May 21 2011

When Arrogance Meets Petulance

Published by at 8:47 am under 2012 Elections,All General Discussions

It seems the most powerful man in the world is having a bit of a hissy fit today. President-Emperor Obama is once again faced with the fact that His Worshipfulness is not above the law. His Exaltedness’ illegal military actions against a country, which posed NO IMMEDIATE THREAT to America or Americans, have shown him to be less of a leader than Presidents Bush (both) and Reagan. At least these morally superior presidents understood war requires the blessing of the people – people whose blood, treasure and spiritual goodwill are consumed by the violence and destruction which is war. This fact of America is lost on His Supremeness:

President Obama wrote a letter to congressional leaders this afternoon suggesting that the role is now so “limited” he does not need to seek congressional approval.

“The US role is one of support,” the official said, “and the kinetic pieces of that are intermittent.”

“Kinetic” meaning killing people on the ground. All wars have intermittent battles. The man is acting illegally.

So why the resistance? Would Congress not authorize his ego-building (as opposed to nation-building) acts? I would guess there are enough rabid Qadaffi haters in Congress to possibly get this disaster authorized for a little longer.

But my guess is that His Superiorness is struggling to understand why, being the most powerful man in the world, his wishes are not immediately accepted and adored.

It would make sense. His petulance and irritation have been on the rise recently. His lashing out at Paul Ryan, his lashing out at Israel, his lashing out at the White House press pool. Even the attack on Bin Laden seems to have been rammed down his throat, a risk he may not have intended to take.

We have a long way to go until 2012. The President is losing all credibility. If he ratchets up his petulance in tandem with his failures and lost political capitol, he could easily remake Jimmy Carter into a reasonable looking President.

30 responses so far

30 Responses to “When Arrogance Meets Petulance”

  1. WWS says:

    Redteam – I am not trying to be insulting here, I really am not. But if you don’t understand what’s wrong here:

    “He said he doesn’t have any problem as long as they are going to follow the laws and not be terrorists.”

    then you, with all due respect, have no idea what the controversy about the “Right of Return” is and consequently you have no understanding at all of the basis of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This position in real world terms is 10 times worse than even Obama’s current positions!!! (Not even Obama is foolish enough to support the “Right of Return!)

    A brief summary, which Herman Cain could have found out in 10 minutes if he was even slightly interested: The “right of return” is the demand by Palestinians that *every* Arab who left what is now Israel in 1948, AND ALL OF THEIR DESCENDANTS, (that part is non-negotiable to the Palestinians and the true heart of the problem) has the absolute “Right” to return to the land of Israel and become citizens with full voting rights. EVEN though almost all of these Arabs left voluntarily and were never forced out.

    If this was just limited to actual people who left, then that would not be a problem since this happened 63 years ago, meaning that it would not apply to anyone under that age. But that is why this is unacceptable to the Arab Palestinians – they say it would break up families, forfeit the rights of those who died, and in general be totally unworkable. They are probably right in that. They demand that this “right” by fully inheritable by all descendants of those who left.

    Here is why Israel can NEVER, NEVER accept any version of this – given the liberal definitions that are used for descendants, the people who would be let in under this policy are about TWICE the current population of Israel. Proportionately, that would be the same as the US allowing in 600 MILLION immigrants! (twice our population!) Every one of these people would be dedicated to the destruction of Israel, and it doesn’t take much thought to realize that as soon as this was allowed to happen, Hamas would take over the country and Israel would be dead. This would not be any “return”, it would be a full invasion by a hostile army, with the expectation that the Jews should just lay down and accept their deaths quietly.

    They already did that once in the last century – never again.

    This is one of the reasons Israel has developed nukes – nuclear war is, to Israel, quite honestly a better option than allowing the “Right of Return”. They truly will fight to the death before they allow this, because it DOES mean their death. And of course, the Palestinians know that it means the death of Israel – that’s why they demand it! And that’s why they cheer useful idiots like Cain who pop off and take what sounds like an easy position without ever trying to understand the actual situation on the ground.

    The “Right of Return” in any version means Death to Israel. That’s why the idea is poison, and a man who does not understand this is not fit to hold any position of leadership.

  2. WWS says:

    heh – saw that tonight Cain has issued a written “clarification” (read: desperate retraction) of his earlier statements. Sad to say, it looks to me like something that was written for him by someone like me and that he was told to sign or else all of his contributors were going to walk out on him tonight.–7yBR-eH60S8

    Well, glad to know that he can be brought to heel pretty quickly, but it kind of kills the idea that he’s his own man, and now I wonder just who he’s answering to. (the “Friends of Herman Cain” who paid for that quick retraction)

    plus, even though it’s a walkback, it’s still fairly stupid, even though it’s probably the best they can do. Saying “if that’s a decision that Israel wants to make” implies that he still doesn’t understand that any possible version of this idea is Suicide for Israel.

    He vows that he’s a friend of Israel, but Friends don’t let Friends commit suicide.

  3. Fai Mao says:


    Are names that come to mind that had very little eletorial experience.

    I am not sure that citing Taft and Hoover is a fair compairison

  4. WWS says:

    Now I’m warming up to Cain a bit, although I remain convinced he’s unfit for the top job – cabinet position, maybe even VP could be a good place for him. But not the top spot – that interview this weekend showed he just isn’t ready for it.

    as far as those names, Fai Mao:

    Unless Cain has some great military experience I’m unaware of, those names you gave aren’t applicable. Being top General in any democracy has always required a huge amount of political skill, and 3 of the men you named – Washington, Jackson, and Eisenhower were not just Generals but were, in their time, each in *supreme* command of the countries armed forces. (add US Grant to that list)

    Selling pizza just ain’t on the same level.

    And bringing up Lincoln is just silly – Lincoln had extensive experience in the Illinois Legislature, and served a term in the US House. Lincoln had been in and out of office for 20 years by the time he was elected President.

    Cain’s experience really is more like Herbert Hoover’s than anyone else – Hoover had a great business career, and had served a term in the cabinet. But when it came to dealing with an angry public, Hoover was a disaster. He had no experience that could prepare him for the realities of that situation.

  5. crosspatch says:

    “Are names that come to mind that had very little eletorial experience.”

    Well, lets have a look. Washington had significant executive experience as the commander in chief of the Continental Army. Electoral experience doesn’t mean much to me. In fact, I pretty must detest career politicians but I do want someone with some executive experience.

    All four of those names that you mentioned were people with exceptional leadership skills. Leadership wins over “electoral experience’ every time.

  6. lurker9876 says:

    crosspatch, I’m with you. Did you watch that youtube where herman cain questioned bill clinton about hillarycare? herman remembered numbers and droned on and on about how wrong bill clinton was. Bill Clinton finally had to cut off herman’s question.

    I’d rather have leadership with the right principles, morals, integrity, and character over electoral experience of a career politician.

    Heck, even Herman would be a far better than Obama!

  7. crosspatch says:

    “Did you watch that youtube where herman cain questioned bill clinton about hillarycare?”

    What gets me about that video (if you mean this one: ) is that Clinton right away starts going to the “if you all raise the price of pizza by 2%” in other words — the health care was actually a tax on Americans but the tax would be hidden in the cost of goods and services which would be jacked up to pay for it.

  8. crosspatch says:

    And one thing that Cain *almost* touches on when he starts to talk about competitors when he said that some are larger than others and have more “staying power” is that maybe one company can afford to absorb 1% of that increase and only jack their pizza up by 1% while their smaller competitors might be have to increase their prices by 2% or more. That makes those smaller operators even less competitive.

    I have owned my own business before and I have been an employer. It is not easy. Government makes things as difficult as possible to hire people and if you should ever have to lay anyone off, they make it even more difficult to hire them back. Lets say you have one employee and at some point you must lay that person off. If things improve and you want to hire someone again, you will find your unemployment insurance premium charged by the state is now higher than it was before because you laid someone off in the past. Or lets say you have 10 employees and must lay one off. Your unemployment insurance premiums for the remaining 9 goes up making it harder to hire someone back.

    The more government meddles, the more they generally break what it is they are trying to fix.

  9. WWS says:

    Cain would be a great Secretary of the Treasury.

  10. crosspatch says:

    Something that I believe is worth watching at least once a year:

    Reagan’s 1981 inaugural address.

    If you have 20 minutes or so, get a cup of coffee and watch it through. One thing, he really focuses on the things that bind us together as Americans. That is one reason we had so many Reagan Democrats. We need someone like that today. Having a degree in economics certainly helped, too, but it was mainly his vision and that love of the everyday American that made the difference.