Thread: Everybody's Asking 'Is Obama Mentally Present?'

What a twisted and doomed love story this presidency is turning out to be.

March 16, 2011

Everybody's Asking 'Is Obama Mentally Present?'

M Catharine Evans
22 Comments

Conservatives aren't the only ones befuddled by the President's Gridiron dinner antics, March madness picks and his strange Saturday radio address focusing on the Paycheck Fairness Act when a government shutdown has been looming for weeks. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03 ... ises-pile/

Daily Mail's Max Hastings calls Barack Obama "cool, cold, cerebral, and arrogant" in a March 14 lament. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z1Gm7TLWo2

Hastings, like millions of Europeans, fell in lust with the U.S President back in 2008 and now that the bloom is off the stem, he wants to break up. Like most of Obama's star-struck groupies he's racking his brain trying to understand what happened to the knight "mantled in a glittering white cloak...the great speechmaker."

On the Mideast, Afghanistan, the debt, unemployment, and myriad domestic and international crises the One appears "remote" displaying "a curious lack of interest." Curiously, Hastings cites Obama's post-massacre Arizona speech when he "rose to extraordinary heights of rhetoric" as the single exception to the president's otherwise glaring indifference in the face of so much turmoil.

Hastings contention that Obama is "missing in action" makes us wonder whether the President was ever ‘in the action' to begin with. By now, those paying attention know the Chicago trained community organizer did not come to lead but to act as a mouthpiece for those who desire to change the founding fathers' vision of America. And he needs four more years to finish the job. Hastings all but admits this may be the case:

While the world welcomed Obama as a transformational figure, he shows no sign of wishing to fulfil any such grand role.

Indeed, the White House is obsessed with a single issue: how to get its man re-elected in November 2012.

A Washingtonian who has studied the President at close quarters said to me: ‘I think I understand him now. He's a "pol" - a politico - who learned his business in the Chicago machine.

In trying to make sense of it all Hastings, being a good liberal Brit, scapegoats the American people as "nutters" and dutifully bashes Sarah Palin as that "moose hunting air-headed vice presidential candidate" whose "hick followers still love" her, but "Lord, be thanked, the White House now seems safe from her."

The reporter insists that the majority of Americans who live in the real world reject the "Republican excesses," and appreciate a "brilliant man" who never says or acts "irrationally."

Hastings refuses to speak ill of his former idol, but by the end of the piece he expresses frustration at the President's refusal to man up and "fight tough fights." But it can't be the President's fault; he "was bound to succumb to the sordid demands of machine politics." Was that before 2008 or after?

The reporter can't seem to bring himself to admit he was powerless over the Obama machine, taken in by the phony Axelrodian reality. Instead Hastings blames the "hicks" that did their homework. Weren't they the ones who googled ‘Alinsky;' were aghast when they listened to Reverend Wright's anti-American, anti-Semitic, anti-white speeches; and who discovered the "brilliant man" voted ‘present' 129 times in the Illinois State Senate?

A "Washington admirer" urges Hastings to "not lose faith" in Barack Obama, that he "may still lay claim to greatness." What a twisted and doomed love story this presidency is turning out to be.

Read more M.Catharine Evans at www.potterwilliamsreport.com

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/201 ... a_men.html

Can the Republicans overcome the ideological fracture of 2008: Practical conservatives v. religious zealots?

Originally Posted by Captainron

Can the Republicans overcome the ideological fracture of 2008: Practical conservatives v. religious zealots?

Great question Captainron! I can only speak for myself, I am leery of a lot of Candidates who run on their religious beliefs. I have seen way too many spout God, Bible verses etc. in their campaigns; only to see them go against what they say they FIRMLY believe in and live by!

To me knowing the Bible backwards and forwards means nothing except that you have a good memory, if you don't actually practice what you preach.

I'll take the zealot over the neo-con any day. Without the zealot, you are left with a Democrat. Heck, even with the zealot it is sometimes hard to tell the difference. Then when focused upon, the zealot provides for divisionary effect. Poor scapegoat.