15 thoughts on “What Barack Obama Can Learn from Glenn Beck

  1. Mike Kennedy says:

    Hmmmm. Obama the super student? Where would that have been?

    Mr. Obama doesn’t have an image problem. He has a credibility problem. It’s not that people don’t like his demeanor. It’s more that they don’t like his policies.

    I could give a fuck if he’s a nerd straight out of “The Big Bang Theory or if he is smooth enough to talk a dog off a meat wagon (my impression is that he is neither).

    This guy is simply tone deaf and out of touch, as are “Fucknutsville” members of his inner circle.

    I love the fact that liberals think that a big segment of America is stupid and borderline retarded — brainwashed by the cult of Fox News (then they denigrate the ratings of Fox News, trying to convince themselves the audience is too small to matter.

    This, I believe, is a form of mental illness that should be chronicled in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

    Voters in November will turn out the other political party — making it the second time in in less than five years that there has been a “no confidence” vote in both of the major political parties — both of which fucked up their opportunities with bribes, egomania and the aphrodisiac of power.

    But somehow, the hillbillies and ignoramuses that apparently make up the American public will stumble through and the country will move on. Isn’t it amazing how that happens?

    We vote for “change” and most of the time we get the same soppy, sappy shit we got somewhere else along the line in our past — yet we still muddle through.

    Makes me feel even better to live here.

    1. Interesting take, Mike. a bit on the nihilist side. But, speaking for myself here, when conservative voters continue to think Obama is a Muslim, that the stimulus failed, etc., etc., and conservative politicians don’t do anything to dissuade their people from gross misinformation bordering on pagan superstition, I have a hard time proving that your crowd isn’t as sad as I’m caricaturizing them. Bottom line, we could “muddle” better if the opposition demonstrated more concern for the country than their reelection strategies.

      1. Mike Kennedy says:

        Huh? The ones most worried about re-election are the Dems and with good reason. I could take or leave “my crowd.” I have little sympathy for Republicans and less for Democrats.

  2. PM says:

    Obama has an economics problem, which creates the image problem. And he has limited ability to do anything about it–most of what happens in the economy is beyond our ability to explain, much less predict or influence.

    Beck et. al are simply flim flam artists making lots of $$ off of the fears and resentments of fools.

    Goldline, anyone?

  3. Newt says:

    None of the current malaise is attributable to failed liberal policy, is it Brian? It’s all just a PR problem.

    I know. I know – we’re just another Krugman stimulus package or two from a turn around. We’ll label it intellectualism that the conservatives can’t quite grasp, and we’ll blame Obama’s failings on Beck and Limbaugh.

    That’s a n nice tidy excuse for all that ails the Democrats – except that they control the presidency and both chambers of Congress.

    1. I think by now, Newt, we can agree that there’s quite a considerable range of “democrats” in Congress. Raw numbers hardly convey the disparity between Barney Frank and Ben Nelson, do they?

  4. john sherman says:

    It seems to me there are two other problems: the congressional Democrats; the gasbag media.

    The congressional Republicans are the most disciplined party since the Communist Party USA in the 40’s; comrade McConnell changes the line and every Republican gets on board. The Democrats on the other hand make anarchy look organized; they don’t even have the sense of self preservation of amoebas. They don’t defend policies that are completely defensible.

    The other side of it is that even if Democrats did start to speak out, it’s not clear where they would find a platform. Look at the gasbag shows; balance seems to mean four Republicans and one Democrat. Steve Benen has kept track and John McCain has been on a Sunday morning gasbag show 24 times since Obama became president, and his recent resume is that he’s a spectacular loser who is not particularly important in his own party. The leading guest in 2009 was Newt Gingrich, whose importance is what? Then there’s Sarah Palin whose every tweet is treated as newsworthy. Where are the Democratic counterparts?

    Finally, there’s the problem that if people aren’t punished for lying, they’re not going to stop. A couple of days ago NPR did a story where it pointed out in its own polite, diffident way that the things prominent Republicans were saying about the Affordable Care Act were lies; NPR had the quotes, often on Fox, saying things that reliable experts pronounced demonstrably false. So, NPR goes tut, tut, but there are no further consequences. Al Gore got trashed for not lying, but these guys get away with saying whatever they want.

    1. I see McCain made another appearance this past weekend. A bit like the Star Tribune, which fell into a pit of stale dogma when it sought out an engaging conservative, all these shows are so desperate to show their equanimity that they pointedly exclude true liberal firebrands and reassure themselves with the hoariest Republican war horses. But then we all know there are good reasons why Sarah Palin … and now Marco Rubio don’t go on these programs.

      1. john sherman says:

        The strib op-ed page is deeply embarrassing. After years of hearing the paper called Pravda on the Mississippi, they completely caved in and now only print ex Bush speech writers from Fred Hiatt’s hack factory at the Wapo or conservative affirmative action hires from the NY Times. The world has long ago exhausted its need for Krauthammer and Will, but they turn up with monotonous regularity in the strib. The thing I can rely is that if that if the blogs I read refer to the stupidest or most dishonest piece currently available, I won’t have to click through, as it will turn up in the strib. Herbert, Rich and Krugman are doing great pieces for the Times, but somehow all we get is Brooks.

  5. Frogman of Grant says:

    Who are you calling a “whack job?” Or, more to the point…what do you mean by that? I believe the expression you’re looking for is derived from the term “wacky,” as in crazy. So it would be “wack job.”

    A “whack job” is, I’m pretty sure, something else altogether. Of course, in a sense, I suppose it might still apply…

    1. Can I first just say how delighted I am to have you back, Frogman? Your keen, critical mind, always boring to the precise heart of the argument and brilliantly filleting the most elemental of rhetorical foundations. Thank you for keeping me honest. As for “how so … whacked”, when thinking of modern Conservative “messaging” I concede I am processing imagery that involves equal amounts compulsive masturbation and Joe Pesci.

  6. Newt says:

    Devastating news for the Dems …

    By PAUL HAVEN, Associated Press Writer Paul Haven – Wed Sep 8, 3:18 pm ET

    HAVANA – Fidel Castro told a visiting American journalist that Cuba’s communist economic model doesn’t work, a rare comment on domestic affairs from a man who has conspicuously steered clear of local issues since stepping down four years ago.

    The fact that things are not working efficiently on this cash-strapped Caribbean island is hardly news. Fidel’s brother Raul, the country’s president, has said the same thing repeatedly. But the blunt assessment by the father of Cuba’s 1959 revolution is sure to raise eyebrows.

    Jeffrey Goldberg, a national correspondent for The Atlantic magazine, asked if Cuba’s economic system was still worth exporting to other countries, and Castro replied: “The Cuban model doesn’t even work for us anymore” Goldberg wrote Wednesday in a post on his Atlantic blog.

Comments are closed.