Recently Obama did an interview with ABC to manage the flap created by his run-in with Governor Jan Brewster of Arizona – which ended with Obama storming off with the governor in mid-sentence.
Instead of answering the direct question (which was basically, “Are you thin-skinned?”), Obama punted to this:
“I’m usually accused of not being intense enough, right,” he told ABC News’ Diane Sawyer, laughing. “Too relaxed.”
Well, let me assure you of something: I’VE sure never called Obama “too relaxed.” I’VE sure never called him “No Drama Obama.” In fact, the reason I write this blog is to try to document the incessant never-ending drama and histrionics that constitutes the Obama presidency. Every day is a fresh, new outrage.
The man who is “the most polarizing president in American history” is hardly “too relaxed.” You just don’t get to be “the most polarizing president in American history” by being “too relaxed.”
A partial list of reasons why I openly mock the “No Drama Obama” bullcrap of “I’m usually accused of not being intense enough” appears below:
“Don’t you think we’re not keeping score, brother” – Chairman Obama
“Bring it on”- Obama Regime to The American People.
“Get ready for hand-to-hand combat with your fellow Americans” – Obama
“I want all Americans to get in each others faces!” – Obama
“You bring a knife to a fight pal, we’ll bring a gun” – Obama
“Republicans are our enemies“–Obama
** Obama on ACORN Mobs: “I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!”
** Obama to His Mercenary Army: “Hit Back Twice As Hard”
** Obama on the private sector: “We talk to these folks… so I know whose ass to kick.“
** Obama to voters: Republican victory would mean “hand to hand combat”
** Obama to lib supporters: “It’s time to Fight for it.”
** Obama to Latino supporters: “Punish your enemies.”
** Obama to democrats: “I’m itching for a fight.”
“the Cambridge Police acted Stupidly” ” – Beer Summit Gaffe Leader
So I thought it was interesting to learn a little more about this incredibly angry man who inhabits our White House rather like a Chicago thug. And here’s a triad from the Orange County Register’s Mark Landsbaum:
Obama the Angry
January 25th, 2012, 3:49 pm · posted by Mark Landsbaum
During the State of the Union speech last night we had the TV turned up very loud so I could hear the speech while following along in the released transcript on my computer screen and taking notes at the keyboard while simultaneously roughing a draft of our editorial today.
During the 65 minutes he spoke, I developed something of a headache.
It seemed to me the president virtually shouted his entire speech. I though that maybe it was the louder-than-normal TV volume. But all the same, it seemed as if the guy was, how should I put it? Angry.
Now, given what he had to work with, stupefying unemployment, a dead-in-the-water cap-and-trade scheme, a soon-to-be-ruled unconstitutional ObamaCare, an economy that’s doing an excellent imitation of a recession and the likelihood of losing not just his support in Congress, but his own job, I can understand why the president might be a bit on edge.
Then this afternoon I clicked on to one of our favorite items, James Taranto’s Best of the Web column in the Wall Street Journal. And what did he have to say?
“This guy is angry.”
Maybe it wasn’t just the TV volume.
Considering that the SOTU speech essentially marks the beginning of Obama’s reelection campaign, what does this portend for the campaign trail as the president ratchets up his mood and voice another notch every time he is greeted with underwhelming response? He could be hoarse by June.
How about voters?
We don’t know about you, but there is little in politics that turned us off as did Al Gore’s pretentious and pompous tone, or Hillary’s fingernail-scraping shrillness. Little, that is, until we got 65 minutes of Obama’s screaming, ranting performance last night.
Obama the Angry, part II
January 27th, 2012, 4:54 pm · posted by Mark Landsbaum
We normally don’t comment on blogs in the neighborhood, but this one was too sweet to ignore. Some fella named Prevatt over at some blog called TheLiberalOC.com took exception to our characterization of the angry fellow in the White House as being, well, angry.
Our post was titled “Obama the Angry,” for reasons pretty much apparent to anyone with ears to hear. But Mr. Prevatt said that we went on, “to promote the stereotype of the ‘angry black man’ to describe the president’s” State of the Union speech.
Stereotype of an angry black man?
We checked and sure enough, we didn’t identify the man in the White House by his race. Which means once again the Angry Left has jumped to the conclusion that any unflattering characterization of Obama must be rooted in something racial.
What we did, of course, was simply identify an angry man.
Perhaps “an angry black man” fits some stereotype of Barack Obama held by Mr. Prevatt. After all, it was he not we who drew the inference of stereotype.
For our part, we think Barack Obama is much different than any stereotype. We find him almost singularly aloof, pretentious, arrogant, inept, inexperienced and, well, angry. Particularly so for a president. In fact, he couldn’t in any way be described as stereotypical. We’ll give him that. He’s definitely one of a kind.
Let’s reiterate here, just in case someone other than Mr. Prevatt is reading this. It was Mr. Prevatt who invoked the “stereotype of the ‘angry black man’ to describe the president.” Not us.
As it happens, we also had alluded in that blog post and linked to the Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto column, headlined “The State of the Union Is Angry.” Lo and behold, it was another characterization of the president as being angry during his speech. Taranto, like us, also didn’t mention race.
Have you noticed how often the Angry Left finds race and racism in, well, in just about everything? And have you noticed how we (and Mr. Taranto too) never seem to? Why is that?
But we digress. Taranto actually has written recently on this tendency of the Angry Left to see the world through racial lenses. Check here for a sample in his recent column, The Genetic Fallacy. In that column Taranto offers interesting insights into why the Left does what it does. It’s rooted in “a new kind of inequality that developed in the wake of the civil rights revolution, defined by Shelby Steele in his brilliant 2006 book, ‘White Guilt: How Blacks and Whites Together Destroyed the Promise of the Civil Rights Era’.”
We put it another way. We call it projection, the defense mechanism in which a person transfers or projects his feelings onto another person. We think there’s a lot of this among the Angry Left.
Feelings of white guilt result in projection by Angry Leftists of their own failings and shortcomings onto their opponents.
Anyway. We found Mr. Prevatt’s blog transparently so. But what are you gonna do?
We’re not even going to complain that Mr. Prevatt referred to us by our first name, something we find just a tad presumptuous from a stranger, and for the record we can’t ever remember shaking the hand of anyone named Prevatt, let along being friends with one, although we wouldn’t rule that out, provided he stops projecting onto us.
And we aren’t going to make too much of Mr. Prevatt’s rather crude suggestion that “Mark, try … investing in a hearing aide,” or make a big deal about him misspelling it.
This Prevatt fellow may not even know that our otolaryngologist diagnosed yours truly to have substantial hearing loss in both ears, so Mr. Prevatt probably didn’t mean to be crude or rude. That may just be the way he is.
But to clarify, the reason we turned up the TV volume to listen to the president’s speech had nothing to do with our somewhat impaired hearing, which actually doesn’t require a hearing aid. It was because we were typing at the keyboard in THE NEXT ROOM.
We don’t doubt that even Mr. Prevatt may strain when it comes to listening to a television from another room.
But be all that as it may, let’s deal briefly with whether Taranto and we correctly identify the president as an angry person, whatever color he may be. Google for yourself the words “angry” and “Obama.”
Here is just a sampling with our emphases:
“Obama’s gracious tone has diminished almost by the hour since his election. He snipes at the American people for not being smart enough to get how smart his plans for them are. He blames others for his failings. Bush, Congress, rich people, even poor people.”
The Washington Post’s headline Friday: “Obama exchange with Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer reveals his testy side.” Oh those stereotyping guys at the Post.
Writes Michelle Malkin: Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer said, “He was a little disturbed about my book.” Then “In the shadow of Air Force One, Obama complained that Brewer hadn’t “treated him cordially,” and then stalked off while she was responding mid-sentence.”
Recall this one? “Angry Obama walks out on debt-limit talks” By S.A. MILLER, New York Post Correspondent.
And this account: “…Cantor explained, the president became ‘very agitated’ and said he had ‘sat here long enough’… Before walking out of the room, Cantor said, the president told him: ‘Eric, don’t call my bluff. I’m going to the American people with this.’ He then ‘shoved back’ and said ‘I’ll see you tomorrow’.”
Then there was this Washington Post account last week by David Nakamura and Rachel Weiner, not exactly card-carrying Tea Partiers: “AURORA, Colo. — President Obama’s raw exchange with the governor of Arizona on an airport tarmac this week did more than overshadow his carefully stage-managed road trip to trumpet his State of the Union goals. The discussion revealed a testy side of the president’s personality that is at odds with his public image as ‘no-drama Obama,’ reviving criticism that he is unwilling to be second-guessed — or to even entertain another point of view.”
“Testy” was the reporters’ characterization. Reporters from the left-leaning Post.
Brewer later told reporters “He was somewhat thin-skinned and a little tense to say the least.”
Oh we could go on. And on. But that would be sort of like, well, piling on. And we don’t want to make him angry, so we’ll let it go at that.
But testy. Angry. Yelling his speeches?
These are signs of a guy who is frustrated and can’t seem to make things work the way that he wants them to. That’s because things don’t work that way. He’s not organizing the illiterate unemployed in Chicago slums. He’s trying to deal with some of the most argumentative and experienced political animals on the planet.
Did we mention inexperience and ineptness?
When others complain, he has no solution but to figuratively stomp his feet and blame them for not getting it. On a couple of levels he’s right. They don’t get the money that used to belong to them but thanks to Obama redistribution logic now is handed to someone else.
They also don’t get how that’s supposed to benefit anyone except the cronies who walk off with the dough.
Such a degree of frustration with people who don’t get it is enough to make any singularly aloof, pretentious, arrogant, inept, inexperienced person angry. Whatever color he may be.
Obama the Angry, part III
January 30th, 2012, 1:51 pm · posted by Mark Landsbaum
Nah, he’s not an angry guy. Not much.
We no sooner observe how the Hothead in Chief gets snippy at the slightest provocation than another incident comes to the fore to verify that this president is out of his league. Criticisms and things that don’t go his way seem to have a disproportionate effect. The guy loses his cool. And we had such hope. Oh well, another change unanticipated.
According to Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, after the Gulf oil spill the president visited.
“He grabs me by the arm, takes me aside,” Jindal said, “Here’s the strange thing … I thought he’d be angry about the oil spill, the lack of resources; I thought he’d get down there and say, look governor, we’re going to do everything we can to work together. Instead, he was upset he was going to look bad; he was worried about some routine letter we had already sent to his administration, nothing important.”
The reaction shocked Jindal.
“I was amazed at two things: one, that he was mad about the wrong things, and two, that he was so thin-skinned.” In a time of crisis, Jindal said the last thing he wanted or expected was for the president to stage what was “clearly a media stunt. I wanted him to be the president of the country, and instead he was playing political theatrics.”
Why’s this guy so angry? Why’s his threshold so low?
It’s because he’s been in over his head from Day 1. He’s never managed anything more robust than a political campaign, and even then not all that many of them.
The only reason you’ve kept hearing about “No Drama Obama” is because the mainstream media is the most dishonest since Joseph Goebbels and TASS were in business.