Understanding the President

Joseph Rago of the Wall Street Journal talks things over with House Majority Leader Cantor, and comes out with this:

Like Mr. Cantor, President Obama is also a man of deep and strong convictions, and perhaps that’s why they seem to dislike each other so much. Call it, to adapt Freud, the narcissism of big differences. Mr. Cantor cautions that he isn’t a “psychoanalyst”—before politics, he was a real-estate lawyer and small businessman—but he says, “It’s almost as if someone cannot have another opinion that is different from his. He becomes visibly agitated. . . . He does not like to be challenged on policy grounds.”

In a meeting with the Journal’s editorial board Wednesday, Mr. Cantor, 48, gives his side of one of his more infamous altercations with the president. In a mid-July Cabinet Room meeting, Mr. Cantor made a suggestion that Mr. Obama and other Democrats took as impertinent. “How dare I,” Mr. Cantor recalls of the liberal sentiment in the room. He was sitting between Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer, “and they were in absolute agreement that [the president] was such a saint for having endured all this.”

“No president has sat here like I have, in these kinds of meetings, with congressional leaders, in this detail,” Mr. Obama said in Mr. Cantor’s recollection, which Democrats dispute. Mr. Cantor says the president also invoked Ronald Reagan “to be a little patronizing of us, because he assumed that anything Reagan did we like.” Mr. Obama then told Mr. Cantor, “Eric, don’t call my bluff,” and walked out…

Maybe this is why Obama has a desire to appoint Czars…it was Czar Nicholas I who stated, at the start of his reign, “I cannot permit that someone should disagree with my views, once he knows what they are”.  Might be that my little joke about His Majesty, Barry I actually hits close to home.  President Obama might be one of those sad political specimens who are driven bonkers by contradiction.  Equally telling, if Cantor has it completely right, is the servility of Pelosi and Hoyer…The One was defied by a Republican, and that was offensive…where does that little worm get off talking like that to Dear Leader?  I wonder if Obama still has the Democrat Congressional leadership enthralled like that?  Is the mere fact that he is black something which will continue to blind them to the facts?  To put it differently, is the election of  a black man so important, to liberals, that the results will be resolutely ignored?

I guess we’ll find out as the next year unfolds.  But if Cantor has read Obama correctly – and other evidence out there indicates he’s at least in the ball park – then Obama will just rigidly adhere to his view and keep bulling ahead, regardless of what happens.  This works out bad for America, because the President should be a man with the courage to admit he has been wrong and then change course.  On the other hand, it works out great for conservatism because it means Obama will just keep driving liberalism over the cliff.

It is a pity that our final wake up from liberalism should have to come like this, but it also might have been inevitable.  So seductive is the idea that you can have it all for nothing that once you fall for liberalism, it would take a complete catastrophe to get you cured of it.  The catastrophe is coming (though the very worst won’t get here until 2015…and not then if we toss Obama in 2012)…but that means the liberation is, too.

13 thoughts on “Understanding the President

  1. Cluster August 7, 2011 / 8:03 am

    President Obama might be one of those sad political specimens who are driven bonkers by contradiction.

    I think the President is a typical liberal speciman that is driven bonkers, and rendered irrational when challenged on his self perceived superiority.

  2. Dave August 7, 2011 / 8:12 am

    The bottom line is so obvious: This man is the MOST INCOMPETENT PERSON we have ever had in the office of president. I do not think anyone else comes close. For all the comments I have heard about his intellect, I really do not think it is there. He won an histoic election but has been led around by the ultra liberals (who he completely agress with, of course) but constantly needs his teleprompter and when not in use speaks in three word utterances and stutters. He has completely destroyed the American economy and is taking us backword in any advances we had in social issues. He is completey unfit for this job. It is jawdropping that he is the leader of the free world.

  3. Amazona August 7, 2011 / 10:46 am

    I still remember Barry’s first temper tantrum in the White House, or at least the first one we got to see.

    He was ticked off that we had not appreciated the sheer greatness of his plans for fundamentally transforming the nation, starting with plunging us into unsustainable debt, and he came on TV to scold us. He twisted his face into what was supposed to be a vewy vewy scawy scowl, a look I call “Mad Daddy”, and proceeded to lecture us on our stupidity.

    I found it extremely funny, in a sad sick kind of way. Here was the Leader of the Free World treating us as if we were his young daughters (who are probably equally unimpressed by the Mad Daddy face) and trying to project strength by acting peevish and irritable.

    It was a portent of things to come.

  4. Bigfoot August 7, 2011 / 11:28 am

    The attitude that “there is no legitimate opinion different from mine” is hardly unique to Obama, but seems all too common to the left. Disagree with them on anything, and they’ll call you racist, sexist, homophobe, xenophobe, etc. It’s not that they don’t tolerate dissent, but that the very concept of legitimate non-bigoted opinions that differ from their own is foreign to their mindset. We’ve also seen what happens when you question them, as with Nancy “Are You Serious?” Pelosi.

    It’s a throwback, by the new ruling class, to the old ruling class. According to one adage, “The king’s opinion is the kingdom’s opinion.”

    • Retired Spook August 7, 2011 / 12:16 pm


      You nailed it in the fewest number of words possible. With your permission, I’m saving your comment in my “Great Quotes” file

      • neocon1 August 7, 2011 / 1:48 pm

        “Understanding the President”

        what is there to understand?
        a lightweight NEVER WAS AA marxist muslem kenyan empty suit usurper POS

      • neocon1 August 7, 2011 / 1:49 pm

        a racist

  5. Bodie August 7, 2011 / 1:50 pm

    Wow, Cantor sounds really sensitive.

    • neocon1 August 7, 2011 / 2:11 pm

      liberalism IS a mental disorder.

  6. bardolf August 7, 2011 / 8:35 pm

    “He becomes visibly agitated. . . . He does not like to be challenged on policy grounds.”-Cantor

    Translation- Obama doesn’t like hypocrites babbling endlessly about their fiscal restraint when they’ve shown none in the past. Instead of the WSJ we could see what Bloomberg has to say about the deficit hawks.

    July 26 (Bloomberg) — House Speaker John Boehner often attacks the spendthrift ways of Washington.

    “In Washington, more spending and more debt is business as usual,” the Republican leader from Ohio said in a televised address yesterday amid debate over the U.S. debt. “I’ve got news for Washington – those days are over.”

    Yet the speaker, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell all voted for major drivers of the nation’s debt during the past decade: Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts and Medicare prescription drug benefits. They also voted for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, that rescued financial institutions and the auto industry.

    Together, a Bloomberg News analysis shows, these initiatives added $3.4 trillion to the nation’s accumulated debt and to its current annual budget deficit of $1.5 trillion.


    It would be sweet to see a GOP sweep in 2012 and have them 100% responsible for a couple years instead of the eternal dodging about not controlling branch X or Y of the government. Kill all the programs they think are responsible for draining the economy. End welfare and food stamps and medicaid and privatize Social Security and cut taxes to zero … Give the people who are worried about the current risky environment a chance to put their hiring plans into action.

    • Cluster August 8, 2011 / 8:41 am


      The federal government is actually charged with the duty of defense, so you may not agree with the wars, but that is an actual federal expense. Tax cuts do not cost money, unless of course you believe that everyones income is actually owned by the government first, and they just allow us to use it. Incidentally, Bush was achieved record federal revenues in 2005-2007 with the current tax structure. So the only valid part of your argument is Part D, which I agree is irresponsible.

      Aside from that, I do blame conservatives for our country’s financial mess, as I hold them to a much higher standard. Liberals are incapable of governing effectively and responsibly, as is someone like you, who always finds the other side of the coin to shift blame to. As long as liberals, or RINO’s are in charge, we will never responsibly address our problems. Our only hope is to elect a true tea party conservative government

      • bardolf August 8, 2011 / 1:34 pm


        In June 1788, the ninth state ratified the Constitution, which gave Congress the power “To establish Post Offices and post Roads” in Article I, Section 8.

        Therefore if the government was to provide free postage to spur the economy it would be part of its charge right? NO, and for the same reason running 2 wars without calling for sacrifices from the American people was not fiscally conservative.

        Also, it’s not my argument. It is from Bloomberg.

  7. tiredoflibbs August 8, 2011 / 12:45 pm

    Understand the pResident????

    With or without a teleprompter???

Comments are closed.