Banner ad

Friday, November 18, 2011

Obama blames Americans for his own faults

President Obama has a habit of criticizing ordinary Americans as being bitter, lazy, unimaginative, soft, uncompetitive, you name it. He might not use the word "malaise," but that is what he is really talking about. And by that he means that we are slow to adapt his policies and that, by definition, means that there is something wrong with all of us.

Jonah Goldberg's column explores this habit of Barack Obama's.
Obama has a long-standing habit of seeing failure to support his agenda as a failure of character. The Democratic voters of western Pennsylvania refused to vote for him, he explained, because they were “bitter.” He told black Democrats lacking sufficient enthusiasm for his reelection to “Take off your bedroom slippers. Put on your marching shoes. Shake it off. Stop complainin’. Stop grumblin’. Stop cryin’.”

And in the context of the country’s economic doldrums, Obama sees a lack of ambition, softness, laziness, etc., in anyone who doesn’t support his agenda. He has spent several years now exhorting Americans about how we have to “win the future” by doing what he says. He has told us repeatedly that this is our “Sputnik moment” when all Americans must drop their selfish, cynical, or foolish objections to his program. People who disagree aren’t putting their “country first.”

He’s constantly stoking nationalistic and quasi-paranoid fears of China to goad Americans into supporting ever more “investments” in green energy and high-speed white elephants.
But who are those who really block us from achieving the great things that Obama laments we're no longer capable of accomplishing?
Meanwhile, it’s Obama and his allies in Congress who’ve been at the forefront of the effort to make America less competitive. Obama delayed free-trade deals for years, until he could lard them up with Big Labor giveaways. He has thrown roadblocks in front of a multibillion-dollar U.S.–Canada pipeline project, which many ambitious and imaginative people see as something like this generation’s Hoover Dam or Golden Gate Bridge. He did postpone those new job-killing smog regulations his EPA administrator wants, but he has also let everyone — including foreign investors — know that he’ll put them back on the agenda if he’s reelected.

In 2008, Obama said Bush’s deficit of $9 trillion was “unpatriotic.” Now he questions the patriotism of those who think the Obama deficit of $15 trillion argues against spending even more money we don’t have. And of course, there’s that giant unfunded disaster known as Obamacare, which Nancy Pelosi claimed was a “jobs bill” because it would lead to “an economy where people could be an artist or a photographer or a writer without worrying about keeping their day job in order to have health insurance.”

But, yes, by all means, let’s blame our lack of competitiveness on the American people.
The entire Democratic message seems to be one of projection where they blame average Americans for what they themselves have wrought.


ic said...

Blame the selfish, lazy, ungovernable yokels, "Bush's Fault" has passed its sell-by date.

stan said...

Without dishonesty and slander, there would be nothing for Democrats to campaign on. David Horowitz has made the argument that liberalism (i.e. a slower version of socialism) is based on a lie. What seems to have changed with the Clintons and accelerated during the Bush hatred and with Obama is a total disregard for facts by the Left.

I suppose if the media won't hold your feet to the fire, you can get away with anything, but the liberties Democrats take with even the most basic of facts have reached unprecedented levels.

pumping-irony said...

Some call it "blame", others call it "projection."

mark said...

Yes. Let's just stick to labeling Americans as "undeserving" and "parasites", as been done here.

tfhr said...


Let's just confine your rants and accusations to areas where you can back them up.

Meanwhile Obama says that America is "lazy", has lost it's ambition, is "soft", doesn't "appreciate Europe's leadership in the world", etc.

mark said...

Are you denying that people here used the words "underserving" and "parasites" to describe millions of Americans? If you are, you are lying.
I didn't save the comments, but we all know it is true.
I did, however, save two of your comments: One saying that the evidence of OBL's demise was a decrease in communiques. The other was saying that, despite a grandjury report recommending charges of child-molestation (including eyewitness accounts of rape) and Sandusky's own admission of inappropriate behavior (showering with children), you somehow conclude we shouldn't judge too quickly. Do I need to show them?
The first statement has an absurdly low standard for "evidence". The second has an absurdly high standard. That they came from the same person is beyond absurd.
You have once again shown yourself as a fraud, an idiot and a disgrace(I mean, alleged-fraud, alleged-idiot and alleged-disgrace).

tfhr said...


All I'm asking is that you show proof. You level charges against people without proof and that's not right.

What is it that you don't understand about that?

We all know that your talent is name calling but is that all there is to a Progressive? Don't agree with someone and they are a "fraud", or a "liar", or worse. [m]ark, you need to learn that the world isn't going to agree with you on everything and simply because it does not, it does not rise to the level of "liar" or "fraud". Grow up, mark. Grow up.

mark said...

Really, thfr, you're going to play the civility card? You've tossed around some strong insults yourself. Perhaps someone who calls a man a "bastard" the day he dies shouldn't be setting standards. (Did I get the insult right this time?)
I have no regret saying that Sandusky is guilty, based on the grand jury investigation and Sandusky's voluntary radio interview. Are you still sticking to your claim that

"we must withhold judgment about his (Sandusky's) criminality until he's had his day in court"?

You're so determined to disagree with me about everything that you defended a child-rapist. Silly man.

Pat Patterson said...

I miss the disjointed Tacitus Voltaire as he often provided links and didn't dredge up the same old misinterpreted nonsense to get people on his topic and instead of the matter at hand.

tfhr said...


I didn't defend Sandusky - I defended his Constitutional right to a fair trial before being judged. Apparently, mark, you have no use for The Constitution, but then that would explain your affinity for Barack Obama.

Pat Patterson is right about TV. His politics didn't work for me but at least he made the effort to provide a link or two to back up his words. You, on the other hand, come here to lash out and froth. What for? We all know that nobody here is going to have their minds changed. We can hold out that efforts will be made to advance or defend a particular position but you only seem to be interested in these bizarre outbursts lately and they seem to be getting worse.

You blame unnamed parties for this and that but don't tell us who they are while sputtering that some grave insult has been doled out against an unnamed group of people. Something about "parasites"...what? You're incoherent. And if I don't agree with you, I'm "lying". Does that sound rational to you, mark? In a roundabout way, your lashing out seems to be germane for once because this was a thread - at least at one time - about Obama's penchant for blaming everyone else but himself for our problems.

I asked you long ago to list why you didn't think Cain was a serious candidate. I thought the request was straight forward and simple enough for you to comprehend but you faltered. I asked you a second and a third time yet you have not come forward with your own ideas on the matter. Why is that so hard for you? Perhaps if you can overcome this strange compulsion that seems to have driven you to call Cain a "fraud" simply because you don't like his politics, then maybe you can be civil but I have to admit, I don't hold out much hope for you.

Hey but I did call Ted Kennedy a bastard. I have a low regard for men that get drunk, leave their girlfriend / date to drown, and then avoid responsibility with the help of their political and financial connections. I guess you admire that but I would have liked to have seen him held accountable. What he did years later by offering to undermine the United States of America visa vis the Soviet Union by volunteering to help counter Carter and Reagan for the Kremlin, well I guess that appeals to you too but I'm disgusted by it and those repeated episodes speak to Edward Kennedy's character and certainly about the lack thereof.

mark said...

I've never questioned Sandusky's Constitutional right to a fair trial. I pointed out that people here express opinions and make judgments all the time, with or without evidence. How many times have you and others ascribed motives to Obama and other dems without hard evidence? I believe the grand jury testimony and his interview is sufficient to say he is guilty. That opinion would disqualify me from sitting on a jury.
Sorry, but your statement (below) was pathetically comical.

"we must withhold judgment about his (Sandusky's) criminality until he's had his day in court"?

ACLU, anyone?

As for Cain, I have previously said that he had no "ground game" for running a real campaign and he was woefully unprepared for defending his positions (repeating 9-9-9 is not a defense. (And this was before his Libya and China gaffes). According to you, this was not a "reasoned" argument. I have accused him of being a fraud as far as running for president. You somehow stretched that into me "convicting" him of criminal fraud. A pathetic attempt at twisting my words.
You have stated several times that I have called Cain a fraud because I don't like his politics. I don't like the politics of most of the candidates, yet I haven't called any of them frauds. They have shown a true interest in running and preparing themselves (even Perry, with all his gaffes, is a serious candidate.)
So you see, tfhr, I have just disproved several of your claims. You can accept it as "reasoned" argument and save all the nonsense about libel and slander. Or I suppose you can go back to accusing me of "spitting on the troops" if you like. It makes no difference to me.
Enyoy your Sunday. I have leaves to rake.

tfhr said...


Fraud is a crime. Your choice of words was wrong. You should understand what you're saying before you spew it out here. You used the tired pundit sponsored phrase, "ground game". What does that mean to you? You said that was your first reason and yet it turns out that you probably won't elaborate on that to a degree that rises above a mere talking point.

So you disagree with Cain's commentary on an economic plan and a foreign policy stance. Fine but does that rise to the level of "fraud". In other words, because YOU disagree with someone they are transformed into a "fraud" or "liar". That is one of the reasons why we have The Constitution - to protect us from those that would criminalize speech.

mark, if there is one thing we've learned about you over the years, you do your very best to move a thread off topic because you are incapable of defending your view on the given topic. Obama has accused America of being "lazy", which reminds us of the Carter "malaise" gaff. Obama was just flat out wrong and you've unjustly accused Herman Cain of "fraud".

mark said...

I almost forgot the best part of your nonsense:
Ted Kennedy was never found guilty in a court of law (nor did he confess). I certainly agree that he committed a horrible, cowardly act, and used connections to avoid accountability. Unfortunately, wealthy people sometimes escape justice, even when somebody dies (just ask Laura Bush). And no, I don't admire what he or Laura Bush did. (Or perhaps you have evidence that I do.)
Surely, someone with such a deep respect for our Constitution and says things like "we must withhold judgment about his criminality until he's had his day in court" about a child-rapist would refrain from "convicting" a man who hasn't been proven guilty of a crime.
Oh, yeah, you spelled "gaffe" wrong again. A gaff is a large hook. Haven't we gone over this? Oh, tfhr, will you ever learn?

Pat Patterson said...

thfr will probably not mistype gaffe the same time mark will not put only one quotation mark in his penultimate paragraph. Nor put a question mark outside of the quotation mark. BTW, is being a bastard a misdemeanor or felony?

tfhr said...

Pat Patterson,

No, it's a Kennedy tradition, so I guess it could be both.

When Laura Bush becomes the US Senator from Massachusetts, I guess I'll understand mark's point. I'm not sure how he can compare then 17 year-old Laura Bush staying at the scene with a fleeing Kennedy. What strings did Laura Welch's family pull, mark?

Then again with Scott Brown sitting in "Ted Kennedy's seat", there's no need for the pointless comparison. I still laugh about how Massachusetts went from being the hive of blue state stupidity with the help of Barack Obama! New Jersey too!


Thanks for the reminder on gaff v. gaffe. I shouldn't make that mistake at all since I actually have a gaff hook I use from time to time when fishing and I am constantly amused and amazed by the gaffes emitted by the Obama - Biden comedy duo. "Austrian language" and "corpse-man" are two favorites and then just about every other syllable Biden can get past his own foot. I guess I'm grateful for the fact that you listen to those two and as such have developed a keen sense about spotting mistakes. Using you for spell checking may finally give you a useful purpose here but not so much for fact checking based on your track record.

And aren't you supposed to be raking leaves? I think you need some sunshine and you definitely need some fresh air.

mark said...

I went AWOL (absent without leaves)

tfhr said...


Your leaf of absence is granted but that's all the slack I'll cut you because as much as I know you needed the weekend like everyone else, Obama says we're all "lazy" and we can't have that. So go find your rake and get cracking.