Originally Posted by KaiserD2

. . . .but to compare Reagan to Obama, in a press conference, is ludicrous. Ronnie had studied his note cards. He read his talking points. He reached for a clever anecdote. He fumbled. He misspoke. That was it. Yes, he could give a good speech, but he could not think on his feet.

Originally Posted by jamesdglick

-You obviously haven't kept up with the latest research; your 20 year old talking points were de-bunked a while back when Reagan's diaries were released. Besides, many of his best quotes were off the cuff.

As for a guy who trips over his own tongue, and can't think on his feet, we can come up of plenty from The Messiah, who has yet to release his SAT scores.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Yes, he pauses a lot. So did JFK, actually. But he eventually expresses a very clear, well-supported and and well-developed thought. I stand by what I said.

-Now there's a rationalization. All of all sudden, NOT being able to think on your feet is the TRUE sign of intelligence.

Anyway, I've created a new thread to celebrate all of President Obama's less than Messiah like moments.

Originally Posted by jamesdglick

-Now there's a rationalization. All of all sudden, NOT being able to think on your feet is the TRUE sign of intelligence.

I don't see why not being able to verbalize thoughts the very moment you get them means that you are in some way stupid. It just means that Obama is a fairly introverted kind of guy (he develops the idea in his head, then speaks, as opposed to developing the thought out loud), which is somewhat rare amongst politicians.

Being introvert or an extrovert has nothing to do with how intelligent you are.

I've met plenty of people who can run laps around me intellectually who make long pauses and say 'uh' a lot, and I've also met people who are quick to speak, and can do so for long periods of time and still manage to say very little.

Yes, the extroverted style of speaking is usually pretty preferrable in a press conference setting, and it is certainly easier to understand. But I also think that English is easier to understand than Spanish, but that doesn't mean people who speak Spanish are dumb.

Here's an example of, uh, like, you know, one of those, uh, uh, examples of, uh, like, you know, President, uh, Obama's "introversion":

"Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go. Alaska and Hawaii, I was not allowed to go to even though I really wanted to visit, but my staff would not justify it."

-9 May 2008

Uh, like, does this mean that you think introverts get confused on the number of, uh, like states in The Union?

I'm an introvert, according to a test I took a few years back (and re-took last May). I've never said that there were more than 50 states in the Union. Now, if I'm having ACW flashbacks, I might say "34"...

Originally Posted by jamesdglick

Here's an example of, uh, like, you know, one of those, uh, uh, examples of, uh, like, you know, President, uh, Obama's "introversion":

"Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go. Alaska and Hawaii, I was not allowed to go to even though I really wanted to visit, but my staff would not justify it."

-9 May 2008

Uh, like, does this mean that you think introverts get confused on the number of, uh, like states in The Union?

I'm an introvert, according to a test I took a few years back (and re-took last May). I've never said that there were more than 50 states in the Union. Now, if I'm having ACW flashbacks, I might say "34"...

I always considered that a bad attempt at a joke, but in any case, you're changing the subject.

Your initial point was that Obama's long pauses are a sign of lack of intelligence. All I said was that long pauses have nothing to do with intelligence. You can make long pauses and be either brilliant or functionally retarded. It is quite simply a non-determining factor in whether or not someone is intelligent.

If you're going to call a guy stupid, then you should criticize his ideas, not make fun of dumb little gaffes. You're no better than the people who spent their time ridiculing Bush for his various verbal stumblings.

I am more interested in results than in eloquence.

We just had a guy in office who said things like "Is our children learning?" 57 states seems mild after that, except when Republicans point it out all the time after defending Bush for 8 years. That's just hilarious.

As for Obama, nominating Judd Gregg just because he was a Republican was a REALLY stupid idea, along with trusting Richardson enough to not vet him properly. Gary Locke should turn out better, he has done a lot of good for my home state.

Wait a second...

Are you implying Obama's dumb????

RACIST!!!!

Originally Posted by jamesdglick

-Now there's a rationalization. All of all sudden, NOT being able to think on your feet is the TRUE sign of intelligence.

Anyway, I've created a new thread to celebrate all of President Obama's less than Messiah like moments.

A quick, unstudied, daring, but wrong response to a question indicates recklessness. A slow, studied, but right response indicates not so much deceit but the apparent need to think out an answer. That may indicate that someone has not been in the situation before, and it indicates that someone with potential or talent has yet to learn the right answer to be applied automatically. The snappy, correct answer implies that someone has the experience to enter a job opening for a position that has stereotyped behavior and responses as an expectation; the other sorts of answers indicate that someone might need more training than the prospective employer wants, or (worse) that someone won't get things right.

The quick and stereotyped answer to a question on a job interview well fits someone who can fit in quickly. That well describes, for example, a traveling salesperson or a fast-food manager. For someone whose responsibilities entail finding answers instead of fitting rigid procedures, snappy answers are usually the wrong ones. One would expect more intellectual flexibility from an attorney, a judge, a scientist, a heart surgeon, a college professor, or a plant manager than from a letter carrier or a clerk-typist. There's far more to think about as President of the United States than there is for a data-entry person. Some work makes deliberation impossible or irrelevant; some makes deliberation the essence of the job.

An NCO or even a low-ranking commissioned officer must think on his feet. Generals and admirals don't think on their feet.

Originally Posted by jamesdglick

Here's an example of, uh, like, you know, one of those, uh, uh, examples of, uh, like, you know, President, uh, Obama's "introversion":

Please call me stupid.

I stutter in some situations. Often I am not even aware of it. Sometimes I may mix up a word. Its just the way I am wired.

I never liked the humor some comedians got with George W. Bush. I surely do not like the humor being inferred with Obama's pauses.

Hoping this thread is closed.

Originally Posted by TimWalker

I am more interested in results than in eloquence.

Except for when Bush is in office.

Originally Posted by antichrist

Except for when Bush is in office.

What do ya mean, Bush is still in office. I know he don't look like him or sound like him. But, he sure acts like him and spends money like him.

Oh fer Christ's sakes. I have an awful stuttering and stammering problem and have issues connecting thoughts to speech (probably an Asperger's thing), that doesn't make me stupid.

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

What do ya mean, Bush is still in office. I know he don't look like him or sound like him. But, he sure acts like him and spends money like him.

I figured it must just be our teevee here that was acting up; sounds like we're not the only ones whose sound and picture are a little bit off...

Nice to know nothing has changed, I guess..

Heck, Dubya has practically become a non-person... maybe because he can't say anything coherent.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Heck, Dubya has practically become a non-person... maybe because he can't say anything coherent.

I think he's in secret training to become the first ex-President rodeo clown. He'll probable screw that up as well.

Even with a bad TV, its hard to imagine someone confusing Obama for Bush - this new model can actually talk without the VP behind him obviously pulling on the strings.

Research 2000 has Obama favorable/unfavorables at 71/25, a net gain of 3 over last week

Congressional Dems are at 46/45, a net of 13!!! With the Dem party at 58/36, a net of 3.

Even the Congressional GOP Zombies at 17/68 got a small boost of 1 - must be the halo effect from Obama but particularly from the +13 Congressional Dems. However the Repub Walking-Dead Party at 32/64 lost a point from last week.

Let's hope Obama keeps having these "less than brilliant moments!"

Oh, but the Repubs still got Joe the Plumber and other bright lights, best capture here by Carpenter -

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/carpenter/324

CPAC, Limbaugh, and other horror stories from the crypt

One of the many pleasant aftereffects of ultraconservatism's crackup is the retirement of a civic need for appalled spectators to demonize its out-patient disciples -- or whacko-ize them, if you will -- because they're doing such a marvelous job of it all by themselves.

I mean, what additional diagnosis or prognosis is required when, for instance, the far right gathers with such convenient tidiness at events like CPAC, the Conservative Political Action Conference, and puts on pitiable display not only a wholesale absence of serious public policy, but a virtual 24/7 unraveling of whatever slim dignity it once strove to possess.

When even goddess-of-the-right Sarah Palin declines an appearance -- she suspects her old pals now have the cooties, I guess, plus she's too busy cramming for her 2012 finals, uncomprehendingly digesting copious past issues of Foreign Policy and Time for Kids -- then one knows the heavy black curtains are being lugubriously drawn.

"Man, this CPAC thing is crazy," observed Mr. Samuel Wurzelbacher, a.k.a. Joe the Plumber, to fellow attendee Mike Huckabee -- and that's probably the sanest thing we'll ever hear Sam/Joe utter. With concise but tragically fleeting lucidity, he captured the moment, the spirit, the zeitgeisty degeneration of his semi-philosophical compadres.

Sam/Joe Wurzelbacher/Plumber was, as the Politico reported, "a headliner at a Thursday panel titled 'Conservatism 2.0.' " A headliner, mind you: an itinerant, breathtakingly clueless bullshitter was a CPAC-Chosen One to enlighten the multitudes on the fundamentals of conservatism. Breathtaking indeed.

Also on Thursday there were book signings by the still-unnetted Ann Coulter -- just the name chills for itself -- and the vastly disingenuous David Horowitz. (I once heard David say in an interview that college professors lead a carefree, easy life of leisure with phenomenal pay; oh, they give occasional lectures, but that's pretty much the burden of their existence. A few months later, in another interview that touched on why there are so few female professors in the sciences, I heard him say it's because women don't care to suffer the grueling schedules and demands of a college professorship. This is a man who makes his living by deriding the intellectual honesty of higher-education sorts.)

So that was Thursday but today, of course, is Saturday, which brings us -- or, rather, just them, thankfully -- to CPAC's bookended finale of ... Rush Limbaugh, scheduled to bellow and bray at 5:00pm EST, then -- get this -- receive at 5:30 the "Defender of the Constitution Award." (America's Constitution?)

Just now I ventured over to rushlimbaugh.com to take an intrepid peek at how this deep Conscience of Conservatism might be previewing his upcoming performance. Here's what I found, here's what is on Rush's Web site, here's what is weighing on the profound mind of Mr. Limbaugh in these profoundest of deeply troubled times:

You know, Clint Eastwood had it right, Clint Eastwood said he's fed up with political correctness. He's fed up with everybody trying to be politically correct. He's fed up with nobody being able to laugh anymore. He's fed up with not being able to tell race jokes and ethnic jokes. When he was growing up, everybody did. Nobody took offense at it. Every race tells jokes about the other race. Every country tells jokes about people in other countries. We can't do it anymore.

I gather, however, that Rush will this evening. But pause just a moment and consider what topic -- from all the topics available to choose from in these, as noted, horrifically troubled times -- Mr. Limbaugh chose with which to preview his speech: race jokes.

That kind of says it all, doesn't it? It pinpoints and broadcasts just how utterly adrift and altogether irrelevant movement conservatism has become.

But don't take my word for it, commie-pinko unAmerican rabble-rouser that I surely am in the seething, delirious, Rush-possessed eyes of the far right. You might, however, try on for size, say, John Derbyshire, a National Review contributing editor writing this (suspiciously) for The American Conservative:

Why have we allowed carny barkers to run away with the Right?...

Did the Limbaughs, Hannitys, Savages, and Ingrahams lead us to this sorry state of affairs? They surely did. At the very least, by yoking themselves to the clueless George W. Bush and his free-spending administration, they helped create the great debt bubble that has now burst so spectacularly....

In place of the permanent things, we get Happy Meal conservatism: cheap, childish, familiar. Gone are the internal tensions, the thought-provoking paradoxes, the ideological uneasiness that marked the early Right.

But however much this dumbing down has damaged the conservative brand, it appeals to millions of Americans....

If conservatism is to have a future ... it will need to listen to more than the looped tape of lowbrow talk radio.

As spotlighted this evening before the huddled, fawning and lowbrow masses of CPAC.

A Mr. Derbyshire I can respect, I can debate, I can even empathize with, in many a Burkean way. A Mr. Limbaugh I can only laugh at -- and marvel at the irrelevantly silly depths to which he and his fellow carny barkers have dragged modern conservatism. 'Tis a pity, because modern liberalism needs a worthy opponent if it's to maintain its own mental health.

And you don't have to travel far to see the dumbing down; take for instance a thread for a 'Messiah Watch'

Originally Posted by Silifi

Your initial point was that Obama's long pauses are a sign of lack of intelligence...

-Please go back to post #1.

Originally, KaiserD2 claimed that President Obama was great, because he could think on his feet, while President Reagan supposedly couldn't. When I & M&L pointed out that the reverse was actually true, His Imperial Majesty changed tune, and suddenly claimed that NOT thinking on your feet is the true sign of Presidential greatness.

Get it?

Too bad you didn't take the effort to respond when it was Master Kaiser who made what you believe to an irrelevant point.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

An NCO or even a low-ranking commissioned officer must think on his feet. Generals and admirals don't think on their feet...

-Actually, they do, from time to time. Think Generalissimo Joe Stalin in June '41. I'm sure YOU can come up with examples of your own...

Originally Posted by Silifi

You're no better than the people who spent their time ridiculing Bush for his various verbal stumblings...

Originally Posted by Arkarch

...I never liked the humor some comedians got with George W. Bush. I surely do not like the humor being inferred with Obama's pauses...

-Both excellent points!

That reminds me... how would this incident have been handled, if it had been President Bush, instead of President Obama:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/01/28/2009-01-28_president_barack_obamas_rookie_mistake_a.html

"It looks like President Obama hasn't gotten acquainted to his White House surroundings. On the way back to the Oval Office Tuesday, the President approached a paned window, instead of the actual door -- located a few feet to his right.

Doors didn't open automatically for Obama’s predecessor either. While making a hasty exit from a 2005 press conference in Beijing, former President George W. Bush tugged on the handles of a door, only to find it locked.

Bush laughed off the blunder, but the pictures still live on as part of Bush's lame duck legacy. However, there was little note taken of Obama's rookie mistake.

The Bush incident in Beijing received widespread media coverage. David Letterman used it to develop a Top Ten list. Good Morning America's Charles Gibson intoned over the video of Bush struggling with the door:

'No way out. President Bush tries the wrong door on his trip to Asia and has fun for the cameras. But the big question now: Does he have an exit strategy for Iraq?'

Such symbolism was noted in columns written by the Washington Post's Peter Baker and Eugene Robinson. The New York Times printed a November 21, 2005 letter from author Bernard Goldberg that said in part:

'On Nov. 21, The Times published a four-panel picture on Page 1 that extended over two columns and ran some 12 inches from the masthead more than halfway down the page showing President Bush trying to exit a meeting with reporters in Beijing -- through a locked door.
Get it? The guy can't even figure out how to get out of a room. What a dunce!'

So will we see similar prominent coverage, editorial comment and jests aimed at the current president's embarrassment? That would indeed be change from the Obama obsession of the mainstream media, but I don't see much hope for that happening."

Pointing out BO's Clay of Feet to those who have suffered full frontal obotomies can only be salubrious.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Heck, Dubya has practically become a non-person... maybe because he can't say anything coherent.

-Tsk, tsk!

Originally Posted by The Rani

Oh man, here we go again with the Daily Kos poll!

I'm going to have to start watching some of the guy's speeches. They sound entertaining.

Well, you pulled out your poll (on another thread) and I'll pulled out mine, and obviously, mine was bigger (approval rating).

This site does an excellent job of combining all the polls to give a more balanced look -

http://pollster.com/


They also give a lot of insight on the various polls and their bias. Research 2000 gets pretty high marks; Rasmussen not so much - guess which poll the Repubs always pull out? That's right, the small and diseased one.

Originally Posted by The Rani

This is why I will shed no tears as newspapers go out of business and more and more people get their news off the internet instead of television.

Yea, why have facts when you can have blog and message board opinions and hearsay.

Originally Posted by jamesdglick

Snip

Paraphrase: Bush wasn't so bad and Obama's getting a free pass. It's so unfair, boo-hoo, boo-hoo.

What, did you loss your subscription to Dittohead Memo? Haven't your heard? You guys are suppose to throwing Bush under the bus now -

http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.c...t-the-ene.html

Conservatives have met the enemy. And it's Bush
10:02 AM Sat, Feb 28, 2009

You have to wonder what Bush uberguru Karl Rove must have thought of this week's Conservative Political Action Conference, where his old boss has become just another villain of the conservative movement. Here's what some were saying about Bush, once the peacock of the party, now the featherduster:

Mike Huckabee, who denounced Republican wasteful spending and the botched response to Katrina by the Bush administration. "You know what kind of conservatives we need to be first and foremost? Competent conservatives."

David Keene, American Conservative Union chairman: "Republicans lost their credibility as the party of the center-right when they became specialists in earmarks and the Bush White House presided over huge increases in discretionary spending."

Ambassador John Bolton, untethered now from all things Bush: "Too many people identified the Bush administration with conservatism. I think that's far from being accurate."

And former Speaker Newt Gingrich: "The great irony of where we are today is that we had a Bush-Obama big-spending program that was bipartisan in its nature ... We got big spending under Bush, now we've got big spending under Obama."

Et tu, Newtie?

Oh, and the comments are interesting -

Comments
Posted by Dallas Mike @ 12:29 PM Sat, Feb 28, 2009

The Republicans continueto be so far out of touch they think no one will noticed each of them supported George Bush in lock step.

We notice.
report as abuse
Posted by Don @ 12:51 PM Sat, Feb 28, 2009

Republicans have really become the "Party of No." Don't do this, don't do that. We shouldn't do those things over there. It's always can't, no, won't. Never any positive messages about problem solving. Nothing even close to statements of Vision, Mission, Strategies, and Tactics. Republicans, today, are really nothing more than Whigs with cellphones.
report as abuse
Posted by SteveKelson @ 12:59 PM Sat, Feb 28, 2009

Conservatives have met the enemy...and the enemy is, more acuurately....TRUTH. Rewind just a few days back. Bobby Jindal: Another GOP'er in a long list of bold faced lairs.
They have nothing to fear but the truth itself
report as abuse
Posted by Theresa @ 1:08 PM Sat, Feb 28, 2009

They will sure look like hypocrites if they keep accusing Democrats of having Bush Derangement Syndrome, when they dare utter a critical word about the previous administration.

Let's get with it, Slick, the zombies won't like this glimmer of independent thinking by you!

Anyone remember how badly Senator Obama stumbled thru' his answer on giving driver's licenses to illegals?

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/11/15/obama-and-drivers-licenses/

-15 NOV 2007, at the Donkey's Debate

...the sad thing was, that this shouldn't have been a matter of "thinking on his feet", since Senator Clinton had been asked the same question at the previous debate.

That would put BO's ability to think on his feet on par with Joe Stalin around the 25th of June, 1941...

Originally Posted by jamesdglick

Anyone remember how badly Senator Obama stumbled thru' his answer on giving driver's licenses to illegals?

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/11/15/obama-and-drivers-licenses/

-15 NOV 2007, at the Donkey's Debate

...the sad thing was, that this shouldn't have been a matter of "thinking on his feet", since Senator Clinton had been asked the same question at the previous debate.

That would put BO's ability to think on his feet on par with Joe Stalin around the 25th of June, 1941...

Help me out here, Slick, does this fall under this Propaganda Technique -

Delegitimize One's Opponent
Delegitimize one's opponent so as to avoid addressing the substance of his argument. This is another kind of ad hominem attack. The goal is to make it impossible for opponents to be heard respectfully in the debate.

Sen. Joe McCarthy (R-WI, 1947-1957) accused Gen. George C. Marshall and Secretary of State Dean Acheson of being part of "a [Communist] conspiracy so immense as to dwarf any previous such venture in the history of man. A conspiracy of infamy so bleak that, when it is finally exposed, its principles shall be forever deserving of the maledictions of all liberal men."

If a politician can convince the audience that his opponent is a sleazy Commie lying traitor, then it won't matter what the other guy says after that...

or is it this one -

Apply Labels
Apply labels to things or people — especially derogatory labels. This is very similar to name-calling.

* If someone talks about universal health care, scream "That's Socialism!"
* If someone talks about peace and freedom and justice, complain, "That's a Liberal agenda."

or this one -

Ad Hominem, Launch Personal Attacks On Opponents
When you can't refute factual arguments, kill the messenger. Have fun with character assassination. Attack the arguer and not the argument. Ad Hominem includes slurs, slander, libel, innuendo, baseless accusations, irrelevant criticism, groundless denunciations, and name-calling.

or this one -

Engage in Name Calling
Name calling is a kind of ad hominem attack, but it has a special power and flavor all its own.

This technique is simple and obvious: you just call your opponents names, preferably really derogatory and slanderous names, like this:

* "You are an atheist, a liar, a dummy, a drunkard, etc..."

* "You are a sexist, a racist, a fascist... not politically correct..."

* "You are an elitist, effete, intellectual..."

or are you going for some combination?

This is not a test, you can check your Dittohead Manual (see technique #4 above ) for the answer.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Um, do you even realize how ridiculous this post makes you look?

OMG! I thought you of all people would have caught the intent -

(see technique #4 above )

I even added the smiley for those a little slow!

I can't imagine you 'slipping' so I have to assume that must of been a wild party you were at last night. I can understand that, but I can understand why you didn't invite me!!!

Rani, to Playwrite:

Originally Posted by The Rani

Um, do you even realize how ridiculous this post makes you look?

-I doubt he realizes how ridiculous all his posts make him look.

Particularly since PW has been guilty of using all of his listed techniques vs. President Bush since JAN 2008 (when I first started to notice PW).

Hypocrisy!

Originally Posted by jamesdglick

Anyone remember how badly Senator Obama stumbled thru' his answer on giving driver's licenses to illegals?

Good crap. Don't you realize how badly you are embarrassing the people who have something substantive to say against the Regime? I mean, you're standing over near us and making a complete buffoon of yourself. And since it's a text-only dialogue, we can't perform any of the appropriate social rituals like rolling our eyes or quietly and calmly edging away from you.

And anyway whatever legitimacy your criticism of the current Regime might have had -- you gave it all up when you spent the last several years with your lips pressed firmly around the dong of the previous Regime-boss, no matter what they did.

Originally Posted by jamesdglick

Too bad you didn't take the effort to respond when it was Master Kaiser who made what you believe to an irrelevant point.

sorry I don't obsessively read this board and hunt down every post that I might disagree with

nor do I take the time to cross-analyze two different posts made at two different times in order to point out double standards in other people's thinking