Obama: Not Honest, Not Smart

graphic via iknowjack.com

Yesterday, Charles Fried wrote a risible and scoff-worthy piece at The Daily Beast entitled:  Obama Is Too Good For Us. I excerpted this already, yesterday, but it bears repeating:

Barack Obama is not a skillful strategist like Bill Clinton. He is not a gifted rhetorician like Ronald Reagan. Nor is he a bold and inspiring leader like Abraham Lincoln. And he can’t seem to shake himself loose from the strings that attach him to the trial lawyers, to big labor, and, surprisingly, to the standard banker-economists who got us into the mess we are in now. But he is an honest man. He is intelligent, analytical, and knowledgeable. And he tries hard to think through the dilemmas which confront us and to tell us clearly and straightforwardly what he wants to do and why he wants to do it.

Now…I have no idea who this Charles Fried is…I can’t tell you if he’s just a fellow left-wing “intellectual” who assumes these things about Obama, because that’s how he sees himself, or if he was engaging in some kind of Alinsky Jedi-Mind trick where he writes flattering and soothing things about the master to keep the scales from falling from the drones’ eyes.   It’s always one of the two – they’re either mindless drones who believe what they want to believe – or they’re true believers in on the ruse. You never know with these people.

Fried’s absurd contention that Obama is “an honest man” disqualified the entire piece from taking up any more of our time. The man is many things, but “honest” is decidedly not one of them. In my post, yesterday, I  linked to my magnum opus from 2008 where I tabulated Obama’s lies, exaggerations, and flip-flops for several months. I also linked to a website that continues to tabulate the lies to this day. We are not talking about differences in opinion, here, but  provable lies. It should be beyond obvious by now to even the most casual observers that, as Jim Geraghty famously noted back in  2008,  all Obama statements come with expiration dates.

Anyone who doesn’t notice this, by now, obvious fact, has to be a mindless drone.  Those who notice, and look the other way, because they’re down with the program, is what we call “a fellow traveler”, and there are many in this category in the MSM. That’s why  so many damaging stories about Obama don’t get explored by said media. We saw this throughout the 2008 election season, and ever since. They won’t report on a damaging story until it’s reached critical mass in alternative media. See ACORN for just one example.

They have had Obama’s back on his stupid birth certificate, his fake Social Security number, all the scandals coming out of his various departments, particularly his thoroughly corrupt DOJ including but not limited to Operation Fast and Furious. They take Obama’s side on the economy, even though it’s he, and his fellow partners in crime in Congress who have brought us to the precarious place we are. Obama’s only half way done, he tells his minions at fundraisers. Half way done with what? Completely destroying the US economy?

The MSM has essentially become an American version of Pravda.

They ask us to believe, despite mounting evidence to the contrary, that Obama is “intelligent, analytical, and knowledgeable”.

Today in his excellent WSJ piece, Is Obama Smart?, Bret Stephens writes:

I don’t buy it. I just think the president isn’t very bright.

Socrates taught that wisdom begins in the recognition of how little we know. Mr. Obama is perpetually intent on telling us how much he knows. Aristotle wrote that the type of intelligence most needed in politics is prudence, which in turn requires experience. Mr. Obama came to office with no experience. Plutarch warned that flattery “makes itself an obstacle and pestilence to great houses and great affairs.” Today’s White House, more so than any in memory, is stuffed with flatterers.

Much is made of the president’s rhetorical gifts. This is the sort of thing that can be credited only by people who think that a command of English syntax is a mark of great intellectual distinction. Can anyone recall a memorable phrase from one of Mr. Obama’s big speeches that didn’t amount to cliché? As for the small speeches, such as the one we were kept waiting 50 minutes for yesterday, we get Triple-A bromides about America remaining a “Triple-A country.” Which, when it comes to long-term sovereign debt, is precisely what we no longer are under Mr. Obama.

Then there is Mr. Obama as political tactician. He makes predictions that prove false. He makes promises he cannot honor. He raises expectations he cannot meet. He reneges on commitments made in private. He surrenders positions staked in public. He is absent from issues in which he has a duty to be involved. He is overbearing when he ought to be absent.Then there’s his habit of never trimming his sails, much less tacking to the prevailing wind. When Bill Clinton got hammered on health care, he reverted to centrist course and passed welfare reform. When it looked like the Iraq war was going to be lost, George Bush fired Don Rumsfeld and ordered the surge.

Mr. Obama, by contrast, appears to consider himself immune from error. Perhaps this explains why he has now doubled down on Heckuva Job Geithner. It also explains his insulting and politically inept habit of suggesting—whether the issue is health care, or Arab-Israeli peace, or change we can believe in at some point in God’s good time—that the fault always lies in the failure of his audiences to listen attentively. It doesn’t. In politics, a failure of communication is always the fault of the communicator.

And so on. Be sure to read the whole thing. Thus far the piece has garnered 1,370 comments, been “liked” 6,708 times on FB. I daresay Mr.  Stephens has struck a chord.

One comment worth reprinting:

 I never got the case that he’s so smart–he never did anything to show it, certainly. Oh, he’s not stupid, but I read a few years ago that someone estimated (based on textual analyses of writings and speeches where we know the president was the primary author) that the average Presidential IQ has been in the 120 range–a bit more than one standard deviation above the mean, about the 70th percentile. That sounds about right for Obama.

But I think that beyond intelligence there is another matter–his appalling ignorance. This is a guy who doesn’t know the difference between liability and collision/comprehensive auto insurance, and no one on his staff does either, as proved during the ObamaCare discussions. He has not a clue about history, or any aspect of science and scientific method. His knowledge of business or economics is a trivialized Keynesianism that only knows how to spend govt money. He does not seem to be well-read, he certainly never tries to use allusion. His vocal style is a turgid imitation of the old Southern Baptist preacher style, but he uses pauses very woodenly and his demeanor, body language, intonations and content are incongruent with each other, projecting weakness, condescension and insincerity, as we saw (not for the first time) in yesterday’s speech. He is highly competitive and a dangerous enemy because he is almost totally amoral and without scruple. He has no problem lying, even to his friends and supporters, to advance his personal interests. He is massively insecure and thin-skinned, esp for a politician.

Thing is, this was all blatantly obvious in 2008, but he won rather decisively. THAT is worth trying to understand.

Massive funds+ in the tank media+complete absence of scruples = electoral success!


I should have added “mass-amnesia” to that equation. How else can you explain how American  opinions can be so easily manipulated by the liberal narrative?

Thomas Sowell sounding downtrodden today, after initially supporting the debt ceiling deal:

Why was there a financial crisis in the first place? Because of runaway spending that sent the national debt up against the legal limit. But when all the big spending bills were being rushed through Congress, the Democrats had such an overwhelming majority in both houses of Congress that nothing the Republicans could do made the slightest difference.

Yet polls show that many people today are blaming the Republicans for the country’s financial problems. But, by the time Republicans gained control of the House of Representatives, and thus became involved in negotiations over raising the national debt ceiling, the spending which caused that crisis in the first place had already been done — and done by Democrats.

Had the Republicans gone along with President Obama’s original request for a “clean” bill — one simply raising the debt ceiling without any provisions about controlling federal spending — would that have spared the country the embarrassment of having its government bonds downgraded by Standard & Poor’s credit-rating agency?

To believe that would be to believe that it was the debt ceiling, rather than the runaway spending, that made Standard & Poor’s think that we were no longer as good a credit risk for buyers of U.S. government bonds. In other words, to believe that is to believe that a Congressional blank check for continued record spending would have made Standard & Poor’s think that we were a better credit risk.

How on earth do you forget the massive spending spree Dem Socialists have been on since Obama was elected, and the fact that the tea party spontaneously arose from nowhere to fight the insanity?