Comments on: Arrogance

By: Carl Eric Scott

Carl Eric Scott — Thu, 11 Oct 2012 02:41:10 +0000

Jim, great comment…I had one of those long responses that somehow got eaten as I tried to post. The highlights: I agreed with your temptation to arrogance given by his situation argument, I tried to articulate the “two tracks” of Obama criticism, and expressed gratitude for your remaining on the more respectable one, and wondered about the rock thing. And lest folks get the idea that you’re all about being respectable, I linked to your 2007 “The Stupid Party” piece.

By: Brian

Brian — Wed, 10 Oct 2012 16:49:53 +0000

“in January, 2013 when he has the free time to devote to it”

Um, by all accounts this guy has all the free time in the world. Just add up the time he spends at fund raisers, golfing, going on shows like Letterman & The View, and it’s clear the guy’s not exactly putting in 20 hours days…

By: Peter

Peter — Wed, 10 Oct 2012 13:20:21 +0000

“Shouldn’t that count for something?”

If POTUS were a symbolic position entailing attending state funerals and receiving the Super Bowl victors I would want an erudite and likeable representative for our society. But it isn’t. With the responsibility and authority of that office erudition and likeability are way below competence and character on my list of qualifications.

For my part, I hope Obama is invited to comment on the rock song book in January, 2013 when he has the free time to devote to it.

By: James Ceaser

James Ceaser — Wed, 10 Oct 2012 12:18:59 +0000

John Presnall proves above that to be objective is not always to be “objective.” So Carl Scott, despite his “humility” (on which he recently posted), may have everything right. As for myself–Lawler can post if he likes–I may just be playing to the pundit crowd, which prefers hedging and “objectivity”… after all, maybe I am wrong and want to live for another day. So I would call it caution more than objectivity.

But a couple of things can be said that help either excuse Obama or that should raise him in Carl’s estimation. Obama was treated by the whole world as a deity for over two years (2007-2009), and who among us placed in that situation might not fall into the trap of believing it? It takes a strong person to resist the flattery of deification. Obama is clearly not that strong. And then the more important point. Obama–not Romney–would clearly be the one who could comment on, and add some intelligent commentary to, Carl’s instructive posts on rock music and culture over the past couple of years. Shouldn’t that count for something?

By: Robert Cheeks

Robert Cheeks — Wed, 10 Oct 2012 11:06:10 +0000

“But compared with Lawler and Ceaser, I’m losing it with Obama. Or put it this way: I’m glad they’re trying to be fair to the imaginary Obama that exists in many good Democrats’ minds, but I somehow can’t bring myself to conduct that task of measuring him by standard political analysis, of assuming the comparison with others who have held the office can this time be the reliable guide. This president is way out there in his willingness to lie and in the extent of his own self-delusion.”

Could this insight be the result of your own realization of what this man’s objectives are for our nation?

By: Pseudoplotinus

Pseudoplotinus — Wed, 10 Oct 2012 03:27:17 +0000

Breathtaking if true. I admit the behavior is consistent with the profiles of him by Klein, Suskind and Woodward. And I share the reluctance as a thinking person to want to slip into the Obama caricature syndrome. But its equally fascinating, not only for its content but because it indicates he’s starting to piss off his own people to the extent that some are ready to throw him under the bus. Almost Greek in its proportions. I’m looking forward to the coming HBO dramatization.

Regarding Big Bird, I predict in the aftermath of Obama’s epic loss the phrase ‘Flipping the Big Bird’ will replace ‘Jumping the Shark’ in political circles.

You heard it here first.

By: John Presnall

John Presnall — Wed, 10 Oct 2012 02:37:10 +0000

Doesn’t today’s release of the “I’m Barack Obama and I approve this Big Bird ad” show that he takes the challenge of Romney and his ideas seriously? I mean, that ad could not be made by an arrogant man! Could it? It is a substantial contribution the the important issues of our times, and it is only fitting that it finds a place in our most august quadrennial activity of comparing presidential candidates for election.

Now without the lame irony–Rum, Romanism, and rebellion or Ma! Ma! Where’s my Pa? or acid, amnesty, and abortion, etc., etc. have got nothing on this stupid ad solemnly approved by the president. Though wrongheaded and demagogic, the earlier claims at least pointed to some important issues. Rebellion, illegitimate children, drugs and abortion. But Big Bird is just stupid, as is the reference to Slurpees, or Tickle Me Elmo being on the lam with O.J. Simpson, and it’s all from the president’s mouth. The president has no restraint over his hipster ironic rhetoric.

(I’m not running for president, so it’s okay if I do it!)

On the standard political analysis stuff, I’m not so sure that your “losing it with Obama” is entirely out of sorts with the science of presidential comparison. Yeah, yours is a partisan opinion (one that I share), but that doesn’t necessarily discredit its truth. Lying? Yes, and not only to a greater degree than others, but perhaps also a difference in kind. Self-delusion? To be sure, and a kind of self-delusion that could only manifest itself in the highest office in the Kardashian cum technologically social networked times like our own. I suppose none of this reflects well on all of us. Naked? Well, I always thought that if you took off the suit, there would be nothing there. But you actually have the facts on your side. Despite rumors to the contrary about an imaginary Obama, it appears that Obama has not deluded himself to the extent that he actually believes that he doesn’t have a body. So naked? Yes. The suit is off!

Shouldn’t the role of political science bring us to clarity about the truth of a partisan position–even if is only a partial truth? Yes. So perhaps your “losing it” is in fact the scientific truth.