A cult of personality arises when an individual uses mass media, propaganda, or other methods, to create an idealized and heroic public image, often through unquestioning flattery and praise.
Does Delacrat not want Obama to be successful? I knew he (she?) had somethings in common with the teabagz, but I thought he (she?) wanted Obama to chalk up some wins against the hated Republicans.
I am reading in the press that Obama is “winning” and experiencing a “comeback.” I guess it is some kind of a Zen concept – how to get to your destination by going in the opposite direction. On the other hand, it is the conservative media who is calling him a “winner,” so go figure.
Then I remembered: George W. Bush got elected twice on a platform of the Bush tax cuts, even with a shrinking middle class and the slowest job growth in modern times. Americans love the Bush tax cuts for the rich, Democrats and Republicans alike. And we don’t ever want to be told we have to pay for them. We are like the lab rats who keep pushing the cocaine lever until we die.
So whoever wants to sit in the White House has to keep the Bush tax cuts in place at all costs. At all costs. This is the secret Obama has learned and I failed to grasp. He’s got it.
Nothing will satisfy Shit For Brains. POTUS could deliver on every one of his campaign promises, have a public option, and he still wouldn’t be satisfied. Be gone, troll.
So the DADT repeal means you keep your job, if you’re a 1) LGBT …and 2) in the military, a minority within a tiny minority.
With 15-20% real civilian unemployment, which reputable economists have argued has been caused in part by a bloated US military, I am, at best, ambivalent about this “win”.
START is a treaty with a nation with whom we are formally at peace and have close and cordial relations. It’s a good thing, but hardly an urgent matter.
My earlier point stands. Where – in any of his comments – did delacrat leave room to maneuver? How can he ever give Obama sincere credit?
He can’t. Therefore, nothing will ever be enough. He framed everyone one of his comments in a win or lose way. Meaning: If Obama wins a point, delacrat loses.
It was your room to maneuver, dolt. You’ve painted yourself into a rhetorical corner where all you can do is attack Obama. If DADT passing is met with the same level of bile that “indefinite detention” is met – why would anyone pay attention to your comments? It becomes white noise.
Those are kinda paltry wins. So the DADT repeal means you keep your job, if you’re a 1) LGBT …and 2) in the military, a minority within a tiny minority.
Someone dial to the hereafter, and tell Jackie Robinson and Larry Doby that their MLB debuts were “paltry wins” cuz big league ballplayers are a tiny minority.
Comment by jason330 on 22 December 2010 at 10:52 pm:
“Dolt…You’ve painted yourself into a rhetorical corner where all you can do is attack Obama. If DADT passing is met with the same level of bile that “indefinite detention” is met – why would anyone pay attention to your comments?”
Jason,
I submit that “Obomba preparing an executive order that would formalize indefinite detention without trial”, is more cause for indignation than delacrat painting himself into a rhetorical corner.
Why don’t you just come out and say you hate Obama on a personal level and there is nothing he can do to change your opinion? At least that would be honest.
Also, calling DADT a paltry victory is insulting to all those who worked on this issue over the years.
But I get that you’re the arranger of priorities. What you say counts, counts. What you deem paltry…
I’m just wondering if some critics are willing to admit that Obama was right and they were wrong about his DADT repeal strategy. He was able to accomplish it legislatively, which is much better than an executive order. He was right to pursue the survey and he turned Adm. Mullen and Sec. Gates into powerful proponents for the repeal, which gave cover to some Democrats (like Webb & Pryor) to vote yes. Giving the Republicans partial victory on tax cuts also freed them up to vote yes on DADT repeal, as well as START and Zadroga.
Del saw the strategy and changed his position to “Obama shouldn’t be letting ANYONE in the army and if he does let gays in, it is just because he wants to see them die”
It proves time and again what a malcontent teabag it is.
that said, the republicans are total slime for holding all that legislation hostage so their millionaire donors could get a slight tax break. Total slime.
I’m just wondering if some critics are willing to admit that Obama was right and they were wrong about his DADT repeal strategy. He was able to accomplish it legislatively, which is much better than an executive order. He was right to pursue the survey and he turned Adm. Mullen and Sec. Gates into powerful proponents for the repeal, which gave cover to some Democrats (like Webb & Pryor) to vote yes.
Yes of course he was right to plan a winning strategy and to fight on DADT. Why would anybody not agree with that?
Now it is the apologists’s turn: Now that we know it is possible, who is willing to admit that Obama was wrong for not devising and pursuing a similar winning political strategy for the public option and expiration of upper income tax cuts?
Let us set aside for the moment the very strong likelihood that an early win on public option and upper-income tax cuts would have headed off the enthusiasm gap, kept the House, and not even put us in the position for the December compromises. We could have been having the “resurgent Obama” stories months ago, if Obama had wanted them. And we would be in position to complete the agenda in the second half of the term, instead of playing defense.
Giving the Republicans partial victory on tax cuts also freed them up to vote yes on DADT repeal, as well as START and Zadroga.
No I do not agree. I think those wins would have come anyway with a strong effort by Obama and Reid. And without the upper income cave-in, we would have had ALL of the Republican’s lunch instead of a few appetizers. The Repubs would have been seriously weakened politically, instead of measuring the drapes. Not to mention the benefits to the economy.
I have learned a lesson: Democrats are a diverse set of interest groups, none of whom are particularly interested in the economy as a whole. Biden and Obama have successfully marginalized progressives by dealing with them as just another interest group selfishly out to get something tangible for themselves, instead of a movement toward a vision of society. Shame on Democrats who have bought that theory.
And now as a result, Republicans can successfully set us to fighting by pitting one interest group against another. For example, DADT activists vs. US prosperity is a battle that should never have been fought, and now that it is over, it is impolite to talk about it.
Now the only thing that distinguishes Democrats from Republicans is the social issues.
“It’s the economy stupid” has been laid to rest forever.
Obama won in the lame duck because he 1) compromised on tax cuts and 2) worked with a Republican on both DADT (Susan Collins) and START (Richard Lugar). Obama did compromise on hcr, he gave away the public option to get Lieberman, Nelson and Lincoln. On tax cuts for the rich I’m not sure who he could have worked with on the Republican side.
“Richard Lugar?” START passed with more than 66 votes.
On tax cuts for the rich I’m not sure who he could have worked with on the Republican side.
That is Biden’s and Obama’s and Reid’s job to identify the weak members and cut them out of the herd, just like they did with START. You and I wouldn’t know who or how beforehand, but Obama and Biden and Reid would. Just like with START.
Maybe I am too cynical, but when Obama says the Senate “won’t budge” I feel like I would be very gullible to take him at face value. It makes me feel like I am being played, and it kills me to see otherwise smart Democrats fall for it. Especially after his START performance.
When Boehner signaled weakness on middle class tax cuts, the House completely passed on the issue because of the Blue Dogs,
And the Blue Dogs paid the price on Election Day, in a welcome bit of karma… unfortunately so did the rest of the Democrats.
It was a missed opportunity for leadership. That would have been the time for a coordinated Democratic messaging campaign, and a national address explaining the importance of decoupling the tax cuts, and educating the nation that the House bill provides tax cuts for everyone.
Instead, we allowed the agenda be set by Democrats that were to the right of Republicans on that issue.
What continues to be fun (and how you know they aren’t serious) is that the people who keep calling for more leadership or more work by this President never:
1. Run the play. In some detail. We went through this over and over during the Public Option discussion and there is lots of exhortations to more magic, but there is never any detail of the play that gets you the votes.
2. Call for pressure on the people who will be — you know, voting.
Tom Carper got away with dissing the Public Option which means that you Delaware progressives didn’t deliver on holding this guy accountable.
What is clear is the President Obama can count votes better than you. And you aren’t helping him to get more votes for the stuff you want.
And spare me the special powers of the President or whatever your magical thinking is. You’ve spent two years getting more evidence than you should have ever needed that the magical thinking gets you nothing. The votes are everything.
I was thinking the same thing.
A cult of personality arises when an individual uses mass media, propaganda, or other methods, to create an idealized and heroic public image, often through unquestioning flattery and praise.
I’m not getting your change of heart. I thought you wanted Obama to get his act together?
jason,
Doesn’t posting this image of Obomba not strike you as “unquestioning flattery and praise” characteristic of a cult of personality?
ROTFLMAO!! Im so loving it – he coming out swinging for 2012
watch out folks, I think he;s just been warming the bench and there is more to come!
At least I hope so
and if what makes us all better off is the cult of personality – who the fuck cares – as long as it gets better!!
Unlike always posting personal, negative comments and unflattering rhetoric?
I don’t see a change of heart coming from delacrat. He’s verbally backed himself into a corner.
Does Delacrat not want Obama to be successful? I knew he (she?) had somethings in common with the teabagz, but I thought he (she?) wanted Obama to chalk up some wins against the hated Republicans.
I am reading in the press that Obama is “winning” and experiencing a “comeback.” I guess it is some kind of a Zen concept – how to get to your destination by going in the opposite direction. On the other hand, it is the conservative media who is calling him a “winner,” so go figure.
Then I remembered: George W. Bush got elected twice on a platform of the Bush tax cuts, even with a shrinking middle class and the slowest job growth in modern times. Americans love the Bush tax cuts for the rich, Democrats and Republicans alike. And we don’t ever want to be told we have to pay for them. We are like the lab rats who keep pushing the cocaine lever until we die.
So whoever wants to sit in the White House has to keep the Bush tax cuts in place at all costs. At all costs. This is the secret Obama has learned and I failed to grasp. He’s got it.
Nothing will satisfy Shit For Brains. POTUS could deliver on every one of his campaign promises, have a public option, and he still wouldn’t be satisfied. Be gone, troll.
Jason,
Those are kinda paltry wins.
So the DADT repeal means you keep your job, if you’re a 1) LGBT …and 2) in the military, a minority within a tiny minority.
With 15-20% real civilian unemployment, which reputable economists have argued has been caused in part by a bloated US military, I am, at best, ambivalent about this “win”.
START is a treaty with a nation with whom we are formally at peace and have close and cordial relations. It’s a good thing, but hardly an urgent matter.
Ah… the “not good enough” meme.
My earlier point stands. Where – in any of his comments – did delacrat leave room to maneuver? How can he ever give Obama sincere credit?
He can’t. Therefore, nothing will ever be enough. He framed everyone one of his comments in a win or lose way. Meaning: If Obama wins a point, delacrat loses.
Comment by pandora at 9:17 pm:
“My earlier point stands. Where – in any of his comments – did delacrat leave room to maneuver?”
Why do we owe Obomba “room to maneuver” ?
Did we owe Bu Sh “room to maneuver” ?
It was your room to maneuver, dolt. You’ve painted yourself into a rhetorical corner where all you can do is attack Obama. If DADT passing is met with the same level of bile that “indefinite detention” is met – why would anyone pay attention to your comments? It becomes white noise.
Those are kinda paltry wins. So the DADT repeal means you keep your job, if you’re a 1) LGBT …and 2) in the military, a minority within a tiny minority.
Someone dial to the hereafter, and tell Jackie Robinson and Larry Doby that their MLB debuts were “paltry wins” cuz big league ballplayers are a tiny minority.
Comment by jason330 on 22 December 2010 at 10:52 pm:
“Dolt…You’ve painted yourself into a rhetorical corner where all you can do is attack Obama. If DADT passing is met with the same level of bile that “indefinite detention” is met – why would anyone pay attention to your comments?”
Jason,
I submit that “Obomba preparing an executive order that would formalize indefinite detention without trial”, is more cause for indignation than delacrat painting himself into a rhetorical corner.
Why don’t you just come out and say you hate Obama on a personal level and there is nothing he can do to change your opinion? At least that would be honest.
Also, calling DADT a paltry victory is insulting to all those who worked on this issue over the years.
But I get that you’re the arranger of priorities. What you say counts, counts. What you deem paltry…
delA1,
you’re a cartoon. a total joke with more predictable drivel than the entire GOP.
I’m just wondering if some critics are willing to admit that Obama was right and they were wrong about his DADT repeal strategy. He was able to accomplish it legislatively, which is much better than an executive order. He was right to pursue the survey and he turned Adm. Mullen and Sec. Gates into powerful proponents for the repeal, which gave cover to some Democrats (like Webb & Pryor) to vote yes. Giving the Republicans partial victory on tax cuts also freed them up to vote yes on DADT repeal, as well as START and Zadroga.
Del saw the strategy and changed his position to “Obama shouldn’t be letting ANYONE in the army and if he does let gays in, it is just because he wants to see them die”
It proves time and again what a malcontent teabag it is.
that said, the republicans are total slime for holding all that legislation hostage so their millionaire donors could get a slight tax break. Total slime.
I’m just wondering if some critics are willing to admit that Obama was right and they were wrong about his DADT repeal strategy. He was able to accomplish it legislatively, which is much better than an executive order. He was right to pursue the survey and he turned Adm. Mullen and Sec. Gates into powerful proponents for the repeal, which gave cover to some Democrats (like Webb & Pryor) to vote yes.
Yes of course he was right to plan a winning strategy and to fight on DADT. Why would anybody not agree with that?
Now it is the apologists’s turn: Now that we know it is possible, who is willing to admit that Obama was wrong for not devising and pursuing a similar winning political strategy for the public option and expiration of upper income tax cuts?
Let us set aside for the moment the very strong likelihood that an early win on public option and upper-income tax cuts would have headed off the enthusiasm gap, kept the House, and not even put us in the position for the December compromises. We could have been having the “resurgent Obama” stories months ago, if Obama had wanted them. And we would be in position to complete the agenda in the second half of the term, instead of playing defense.
Giving the Republicans partial victory on tax cuts also freed them up to vote yes on DADT repeal, as well as START and Zadroga.
No I do not agree. I think those wins would have come anyway with a strong effort by Obama and Reid. And without the upper income cave-in, we would have had ALL of the Republican’s lunch instead of a few appetizers. The Repubs would have been seriously weakened politically, instead of measuring the drapes. Not to mention the benefits to the economy.
I have learned a lesson: Democrats are a diverse set of interest groups, none of whom are particularly interested in the economy as a whole. Biden and Obama have successfully marginalized progressives by dealing with them as just another interest group selfishly out to get something tangible for themselves, instead of a movement toward a vision of society. Shame on Democrats who have bought that theory.
And now as a result, Republicans can successfully set us to fighting by pitting one interest group against another. For example, DADT activists vs. US prosperity is a battle that should never have been fought, and now that it is over, it is impolite to talk about it.
Now the only thing that distinguishes Democrats from Republicans is the social issues.
“It’s the economy stupid” has been laid to rest forever.
Obama won in the lame duck because he 1) compromised on tax cuts and 2) worked with a Republican on both DADT (Susan Collins) and START (Richard Lugar). Obama did compromise on hcr, he gave away the public option to get Lieberman, Nelson and Lincoln. On tax cuts for the rich I’m not sure who he could have worked with on the Republican side.
“Richard Lugar?” START passed with more than 66 votes.
On tax cuts for the rich I’m not sure who he could have worked with on the Republican side.
That is Biden’s and Obama’s and Reid’s job to identify the weak members and cut them out of the herd, just like they did with START. You and I wouldn’t know who or how beforehand, but Obama and Biden and Reid would. Just like with START.
Maybe I am too cynical, but when Obama says the Senate “won’t budge” I feel like I would be very gullible to take him at face value. It makes me feel like I am being played, and it kills me to see otherwise smart Democrats fall for it. Especially after his START performance.
When Boehner signaled weakness on middle class tax cuts, the House completely passed on the issue because of the Blue Dogs,
When Boehner signaled weakness on middle class tax cuts, the House completely passed on the issue because of the Blue Dogs,
And the Blue Dogs paid the price on Election Day, in a welcome bit of karma… unfortunately so did the rest of the Democrats.
It was a missed opportunity for leadership. That would have been the time for a coordinated Democratic messaging campaign, and a national address explaining the importance of decoupling the tax cuts, and educating the nation that the House bill provides tax cuts for everyone.
Instead, we allowed the agenda be set by Democrats that were to the right of Republicans on that issue.
So your contention anon is that Obama only learned to count votes in December 2010.
So your contention anon is that Obama only learned to count votes in December 2010.
No, he just
learneddecided to work for the votes that didn’t turn up in his first count.What continues to be fun (and how you know they aren’t serious) is that the people who keep calling for more leadership or more work by this President never:
1. Run the play. In some detail. We went through this over and over during the Public Option discussion and there is lots of exhortations to more magic, but there is never any detail of the play that gets you the votes.
2. Call for pressure on the people who will be — you know, voting.
Tom Carper got away with dissing the Public Option which means that you Delaware progressives didn’t deliver on holding this guy accountable.
What is clear is the President Obama can count votes better than you. And you aren’t helping him to get more votes for the stuff you want.
And spare me the special powers of the President or whatever your magical thinking is. You’ve spent two years getting more evidence than you should have ever needed that the magical thinking gets you nothing. The votes are everything.