Posted on 05/28/2011 10:50:17 AM PDT by James C. Bennett
Getting inside the mind of Barack Obama has been a challenge for journalists since the 2008 presidential campaign. But during the last two and a half years, as the public has gotten more familiar with the president, the picture is becoming a bit clearer.
On Thursday’s syndicated “Hugh Hewitt” radio show, columnist and National Review Online contributor Mark Steyn offered some thoughts. After host Hugh Hewitt referenced a Wednesday interview with Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Inhofe, in which he wondered aloud about what motivated Obama to make grand policy gestures, Steyn suggested that perhaps this was the first time Obama stayed in a job long enough to see his actions effect change.
“I think that is interesting,” Steyn said. “I mean, I think that if you look at Obama, he was wafted upwards basically through Columbia, Harvard Law, the Harvard Law Journal, community organizing, the Illinois legislature, the United States Senate – without ever lingering in those jobs long enough to have to do anything. He basically was someone who was kind of just wafted upwards through the system until he became the beneficiary of the ultimate waft into the Oval Office. And for the first time – for the first time in his life the words he said, and the actions he takes have consequences – for the first time ever. This is a guy who, you know as far as I know, has never had a paper route. This is the first time what he does has consequences and so the senator’s words are interesting.”
Steyn wondered if Obama realized what he was saying last week when he suggested a return to 1967 borders for Israel.
“And the fascinating thing about this 1967 borders stuff is whether he intended it as a conscious shift in U.S. policy that would allow the Israeli government or whether it – with the casual arrogance of his half-wit 12-year-old speechwriter, it just somehow got in there and he finds himself up there saying it,” Steyn said. “That’s what I don’t understand.”
LISTEN TO AUDIO:
However with that in mind, Steyn suggested there were historical and psychological reasons behind the president’s attitude toward long-time U.S. allies, specifically the United Kingdom, India and Israel.
“As we were talking last week, you know I think he has a — I think it’s hard to avoid the growing feeling that he is a contempt for long-time American allies,” he said. “I think he has in that sense a contempt for the United Kingdom and India. I hear from Indian politicians all the time and Indian diplomats who are amazed at his off-handedness toward India. And I think Israel falls into that category too. There are deep-seated historical reasons for this. I think there are perhaps some peculiar psychological ones in the back of his mind too. But I think he thought he was getting in a cheap shot at Israel and as usual, as with all this great, you know – the greatest speaker of all time, after he has given his great speech, the great orator then has to go out and give these mopping-up speeches every 48 hours to try to correct the damage he’s done.”
Mark needs to get a copy of Dinesh D'Souza's book- "The Roots of Obama's Rage". D'Souza is a half black Indian himself and offers a completely reasonable and believeable explanation.
...if you look at Obama, he was wafted upwards basically through Columbia, Harvard Law, the Harvard Law Journal, community organizing, the Illinois legislature, the United States Senate -- without ever lingering in those jobs long enough to have to do anything. He basically was someone who was kind of just wafted upwards through the system until he became the beneficiary of the ultimate waft into the Oval Office. And for the first time -- for the first time in his life the words he said, and the actions he takes have consequences -- for the first time ever. This is a guy who, you know as far as I know, has never had a paper route.
No but I saw Drysdale bean him.
Thursday, May 26, 2011
HH: Okay, I’ve got to play for you Joe Biden, because he was in your state last night, and he was talking to New Hampshire Democrats. And it’s just sort of a carnival every day with these people. On the eve of the D-Day celebrations, and Memorial Day weekend, here is Vice President Biden talking about the decision to kill bin Laden.
JB: …was that President Obama leads from behind, President Obama is not decisive, President Obama is not bold. Well, I sat there for four months, along with him, actually, that’s not true, with three other people, watching him meticulously plan the boldest, the boldest decision, the boldest undertaking any president has undertaken on a single event in modern history.
HH: So Mark Steyn…
MS: (laughing)
HH: (laughing)
MS: By the way, Hugh, he’s wrong on that.
HH: (laughing)
MS: I think the boldest undertaking that’s ever been undertaken in the history of human undertakings was when Barack Obama decided to make Joe Biden his running mate.
HH: There you go.
MS: Don’t tell me that’s not bold.
HH: That’s very bold. It sounded like a Monty Python routine, the Inquisition. One guy, no, there are three guys in the room.
The full transcript of my conversation with Mark, including his assessment of Joe Biden’s latest pratfall and the president’s toast to the Queen, is here.
http://www.hughhewitt.com/transcripts.aspx?id=2b25444f-4d19-44ca-b249-0b99456a2ec0
FAIL
The "journalists" who populate America's Democrat newsrooms simply scanned 'Dreams of my Father', shrugged, and said, "Okay then... There's nothing more we need to know."
Thanks for posting the link. Good interview.
Gotta love Netanyahu, too.
I was reading about African-Americans who graduated from Ivy League colleges in the '60s and '70s, the first large intakes involving what would later come to be known as affirmative action. The expectation was that they'd be grateful for the opportunity. In fact there was much anger. They'd become very resentful and embittered.
Obama wasn't a part of that generation, but the attitude was very much in the air among his older African-American contemporaries. There's a sense of entitlement that takes life's obstacles as personal affronts or insults. One could speculate about the reasons, but at this point it's not something one can be surprised about.
“And the fascinating thing about this 1967 borders stuff is whether he intended it as a conscious shift in U.S. policy that would allow the Israeli government or whether it – with the casual arrogance of his half-wit 12-year-old speechwriter, it just somehow got in there and he finds himself up there saying it,” Steyn said. “That’s what I don’t understand.”
I suspect he just read what was on the teleprompter. You can psychoanalyze it as an indication of a mental conflict or ambivalence -- wanting to lean in both directions at once -- but it's doubtful that it was intended as a major policy departure.
“As we were talking last week, you know I think he has a — I think it’s hard to avoid the growing feeling that he is a contempt for long-time American allies,” he said. “I think he has in that sense a contempt for the United Kingdom and India. I hear from Indian politicians all the time and Indian diplomats who are amazed at his off-handedness toward India. And I think Israel falls into that category too. There are deep-seated historical reasons for this. I think there are perhaps some peculiar psychological ones in the back of his mind too.
More than France, or Germany, or Austria? If the "anti-colonial" idea so many people attribute to Obama has any relevance it's here. It shows up in the crappy present he got Britain's last PM, rather than in his policies at home: take someone of Obama's exact background minus the Kenyan dad, and he'd pursue Obama's whole domestic agenda, so it's not anti-colonialism that fuels his health care or energy or stimulus policy.
Arguably some remnant of his father's anger is behind his attitude in foreign affairs. But what about our old friend, narcissism? Couldn't it just be that Britain or India or Austria really doesn't make much of an impression on him?
Politicians can be funny in that way. They can be extremely ingratiating with people they need something from. But if you don't have anything to offer them, you're off the radar screen.
"Fsr above?"
The understatement of the century. Even as Pope he wouldn't be in a position to do greater permanent damage. The ultimate Affirmative Action disaster.
Steyn chose the perfect words to describe this ignorant fraud :
"...with the casual arrogance of a half-wit 12-year-old..."
Blaming the speechwriter sumply undescores the enormity of Obama's ignorance.
He is medicated to the gills 24/7.
Every time I see his vacant fish-eye stare I am instantly reminded of Howard Hughes and Elvis Presley in their final days.
Hey, a four-year orgy of rap, spending, vacations and hobnobbing with royalty for a bro on whitey's dime...
What's not to like?
It wouldn't DARE rain on Obama. < /sarc>
So what is D'Souza's explanation? Don't leave us hanging, man!
I would guess Obama is driven by some very profound psychological issues, a sponge-like absorbtion of leftist principles, combined with a total lack of experience in the real world. In short, he’s exactly the kind of person who should never hold elective office or any other position of power.
“He is medicated to the gills 24/7.”
I suspect he keeps a good stash on Air Force One, as it cannot be searched by our Drug Enforcement Agency. Also, I suspect he has a good stash in with his golfing equipment - that’s why he is on the golf course so often.
Obama undertook something more bold, more daring, than the D-Day invasion, the standoff against the Soviet Union over missiles in Cuba, confronting the Soviets to tear down the Berlin Wall, or halting all air traffic in the US and declaring War on Terror after 9/11? What could that undertaking have been? I've seen nothing in this man's actions that would compare to any of these.
hahaha
and way above his pay grade
Maybe he doesn't have a choice. His handlers tell him what to do. His handlers think they have no one else to run and that Zero is their best bet. They may decide they have a better chance with someone else and replace him as Soros implied recently.
Sandy Koufax pitching. Yogi Berra caching. The two work together very well. Before he become a philosopher, Yogi was the best catcher I have ever seen. He could hit, throw, and even run decently, while handling pitchers very. very well.
Your are kidding! He LOVES the perks of office, and the press loves him. So he seldom gets any negative publicity. He could conduct a voodoo sacrifice in the East Room and the Media would excuse it.
I don’t care much for Dinesh D’Souza, but his analysis of Obama’s anti-colonialism is as good as explanation for Zeros’ foreign policy as you’re going to get anywhere.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.