May 21 2011

When Arrogance Meets Petulance

Published by at 8:47 am under 2012 Elections,All General Discussions

It seems the most powerful man in the world is having a bit of a hissy fit today. President-Emperor Obama is once again faced with the fact that His Worshipfulness is not above the law. His Exaltedness’ illegal military actions against a country, which posed NO IMMEDIATE THREAT to America or Americans, have shown him to be less of a leader than Presidents Bush (both) and Reagan. At least these morally superior presidents understood war requires the blessing of the people – people whose blood, treasure and spiritual goodwill are consumed by the violence and destruction which is war. This fact of America is lost on His Supremeness:

President Obama wrote a letter to congressional leaders this afternoon suggesting that the role is now so “limited” he does not need to seek congressional approval.

“The US role is one of support,” the official said, “and the kinetic pieces of that are intermittent.”

“Kinetic” meaning killing people on the ground. All wars have intermittent battles. The man is acting illegally.

So why the resistance? Would Congress not authorize his ego-building (as opposed to nation-building) acts? I would guess there are enough rabid Qadaffi haters in Congress to possibly get this disaster authorized for a little longer.

But my guess is that His Superiorness is struggling to understand why, being the most powerful man in the world, his wishes are not immediately accepted and adored.

It would make sense. His petulance and irritation have been on the rise recently. His lashing out at Paul Ryan, his lashing out at Israel, his lashing out at the White House press pool. Even the attack on Bin Laden seems to have been rammed down his throat, a risk he may not have intended to take.

We have a long way to go until 2012. The President is losing all credibility. If he ratchets up his petulance in tandem with his failures and lost political capitol, he could easily remake Jimmy Carter into a reasonable looking President.

30 responses so far

30 Responses to “When Arrogance Meets Petulance”

  1. kathie says:

    I found this at Pajamas Media…it’s pretty good. You can real the rest there.

    Rewriting Obama’s Speech
    “Although I spent a fair amount of time apologizing for America in my speech in Cairo and elsewhere, I now recognize that we’re actually the best thing the Mideast has going for it … “

  2. MerlinOS2 says:

    Hey chump

    Sorry to break it to you but under the law you have to obtain permission even if you are only the butler cleaning the toilets.

    There is not wiggle space.

  3. Whomever says:

    Icarus wings melt – you remember the story.

    Humans all have their falls; that is what the Icaraus story is about. The country elected a man who had never had a fall; his life was charmed. Now we watch.

    I propose a constitutional amendment that requires a seeker to have reached 50 years of living before assuming Presidency of this great nation. Wisdom comes with some living, some wins, some losses, some humility, some perspective.

    I believe the spirit of the American People will get us through. I love how Mitch Daniels loves the Hoosiers of Indiana and has already lived the high life in Washington DC and seen through it. Get to know him if you do not A wise and humble man.

    God Bless us in this time. Peace in our hearts and eduation of our friends – this is what we can do.

  4. […] When Arrogance Meets Petulance So why the resistance? Would Congress not authorize his ego-building (as opposed to nation-building) acts? I would guess there are enough rabid Qadaffi haters in Congress to possibly get this disaster authorized for a little longer. […]

  5. WWS says:

    Interesting – sunday morning, Mitch Daniels is out. I credit him for having the nerve to make a hard choice, and if he didn’t have the fire inside that it takes to mount and run a modern campaign, then there’s no way he should have been in it.

    now that the field is shaking out, I am more and more coming around to Pawlenty. No candidate is perfect, and he’s rather softspoken in person, but he seems to have the right instincts, and unlike so many of the others he seems to defuse controversy rather than create it. I suspect that will be a requirement for any successful candidate this cycle.

    I can’t warm up to Romney no matter how much I try, because he won’t and can’t renounce RomneyCare. As far as I can tell, he truly does not see what’s wrong with it, which to me says his much vaunted judgment is suspect. Also, there’s no way he carries his home state against Obama.

    As the Dems should have realized with Al Gore – never nominate a man who can’t even carry his home state.

  6. lurker9876 says:

    I am glad Daniels backed out. I wouldn’t have voted for him in the primary. His family history is fodder for the media.

    I cannot vote for Tpaw yet. He’s not my first choice in the primary but if he wins the nomination, I will vote for him in the general election. I’m not sure he will manage based on conservative principles.

    I see that the rumors are that Palin bought a house in Arizona and may vye for Kyl’s seat. I see this as a positive move for her to build a record before trying for the WH in 2016 or 2020. Plenty of time for her.

    Cain is starting to gain traction and popularity but the political pundits and hacks are not yet thrilled with him. The GOP elites are trying to ignore him but the tea party movement is really getting behind him.

    He is on Fox News Sunday (depending on where you live) and many Just One Minute posters aren’t thrilled about him. But I am. I’ve heard him talk twice and liked him so far.

  7. WWS says:

    My biggest problem with Cain is that in all our history, we’ve only had 2 Presidents who got the job without having ever been elected to any other office: William Howard Taft, who was ineffectual and who blew up his party, and Herbert Hoover.

    The evidence suggests that a man without a background in electoral politics is incapable of managing it well if he’s thrust into it, no matter how competent or intelligent he is.

  8. lurker9876 says:

    www, good points but then on the other hand…only a handful of politicians were successful…what about Silent Cal? How come he was so successful; yet, the Dems hate him and try to give an entirely different picture of this successful president.

    From what I understand, Silent Cal was…a quiet man, a man of one-liners or few words (didn’t someone bet him that he would not be able to answer with less than 3 words and he won the bet?) He was a man of honor, integrity, morals, character of which he earned. Wasn’t he a strong devout Christian?

    The experienced politicians have really screwed us. I see Tpaw a bit too much of a Rino. Mitt? Too soft. Newt? Well, he screwed up last week.

    I see that there are a few pundits that are trying to dissuade us from Cain because of his time as a Fed chairman and TARP support back in ’08.

    By the same token, I see that the left is getting very nervous about Cain.

    One of the reasons that I’m looking at Cain is that he is 100 percent BLACK and conservative. The media will try and paint Cain as “Uncle Tom” or using similar tactics that they used against Clarence Thomas. Obama’s long form birth certificate confirm that he IS half-white/half-black, which makes him a MULATTO! A word used to be treated with pride, honor, and respect back in the old days but no longer (we noticed the number of entries in the old Census Records by many proudly calling themselves as MULATTO!)

    I can’t wait to see how the mainstream media will treat Cain once he gains traction…while hoping they will be so rattled and forced to defend a half-white/half-black candidate against a full-black candidate.

  9. WWS says:

    Let’s see if Cain can put together a winning campaign organization – that’s a good test case for anyone who wants to be President, since if they can’t do that you don’t go any further. No one can get there just by being his own charming self – an effective, high quality team has to be built, and this is where most first time candidates fall down.

    Regarding “silent Cal” – remember, he had been Governor of Massachusetts, so he had all kinds of electoral experience. In my opinion, there’s a knowledge that comes *only* from having been in similar circumstances before. We like to think that government is just like a business, but it isn’t – it’s infinitely more complex. For one thing, in business you can ignore your opponents and just concentrate on your supporters. In politics, however, (and Trump just learned this lesson the hard wa) your opponents are going to work both together and separately, and they are going to work as hard as they can to tear you down in every way and at every opportunity.

    It’s a rare man who can stand up to the constant attacks and raw hatred that he is going to receive. A previous political career is at least a partial inoculation against this.

    Remember, Reagan wasn’t a good president just because he made good speeches and had some good ideas. He was a great President because he had spent 8 years as Governor of California honing his skills and learning how to actually get things accomplished in a complex system with many different power centers and a host of players.

    As far as Cain getting any credit for his race – he’ll be treated no better than Clarence Thomas or Condi Rice. Race to the MSM is just a state of mind which demands slavish obedience to liberalism, so give up on that factor meaning anything at all to them.

  10. WWS says:

    oops – just saw this quote from Herman Cain: “I don’t think Israel has any problem with Palestinians’ returning,” he said.

    Okay, if he actually thinks that then he doesn’t know diddly squat about the Palestinian-Isreali conflict, and hasn’t ever bothered to learn. That quote alone kicks him into the category of Ron Paul-ness for me.

  11. crosspatch says:

    Well, I wouldn’t vote for Romney in the primary but I certainly would vote for him in the general. NO WAY would I UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES sit out the election and hand Obama another term.

    Romney may be far from perfect but he is far better than handing Obama another term.

  12. lurker9876 says:

    www, Fox News Sunday comes on at 1 pm and 5 pm where I live so didn’t get to watch it until 1 pm. Herman is certainly weak on his foreign policy. I was a bit disappointed in his delivery during this interview. Herman is going to have to learn to improve his message AND he cannot afford to go on CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, and MSNBC. Not at this point.

    crosspatch, what I vote in the primary isn’t going to be what I will vote in the general election. My vote in the general election will be a vote against Obama no matter who wins the nomination even if I didn’t like the nominee.

  13. ivehadit says:

    This, from Rasmussen Reports, just astounds me.
    “Among those not affiliated with either major party, 46% approve and 53% disapprove [of the president’s job performance]. ”

    How can 46% APPROVE of his performance?!!!

  14. crosspatch says:

    It is fairly easy to get 46% approval. First of all, about 35% are Democrats and Democrats seem to approve by a margin in the high 80’s of percentage points. So if you have 85% of the Democrats “approving”, probably all of the Socialists and Greens approving, you are probably at 35% right there. Then all you need is 1/3 of the independent voters and you have 46%.

    That is with ZERO Republicans approving. In fact, you can get up to 68% approval without a single Republican approving. The electorate isn’t a 50/50 split between Republicans and Democrats. It is about a 33/33/33 split between Democrats, Republicans, and Other. Whoever wins the “Other” vote, wins the election.

    Neither party has enough people to win an election.

    But the big difference in 2012 will be the fact that in 2008 Obama could campaign on his rhetoric of pipe dreams. In 2012 he will have an actual track record to contend with. The most effective thing to use against him in this coming election is going to be his own campaign rhetoric of the last election juxtaposed with the realities. Cutting the deficit, transparency, putting bills up on the internet before voting, seeing debates in committees take place, his treatment of the press, his idiotic press secretaries and their statements, his speeches filled with “I, me, my”. He will be his own worst enemy this time around.

    I can’t believe the Democratic Party isn’t going to primary him. Maybe the only reason they aren’t going to primary him is because he basically took control of the DNC when he was elected and moved it from Washington DC to Chicago.

    The DNC is now controlled by the Chicago Machine.

  15. momdear1 says:

    Our next president is going to be a general. Haven’t found out which general yet but my source has always been right in the past. So, instead of fooling around looking at where all these lesser candidates stand on the issues, we should be finding out where our generals stand on social issues like Obamacare, the Deficit, Immigration etc, restoring our manufacturing base , developing domestic energy sources so we can once again become a soverign nation independent of all foreign influences, and reigning in the power of organized America haters such as Public employee (taxpayer financed) Labor Unions, community activist organizations, pseudo environmentalists, etc. We can pretty well figure out where most of our generals stand on national defense and foreign policy. When we find one who will stand up for America first, stop paying retirubtion, blackmail and bribes laundered as “foreign Aid,” and who stand for the no. one policy that has made America great, IF YOU DON’T WORK, YOU DON’T EAT, we should all get behind him and encourage him to run .

  16. WWS says:

    Not to pile on Herman Cain too hard – but he’s not so hot on domestic policy either. Today he just admitted on Fox that his plan on not raising the debt limit won’t work. Nice when a candidate saves his opponents the trouble of tearing apart his plans by doing it himself. Overall, I gotta grade him as interesting, but not ready for prime time. If he runs a good campaign, he could set himself up for a nice cabinet post, maybe HHR – that’s a good place for him to start, but not higher, not yet.

    Not sure if I’m sold on your source, momdear, but if it *is* going to be a General, then it almost has to be Petraeus. I admit that I’d vote for him. But he doesn’t appear interested.

    Nobody else comes close to having the exposure or credentials that he does, certainly not the string of Generals that have been canned in recent years. The Dems are going to run ex-Gen. Ricardo Sanchez for retiring Kay Bailey Hutchison’s Texas Senate seat, and that’s going to be a disaster. (Texas dems are down so far that that’s all they have left – “hey, who’s famous and has a mescan name?”) Ricardo got canned for Abu Ghraib, if you’ve forgotten.

    You want to look at the Texas Dem’s and say “George Bush’s general at Abu Ghraib? REALLY???? You guys are kidding, right?” All the dems I know here are both embarrassed and pissed about it, and the campaign hasn’t even started yet.

    you know – there IS one General who would love to rule America, and may try his best. He displays sympathy for Osama bin Laden, says war is a natural extension of economics and politics and claims that ”man cannot survive without killing”

    His name? General Liu Yuan, Peoples Liberation Army, China.

    Read more:

  17. Redteam says:

    “I don’t think Israel has any problem with Palestinians’ returning,” he said

    I think you are taking this out of context. He said he doesn’t have any problem as long as they are going to follow the laws and not be terrorists.

    For example he said he doesn’t know, at the present time, what the correct path is in Afghanistan because he hasn’t seen the intelligence, etc, that the Pres sees and he is prepared to reserve judgement til he has seen it. seems logical to me. He didn’t seem ready to make political claims just to sound ‘presidential’. He might be the right guy.

  18. crosspatch says:

    Hmm, I still have one in the moderation bucket again, must be too long.

    Anyway, looks like the left took another sound trashing today, this time in Spain.

    This is the third election in just the past couple of months where “progressive” governments have been tossed out on their ears. The first was in New South Wales, Australia where they were tossed out after 16 years in power. Then came Canada where the Liberals surprised the media pollsters and lost by a huge margin with the Conservative party having an outright majority (no coalition government required). And today we have the local and municipal elections in Spain. It was so bad that the Socialists in Spain lost governments they had held since the days of Franco.

    The “progressive” movement is in global retreat.

  19. crosspatch says:

    Ok, make that TWO in the moderation bucket 🙁 what did I do?