Obama Doesn’t Feel Your Pain. He’s NEVER Felt Your Pain. He’s Also A Shameless Liar. And That According To LIBERALS.

This is a liberal writing for the reliably liberal Washington Post.  Obviously, I don’t share his views about Obama as “the very soul of common sense” and frankly question the sanity of the writer given the fact that he writes this as our economy plunges steeply into the abyss in a three-year slide BECAUSE of Obama’s “common sense.”

But anyone who recalls Bill Clinton’s signature line – “I feel your pain” – that many think won him the presidency have to marvel at the pure detached coldness that even Obama’s supporters now see:

Mr. Cool turns cold
By Richard Cohen, Published: August 8

In her autobiography, Helen Gahagan Douglas recalled telling President Franklin D. Roosevelt about her visits to the camps of migrant workers. She was especially poignant about the children and their lack of Christmas toys when the president tried to stop her. “Don’t tell me any more, Helen,” FDR told the woman who is probably best known for losing a dirty Senate race to Richard Nixon. She was stunned. Roosevelt was crying. Can anyone imagine Barack Obama doing anything similar?

The answer — at least my answer — is no. And this is quite amazing when you think about it. FDR was a Hudson River squire — down to his cigarette holder and cape. Nonetheless, he could connect to the less fortunate. Obama, in contrast, was raised in the great American muddle, not rich and not poor. Yet when the stock market fell more than 500 points last week and the image that night was of the president whooping it up at his birthday party, the juxtaposition — just bad timing, of course — seemed appropriate. He does not seem to care.

This quality of Obama’s, this inability to communicate what many of us think he must be feeling, has lately cost many trees their dear lives — reams of essays and op-ed pieces. One of the more interesting ones, by Drew Westen, a psychology professor at Emory University, ran in Sunday’s New York Times. It cited Obama’s frequent inability or unwillingness to explain himself or to appear empathetic. All this is true. But Westen’s most salient point was contained in the title: “What Happened to Obama?” The answer: Nothing.

Obama has always been the man he is today. He is the very personification of cognitive dissonance — the gap between what we (especially liberals) expected of the first serious African American presidential candidate and the man he in fact is. He has next to none of the rhetorical qualities of the old-time black politicians.  He would eschew the cliche, but he feels little of their pain. In this sense, he has been patronized by liberals who looked at a man and saw black and has been reviled by those who looked at a black man and saw “other.”

Westen faults Obama for his lack of storytelling abilities. But this is because Obama is himself the story. Consider for a moment that Obama’s account of how he had to fight to get medical coverage for his dying mother is not exactly true. The White House’s response to this revelation was grudging silence. It did not dispute the story and it soon died. This was because the Obama story is not what he says but who he is. That remains unchanged, and so the very people who would pummel a Republican for such a mischaracterization were silent about Obama’s. Obama did not deign to reply. He does not have to.

Obama’s communications handicap, his loathing for the pornography of politics, could cost him a second term. In the current New York Review of Books, Andrew Hacker cites the findings of the University of Virginia’s Larry Sabato to point out that “an usually high proportion” of Obama’s 2008 majority came from new voters, “notably students and minorities.” If a large number of these Obama voters are no longer elated by the historic novelty of the candidate and/or are disappointed by his performance, turnout will be depressed and Obama will be in peril. The passion of his haters is fearsome; his admirers cannot be tepid.

Only the GOP can save Obama. His political shortcomings cannot be fixed because he is who he is. He can rely on running against a party that has the soul of an actuarial table and will cut programs that the poor and the middle class adore. Whoever that Republican candidate may be, he or she will be stuck in the amber of the early primaries and caucuses where extremism runs rampant and moderates go to die. Neither Jon Huntsman nor Mitt Romney has so far shown the political dexterity to squiggle out of the box that is the Iowa or South Carolina contests.

Obama is the very soul of common sense. As he talks, I nod my head in agreement. Mostly, I think, he has done the right thing. But I doubt anyone will ever recount how he cried in the Oval Office any more than I can recall a soaring passage from a speech. This president got elected because he was cool. He could be defeated because he is cold.

If George Bush had demonstrated that he was so cold, and so cynical, and so willing to lie about even his own mother’s death just to take a cheap shot at an industry that actually had come through for her, liberals would have been rightly frothing at the mouth in their anger at such a vile human being.  There is no question that the insurance company that Barack Obama demonized paid every single penny of his mother’s medical care – and therefore led the way in the fight to save her life.  But it was Obama who demonstrated that profound lack of decency and morality, and so that same left gives us some professorial explanation – “This was because the Obama story is not what he says but who he is” – further document that liberals are cockroaches to the very cores of their tiny little shriveled souls.

How about this one from the most evil and dishonest president in American history?

Over at Politco.com, Ben Smith and Jonathan Martin quote a “prominent Democratic strategist aligned with the White House” as saying, “Unless things change and Obama can run on accomplishments, he will have to kill Romney.”

Kill Romney?  And part of that destruction of Mitt Romney, we’re told, would amount to demonizing the man on account of his religion.  Because the Obama who “loftily” has defended radical Islam is such a fundamentally cynical hypocrite that a Mormon threat to his presidency is a greater evil than the terrorist murderers who slaughtered thousands of innocent Americans.

Think about that sentence that Richard Cohen provides on “Mr. Cool”:

 Yet when the stock market fell more than 500 points last week and the image that night was of the president whooping it up at his birthday party, the juxtaposition — just bad timing, of course — seemed appropriate. He does not seem to care.”

And then realize that “Mr. Cool” just took off on another vacation today in the midst of a 520 point stock market bloodbath that came on the heels of a 640 point bloodbath Monday.  But I’m sure that’s “just bad timing,” too.  Damn lousy economy that Obama is “absolutely not” responsible for should hardly get in the way of the man’s golfing.

An incredibly cynical and manipulative Obama waxed eloquent while he hypocritically took the stage at a heavily politicized glossy campaign event masquerading as a eulogy for the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and the killing of several citizens.  Obama said:

“But what we can’t do is use this tragedy as one more occasion to turn on one another. As we discuss these issues, let each of us do so with a good dose of humility. Rather than pointing fingers or assigning blame, let us use this occasion to expand our moral imaginations, to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instincts for empathy, and remind ourselves of all the ways our hopes and dreams are bound together…”

(“We will have to kill Romney…”).

That was January 13.  And the media was tearing into “right wing violence” and “Republican hate” like it was all the fashion.  Meanwhile, while Democrats were pointing fingers at Republicans (even as they falsely and cynically said we all had to come together), about a thousand fingers were pointing back at the REAL sources of hate and intolerance and violence.  Within days of Obama’s speech, the Democrat Party and the mainstream media were in full feeding-frenzy mode tearing into Sarah Palin as some epitome of hate.  It didn’t matter that the facts made them liars and demagogues.  Nor did it matter that the left were doing all the same things and worse.  Later the same month a raging liberal tried to slash the throat of a man he believed was the Republican governor.  But that sure didn’t fit into the mainstream media narrative.  Nor did the fact that Democrats were all over the very same tactics that they accused the right of doing.

Not long after that, Democrats openly talked about being willing to “get a little bloody” in their quest to “take the bastards down” as their Democrat supporters walked around carrying swastikas and painting Hitler mustaches on everyone and everything Republican.  And the mainstream media was in full cover-up mode to conceal the violence of the left even as it demonized the right.

Obama gave a worthless speech and never tried once to reign in the rampant hate of his own party and his own supporters.  But – to continue to narrative explained by Cohen above – Obama didn’t care.  He had given a self-serving speech.  He could take credit for being the voice of unity while his dirty cockroach minions carried his water for him.  His work was done.

“Rather than pointing fingers or assigning blame, let us use this occasion to expand our moral imaginations, to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instincts for empathy, and remind ourselves of all the ways our hopes and dreams are bound together.”

Obama has also said in his soaring speeches:

“The… way to keep our democracy healthy is to maintain a basic level of civility in our public debate…. we cannot expect to solve our problems if all we do is tear each other down. You can disagree with a certain policy without demonizing the person who espouses it. You can question someone’s views and their judgment without questioning their motives or their patriotism. Throwing around phrases like “socialist” and “Soviet-style takeover;” “fascist” and “right-wing nut” may grab headlines, but it also has the effect of comparing our government, or our political opponents, to authoritarian, and even murderous regimes.

… The problem is that this kind of vilification and over-the-top rhetoric closes the door to the possibility of compromise. It undermines democratic deliberation. It prevents learning — since after all, why should we listen to a “fascist” or “socialist” or “right-wing nut?” It makes it nearly impossible for people who have legitimate but bridgeable differences to sit down at the same table and hash things out. It robs us of a rational and serious debate that we need to have about the very real and very big challenges facing this nation. It coarsens our culture, and at its worst, it can send signals to the most extreme elements of our society that perhaps violence is a justifiable response.”

So given that soaring rhetoric, why would it be the case that:

 “More than any President in memory, Mr. Obama has a tendency to vilify his opponents in personal terms and assail their arguments as dishonest, illegitimate or motivated by bad faith“???

Why would President Obama be quoted using a derogatory term with sexual connotations about the Tea Party in an November 30, 2009 interview saying that the unanimous vote of House Republicans vote against the stimulus bills “set the tenor for the whole year … That helped to create the tea-baggers and empowered that whole wing of the Republican Party to where it now controls the agenda for the Republicans”???  Just THREE DAYS after he himself had decried the lack of civility in politics???

Why would Obama say on December 7, 2010, “It’s tempting not to negotiate with hostage-takers, unless the hostage gets harmed…The hostage is the American people”, referring to Republicans in Congress during the lame duck session. The context of the remarks is that Republicans had been called ‘terrorists’ by a prominent Democrat during the lame duck session.

Why would Obama say in August 2o10, “We’re gonna punish our enemies, and we’re gonna reward our friends on issues that matter to us”, speaking to Latinos in clearly demagogic terms on the need to elect Democrats so that sweeping immigration reform can be implemented.

Why would Obama say the following

“If you get hit, I want you to punch back twice as hard”–Barack Obama in August of 2009, speaking to Democrats and Unions on how to deal with Tea Party protesters at Town Hall meetings.

“I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors. I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face”–Barack Obama in October of 2008 on the campaign trail.

“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun”–Barack Obama on June 14, 2008, at a Town Hall meeting in which he described how Democrats would challenge Republicans

– even as he was at the same time stating the need to be the exact opposite of the way he himself was acting???

Why are there so many stories like this one about a demagogic and hateful Obama demonizing his political opponents?

Did someone move the 2012 election to June 1? We ask because President Obama’s extraordinary response to Paul Ryan’s budget yesterday—with its blistering partisanship and multiple distortions—was the kind Presidents usually outsource to some junior lieutenant. Mr. Obama’s fundamentally political document would have been unusual even for a Vice President in the fervor of a campaign.


Mr. Obama did not deign to propose an alternative to rival Mr. Ryan’s plan, even as he categorically rejected all its reform ideas, repeatedly vilifying them as essentially un-American. “Their vision is less about reducing the deficit than it is about changing the basic social compact in America,” he said, supposedly pitting “children with autism or Down’s syndrome” against “every millionaire and billionaire in our society.” The President was not attempting to join the debate Mr. Ryan has started, but to close it off just as it begins and banish House GOP ideas to political Siberia.

Mr. Obama then packaged his poison in the rhetoric of bipartisanship—which “starts,” he said, “by being honest about what’s causing our deficit.” The speech he chose to deliver was dishonest even by modern political standards.

Now let’s go back to something the New York Times once said was the core promise of the Obama campaign:

WASHINGTON — At the core of Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign is a promise that he can transcend the starkly red-and-blue politics of the last 15 years, end the partisan and ideological wars and build a new governing majority.

To achieve the change the country wants, he says, “we need a leader who can finally move beyond the divisive politics of Washington and bring Democrats, independents and Republicans together to get things done.”

But this promise leads, inevitably, to a question: Can such a majority be built and led by Mr. Obama, whose voting record was, by one ranking, the most liberal in the Senate last year?

It’s not enough to say that Obama profoundly failed to keep this promise; he never even TRIED to keep it.  All Obama has ever done from the day he was elected is fearmonger events and demagogue his political opponents.  All of his promises were nothing more than cynical lies from a pathologically dishonest and manipulative man.

Obama isn’t just “cold” and “aloof” and “uncaring,” although those things alone are terrible enough in a man we elected to love his nation and put it and its people above all things.  He is an angry, thin-skinned, narcissistic, incredibly dishonest and incredibly cynical man who has made promise after promise with no intention whatsoever of keeping any of them.

The Wall Street Journal points out – after noting another despicable quality about Obama: the man’s galling personal arrogance – that:

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.

And those charges are absolutely true.  Obama is an utterly failed leader, even by his own demagogic words.  When personally attacking George Bush for a debt ceiling hike the sort of which (as we now know) he HIMSELF would need to ask for, Obama said:

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.”

How can Barack Obama not be a completely failed leader by any standard imaginable including his own?

Obama demanded a long-term debt ceiling extension and would have shut the country down if he didn’t get it for one reason and one reason only; he didn’t want that fight to be an issue that could harm his 2012 campaign for re-election.  Obama himself pointed out that Ronald Reagan had to get new debt ceiling increases an average of once every single five months throughout his entire presidency.  But Obama shamelessly demanded the largest debt ceiling increase in the history of the world – after his PREVIOUS such extension had likewise been the largest one in the history of the world – while at the same time insisting that he would veto any bill and burn the country down unless he could selfishly get the issue off the table for his re-election.

If that isn’t bad enough and shameless enough – and frankly cold and uncaring enough – on top of that Obama the failed leader never bothered to offer any kind of a plan to guide the negotiations OVER A VICIOUS FIGHT THAT HE HIMSELF HAD CREATED BY HIS OWN INCREDIBLE DEMANDS.

And more on just naked and dishonest fearmongering, Barack Obama repeatedly lied about the U.S. “defaulting” when America EASILY could pay its fundamental obligations.  And to again add incredibly “CYNICAL” to “FEARMONGERING,” we learn that Obama was privately trying to assure the banks that America would NOT default on its debt obligations EVEN AS HE WAS FEARMONGERING A DEFAULT TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.  And the number one reason that Standard & Poor’s downgraded America’s credit worthiness is because Obama continuously fearmongered a “default” and S & P took him at his word.

I can go on and on and on.  But I think that I’ve proven my case. 

Barack Obama is quite likely the most evil man who has ever held the office of the presidency of the United States.  He is so personally vile that he supported the intentional murder of a baby who had actually been born and was alive outside of his or her mother’s womb after surviving an abortion attempt (see here, here and PLEASE watch the five-minute video here).  Because of Barack Obama, this IS God damn America.

And God will continue to damn America until America comes to its senses and drives this wicked and despicable man out of the White House.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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

%d bloggers like this: