Rush audio: Anger — not altruism — motivates Obama

posted at 1:05 pm on January 13, 2012 by Tina Korbe

The real divide among conservatives, they say, is whether Barack Obama is merely incompetent or something more sinister. Is he just hapless when it comes to economics, naively supposing redistributive policies will effectively cure the economy? Or does he have an unrelated agenda that subordinates economic growth to the attainment of some vengeful end?

As someone who prefers to believe the best of everyone, I often think Obama is just like the rest of us: He does what he thinks is right and best. It just so happens that what he thinks is right and best — from the evidence, that would be the extreme growth of government through stimulative policies and corrupt cronyism — has been demonstrated to be ineffective at promoting freedom and prosperity … and he doesn’t seem to care. He ignores the evidence and pursues his tired solutions anyway. It’s also pretty obvious he doesn’t regard the Constitution with any particular kind of awe; the individual mandate in PPACA and his recent appointments in a non-recess period make that plain. Even if he’s just indifferent to the Constitution and to whether his policies promote freedom and prosperity, four more years of an Obama administration is a dangerous proposition — but some suggest he’s not just indifferent.

Dinesh D’Souza, for example, has famously postulated that a kind of misbegotten and outdated anti-colonial fury fuels Obama — and Newt Gingrich has famously called that postulation “brilliant.” Rush Limbaugh doesn’t go that far — he doesn’t speculate as to the roots of it — but, yesterday, he did say he accepts Obama’s oft-cited “rage” at America as real:

“I can’t get my arms around the fact that there are people born in this country who hate it…And, I know they are the people who taught Obama.”

“I know that he thinks this is an unjust country, that it was immoral in its founding…this 1% versus 99% stuff, that’s how he thinks this country was founded and that the 1% has maintained themselves in total control of all the wealth since the days of its founding.”

“He thinks the only remedy for it is to take everything the 1% has and give it away to everybody else. “

“Now, the ulterior motives to that are entrenching his own power.”

In Rush’s formulation, Obama isn’t an angry anti-colonialist; he’s a power-hungry fellow with something to prove who happens to have been severely misguided by people who really do hate America.

Now that I think more about it, that might make the most sense of all. It explains how it is that he had ambition enough to arrive at the presidency in the first place, but also why he often seems to be apathetic now. He’s angry, yes, but not even he knows exactly why. In D’Souza’s formulation, Obama himself is very aware of the reasons for his rage — but, if that were the case, then his anger wouldn’t wear itself out so easily. He wouldn’t disappear to the golf course or escape on elaborate vacations. He wouldn’t confess he has “a laziness” deep down inside him that wants nothing more than to relax on the beach in his home state of Hawaii. He’d actually be hungry for reelection, and not just for reelection’s sake — for the sake of advancing his outrageous agenda.

Sure, lately, he’s pandered to all kinds of voting blocs with half-hearted executive measures that could have only one motivation — his own reelection. But that’s the unifying principle of these measures; they appeal to some voting bloc. In other words, again, he seems to be interested in reelection for reelection’s sake — not for the sake of enacting some deeply-held worldview. Bruce Bartlett provides more evidence that Obama doesn’t really care whether he wins in 2012:

One of the games political journalists love to play is comparing every election cycle to one in the past. Not only is it fun, but there is enough consistency and cyclicality in American politics that it often yields worthwhile insights. That being the case, my view is that the 2012 election is starting to look a lot like the one in 1992.

The thing that strikes me most about the two elections is the intensity of the incumbent president’s desire for reelection. It’s not discussed too openly, but a number of Democrats have expressed concern that Barack Obama doesn’t look very much like he cares about winning. This was the case with George H.W. Bush in 1992 as well. …

Obviously, we are not far enough along in the 2012 campaign to say that Obama is following in Bush’s path. But there are disturbing signs that Obama seems less than fully engaged in his own reelection. For example, his fundraising thus far is lagging his 2008 pace; he recently installed a nonpolitical technocrat, Jacob Lew,  as White House chief of staff; and he steadfastly refuses to embrace the sort of populism that the Democratic Party base craves.

It makes me wonder: Is Obama really playing us — or might he have been played by progressives, as well?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Karl Marx motivates Obama.

they lie on January 13, 2012 at 1:08 PM

The problem is trying to convince the public of this.
They see Obama as a nice guy who makes mistakes, who inherited a mess.
They don’t know that the mess was caused by liberalism.
Which is why we need to campaign against liberalism at least as much as we campaign against BHO.

itsnotaboutme on January 13, 2012 at 1:09 PM

Well then, JugEars is a whole lot less intellegent then people really gave him credit for.

KOOLAID2 on January 13, 2012 at 1:10 PM

As someone who prefers to believe the best of everyone, I often think Obama is just like the rest of us: He does what he thinks is right and best. It just so happens that what he thinks is right and best — from the evidence, that would be the extreme growth of government through stimulative policies and corrupt cronyism — has been demonstrated to be ineffective at promoting freedom and prosperity … and he doesn’t seem to care. He ignores the evidence and pursues his tired solutions anyway. It’s also pretty obvious he doesn’t regard the Constitution with any particular kind of awe

Isn’t willful ignorance, especially when one has the livelihood of 320 million people in one’s hands, a form of evil?

Kataklysmic on January 13, 2012 at 1:11 PM

The thing that strikes me most about the two elections is the intensity of the incumbent president’s desire for reelection.

While I wish this were true – the man is an egotistical narccicist. He cares. Trust me. We’ll be lucky if he lets us have an election this year.

CycloneCDB on January 13, 2012 at 1:12 PM

When your “altruism” is based on the confiscation and redistribution of other peoples’ monies … you have no altruism.

OhEssYouCowboys on January 13, 2012 at 1:12 PM

Instead of wondering what Obama’s thinking, let’s just throw him out in November, huh?

Aizen on January 13, 2012 at 1:13 PM

The two we have in the wh now has the same mind set on how they view America and it’s citizens! You can tell by what they say and how the act dealing with most of us.

I love Rush and is right almost all the time.
L

letget on January 13, 2012 at 1:14 PM

The problem is trying to convince the public of this.
They see Obama as a nice guy who makes mistakes, who inherited a mess.
They don’t know that the mess was caused by liberalism.
Which is why we need to campaign against liberalism at least as much as we campaign against BHO.

itsnotaboutme on January 13, 2012 at 1:09 PM

Indeed.

visions on January 13, 2012 at 1:16 PM

Why is the Rush audio playing in the background?!?

Ward Cleaver on January 13, 2012 at 1:16 PM

The only thing saving us from Dear Liar’s malevolence is his incompetence.

Even if he’s just indifferent to the Constitution and to whether his policies promote freedom and prosperity, four more years of an Obama administration is a dangerous proposition — but some suggest he’s not just indifferent.

On that radio interview a few years ago, he called the Constitution a charter of “negative liberties” and lamented that the Warren court didn’t “go beyond” it, whatever that means.

It makes me wonder: Is Obama really playing us — or might he have been played by progressives, as well?

He was fed his anger and anti-Americanism by his parents and then by those he chose to associate with.

rbj on January 13, 2012 at 1:18 PM

It must suck to be so powerless on the right and have such sh*tty candidates that your only argument must now come down to “Obama is angry and hates America.”

Uggg…another 4 years of this half-baked right-wing hate masquerading as psychoanalysis.

cornfedbubba on January 13, 2012 at 1:18 PM

The President isn’t a nice guy. The “personally likeable” meme couldn’t be further from reality.

Right Mover on January 13, 2012 at 1:18 PM

Wait, Rush does not like Obama now? I’m so confused.

In Rush’s formulation, Obama isn’t an angry anti-colonialist; he’s a power-hungry fellow with something to prove who happens to have been severely misguided by people who really do hate America.

Now that I think more about it, that might make the most sense of all.

As someone who prefers to believe the best of everyone

Lol. You are demented, but your mind drippings are entertaining. You seem like SUPER SMART! I am excited to see what kind of amazing and scintillating insights you are going borrow and agree with rabidly in Bam’s next four years!

Romney/Brown Person 2012!

tommyhawk on January 13, 2012 at 1:19 PM

Barack Obama doesn’t like Americans.

SlaveDog on January 13, 2012 at 1:19 PM

Karl Marx Stalin motivates Obama.

they lie on January 13, 2012 at 1:08 PM

FIFY.

Rebar on January 13, 2012 at 1:20 PM

Karl Marx motivates Obama.

they lie on January 13, 2012 at 1:08 PM

When you consider the fact that Socialism never actually works and only hurts everyone – especially those on the lower rungs of society, you have to wonder why the Left gets away with always claiming to be for the “little guy” and the “middle class”.

Chip on January 13, 2012 at 1:20 PM

Dimestore pschoanalysis.And, while we should defer to your constitutional expertise (who among us would argue the Constitution with Arkansas Junior Miss 2006), please know that more federal appellate courts have upheld the constitutionality of Obamacare than have rejected it.

plewis on January 13, 2012 at 1:21 PM

As someone who prefers to believe the best of everyone, I often think Obama is just like the rest of us: He does what he thinks is right and best.

What he thinks is “right and best” is that all are to obey him and his Statist ilk. The whole point of Socialism is obedience. From the productive, he will take, and in taking – he is asserting power. From those he seeks to “benefit,” he will make them dependent, and in making them dependent – he is asserting power.

That is what the “mandate” is all about – the assertion of force upon the American citizen.

At some point in time, you have to come to the understanding that this man seeks to destroy the things which made this country great. The desire and incentive to work hard, and prosper from your labor.

When someone seeks to destroy what made this country great – it is time for you to quit believing that Obamuh is just like you and me, and that he wants what is best for this country.

Socialism is rot – from within, and it is always associated with the use of force over those Socialism seeks to make subject.

OhEssYouCowboys on January 13, 2012 at 1:23 PM

It must suck to be so powerless on the right and have such sh*tty candidates that your only argument must now come down to “Obama is angry and hates America.”

Uggg…another 4 years of this half-baked right-wing hate masquerading as psychoanalysis.

cornfedbubba on January 13, 2012 at 1:18 PM

Drinking your Lunch again?

F-

Del Dolemonte on January 13, 2012 at 1:23 PM

The problem is trying to convince the public of this.
They see Obama as a nice guy who makes mistakes, who inherited a mess.
They don’t know that the mess was caused by liberalism.
Which is why we need to campaign against liberalism at least as much as we campaign against BHO.

itsnotaboutme on January 13, 2012 at 1:09 PM

I’d further add that many Libs and “independents” conflate conservatives and Republicans. Many don’t understand that, judging by their actions, Republicans can at times be just as Left-wing as any Dem. A few examples are Medicare Part D and Nixon’s price controls. These things are not conservative policy. They are Leftist policy. As such, they are most likely doomed for failure. The conservative philosophy is based on what works.

As a recovering Lib myself once I understood that not every Republican is a conservative and not every conservative is a Republican I began to see things a lot differently.

visions on January 13, 2012 at 1:24 PM

The Blaze:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/new-book-claims-obama-complained-about-taking-pictures-with-troops-during-trip-to-baghdad/

Author and Rolling Stone contributing editor Michael Hastings’ new book, The Operators, could cause waves for President Obama’s reelection bid — not to mention his already tenuous relationship with U.S. troops — as book excerpts reveal the president was less than enthused to be photographed with troops during a visit to Baghdad.

The following excerpt describes Obama’s visit to Baghdad and subsequent irritation at a request to take additional photos with soldiers and embassy staffers:

‘After the talk, out of earshot from the soldiers and diplomats, he starts to complain. He [Obama] starts to act very un-Obamalike, according to a U.S. embassy official who helped organize the trip in Baghdad.

He’s asked to go out to take a few more pictures with soldiers and embassy staffers. He’s asked to sign copies of his book. “He didn’t want to take pictures with any more soldiers; he was complaining about it,” a State Department official tells me. “Look, I was excited to meet him. I wanted to like him. Let’s just say the scales fell from my eyes after I did. These are people over here who’ve been fighting the war, or working every day for the war effort, and he didn’t want to take f*cking pictures with them?”’

Del Dolemonte on January 13, 2012 at 1:26 PM

Dimestore pschoanalysis.And, while we should defer to your constitutional expertise (who among us would argue the Constitution with Arkansas Junior Miss 2006), please know that more federal appellate courts have upheld the constitutionality of Obamacare than have rejected it.

plewis on January 13, 2012 at 1:21 PM

When you don’t have an argument, attack the messenger.

Good Lt on January 13, 2012 at 1:26 PM

Karl Marx motivates Obama.

they lie on January 13, 2012 at 1:08 PM

I diagree. I think Marxism is a scam for idiots, and those who push it are simply seeking power. Communism in general appeals to a lot of people simply because it’s antithetical to the American experiment, and as Rush says, it’s the hatred that drives them into discredite philosophies.

bernverdnardo1 on January 13, 2012 at 1:26 PM

It must suck to be so powerless on the right and have such sh*tty candidates that your only argument must now come down to “Obama is angry and hates America.”

cornfedbubba on January 13, 2012 at 1:18 PM

Shhhhh….you’re goign to ruin Obama’s entire 2012 reelection strategy. How can he run against a do nothing congress if Republicans have no power to stop his agenda?

Kataklysmic on January 13, 2012 at 1:26 PM

This is what worries me about Romney . He thinks Ozero is a nice guy .
I don’t think he’ll fight for the win . Too timid on policy , too timid to
attack .

Lucano on January 13, 2012 at 1:27 PM

The real problem is with our new cultural indoctrination by the progressively controlled public education system, the progressive media, and hollywood who have demeaned America and capitalism. Young folks (under 30 yoa) have no idea of what Socialism is or leads to, nor communism. Political correctness is a form of thought control and an abridgement of freedom of speech. We have accepted it without as much as a whimper. We are well on the road to becoming a full blown Socialist country, and a majority of the population approves as witnessed by those who voted for Obama and support closet socialists like McCain and Romney and other RINOS. George Bush did absolutely nothing to further conservatism or stop socialism. Romney will only lead us further down the road to surfdom. I think the thing that has caused Obama’s problems is that he put the pedal to the metal. Had he slowed it down a little, instead of just increasing it full speed , all would be well. I think the majority of Americans have been conditioned to accept socialism as long as it is implemented gradually and in small doses.

they lie on January 13, 2012 at 1:31 PM

It must suck to be so powerless on the right

cornfedbubba on January 13, 2012 at 1:18 PM

PS, thanks for proving the Democrats are Lying when they say the “obstructionist Republicans” in Congress won’t let your Dear Leader get anything done. You just admitted that’s false with your statement above.

You really make it too easy.

Del Dolemonte on January 13, 2012 at 1:31 PM

It must suck to be so powerless on the right and have such sh*tty candidates that your only argument must now come down to “Obama is angry and hates America.”

cornfedbubba on January 13, 2012 at 1:18 PM

Newsflash, champ.

Either it’s:

THE RIGHTWING HATE MACHINE HOUSE IS BLOCKING EVERYTHING OBAMA IS DOING! RABBLERABBLERABBLE!

OR it’s:

THE RIGHTWING HATE MACHINE HOUSE IS SO POWERLESS LOL LOL LOL!

It can’t be both. Either the GOP controls everything, including the White House and Democrat Senate, the mainstream media, the progressive agenda, etc., OR they’re powerless lemmings reduced to screaming about Obama hating America, and Obama’s such a demigod of awesome that the GOP can do nothing at all to stop him.

Pick one. They’re mutually exclusive.

Good Lt on January 13, 2012 at 1:33 PM

To quote our dear D_R_D friend:

“Obama had been hampered because “he has a problem with listening. In a roomful of people, he’s always the smartest guy in the room – and always has to prove it.” ~ Arlen Specter

You have to wonder if anger management classes are included in community organizing…..or if you get a hall pass if you’re the smartest guy in the room.

Rovin on January 13, 2012 at 1:34 PM

The Great Ozbama can not be bothered with frivalous trifling matters like a “general election”. Silly, foolish electorate.

My collie says:

After all, they dont’t even recognize history’s 4th greatest President when they see him, do they? Tell me why we let them vote again?

CyberCipher on January 13, 2012 at 1:34 PM

please know that more federal appellate courts have upheld the constitutionality of Obamacare than have rejected it.

plewis on January 13, 2012 at 1:21 PM

Not really relevant, because

1. There have only been a handful of cases, certainly not enough to discern a trend or make a blanket judgement.

2. Some of those upholds were the result of Democrat Activist Judge-Shopping in order to get their desired result.

Del Dolemonte on January 13, 2012 at 1:36 PM

Under normal circumstances, I would apply the reasoning, “Do not ascribe to malice what can be explained by incompetence.”

There are two things wrong with applying that to Obama:

1. An incompetent would make more mistakes that actually benefit the USA. Obama takes credit for a few things that arguably benefit the USA, but they’re never of his own doing.

2. His malice is evident. Just listen to him. Watch him. I saw it before he was elected. You have to be blind (or trying too hard to assume good will) not to see it.

At BEST, we have a president who wants his own way, and he doesn’t give a sh*t who he hurts while getting it. But I think he’s worse than that. He enjoys stirring up strife and hatred. He goes out of his way to make people angry. It’s the Alinksy way, and it’s in his blood.

The Rogue Tomato on January 13, 2012 at 1:36 PM

Interesting take Tina, but it’s all predicated on the premise that the President is in complete control when in fact, he is manipulated like everyone else. He’s manipulated by his friends and enemies; money and power. Politics and ambition; his present and his legacy.

I see Obama as intelligent enough to know that even in the Robin Hood scenario, someone has to be in charge. And the best way to secure his friends and eliminate his enemies (all the while amassing money and enhancing his power, now and in the future) is to consolidate the wealth of the nation into the fewest hands. Being, of course, those who share his politics and ambition. The cultural elite, as they would like to be known.

Taking everything from the rich doesn’t solve the nation’s problems, it solves his own problems. Gun control doesn’t make people safer, except those who wish to oppress the people. Welfare doesn’t raise people out of poverty, it keeps them there wholly subservient to the government. Obama’s policy goals ensure one thing – lasting power for he and his progressive friends. It is their Utopia.

BKeyser on January 13, 2012 at 1:37 PM

Karl Marx motivates Obama.

they lie on January 13, 2012 at 1:08 PM

When you consider the fact that Socialism never actually works and only hurts everyone – especially those on the lower rungs of society, you have to wonder why the Left gets away with always claiming to be for the “little guy” and the “middle class”.

Chip on January 13, 2012 at 1:20 PM

“Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.”
(H.L. Mencken)

TheClearRiver on January 13, 2012 at 1:37 PM

Please keep in mind that Obumbles is a guy who’s never really done anything but run for office. No sooner does he win one, than he’s running for the next. Unfortunately, he’s (prematurely) reached the pinnacle, so there’s nothing else left to run for. But all he knows how to do is capaign, so he’ll campaign his heart out for reelection. If there were a “King of the World” office to run for, he’d be running for that instead of reelection, but this poor, limited office that depends so much on working with two other branches of government that don’t want to obey him, is all he has left. He’ll be more shattered after losing than Jimmy Carter was.

JayVee on January 13, 2012 at 1:41 PM

Unfortunately, I know many who look share Obama’s perspective…

to wit,
There is so much poverty in the world.
The poor don’t have enough influence.
The wealthy have so many advantages.

And so, Obama, by no coincidence, instigates policies which…
- Make the US poorer.
- Make the US less influential.
- Make the wealthy less wealthy.

Somehow, it never occurs to Obama (or my friends, people at church, and others) that none of Obama’s actions are really helping people, or doing any more than kicking the can down the road. No amount of discussion makes any difference.

shinty on January 13, 2012 at 1:41 PM

Oh Great Rogue Tomato , you hit the nail on the head !
Thank you !

Lucano on January 13, 2012 at 1:42 PM

Trust me. We’ll be lucky if he lets us have an election this year.

CycloneCDB on January 13, 2012 at 1:12 PM

Every time I read this kind of stuff I think of all the lefties who talked about Bush suspending the election. It’s truther level paranoia.

WitchDoctor on January 13, 2012 at 1:48 PM

He’s caught in a tug of war between what he was taught as a lad and his schooling in the Chicago way. Unfortunately, we’re being pulled around by him and his fellow travelers. Does he don the hate America cap today or the crook hat. A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.

Kissmygrits on January 13, 2012 at 1:49 PM

The problem is trying to convince the public of this.
They see Obama as a nice guy who makes mistakes, who inherited a mess.
They don’t know that the mess was caused by liberalism.
Which is why we need to campaign against liberalism at least as much as we campaign against BHO.

itsnotaboutme on January 13, 2012 at 1:09 PM

Indeed, again.

I recall mentioning to my boss around the time of the GM takeover that Obama’s motives were not what they seemed and especially not how they were sanitized in the MSM. He couldn’t see it as a takeover, per se; he seemed to buy the typical party line that without it, GM would just go under. He pretty much gave me a skeptical look and wanted proof that there were actually any ulterior motives behind it. That was then. I haven’t asked what his view is now in light of all the other stuff that’s happened since.

I agree with Rush; he’s said as much before, that he has a hard time believing that this president hates the United States. I have a hard time believing it myself; what must the level of self-hate be in such a person? I look at people like Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, Bernadine Dohrn, Frances Fox Piven and George Soros and realize sadly that there are some people in the world whose primary goal in life is to destroy.

Deliver Us From Evil

PatriotGal2257 on January 13, 2012 at 1:54 PM

Trust me. We’ll be lucky if he lets us have an election this year.

CycloneCDB on January 13, 2012 at 1:12 PM

Every time I read this kind of stuff I think of all the lefties who talked about Bush suspending the election. It’s truther level paranoia.

WitchDoctor on January 13, 2012 at 1:48 PM

Well, to be fair, Bush never did things like make unprecedented recess appointments, or tell his Department of Justice to simply ignore the law.

O’bama has done both.

Del Dolemonte on January 13, 2012 at 1:59 PM

Narcissism motivates Obama.

Schadenfreude on January 13, 2012 at 2:00 PM

Leftism is a non-theistic religious philosophy, somewhere along the lines of Confucianism. And one of its tenets is that believers believe that their closely-held ideas are in fact not religious in nature. In short, it is a religion that refuses to call itself a religion. and if their viewpoints are considered by them not to be religious, they do not believe the usual cautions about not imposing ones religious beliefs on unbelievers apply to them.

0bama is a true believer in Leftism, and will constantly look to his quasi-religious beliefs for an answer to the day’s issues while denying the whole time that this is what he is doing. The belief that leftist beliefs are not religious in nature short-circuits the usual process a believer goes through in reconciling the ideals of his or her faith with the less clean realities of daily life.

Just my opinion

Sekhmet on January 13, 2012 at 2:00 PM

Far right conservatives & Rush= Echo chamber!

Uppereastside on January 13, 2012 at 2:01 PM

I keep hearing people around me saying Obama doesn’t get it or doesn’t he understand that this won’t work or that won’t work and so on… The problem is that he DOES understand. He does get it. It’s a question of intentionality. It’s a philosophy of destruction. Michelle Obama is actually more open about her disgust for this nation than her husband, but his disgust is just as real. Their INTENTION is to pull America’s teeth. I want to say this too because it helps me to see it more clearly; Anything that God holds dear is a target to the left. Marriage, family, sexuality… knowing and seeing this clears the glass a little for me

Dannyp8262 on January 13, 2012 at 2:03 PM

Can anyone find a single person who studied with Obama in Occidental or Columbia? Once his dismal grades are published and his “smartness” aura is puffed away, his personal approval rating will glide into abyss. For chrissake, there should be someone who knew him!

Archivarix on January 13, 2012 at 2:04 PM

If you’ve ever been to Hawaii and met some of the locals, you know what motivates Obama. There’s an island attitude and laziness. An anti-mainland, hatred of the wealthy who vacation in Hawaii. A realization that there’s is fundamentally a service economy that could not exist without tourism. And then you sprinkle on top of this a brown skinned, racist element with an inbred victim complex much like darker browned skin people have here in the continental US.

It’s a recipe for an entrenched helplessly entitled mindset. And Obama got a double dose of that, along with a healthy dose of Marxism and anti-American anger from Frank Davis, Bill Ayers, etc.

Lastly, there is Obama’s own inadequacy for what he knows is undeserved. He hides his subpar writing from Harvard, because he knows it would show that he was not really deserving of any special deference like Editor or the Harvard Review, etc.

If your whole life was filled with a sense of helplessness and everyone around you lived in a victim mindset, and you knew you were a sham, you’d be angry too.

JeffB. on January 13, 2012 at 2:05 PM

He may be angry, but Obama has a passive anger in that he has been groomed his entire adult life to have others do the heavy lifting for him on contentious issues. He may be angry at America or just angry at American conservatives, but he expects others to go out and take care of it.

If he was an openly angry person, it would have shown up in the 2008 election, and that open anger combined with his liberal beliefs would have made Obama come off as a thin Al Sharpton to Democratic primary voters. Hillary would have won the nomination in a laugher. The deal the far left types like Axelrod and Jarrett made was they would find a liberal, but passive beta male like Barack Obama, and then with the media’s help anoint him with Maureen Dowd’s Absolute Moral Authority card to get him elected. Once that happened, they would continues to play that card and the race card against anyone who dared oppose his and their plans.

That was the deal. Obama didn’t have to be angry — he just had to make pronouncements of what he wanted to happen, Harry and Nancy would craft the legislation, other Dems and the big media would destroy any opponents and Obama would then take credit for the new law’s passage, and then the cycle would then repeat itself over and over until 2016. If Obama’s mad, it’s because the Tea Party blew up the strategy, the 2010 midterms did in Pelosi and now the deal he thought he had when he ran for president has blown up and people on his side are actually expecting him to do the hard work to get their dream bills passed.

Michelle Obama may have famously said in 2008 that Barack Obama will demand that Americans work, but the deal never, ever was that Barack Obama would work. Barack Obama was there to inspire everyone else to work for Barack Obama and then for everyone to give Barack Obama the credit for their work. That they’re not and he now has to work is a main source for the president’s anger.

jon1979 on January 13, 2012 at 2:06 PM

In Rush’s formulation, Obama isn’t an angry anti-colonialist; he’s a power-hungry fellow with something to prove who happens to have been severely misguided by people who really do hate America.

In Tim’s formulation…..Obama is a Narcisstic, America-hating, racialist, highly partisan, lib-tard-elitest, redistributionist d*uche with no moral compass and an angry wife.

Now what?

Tim_CA on January 13, 2012 at 2:08 PM

naively supposing redistributive policies will effectively cure the economy

For 3 years he has not helped the economy, and he is not changing what he wants to do. That tells you which side he is on. It is on purpose!

jeffn21 on January 13, 2012 at 2:08 PM

Can anyone find a single person who studied with Obama in Occidental or Columbia? Once his dismal grades are published and his “smartness” aura is puffed away, his personal approval rating will glide into abyss. For chrissake, there should be someone who knew him!

Archivarix on January 13, 2012 at 2:04 PM

Check with the Dean of Admissions for the Harvard Law School.

plewis on January 13, 2012 at 2:10 PM

It is so easy to preach economics and job creation when your sitting on the top position of the Country with every whim and luxury attended to, spewing your fiction to the world.

mixplix on January 13, 2012 at 2:10 PM

“I often think Obama is just like the rest of us: He does what he thinks is right and best.”

[slaps forehead] Yeah, look, they ALL think they’re doing what they “think is right and best.” The Nazis thought that. The Soviets thought that. It is entirely possible that someone could be doing what he “thinks is right and best” and in fact be perpetrating evil, even knowingly, if we have the moral foundation to understand this.

HB3 on January 13, 2012 at 2:10 PM

I’m pretty comfortable concluding that Obama himself is more or less a grifter. He was not really raised by anyone – his mother was way too busy trying to save the world to actually be a parent to him – and so has learned to shape-shift and say whatever he needs to say to win approval and make his way in the world. I really do not believe he is a doctrinaire Marxist or hates America, he was just nurtured and promoted by a lot of people who do, and that is the language he is most comfortable speaking. He is moderately intelligent but has learned to speak, look, and act like a well-educated elitist. He was sharp enough to recognize that he could use affirmative action and white guilt to work his way up and into the radical-chic Chicago elite, and from there plan a trip all the way to the White House.

But operationally, he is incompetent. It’s pretty clear that he cannot speak intelligently without a teleprompter. When left to his own devices in a negotiation with John Boehner, he blew it. His personal relationships with all the world leaders have been horrible, because he has no idea how to comport himself in such a situation. His personal appeal for the Olympics failed. He has blown through three Chiefs of Staff now, a sure sign that he is a poor manager. It’s telling that when he was elected to the Senate, he was given Tom Daschle’s staff because he had none of his own to bring. No proteges or aides who he trusted or who were competent to serve on a Senate staff.

The really scary person is Valerie Jarrett. The Chicago gang made sure their front man was a pleasant, smart guy who would be happy with the trappings of office and not pay much attention to what Valerie was doing to install committed leftists in all the agencies and begin implementing a far-left policy agenda, more or less the Cloward-Piven plan.

The only question is, did Obama con the Chicago gang into making him President, or did they con him into being their front man? Either way, we really need to get rid of the lot of them.

rockmom on January 13, 2012 at 2:13 PM

This is what worries me about Romney . He thinks Ozero is a nice guy .
I don’t think he’ll fight for the win . Too timid on policy , too timid to
attack .

Right. Romney’s line of attack will be along the lines of failure, not malice. To which the Democratic response will be:

“Obama is only ‘failing’ because of rich, racist Republicans.”

Gee, guess who fulfills that role to a ‘T’….?

So at some point, Romney will have to take on this argument directly, or we’ve truly got ourselves another McCain.

HB3 on January 13, 2012 at 2:15 PM

Trust me. We’ll be lucky if he lets us have an election this year.

CycloneCDB on January 13, 2012 at 1:12 PM

I lost count of how many times I’ve posted this link in response to a “suspending elections” comment. Yes, I know Obama has made recess appointments while Congress was not in recess, along with a host of other lawless actions. But if you recall, there was just a little bit of outrage when Gov. Beverly Perdue suggested the same thing.

A Rumor Not to Monger: Sabotaging Conservative Victory

PatriotGal2257 on January 13, 2012 at 2:16 PM

Hitler thought exterminating the Jews was “right and best,” TK….Reality is just not the way you “prefer” it to be. I recommend you read some of VDH’s books.

Sherman1864 on January 13, 2012 at 2:17 PM

jon1979 on January 13, 2012 at 2:06 PM

Dude, that is fantastic. I am so stealing it. You basically said the same things I did, but better.

rockmom on January 13, 2012 at 2:18 PM

jon1979 on January 13, 2012 at 2:06 PM

rockmom on January 13, 2012 at 2:13 PM

Excellent analysis, both of you.

PatriotGal2257 on January 13, 2012 at 2:21 PM

Right. Romney’s line of attack will be along the lines of failure, not malice. To which the Democratic response will be:

“Obama is only ‘failing’ because of rich, racist Republicans.”

Gee, guess who fulfills that role to a ‘T’….?

So at some point, Romney will have to take on this argument directly, or we’ve truly got ourselves another McCain.

HB3 on January 13, 2012 at 2:15 PM

Ace made a good comment on this yesterday. Pointing out that Obama is a basic failure allows people who voted for him in 2008 to vote against him now, without feeling guilty or racist, because HE has let THEM down. Pointing out that he is a Marxist a-hole tells the people who voted for him that THEY made the mistake in 2008, and people do not want to hear that they made a mistake. They are far more susceptible to concluding that the guy they voted for was just not up to the job. I don’t think the “he’s only failing because of evil white republicans” line will work at all. Maybe with some wavering black voters, but that’s it.

The problem there is that we win the election, but without a policy mandate from the people, just a vote to be “not Obama.” There is the age-old dilemma in politics: does the policy agenda come first and then you seek a mandate for it, or do you worry about getting to 51% of the vote first and then work on selling your policy agenda? With Romney, of course, it is an even dicier proposition because we can’t really be sure what his policy agenda will be.

You could argue that this is really Obama’s problem. He was elected in 2008 pretty much because of who he was, and because he wasn’t George Bush, not because the people embraced socialism. And once he unveiled his hard-left agenda, the people revolted and he lost Congress and control of the agenda. Romney will risk the same sort of backlash in 2014 if he runs and wins a policy-free campaign.

It would be nice if this election were a really clarifying Left vs. Right election. But that is not very likely.

rockmom on January 13, 2012 at 2:30 PM

Patriot Gal ,
I get the point ( good read ) however , I wouldn’t put an Oct. surprise beyond this guy .

Lucano on January 13, 2012 at 2:42 PM

Trust me. We’ll be lucky if he lets us have an election this year.

CycloneCDB on January 13, 2012 at 1:12 PM
I lost count of how many times I’ve posted this link in response to a “suspending elections” comment. Yes, I know Obama has made recess appointments while Congress was not in recess, along with a host of other lawless actions. But if you recall, there was just a little bit of outrage when Gov. Beverly Perdue suggested the same thing.

A Rumor Not to Monger: Sabotaging Conservative Victory

PatriotGal2257 on January 13, 2012 at 2:16 PM

All of the author’s logic assumes a proper deference to the 10th Amendment and reverence for States’ Rights. Obama has absolutely pi$$ed all over the notion of States’ Rights, and has not hesitated to use the DOJ to flout the limits on his power.

The Lefties that proclaimed Bush would do this couldn’t add 2+2. One of their chief complaints about Bush wa shis handling of Katrina. The handling of Katrina was so pi$$poor because of his consideration of the proper role of the Federal government in such an instance.

Obama sees absolutely no limits on Federal power. I am not going all paranoid on this – I am simply saying that this guy is ambitious as all he!!. If he can find a way to do it in such a way that his DOJ will bless it (like we just saw with his recess appts), he will do it.

CycloneCDB on January 13, 2012 at 2:43 PM

Pointing out that he is a Marxist a-hole tells the people who voted for him that THEY made the mistake in 2008, and people do not want to hear that they made a mistake. They are far more susceptible to concluding that the guy they voted for was just not up to the job. I don’t think the “he’s only failing because of evil white republicans” line will work at all. Maybe with some wavering black voters, but that’s it.

That’s interesting, especially the first part. The rest, I dunno. (Who are these “wavering” black voters?) The way you describe it makes it seem like the former Obama voters will just sort of lackadaisically go to the polls and sheepishly vote for Romney; but it seems to me they were certainly susceptible to the “evil white Republican” arguments back in 2008.

HB3 on January 13, 2012 at 2:57 PM

Instead of wondering what Obama’s thinking, let’s just throw him out in November, huh?

Aizen on January 13, 2012 at 1:13 PM

This works for me. The Narcissist-in-Chief is indeed a “piece of work”, as they say. Stanley Kurtz’ “Radical-In-Chief; Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism” is a bit of a slog, but is an important & detailed (and pains-takingly footnoted) exposition of the people/influences/etc. that created the empty suit that rules from our White House.

Too bad more people have not read this book. My unchanged opinion of obama was formed long before Kurtz published this book (2010), but it’s a valuable read, tying together the various radical threads that culminated in the Community-Organizer-in-Chief.

Obama’s earliest mentor, Frank Marshall Davis (erstwhile Communist Party member), for example, had far more influence on him than either of his ill-fated parents, planting early seeds of socialist radicalism.

It remains frustrating that much information about the grifter from Chicago was readily available to the public, yet few cared to scratch, much less look, below the surface. Of course, we all understand the culpability of America’s fawning media who shucked all responsibility and journalistic ethics (apparently that existed at one time!) to help elect this disaster in 2008.

texasmamma on January 13, 2012 at 3:07 PM

plewis on January 13, 2012 at 1:21 PM

And the Supreme Court upheld the owning of Slaves at one point also so what is your point? Courts indeed may decide something is legal but that is not the same as making them ethical or moral.

chemman on January 13, 2012 at 3:13 PM

I agree with Schadenfreude. But it’s not simply narcissism, it’s narcissistic personality disorder, which is really a vast edifice some psyches build over the yawning gulf of fear that one actually isn’t good enough. So painful is that fear that the mind exerts all its efforts to suppress the least suggestion of it — and ends up acting more narcissistic than pure narcissists themselves.

Now, an absent father and a distracted mother that pitched him over to others to raise early on…what fertile breeding ground for a sense of being screwed by a world that doesn’t appreciate your gifts! (Preferable to the gnawing doubt that maybe you’re not worth their notice…) And what political world-views would strike a chord with such a one better than those built on the sense of people being screwed over and demands for redress, like anti-colonialism and Marxism? Especially when he’s given longed-for praise by academics who reward those who parrot their lines. Hungry for plaudits and power only because of his own psychological demands, not because of any actual desire to better the world (though he’s convinced he IS interested in bettering the world, because that would be laudable), such a man is ripe to become constant campaigner but little doer, a tyrant at heart but in reality an easy puppet for those who know how to say the right things that lull his hidden insecurities. Even so, the insecurity surfaces from time to time — in the “depression” that some commentators have noticed — before it’s quickly suppressed again.

(I’m not a psychologist, I admit, but my father was diagnosed with NPD, so I think I can safely credit 40 year’s worth of case history on the subject.)

sistrum on January 13, 2012 at 3:18 PM

That’s interesting, especially the first part. The rest, I dunno. (Who are these “wavering” black voters?) The way you describe it makes it seem like the former Obama voters will just sort of lackadaisically go to the polls and sheepishly vote for Romney; but it seems to me they were certainly susceptible to the “evil white Republican” arguments back in 2008.

HB3 on January 13, 2012 at 2:57 PM

Ace was really talking about that mushy middle of voters, who swung heavily in the last weeks of the campaign to Obama because he just seemd to be the guy that was capable – “No Drama Obama” while McCain and Palin were falling apart.

Many pundits believe that black turnout will not be as high as it was in 2008, and that was absolutely critical to Obama carrying those previously red states like North Carolina and Virginia. (And it will be this time in Pennsylvania) Many of those voters had never voted before, and there’s a good chance they won’t bother to vote this time without some extraordinary motivation.

The reality is that to win this election we have to get about 6% of Obama’s 2008 53% to vote against him or stay home. They are who Romney is aiming all of his rhetoric toward.

rockmom on January 13, 2012 at 3:19 PM

They see Obama as a nice guy who makes mistakes, who inherited a mess.

Something wicked this way comes. Wicked and evil rarely tries to cloak themselves in goodness to seduce you. Look how often the unsuspecting are seduced.

chemman on January 13, 2012 at 3:27 PM

Something wicked this way comes. Wicked and evil rarely tries to cloak themselves in goodness to seduce you. Look how often the unsuspecting are seduced.

chemman on January 13, 2012 at 3:27 PM

FIFM; Think before you type chemman

chemman on January 13, 2012 at 3:30 PM

He wouldn’t confess he has “a laziness” deep down inside him that wants nothing more than to relax on the beach in his home state of Hawaii Kenya.
Tina Korbe

Fixed it for you, Tina!

g2825m on January 13, 2012 at 3:52 PM

Ace was really talking about that mushy middle of voters, who swung heavily in the last weeks of the campaign to Obama because he just seemd to be the guy that was capable – “No Drama Obama” while McCain and Palin were falling apart.

Many pundits believe that black turnout will not be as high as it was in 2008, and that was absolutely critical to Obama carrying those previously red states like North Carolina and Virginia. (And it will be this time in Pennsylvania) Many of those voters had never voted before, and there’s a good chance they won’t bother to vote this time without some extraordinary motivation.

Oh, ok, so you meant “wavering about voting at all,” not “potential Romney voters.” Makes sense, I guess, except I’m not so sure black voter turnout won’t be just as high as in ’08. It’ll be interesting to see.

Believe me, I’m looking for a way out of despair. I’m trying out various “worst case scenarios” on that basis.

HB3 on January 13, 2012 at 3:53 PM

The really scary person is Valerie Jarrett. The Chicago gang made sure their front man was a pleasant, smart guy who would be happy with the trappings of office and not pay much attention to what Valerie was doing to install committed leftists in all the agencies and begin implementing a far-left policy agenda, more or less the Cloward-Piven plan.

Too many people are completely unaware of this sinister woman’s power in the White House, I believe. Seems like she is calling all the shots.

Right Mover on January 13, 2012 at 3:57 PM

It must suck to be so powerless on the right and have such sh*tty candidates that your only argument must now come down to “Obama is angry and hates America.”

cornfedbubba on January 13, 2012 at 1:18 PM

-
If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck…
-

RalphyBoy on January 13, 2012 at 4:29 PM

Dimestore pschoanalysis.And, while we should defer to your constitutional expertise (who among us would argue the Constitution with Arkansas Junior Miss 2006), please know that more federal appellate courts have upheld the constitutionality of Obamacare than have rejected it.

plewis on January 13, 2012 at 1:21 PM

this is why more than ever Hot Gas needs a thumbs up/ thumbs down rating system. Lately, I can’t be bothered responding to trolls and libtards that don’t even know what theyre talking about, let alone facts. I just want to give them a thumbs down and move on to where I can discuss and opine with others. Let the # of downers define the idiots.

AH_C on January 13, 2012 at 4:35 PM

I wouldn’t put an Oct. surprise beyond this guy.

Lucano on January 13, 2012 at 2:42 PM

Neither would I, but then again, the question isn’t will he or won’t he, it’s what kind of surprise will it be?

PatriotGal2257 on January 13, 2012 at 5:40 PM

The really scary person is Valerie Jarrett. The Chicago gang made sure their front man was a pleasant, smart guy who would be happy with the trappings of office and not pay much attention to what Valerie was doing to install committed leftists in all the agencies and begin implementing a far-left policy agenda, more or less the Cloward-Piven plan.

Too many people are completely unaware of this sinister woman’s power in the White House, I believe. Seems like she is calling all the shots.

Right Mover on January 13, 2012 at 3:57 PM

Don’t know how many of you have read The Ulsterman Report. Some of it can sound a bit out there conspiratorial at times, but on the other hand, there has been a lot of good info

PatriotGal2257 on January 13, 2012 at 5:45 PM

… about Valerie Jarrett and her influence, both past and present.

My mistake for hitting “submit” before “preview.” Sorry.

PatriotGal2257 on January 13, 2012 at 5:47 PM

Obama was raised by a woman who if she were living today would not even be an Occupy Wall Street type. Too weak tea for her. She was so anti-American in her worldview that she was taking Russian and fathered a baby by a Kenyan exchange student at 19. She then married ANOTHER foreign national and went to live OUTSIDE the US including the formative years of Barack. What mother is so cold in her feelings to the US that she won’t even live in the fairly foreign place of Hawaii for her child but instead plays with Indonesian Blacksmithing? Obama WAS indoctrinated with a completely false image of America and became President to TRANSFORM us away from what he understood as a cruel and false system (see Jeremiah Wright). Now that he can see we don’t consider it a favor he will become much less motivated AND he will be much more direct in what he really sees this country as.

Conan on January 13, 2012 at 7:40 PM

Willard will save us.

wraithby on January 13, 2012 at 11:49 PM

I was wondering where the Libs with the “Hurr hurr U R so stoopid” talking points came from, and then I remembered we had a recent open registration for commenters. Folks who have been here longer than I have (since 2007), can you tell me how long it takes for these trolls to lose interest and head back to DKos?

Meantime, I’ve always come down on the side of Obama being sincerely well-intentioned…. FOR PEOPLE WHOM HE THINKS ARE LIKE HIM. If he consciously or subconsciously considers you to be one of the “Others,” then he does not mean you well: he thinks of you as the enemy. This is how he manages to appear alternately caring and malicious: he thinks he’s helping or showing solidarity with one group by punishing the other. I can think of nothing that more disqualifies him for the presidency than the fact that he only wants to be president of SOME citizens, not all of us. It’s a weird feeling to be hated by your leader.

Animator Girl on January 14, 2012 at 2:38 PM