The Fabulous Thunderbirds, one of my favorite contemporary blues groups, made the song my blog title rips off famous back in the 90's. I entitle my post with it today because of the schizophrenic messages coming from conservative and Villager voices over the 10-months-in-office President Obama.
Here's what I mean.
If you click here, and review the first few pages of Google responses to the question, "is Obama tough enough?", you'll find that conservatives and Villagers (and a few Democrats), have been fixated of late with the question of whether President Obama is tough enough as President.
One example from those Google search results……
"…a narrative is emerging among some columnists, pundits, and academics across the political spectrum that Obama's low-key, cool, cerebral style, while reassuring on many levels, lacks the punch that is sometimes needed to advance an agenda in Washington, and in a perilous world."
Keeping those Google examples in mind, now look at what Politico Villagers Jim Vandehei and Mike Allen are saying today about President Obama….
President Obama is working systematically to marginalize the most powerful forces behind the Republican Party, setting loose top White House officials to undermine conservatives in the media, business and lobbying worlds.
With a series of private meetings and public taunts, the White House has targeted the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the biggest-spending pro-business lobbying group in the country; Rush Limbaugh, the country’s most-listened-to conservative commentator; and now, with a new volley of combative rhetoric in recent days, the insurance industry, Wall Street executives and Fox News.
Feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken, but it sure sounds like Vandehei and Allen are saying that President Obama is acting TOO TOUGH.
According to Politico, Obama's White House is working hard to "marginalize" the very folks most responsible for the American disasters of the last decade, Republicans, huge powerful monied interests and the media propagandists who support both. According to the Villager Politico co-founder Vandehei, Obama's toughness in dealing with his political opponents is just so over the top….
"The White House approach could backfire if Obama looks too political or petty,……. Key commentators have argued that it is foolish of the White House to spend so much time slamming one network simply because it dislikes much of its programming."
So which is it schizoids? Is Obama too tough or not tough enough? Please, make up your minds, because the dissonance is starting to irritate me.
Tough talk is, you know, one thing, as we learned with the "bring 'em on" and "dead or alive" stupidities of the former "tough guy", George W. Bush. But let's see if the complaint that…Obama-is-too-tough-because-he's-working-hard-to-marginalize-Villagers-and-Republicans….is working….
So is the strategy working? White House officials point to a new ABC News/Washington Post poll to argue the answer is emphatically yes. Only 20 percent of those surveyed identified themselves as Republicans, the lowest in 26 years of asking the question.
Amazingly though, the Politico Villager writers then say this….
It’s impossible to credit the Obama White House for these numbers, however. Republicans can claim the bulk of the responsibility after a decade of scandals, unpopular wars, unprecedented spending and a broad loss of public trust.
See? Obama is behaving in a too tough manner regarding his political opponents, but Obama is not responsible for the historic lows in Republican approval and identification numbers. What Politico doesn't mention is the fact that those numbers have continued to go down SINCE Obama was elected. Americans are responding not so much to what Bush and his Boyz did from 2001-2009, that response came last November. Americans are responding now to how Republicans and conservatives are acting with a Democrat in the White House.
A staggering 83 percent of all independents surveyed said they don’t trust Republicans to make the right decisions.
Both political parties say that election outcomes are determined not by the right or left side voters, but by those allegedly in the "middle', independents. 83% of those "middle" folks do not trust Republicans to make the right decisions. That is headline material.
Is Obama just being too tough on his lying and smear-minded opponents? Is that it?
Or is toughness, genuine toughness…especially now….more than just childish neo-con slogan-threats by incompetent and ignorant conservative posers?
For 8 months, Obama gave Republicans, conservatives and right wing media screechers every opportunity to join him in moving the nation forward. Americans elected Obama with a mandate, and the new president offered nothing but an extended hand to his political opponents after he was elected. Obama took criticism for trying to appeal to Republicans in the stimulus debate. The same has been true of Obama's approach to health care reform.
President Obama could not have bent over any further backwards to accomodate his opposition. What did he get in return? Kicked in the teeth. But Obama knew that his unhinged opposition would reveal itself in all it's ugliness…..he has an uncanny knack of seeing the bigger picture…..and he strategized accordingly.
Former Bush clone, Dana Perino, perfectly captures the schitzoid problem within conservative and Republican circles….
“They won — why don’t they act like it?” said Dana Perino, former White House press secretary to Bush. “The more they fight, the more defensive they look. It’s only been 10 months, and they’re burning bridges in a lot of different places.”
Huh? I thought when you were fighting, you were on the offensive, not the defensive.
Obama is fighting and winning, and he's doing it in a very intelligent manner. His opponents are self-marginalizing with their schitzoid and unhinged opposition proving that…
Obama is tough enough.
{ 27 comments… read them below or add one }
Reverand asks whether Obama is "too tough, or not tough enough". The answer, of course, is "yes".
The criticism that he is not tough enough is primarily directed towards his foreign policies. Witness his dithering over Afghanistan. First it is the necessary war, then it s not, maybe. Does he support his handpicked general's request for more troops, or not? What is his plan? His vacillation is not a profile in courage.
Obama increasingly shrinks from projecting confidence and power in foreign affairs. He appears to go out of his way to snub allies and to curry favor with adversaries. It sometimes appears that Obama is embarrassed to be the President of the sole remaining superpower. At its most benign, this manifests itself with Obama apologizing for the perceived sins of past administrations. At its worst, it appears as an attempt to weaken the stature and power of the US.
But the Reverand is correct that Obama is "tough enough" in at least one area: the protection of his image as the Messiah, the Chosen One. Political opponents are not just wrong, but evil. If a certain news organization has the temerity to criticize him, he declares war on it and says that it is not really a news organization. If Talk Radio is not friendly enough, he intimates that the "Fairness Doctrine" may reappear, perhaps in the guise of "local content" regulations.
Indeed, Obama is so tough that not even his friends and allies are safe. Remember Van Jones? Even though Obama undoubtedly supported him, his beliefs and his policies, he was let go in the name of political expediency. Likewise the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. I am sure the Clintons have an opinion on how tough he can be.
In short, Obama presents a dangerous combination of weakness and strength. He projects indecisiveness and hesitation with foreign enemies but ruthlessness towards domestic opponents and those who oppose his policies. He combines self-pity and arrogance. He downsizes the nation to lengthen his shadow.
He throws like a girl, that's for sure.
I not concerned with whether Obama is tough enough. When you're the President of the United States, it's easy to act tough. What I'm concerned about is whether Obama is right or wrong. On demonizing and excluding Fox News, Obama is wrong. On the economy, Obama is wrong. On Afghanistan, we shall see. On foreign policy in general, Obama has gotten some wrong and some right. I believe in the diplomacy that Obama is engaging in, but he blew the Honduras coup, and he made a rookie mistake with Russia by giving away missile defense with nothing tangible in return.
Quid displays just a hint of that schizophrenia I was talking about,….no offense Quid….it's not personal….
"Political opponents are not just wrong, but evil. If a certain news organization has the temerity to criticize him, he declares war on it and says that it is not really a news organization."
I've never heard Obama call his opponents "evil." Never have. And, is it actually "declaring war" to state the obvious? Saying Fox is not a news organization is like saying that the sun doesn't rise in the west. If I say the sun doesn't rise in the west, is that, like, declaring war on the east?
King says this…"On demonizing and excluding Fox News, Obama is wrong."
"demonizing"? Really? Saying that Fox is not a news organization is "demonizing" Fox? Demonizing Fox is what I do…..but Obama? Hardly.
Fox set a record this year when it refused to cover Obama's Joint Session of Congress speech. So who "excluded" whom? Axelrod and Jarrett have said the White House will continue to deal with Fox, go on their shows, etc., but they also are making clear what everyone who is not a wingnut already knows….Fox is not a news organization. Fox exists as a mouthpiece of the Republican Party. That has been true for a number of years.
P.S. Obama is right on Honduras, unless military coups to settle disputes is your version of what's right. On the economy…..I know you would have America looking like California does right now, if you were in charge……cutting, cutting cutting instead of raising taxes on the wealthy and spending to replace fallen demand, but I'm not sure Californians, the non-rich ones, are calling Arnold's and your way, the "right" way.
larry…and he shoots hoops like a pro.
There was no coup, Reverend. That's The Machine talking.
He plays basketball like he hasn't been guarded in about ten years, Reverend. He probably tries to call a foul every time he misses. Hoops just make him look like the fraud he is in other areas.
Whatever, larry. However, this is especially wingnutty…."Hoops just make him look like the fraud he is in other areas." I mean, huh?
On the coup…..so the entire world is wrong…and a handful of Obama-hating Republicans are right? I suppose that's possible in some faux-reality kind of way….but I'm thinking…..it's not likely.
Other than picking at one nit (I've never heard Obama call his opponents "evil"), the Revererand does not really dispute my thesis that Obama projects weakness abroad to our adversaries and strength at home toewards his political opponents. Indeed, the Reverand parrots the White House line. That Fox News is not a news organization is as indisputable as the physical laws of planetary motion.
This is not surprising, since it was implicit in Reverand's origainal post. Most of the Reverand's examples of Obama's muscle are his treatment of domestic political foes. By itself, this Nixonian tendency represents only a temporary problem. It is his refusal to project strength abroad which is more alarming. Also alarming is that the Reverand deems this a good thing.
It would only be alarming to bellicose neo-conservatives bent on controlling, and if need be, torturing, the rest of the world…at least, it seems to me.
George and Dick projected "strength" abroad by making millions of the world's population hate us. Which, in turn and in fact, was a projection of weakness resulting in America being less safe. The fewer people who hate you and want to harm you, the more secure you are. It is not a sign of strength to make others hate you. That's a coward's methodology.
Quid, and those who are likeminded, actually believe that acting like Dick Cheney is a projection of strength. People have every right to think and advocate for that position, but I'm thinking the evidence, the facts do not support that thinking.
Obama treats other countries with dignity and respect, willing to acknowledge American mistakes while also challenging the rest of the world to follow America's form of freedom and democracy…..that is projecting strength.
Domestically…..without a doubt, conservatives, Republicans and FOX have been the active enemies of the people, as Grayson said. The will of the people was made known last November. From that point onward, Republicans, conservatives and FOX have been warring against the will of the people: save the economy, reform health care, end the occupations, deal with energy and climate change, end torture, regulate the banksters, etc….
At the very least, I would expect a strong president to point out the obvious complicity of FOX in promoting the enemies of the will of the people.
To not point it out would be a sign that he doesn't care about the will of the people, either.
FOX, because FOX will do anything for profits, anything,….has become an active whore for the anti-Obama, anti-will-of-the-people enemy….promoting anti-Obama TeaBagger gatherings and spreading more lies than a street crack-whore, as I'm sure they are doing as I type this.
FOX is so embarassingly propagandistic…something needed to be said. Good on Obama for telling it like it is. In the 90's, the same Village became obsessed with total bullsh*t stuff about Clinton, then it was promoted privately by Schaife and a few others. Now it's FOX news trying to bait the other media into running their bogus stories, their manufactured horsesh*t…..the goal is the same, debilitate a Democratic president anyway you can. The ends justify the means.
We largely agree on the facts, Reverand. Obama, to use your words, treats other countries, including those Iran and Venezuela with "dignity and respect". While "Republicans, Conservatives and FOX" are treated with contempt.
We disagree on whether this is the correct approach. Attacking fellow Americans and coddling foreign enemies is both foolish and dangerous. It cheapens the office and weakens the country. And it is so unecessary.
May God have mercy on us.
That's a bit melo-dramatic, in my opinion. If "fellow Americans" are seeking to bring about the president's demise through widespread and orchestrated propagandizing and lying, are they really fellow Americans? Secondly, there simply is no evidence to support the statement that Obama is "coddling enemies".
Furthermore, I didn't hear the White House treating FOX with "contempt"….I heard the White House state the obvious…..that FOX wasn't a news organization but rather an opinion media outlet, much like AM radio. Obama didn't blackball anyone or threaten anyone, and he said they would continue to talk with FOX, so he's not boycotting them.
Throughout his presidency, Obama will be required to give public talks every 6 weeks or so to correct the propaganda and disinformation spread by FOX and other likeminded propagandists during the interim between Obama's talks. That's the new paradigm. FOX lies, gets others to spread the "controversy" over the lie, and then Obama has to set the record straight. It's tedious and bothersome and counter-productive…..and that's why Obama finally called FOX out.
So many errors, Rev. It's hard to know where to start.
1) Fox News IS a news organization. That point is so obvious it isn't even worth discussing.
2) Fox News DID air that Obama speech, and broadcasts Obama's appearances daily.
3) Trying to exclude Fox News from media events and not making administration officials available to Fox News IS "declaring war" on Fox, no matter what rhetoric the White House puts out. Again, so obvious it's not even worth discussing.
4) Obama and the UN were wrong on Honduras. The alleged "coup" was mandated by Honduras' Constitution.
5) America IS California. Massive government spending, massive debt, on the path to bankruptcy and collapse. Your answer is MORE MORE MORE. Sheer insanity. My answer is the only way to avoid that collapse. I'll stick with my answer.
6) I could care less about this, but didn't Obama get cut from his college basketball team ? I think that's puts him substantially below the pro level. Maybe we can have The Messiah go one-on-one with Lebron to settle the matter.
Rev says, ""fellow Americans" are seeking to bring about the president's demise through widespread and orchestrated propagandizing and lying"
That's your opinion. My opinion is that MSNBC lies constantly, and the Obama admin engages in propaganda and distortions all the time.
What you are really complaining about is that there is an opposition to Obama at all. That's the same thing Obama is complaining about. All I can say is, TOO BAD. Get used to it. This is America, not China. If you're an American, you should be defending Fox News and talk radio's right to speak, and vilifying the Obama admin for attempting to exclude a viewpoint they don't like.
King…I am defending FOX's right to speak. By all means, FOX, continue speaking.
At the same time, I am defending Obama's White House for correctly saying that what FOX is doing when it speaks is not news but biased opinionating and propagandizing. FOX is an anti-Obama network.
Obama is not excluding a viewpoint they don't like, they are saying that that viewpoint is a biased Republican viewpoint meant to diminish a Democratic administration.
Quid….1) It is only obvious to those who are biased towards Republicans. To the 57% who support Obama, FOX is not a news organization.
2)The FOX "public" network did NOT cover Obama's Joint Session speech. Only the cable arm covered it. First time in history.
3)If the White House excludes, say, Michael Savage, are they "declaring war" on Michael Savage….or simply recognizing that Savage is not a news guy?
4)Doesn't it seem odd that no other country agrees with your stated opinion on Honduras?
5) California's problem is complex…but there's absolutely no question that more revenue is needed….and conservatives have handcuffed California's legislature from raising taxes….which needs to be part of the solution.
6)I, too, could care less about Obama and basketball. larry was impugning Obama for his baseball throwing skills…..but reasonable people realize that talented athletes are not experts in every sport.
King,
Remember when dissent was "the highest form of patriotism"? Now those who oppose the President's policies are, according to Reverand, seeking "the demise" of the President. But, at least the Reverand never calls them "evil".
In order for dissent to be, you know, dissent….it must be based on some truth.
For example, Obama is continuing some of Bush's neo-con policies, something upon which both sides agree is happening. Many liberals, including myself, have dissented from Obama's point of view. We think it's wrong.
FOX, on the other hand, daily characterizes Obama as a socialist. Daily. Virtually every program…..and all in spite of the fact that the first thing Obama did was CUT TAXES…..all this in spite of Obama's demand that health care reform be revenue neutral.
Disagreeing on policy based on facts is dissenting. Dissenting using phony characterizations of facts is propagandizing, disinformation.
Obama has socialized auto companies and banks and wants to socialize health care. Those are facts. They support the conclusion that Obama is a socialist.
That is ridiculous. Those aren't facts. I know you know better. The auto companies went under, for crying out loud….came begging for a handout, both Bush and Obama obliged. But that doesn't equate into "socializing auto companies." With banks you're even further off the mark. Banks have still not been re-regulated. Nothing has changed. It's also silly to argue that 5-10 million Americans buying into a Medicare-like plan is "socializing health care."
The only justification for concervatives labeling Obama a socialist….is because conservatives want to label Obama a socialist….a boogeyman socialist.
Rev says, "Obama is not excluding a viewpoint they don't like…"
Um, that's exactly what Obama has been trying to do, by not making White House officials available to Fox News, and by trying to exclude Fox from the media pool. I don't know why you are trying so hard to spin something that is this obvious. Are you vying for a job as David Axelrod's assistant or something ?
Rev says, "FOX is so embarassingly propagandistic…something needed to be said. Good on Obama for telling it like it is. In the 90's, the same Village became obsessed with total bullsh*t stuff about Clinton, then it was promoted privately by Schaife and a few others. Now it's FOX news trying to bait the other media into running their bogus stories"
Which bogus stories would those be, Rev ?
And I noticed you skipped right over the Bush administration, when, of course, liberals did absolutely nothing to bring about the demise of Bush, ha ha. This whole subject is laughable.
".. by not making White House officials available to Fox News, and by trying to exclude Fox from the media pool."
That's a falsehood. An outright piece of manufactured news. Didn't happen.
Since Clinton was never convicted of anything…got that?…anything, virtually all of the stories manufactured about Clinton were bogus. The GOP had absolutely nothing on Bill, but the right wing conspiracy media took it to feverish levels anyway…..just as the same folks are doing to Obama now.
Question. Was Bush impeached? Kucinich tried ….but Village media, the same Villagers who drooled over salacious gossip about curved penises and semen-stained dresses….couldn't be bothered to report and investigate a rogue, Constitution shredding president. The Village couldn't get all worked up over the brand new American traditions of torture, wars of choice, illegal wiretapping of Americans, extraordinary rendition, and the fraudulent leading of America into a pre-determined invasion of Iraq…..media couldn't be bothered with little stuff like that. But now media is back….and did you know that this dastardly president said that FOX is not a news organization? Grab the smelling salts.
Uh, Bush was never convicted of anything, Reverend. Got that? Neither was Cheney. Got that, too?
Facts are stubborn things, Reverand.
You're correct, larry. Bush and Cheney have yet to be charged or convicted. And yeah….I got it.
Nothing about "getting" it, however, changes or explains what I said about Village media. Village media, the vast right wing conspiracy, did exactly what I said they did during Clinton. During Bush, the same media knelt down and kissed Republican ass…..refusing to acknowledge the open and defiant criminality of a rogue administration. Now that Bush is gone….the media conspiracy is back from their 8-year sleep……and, following FOX's treasonous lead, are returning to their 1993,….let's f*ck the Democrats…..posture.
Quid….facts, really, are not stubborn. Facts, really, have no personality traits at all. To modern conservatives, facts are optional, malleable. Conservatives, stubbornly, twist those facts….they've been doing it ever since Rushbo and FOX and Fiends became the Republican Party leaders…..into propagandistic slogan "breaking news" bullsh*t in the hopes of damaging or bringing down yet another Democratic president. It's what they do.
".. by not making White House officials available to Fox News, and by trying to exclude Fox from the media pool."
"That's a falsehood. An outright piece of manufactured news. Didn't happen."
Like hell. It's the White House that attempted to lie it's way out of that. The media said they wouldn't be at the press conference unless Fox News was also allowed.
http://www.examiner.com/x-22564-Des-Moines-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m10d24-CBS-exposes-Obama-administration-lies-about-blocking-Fox-News
FYI – You didn't point to any other alleged bogus Fox News stories. I disproved the one you did point to. What else ya got ? You got nothing so far.
C'mon, Rev. This should be pretty easy. You have the entire history of Fox News to pick from. They must have gotten something wrong, yet the first story you pointed out was something YOU got wrong (and MSNBC reported wrong).
This is fun. You are proving the opposite of what you intended.
Plus, Clinton was impeached and disbarred. Only because he was the President of the United States was he not convicted of the perjury he so obviously engaged in. Can't believe you brought that up as an example. I could point out lots more about Clinton, but I really don't want to rehash all that again. You lost all those arguments with me the first time around. I don't want to subject you to it all over again. I'm merciful.