental Library.
Take a gander. Something very interesting pops out at the eye.
http://glpiggy.net/
"Clint's old and (judging by his last several movies) lazy"
That he's that old and still working (acting, directing, composing his own scores) would tend to argue against lazy.
Zog, the guy's a Mormon bishop. Does anyone doubt he's always been pro-life? For all practical purposes, it doesn't matter where a state governor stands on abortion. What does matter is the stance of Supreme Court Justices (and the Presidents who nominate them).
"Clint's old and (judging by his last several movies) lazy, but he's still a cunning old bastard with enough on the ball to intuit one key insight into Obama: there's not a lot there."
Yes, and what little is there is toxic to whites.
Man, I'll be glad when this election is over and all these lefty trolls who're infesting the comment section crawl back under whatever rock they came from. For the next few weeks I'm going to have to put up with stuff like "zog".
I think Obama and Romney are sort of 'blank' in different ways according to their management style.
Obama seems to have an emotional ideological and partisan fixation. He seems to find it difficult to make a decision that is based purely on prudential grounds. Based on his thinking of himself as provided by his stenographer David Brooks he seems to think that his prejudices and beliefs are 'logical' and practical in themselves. Anything that doesn't fit cleanly into his ideology has to be adjusted somewhat so it does.
On the other hand Romney seems to be extremely practical in his thinking, someone who has no trouble whatsoever making decisions on non-ideological grounds. And this would be because he does not have much of an ideology, being more of a 'man of action' who proceeds in whatever he's doing with the assumption that he's in the right.
I thought during the primaries that Romney had the least qualitative constrast (in debased modern sense) with Obama and that their voters would prefer someone who was more of a glaring photo negative like Perry, or someone TBD. Romney actually is not too similar to O in personality though
"It was objectively bizarre and overshadowed Romney's speech, and really the whole convention.
Not really, the polling showed that most viewers liked it. It was the press who went nuts over it.
I can't help but think this debate was a setup. How could Obama do so poorly? Hm, suppose the people closest to him decided secretly to undermine him by not giving him sensible information about Romney, the candidate, and by not adequately preparing the president for the debate. And if so, why would Obama's closest aides want to undermine him? Huh? Huh?
Maybe Obama should have fired his Chicago staff and hired Your Black Muslim Bakery to run his campaign.
Formless was the word I was using, this quote seems fairly appropriate given his strategy:
“If I determine the enemy's disposition of forces while I have no perceptible form, I can concentrate my forces while the enemy is fragmented. The pinnacle of military deployment approaches the formless: if it is formless, then even the deepest spy cannot discern it nor the wise make plans against it.” - Sun Tzu if google isn't lying to me.
Of course today, he cannot be the formless, theres a record connected to him now. Of course Romney is now trying his hand at the same thing.
That's about as a strong sign of being a soul-less empty suit as I could think of.
Yes, nothing says vacuous hypocrite like developing qualms about abortion.
I had originally been for Tim Pawlenty. But I read the write up on Romney in Wikipedia or somewhere and I - slapping my forehead - said to myself "He's just like me"!
My experience for the last decades of my career was that as soon as anyone knew me they would try to make me a manager. I would get hired as a individual consultant - but after a little while the powers that be wanted me to supervise some unit(s) or manage some group.
Romney had much the same experience except at a higher level. Over and over people have always wanted him to be the leader of some organization that needed help.
Obama, who has somehow managed to conceal much of his life history through the unusual device of serial autobiographies, has likewise been chosen by those who met him for a very specific role - the spokesman in black face.
When the Olympics was fouled up they called on Mitt. This is his recurring pattern. He responded in his stereotyped manner - he worked hard and fixed things.
Obama was at Harvard when they needed a black face. He too responded in his own stereotype fashion - he occupied the office but personally didn't work very hard. No one hired Obama to do a specific job but rather to hold an office.
It isn't just that Obama's lazy - although he is indeed quite lazy - he tires quickly. He simply can't work very hard for very long. No stamina. Weakness. We saw that in the debate last night. He hadn't prepared very hard and he couldn't muster the energy to answer Romney back. He needs those vacations and golf breaks.
When we finally see his school grades they won't be too good. He just wasn't built to be an academic grind.
I was wrong about Obama's brains. The man I saw on stage last night was smarter than I'd ever suspected. But he looked and acted drained. He is, as he recently said of himself "eye candy". He can muster enough energy to stand there and be admired, but sometimes that's just not enough.
Albertosaurus
I'm a huge fan of Chris mathews and he used to be pretty objective, but ever since Obama dominated politics, he's become hysterically pro-Obama ,partly because he hates neocons and Obama is the anti-neocon
Really? What has Obama done that the neocons would disapprove of?
What have the Republicans ever done but massively increase inequality and pauperize the former middle class and bring in tons of immigrants? - besides giving favors to the very rich men who bankroll them.
Maybe you've been fast asleep for the past four years, but one could write that exact same sentence substituting the word "Democrats" for "Republicans" and it would be even more true. When it comes to doing favors for the very rich men who bankroll them, the GOP comes second best to the Dem's.
Obama is a MTV suit.
What should we call what black kids wear? baggie pants, etc?
Loot suit? Come a long way since zoot suit.
Yo, Zog! Do you accept even the slenderest possibility that --in Romney's or anyone's case-- evolving towards a strongly "pro-life" stance in the full flower of adulthood could indicate anything other than a cynical capitulation to the knuckle-dragging, know-nothing, tea-bagger, Christer morons who have regrettably subverted the Rethuglican party which no-doubt you used to dearly love and admire, but no longer?
I hope you're able to remember that when you attack pro-lifers you're also attacking the Pope.
Albertosaurus/Pat said,
"But I read the write up on Romney in Wikipedia or somewhere and I - slapping my forehead - said to myself "He's just like me"!"
Well, I guess we now have an idea of the October surprise Obama has in store for Mitt, LOL!
Linda said,
"Obama is the anti-neocon."
Obama tried to sound like a dove in the debate last night. Too bad he's the man who killed Qaddafi, someone we made peace with, and deposed Mubarak in Egypt.
Once upon a time he was an anti-neocon.
Obama betrayed SWPLs on many issues, but not until he went 180 degrees on that, an issue that I thought was almost as near to his heart as race, did I concluded Obama is 100% a race man. Redistribution of wealth and the large, strong state to see that it happens is all he cares about. Even last night, those were the things he got more emotional about when he did at all.
Obama's was a worse betrayal than when Bush II said he was against nation building during the 2000 election. Bush was regurgitating standard Republican talking points. Obama crafted an entire identity and following from being the dovish, anti-neocon.
Really? What has Obama done that the neocons would disapprove of?
He has distanced himself from Israel while also putting the focus on direct threats to America (bin laden) while giving a pass to people who are direct threats to Israel (Iran, saddam Hussein, the Muslim brotherhood)
The neocons would rather direct threats to Israel to be eliminated while the threats to America are allowed to roam free to scare Americans to getting further dragged into the middle east (for israel's benefit)
The media is slowly catching on to obama's strategy and they don't like him as much as they used to.
It isn't just that Obama's lazy - although he is indeed quite lazy - he tires quickly. He simply can't work very hard for very long. No stamina. Weakness. We saw that in the debate last night. He hadn't prepared very hard and he couldn't muster the energy to answer Romney back. He needs those vacations and golf breaks.
Absolute nonsense! Obama has far more stamina than anyone here. Have you any idea what type of schedule it takes to be leader of the free world while crisscrossing the country campaigning in county after county while preparing for debates to boot. The notion that Obama is lazy is unadulterated nonsense and I highly suggest you drop it.
..
I can't help but think this debate was a setup. How could Obama do so poorly? Hm, suppose the people closest to him decided secretly to undermine him by not giving him sensible information about Romney, the candidate, and by not adequately preparing the president for the debate. And if so, why would Obama's closest aides want to undermine him? Huh?
Maybe the people around him are thinking how DARE a mere black man snub our great leader of Israel. There are a lot of Ashkenazi's on his staff.
Lefties should focus their hatred on the coalition of Middle Eastern ethno-nationalists and religious fundamentalists that rules Israel and the US Congress.
Another comment about Romney.
Steve and we readers discussed at length Romney's intelligence over four years ago during the Republican primary; I don't remember that we came up with an IQ, but that he was extraordinarily intelligent.
This past election, we didn't focus or discuss that at all as Ron Paul's candidacy grew and a real chance came along to impact the trajectory of the GOP on foreign policy.
Last night's debate brought back to my mind all those observations. I'm sure Half Sigma probably had some, too.
My take on Mitt Romney (besides my election prediction that he will win, made here at Steve's in the middle of a head wind against him):
Mitt Romney is a near genius and moderate man with conservative moral values.
His "woodenness" came primarily for not being accepted fully due to being a Mormon. When Republicans and Baptist social conservatives rallied around him post-primary, I noticed a marked change in his demeanor. He relaxed, but not completely.
The further we get away from the primary, and even the GOP convention, the more relaxed Romney is because campaigning for the middle votes suits him better as that is who he really is. He has let his guard down now and knows it will cost him precious little with the Right.
You know, his kind of politics kind of resembles Ron Unz's.
Obama tried to sound like a dove in the debate last night. Too bad he's the man who killed Qaddafi, someone we made peace with, and deposed Mubarak in Egypt.
Once upon a time he was an anti-neocon.
Okay let me explain a few things to you. Neocons LIKE qadaffi and Mubarak because they were GOOD for Israel. Neocons hate saddam Hussein and Iran because they are threats to Israel.
Muslimish Obama does not like Israel, so he got rid of the people who were GOOD for Israel while opposing war with people who are bad for Israel
Meanwhile he cleverly focused on eliminating people who are ACTUALLY bad for America (bin laden) so the neocons could no longer use these boogey men to scare Americans into fighting wars in the middle east for Israel nor could they accuse him of being a dove.
If you proceed from the assumption that he is secretly anti-Israel, his foreign policy is actually quite clever.
Now let's see if he's clever enough to get reelected before the media catches on.
He has distanced himself from Israel while also putting the focus on direct threats to America (bin laden) while giving a pass to people who are direct threats to Israel (Iran, saddam Hussein, the Muslim brotherhood)
You are delusional. Obama has not distanced himself from Israel. Try reading something other than the Weekly Standard.
From an Obama speech to the UN nine days ago:
So let me be clear. America wants to resolve this issue through diplomacy, and we believe that there is still time and space to do so. But that time is not unlimited. We respect the right of nations to access peaceful nuclear power, but one of the purposes of the United Nations is to see that we harness that power for peace. And make no mistake, a nuclear-armed Iran is not a challenge that can be contained. It would threaten the elimination of Israel, the security of Gulf nations, and the stability of the global economy. It risks triggering a nuclear-arms race in the region, and the unraveling of the non-proliferation treaty. That’s why a coalition of countries is holding the Iranian government accountable. And that’s why the United States will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
Among Israelis and Palestinians, the future must not belong to those who turn their backs on a prospect of peace. Let us leave behind those who thrive on conflict, those who reject the right of Israel to exist. The road is hard, but the destination is clear -- a secure, Jewish state of Israel and an independent, prosperous Palestine.
The notion that bin Laden was a "direct threat to America" while Iran and Saddam Hussein were/are not is likewise delusional.
Obama has been Bush II (or is that Bush III?) on foreign policy.
Neocons LIKE qadaffi and Mubarak because they were GOOD for Israel.
I never saw any necons condemning Obama's illegal war with Libya on the grounds that Qadaffi was good for Israel. On the contrary, it was the neocons who were the strongest supporters of that action on the right.
You know, his kind of politics kind of resembles Ron Unz's.
He's a leftist?
" Blogger pat said...
I had originally been for Tim Pawlenty. But I read the write up on Romney in Wikipedia or somewhere and I - slapping my forehead - said to myself "He's just like me"!"
LMAO: So the Republican candidate for president is "just like you, and who was it last week? I forget, I think it was Lance Armstrong(?!?!)
That's high praise, Bro...to THEM!
"Neocons LIKE qadaffi and Mubarak"
Please explain this because I got a distinctively different impression.
I got the impression that they fully supported what Obama did, but are faulting him for *the way he did it*.
And the idea that they would be on the same side as Vladimir Putin strikes me as a little strange.
"This would work, but Obama is going about it all wrong. Don't give up on Mid-East democracy!!"
This seems to sum up the attitude I see among neocons.
I do grant you this, the shine has come off Obama for some in the press because a pattern has emerged in whom he is willing to use force for and whom he isn't.
This is Andrea Mitchell, faux-journalist, at her worst and John Sununu at his attack-dog best.
Sununu adopts what is essentially the Sailer position: Obama is "lazy and disengaged."
http://thehill.com/video/campaign/260321-romney-surrogate-sununu-calls-obama-lazy
"I will say Obama's likability is far greater than Romney's ever will be."
Well, just to illustrate that perceptions really do vary among people, I have never believed Barack Obama's smile nor his laugh have ever been genuine, unless they occurred as a result of someone complimenting him. I didn't vote for him, no, but I came close (full disclosure).
Romney's on-the-stump persona (meaning he's on some sort of erected stage, outside, people from the village are there to see him speak, same stump speech from place to place), is what I would expect from a person who has no proclivity for acting or entertaining, but who is still a likeable, decent human being.
In other words, most people, no matter their level of success and professionalism in another field, would not have those skills on the stump.
I'll give you his female counterpart (although I think he's better on the stump than she) and the main stream media never labeled her as having a likeablity problem: Hilary Clinton.
From everything I have ever read of Romney behind the scenes, people enjoy him very much. He likes to hear jokes, tells jokes, is a practical joker, and is quite friendly.
Funny watching the posters here argue about what a neocon is. Maybe the term was never very well-defined in the paleosphere, except as a way to blame the Jews.
I have seen the theory on this board that Obama snubbing Netanyahu was a clever Jewish ploy to make it look like Obama is anti-Israel when he's actually owned by the Jews. And now I've seen the theory that Obama's lackluster debate performance is the result of his being undermined by his Jewish handlers to punish him for the Netanyahu snub. Amazing what the Jews get up to in the minds of some...
Dahlia said, "Albertosaurus/Pat said,
'But I read the write up on Romney in Wikipedia or somewhere and I - slapping my forehead - said to myself "He's just like me"!'
Well, I guess we now have an idea of the October surprise Obama has in store for Mitt, LOL!"
LOL!
Thanks for the laugh, Dahlia.
I listened to a lot of pundits wonder, "What the heck was wrong with Obama?" today, those leaning left, that is. (Those on the right have Steve's take.)
Only one of the lefties said, "You know, he did really bad in his Univision appearance too. He stammered around like he was totally unprepared for the questions those people asked him, as if he wasn't even expecting them to ask tough questions."
The same person added, "Come to think of it, he really hasn't had to answer any tough questions in years. He's only given a few press conferences in the last two years, and even then, he picks on people he knows will ask predictable questions, and he knows well how to make an answer last so many minutes, to the point he only takes 7 questions in an entire press conference."
"The notion that Obama is lazy is unadulterated nonsense and I highly suggest you drop it."
HAHAHAHAHA. Your tone really scares us.
There are politicians who don't love the actual job, get it? Have you read what Jarrett said to a writer about how bored Barry was with being both a state senator and a US senator?
Ever consider he's bored by the Presidency. Oh, I don't mean the appearances in front of adoring crowds or appearances on Letterman, The Talk, Leno. I don't mean bored or lazy when it comes to slow jammin' the news with Fallon, such things as that. I mean bored by the nitty gritty stuff, the no-cameras allowed stuff, like security briefings, talking over the phone with heads of state to build relationships, talking with House and Senate members of both his own and the opposition party. I think it's clear that's the part of the job he hates...and it shows.
Mitt Romney is known personally, for helping people he knows in need. The abducted daughter of a partner (he shut Bain down, flew everyone down to NYC, and called everyone in his NYC bigshot rolodex to get police and media attention) is one of many. Sometimes it was little things, he and his boys helping someone who worked for him move furniture inside after a family member was critically ill.
By contrast, Obama let his illegal alien aunt and drunk driving illegal alien uncle soak the taxpayers and helped them not a bit, despite being family (and the one he preferred). He let his half brother starve and it took Dinesh D'Souza to help him out. Despite the charge and sense of patriarchal accomplishment inherent in helping out family.
Romney is an "empty suit" the way Ike was. Both had considerable experience in other areas, and success, but had no real fixed political ideas. Neither were Thatcher or Reagan. Both were technocrats and numbers guys. The good thing is that technocrats are not wedded to destructive ideological wars and charges of the Light Brigade. They are also susceptible to polling results, they do what wins. The bad thing is that they won't mount doomed attempts at something for a larger issue, they don't like to lose on principle. However on balance the Ike/Coolidge/Bush 1/Rommey model produces better results than ideologues.
don't see no romnecrats
The salient thing about "hate group" and other such leftist language is not that they might be examples of unconscious projection. That is a weak position to take when responding to being tagged with that. Notwithstanding that "hate group" could well describe SLPC, they know very well what they are doing when they use such terms. They are controlling the debate frame.
jeyi - a cynical capitulation to the knuckle-dragging, know-nothing, tea-bagger, Christer morons who have regrettably subverted the Rethuglican party
Lol! You're new here! All that mcguffin is strictly for the Outer Party.
When a Republican is particularly effective, like Reagan, they do the conjurers trick of calling them both stupid and evil, though they never address the contradiction of how, say, the nearly retarded Reagan could at the same time be an evil genius bringing fascism to America
And of course you've also described every white bad guy in the movies since, well, I dont know when.
>You are delusional. Obama has not distanced himself from Israel.<
To the extent that there is a distinctively Jewish take on Obama, it's that he snubbed Bibi and isn't playing ball. The nuances of the facts don't matter to the little Pam Geller inside every professional Jew (whether on the "right" or the "left"). If I may coin a phrase, they hate hate hate Obama...esp since they have such a better alternative in Romney.
What has Obama done for the Jews lately? Maybe you never stopped to ask this question, but professional Jews never stopped asking it.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
"Funny watching the posters here argue about what a neocon is."
Yes, Legendary Linda and I seem to have different definitions of "neocon".
I define neo-conservatives as those who are primarily liberal, especially when it comes to democracy, but extremely hawkish about using force to spread democracy and liberal values without regard to the customs, culture, and government of other peoples and nations.
They are extreme ideologues who will betray our allies at the drop of a hat.
While they are mainly Jewish, they are more ruled by abstract ideology than anything concrete. In their world, democracy will be, net-net, a good for Israel and all the peoples of the world. As such, there is no difference in their passion for democracy between "good" and "bad" Muslim countries.
I've listened and looked carefully for anyone on the Right in America to question the Democracy project in the aftermath of Libya and have found only a few. None of them were neocons. No, to find criticism, one has to look to Russia and the European Right.
There are politicians who don't love the actual job, get it? Have you read what Jarrett said to a writer about how bored Barry was with being both a state senator and a US senator?
Barry gets bored because he's not an intellectual (though he's smart enough to fool SWPLs and Jews into thinking he is); he's basically just a smarter version of the popular mulatto jock we all went to high school with (the prom king) who works incredibly hard and and meeting and greeting people but is bored by wonkish policy details because they're above his head, and thus he outsources them to people like Reid and Pelosi.
So I agree he's lazy when it comes to intellectual tasks, but he's incredibly hard working overall.
Laziness is largely a function of failure. If you don't succeed at intellectual tasks, you'll be unmotivated when it comes to pursuing them.
That's not to imply Obama is stupid. I estimate his IQ to be an impressive 125, but because of affirmative action, he's been placed in positions that are better suited to an IQ of 140, and because these positions were very challenging to him, he developed a lifelong habit of disengaging and letting others do the intellectual heavy lifting, while he focused his considerable work ethic on tasks that he found much easier (like playing basketball, campaigning and giving speeches).
George W. Bush also has an IQ around 125 (probably 115 after all the substance abuse)and he too found himself elevated to positions better suited to an IQ of 140 (in Bush's case because of nepotism) and he like Obama became very lazy about intellectual tasks (though Bush is incredibly hardworking physically and socially) and like Obama, Bush outsourced the intellectual heavy-lifting to Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, Scooter Libby, and Paul Wolfowitz, which is how America ended up invading Iraq.
To the extent that there is a distinctively Jewish take on Obama, it's that he snubbed Bibi and isn't playing ball. The nuances of the facts don't matter to the little Pam Geller inside every professional Jew
And yet, "professional Jews" will once again vote for Obama by something like 80% to 20% margins. How do you explain that, given their supposed fury with him for "snubbing Bibi"?
"Absolute nonsense! Obama has far more stamina than anyone here."
Absolute nonsense! You have no way of knowing that.
"Have you any idea what type of schedule it takes to be leader of the free world while crisscrossing the country campaigning in county after county while preparing for debates to boot.[sic]"
You mean a schedule that doesn't allow for too many golf games? Yes, I can see where that might be grueling. But in point of fact, Obama doesn't seem to be doing much leading lately and if his recent performance is any indication, he has't done much prepping for debates, either. But I will concede that crisscrossing the country in county after county could be exhausting, especially if one visits all 57 states.
"The notion that Obama is lazy is unadulterated nonsense and I highly* suggest you drop it."
Obama is lazy the way my bigger half is lazy. When he perceives something as being of immediate benefit to him, it gets done, with a quickness. Otherwise, he drags his feet.
And confusing having stamina with not being lazy isn't just unadulterated nonsense, it's downright stupid. I won't "highly" suggest you drop because I simply don't have the stamina to deal with an apparently inexhaustible fund of stupidity.
*Surely "high-handedly" is a better choice.
Dahlia - if Romney loses, are you going to reassses your political acumen?
I'm probably the only one here willing to confess I don't understand Obama. For example, he could be a hero, let alone be re-elected, simply by throwing the enviro nuts overboard to allow driling, thus driving the cost of gas down. What's the cost? It's not like blacks would be upset. Their Chrysler 300's need gas, too. Think of the great spin for the ME: "you no longer have to suffer us filling your economies with worthless paper dollars."
Uh Severn, polls shows Jews are throwing Obama under the bus in record numbers:
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/09/10/poll-shows-obama-getting-lowest-jewish-support-since-jimmy-carter-vote/
And this DESPITE their loyalty to the democratic party and commitment to diversity (a black president)
Obama's October Surprise- 7.8 percent unemployment rate.
The Legendary Linda
he's basically just a smarter version of the popular mulatto jock we all went to high school with (the prom king
Yes, I remember him, except he wasn't the prom king, he declined to fight me, all the pretty girls loved me instead of him, his own girl was trying to cheat on him with me.. Lol, it all comes back now. Funniest shit I read in a while. Thanks for the laughs
Funny watching the posters here argue about what a neocon is. Maybe the term was never very well-defined in the paleosphere, except as a way to blame the Jews.
Fool, neocon is what they call themselves, and if they happen to be Jewish, it is through no fault but their own.
I have seen the theory on this board that Obama snubbing Netanyahu was a clever Jewish ploy to make it look like Obama is anti-Israel when he's actually owned by the Jews. And now I've seen the theory that Obama's lackluster debate performance is the result of his being undermined by his Jewish handlers to punish him for the Netanyahu snub. Amazing what the Jews get up to in the minds of some...
If Jews no longer wish to influence this country, that's fine by me. For the matter of people saying the jews at once do this and then at once do the seemingly opposite, the same thing is being done here, saying paleocons are this and then paleocons are that, and by the same person!
"I will say Obama's likability is far greater than Romney's ever will be."
Likable? That guy's face and voice have always given me the nightmare-willies. He's totally fake. There is no warmth or life in the eyes. Never able to laugh at himself or joke genuinely. The voice stammers and hesitates, and goes into strange accents he thinks make him sound more real. And there are virtually no stories of him ever doing for anyone, even in family (other than wife/kids), much less strangers, much less people of different races. His first reference is always to himself, "He could be my son", referring of course to the black Trayvon. Actually, as it turns out Zimmerman could have been his son too, but that's no fun.
Likeable. NO. No.
He may well be the least likable president since Calvin Coolidge.
". It was actually Romney who looked brilliant and Obama who couldn't think on his feet."
I always knew that, even paying no attention to either one of them. Maybe I'm psychic. No other way to explain why so many intelligent people have been fooled by someone I saw through 5 years ago.
B.O. has absolutely no record of every "thinking on his feet" or speaking intelligently and knowledgably without a teleprompter. No record at all. Why is Matthews persisting in his delusions? This has been a 4 years of total madness.
Romney I could tell was intelligent and informed just looking at him. I don't know about his personality, but he looks competent. Obama never looked the least competent to me.
Okay, on the likability.
We know that people lie when surveyed.
Likability seems like the kind of thing people would be very inclined to lie about. Even if you totally disagree with Obama and would never vote for him, you might feel as though you shouldn't dislike him because then you might be racist.
There is no reason for people to exaggerate how much they like Romney.
So, I am guessing that Obama's likability number is artificially inflated and does not truly reflect the level at which he is liked.
So, when I consider that, the two seem much closer than generally reported.
"The concept of "projection" is one of the more empirically valid ideas that Sigmund Freud came up with."
What'd be the opposite dynamic of projection? Absorption?
If Jews project all their negative traits onto their enemies...
do white absorb all the negative traits of non-whites onto themselves?
So, if a Jew feels nasty, he projects that nastiness onto white gentile or Palestinian.
But, if a white liberal sees nastiness among blacks and Jews, he absorbs it and sees it as something especially particular to whites.
So, even if blacks commit genocide, whites say 'blacks are only acting that way because of impact of evil racist white imperialism'. This argument has been made of the Rwandan genocide. Hutus supposedly acted that way ONLY BECAUSE their innocent minds had been poisoned by white imperialism/racism.
But why hasn't this argument made for Japan? Why not excuse Rape of Nanking by saying Japanese took cues from Western imperialists. Yeah, Japan and China had been 'living in harmony and peace' for many centuries, but then evil white 'racists' filled the 'innocent' minds of Japanese, and THAT is why all those once peaceful Japanese acted crazy. Riiiiiight!
So, if Jews and blacks project their own vileness onto others, whites absorb the vileness of others and say it's all really a white thing.
I will say Obama's likability is far greater than Romney's ever will be.
I mean, even with a sluggish economy, Obama is still doing ok in the polls.
You've got to be kidding. Romney has actually accomplished something in his life. I'd find him a vastly more interesting dinner companion than Obama. What could Obama possibly have to say that I could learn something from?
"You've got to be kidding. Romney has actually accomplished something in his life...."
Yeah, Barry's only been PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
Post a Comment