Dem Congressman Unloads On Obama: ‘Arrogant “I’m right, you’re wrong” demeanor alienated many potential allies’

Wow. At The Hill’s Congress Blog, “Where congressmen come to blog”, Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D-Calif.) decided to take a break from the protracted payroll tax debate on the Hill, and absolutely roast Obama in an oped. Here are a couple of excerpts:


Early in his administration, President/Professor Obama repeatedly referred to “teaching moments.” He would admonish staff, members of Congress and the public, in speeches and in private, about what they could learn from him. Rather than the ideological or corrupt “I’m above the law” attitudes of some past administrations, President Obama projected an arrogant “I’m right, you’re wrong” demeanor that alienated many potential allies. Furthermore, the president concentrated power within the White House, leaving Cabinet members with no other option but to dutifully carry out policies with which they had limited input in crafting and might very well disagree. From my experience, this was especially true in the environmental, resources, housing and employment areas. Not by coincidence, these areas have also been responsible for much of the president’s harshest critiques.


One former administration official told me directly that the people in the White House “NEVER TALK TO REAL PEOPLE.” Another former Obama staffer confided to me that it was clear to him that the president didn’t mind giving speeches (lectures), but really avoided personal contact with members of Congress and folks outside the Beltway. “He doesn’t seem to derive energy from spending time with regular people the way Clinton did. He rallies to give speeches for the big crowds, but avoids individual contact,” the former staffer recalled. This “arms-length” attitude extends to top decision-makers in the president’s administration. A senior housing official recently told me that, despite the fact that he was responsible for crafting policies to stem the foreclosure crisis, he had personally never met with a homeowner who had been foreclosed on.

The president’s disinterest in input from those outside his inner circle is costing him many wasted opportunities. Recently, a senator told me Obama went to his/her state, but issued an invitation for the senator to attend the event only the day before. “I represent a must-win state and lead the president in approval ratings by nearly 20 points. He was totally off-message for what my people wanted to hear. Doesn’t the White House get it? I don’t need him, he needs ME!”

Read the whole thing. He’s a Dem-Soc, so he still prefers Obama over a Republican, but it’s obvious, that even people in Obama’s  own camp are tired of being lectured to.

Another good piece about Ο making the rounds by The New American: College Mate: Obama Was an “Ardent” “Marxist-Leninist”:

I’ve written about Dr. John Drew’s interactions with Obama in college, here before, but Selwyn Duke adds his fresh perspective to the story:

We have in the President a man who:

1. Had communist Frank Marshall Davis as childhood mentor.

2. Was a flat-out Marxist-Leninist in college.

3. Has no known history of renouncing these views.

4. Later in life built an alliance with a “small c” communist and other assorted radicals.

5. Upon achieving high office, appointed avowed communists to his administration.

Given this profile, what is the radical position? That the man is a communist or at least a communist sympathizer? Or that he is just your everyday moderate politician?

Perhaps we don’t have proof beyond a reasonable doubt that would stand up in a criminal proceeding for either of the above propositions. But asking for it is unreasonable and irresponsible. In the court of public opinion, there must be no higher burden than in a civil court: a preponderance of the evidence. And a preponderance of it in the President’s case points to a simple conclusion: Barack Obama is likely a communist or communist sympathizer.

Now, there are many reasons why people would deny what is plain about Obama. The most obvious is partisan loyalty, but there is another factor: The “it”-couldn’t-happen-here mentality.

We see this when people are shocked to learn that a neighbor is a serial killer or child molester and say that “he seemed so normal” or when there is a heinous crime in a neighborhood and residents just can’t believe that “it” could happen in their little Mayberry. In the example relevant here, an American President could never be a communist sympathizer. Sure, you read in history books about such leaders attaining power in places such as Cambodia, Russia, and North Korea. But the US of A? “It” is something that happens to the other guy’s nation.

Of course, this isn’t reality. Say what we will about American “exceptionalism,” the fact is that we receive no special dispensation from the laws governing man. There is no “it” that can’t happen here. And while we don’t vote for our next-door neighbor, we do choose our President. We’d be wise to make sure that, some years hence, we’re not witnessing disaster with our mouths agape and left saying, “But he seemed so normal.”


An example of that famous Obama arrogance on display as noted by Keith Koffler at White House Dossier: Obama 50 Minutes Late for Press Conference

Apparently he is habitually late to pressers and at least in this case – he didn’t bother to apologize to reporters.

Linked by Michelle Malkin and Doug Ross , thanks!

Hat tip: Gateway Pundit


3 thoughts on “Dem Congressman Unloads On Obama: ‘Arrogant “I’m right, you’re wrong” demeanor alienated many potential allies’

  1. Obama was a part-time lecturer to launder money from Soros. Obama was never ever a college professor. I want to see Obama’s transcripts and his legal articles he wrote as President of the Student Bar Assoc.

    Obama is a stupid moron. Obama is an American Idol image made by lamestream media.


  2. Like my dear ol’ daddy used to say, “No one ever learned anything flapping his jaws.”

    A very likely explanation for our current Bozo-in-Chief because he’s always flapping his jaws, and never, ever listening. Unless his guest happens to be an imam.


  3. Reading this article was sort of a breakthrough for me. It makes sense to me that Obama does not want to deal with people one on one – in contrast to Clinton – because he really isn’t intellectually up to the challenge of one on one debate. Obama has always been intellectually lazy and this would naturally come out in his negotiations with other politicians in Washington, DC. Also, I think Obama is embarrassed at his lapses and looking inadequate in front of the people he is leading. Clinton, on the other hand, was more comfortable mixing things up with people because he was usually the smartest most informed guy in the room. Already, I think anyone who had read Burton Folsom’s New Deal or Raw Deal would tear Obama apart on the topic of recent economic history and the record of government intervention through stimulus packages.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s