Barack Obama seems to know how to get himself out of a pickle. Just give a great speech. It worked when the Jeremiah Wright scandal hit, and it worked when health care reform hit a rough patch, and it worked after the midterm fiasco. He’s given stunning speeches, like his performance at the 2004 Democratic National Convention and the Tucson memorial service. And he gave a great speech tonight. He’s so good with words that his critics like to say that “he’s just words.” You can’t talk your way out of every situation, and in Libya the results are what will matter.
Still, he does remind me of Brer Rabbit. He was born in the briar patch. The Republicans begged him to intervene in Libya. And as soon as he did, they turned on him. Brer Rabbit, you might remember, was a bit naive. He fell for Brer Fox’s scheme to get him stuck to the Tar Baby. But he was resourceful enough to get Brer Fox to help him out of his jam.
Brer Rabbit gulped. He was stuck fast. He did some fast thinking while Brer Fox rolled about on the road, laughing himself sick over Brer Rabbit’s dilemma.
“I’ve got you this time, Brer Rabbit,” said Brer Fox, jumping up and shaking off the dust. “You’ve sassed me for the very last time. Now I wonder what I should do with you?”
Brer Rabbit’s eyes got very large. “Oh please Brer Fox, whatever you do, please don’t throw me into the briar patch.”
“Maybe I should roast you over a fire and eat you,” mused Brer Fox. “No, that’s too much trouble. Maybe I’ll hang you instead.”
“Roast me! Hang me! Do whatever you please,” said Brer Rabbit. “Only please, Brer Fox, please don’t throw me into the briar patch.”
“If I’m going to hang you, I’ll need some string,” said Brer Fox. “And I don’t have any string handy. But the stream’s not far away, so maybe I’ll drown you instead.”
“Drown me! Roast me! Hang me! Do whatever you please,” said Brer Rabbit. “Only please, Brer Fox, please don’t throw me into the briar patch.”
“The briar patch, eh?” said Brer Fox. “What a wonderful idea! You’ll be torn into little pieces!”
Grabbing up the tar-covered rabbit, Brer Fox swung him around and around and then flung him head over heels into the briar patch. Brer Rabbit let out such a scream as he fell that all of Brer Fox’s fur stood straight up. Brer Rabbit fell into the briar bushes with a crash and a mighty thump. Then there was silence.
Brer Fox cocked one ear toward the briar patch, listening for whimpers of pain. But he heard nothing. Brer Fox cocked the other ear toward the briar patch, listening for Brer Rabbit’s death rattle. He heard nothing.
Then Brer Fox heard someone calling his name. He turned around and looked up the hill. Brer Rabbit was sitting on a log combing the tar out of his fur with a wood chip and looking smug.
“I was bred and born in the briar patch, Brer Fox,” he called. “Born and bred in the briar patch.”
And Brer Rabbit skipped away as merry as a cricket while Brer Fox ground his teeth in rage and went home.
The president may be a bit naive in places, but he’s infinitely smarter than his opponents. If Obama pulls this off, he’ll get all the credit. None of it will be shared with his erstwhile hawkish adversaries. If it goes south, however, we’ll have all the clips we need of the Republicans calling him a slow-poke and a coward for not intervening fast enough.
I don’t know how things will turn out, but Brer Fox may have overplayed his hand again.
And nothing is more sickening that the nakedly political way the Republicans have tried to game the tragedy in Libya.
I’m really not worried about Libya. I don’t particularly like it but Presidents sure love to get involved with foreign policy. Domestic policy on the other hand is a different matter.
I guess I’m still not clear what your primary fear is here?
Let’s say Libya doesn’t form a post-Qaddafi government cleanly. Let’s say there’s some form of insurgency or tribal clashing or whatever. It’s a deeply reactionary country with no history of democratic traditions and a kalashnikov in every household, so ok. It’s certainly possible.
But that’s not an urgent crisis that would make the administration politically vulnerable here at home. There’s no real Iraq potential. It would be more drawn out and less intense. Post-soviet Afghanistan maybe. And was there any US political vulnerability there? There was a different kind of vulnerability that arose, to be glib, but that’s a different story…
He “just doesn’t like it”, basically.
He’s been so whipped like a dog by malevolent and idiotic republican Presidencies, that he simply can’t comprehend the very concept of a well-thought-out, well-intentioned use of force.
Excellent
“Barack Obama seems to know how to get himself out of a pickle.”
Yes, that’s what it’s commonly like, when you’re the smartest motherfucker in the room.
Shame his godlike brilliance and clairvoyance couldn’t help him not blunder his way through Afghanistan then. Pity.
Though what would a dumbass like you know about being “the smartest motherfucker in the room” anyway? That is to say, stop with goofy trash talking act, ok?
lolol!
Bazooka Joe loves to insult. probably a troll. ignore
I’ll certainly grant the great speeches, and I’ll grant his ability to turn a situation around. I’ll give you one more example — in the weeks prior to the Democratic Convention McCain was closing in the polls and a lot of negative stuff was being throw at Obama, especially regarding the plans for the speech at Mile High.
Well, that speech was probably the best conventions speech ever. Not only did it work on every level, at key moments he used McCain slogans that had seemingly gained traction and turned them around on him.
So, that is Obama’s strength. Alas, to quote from another campaign slogan, where’s the beef? That is, results.
Yeah, it was a great speech in 2010 — AFTER getting slaughtered in the midterms. He also gave a couple great speeches on the economy in 2010 — but didn’t bother doing any of the stuff the Democratic economists were begging him to do to actually help the economy.
And while he is certainly smarter than the dumbshits who infest the Republican Party, sometimes the dumbshits win. We see this all the time in local business, where the nastiest guy sometimes builds the most successful chain because he just wears everyone down arguing.
All his brilliance didn’t help him when he was up against the “Party of No” strategy — he apparently felt the right thing to do was to keep giving up what the other side wanted before negotiations began, and then begging and pleading to peal one or two Republicans away from the rest of them to get past the filibuster. Even after everyone else on the planet had seen the Lucy Republicans yank the football away from Charlie Obama a dozen times, he still kept lining up for the kicks.
No, he’ll keep giving great speeches. But do you really thing that anyone outside his base is listening anymore?
People like you constantly scream Obama should use the bully pulpit, now you say, “so what, nobody persuadable is listening”. I’m glad you feel that way. I never want to hear another online whiner complain that Obama isn’t using the bully pulpit, because according to you, it wouldn’t do any good.
As for dismissively saying “his base”, who do you exactly mean — the 91% of self described liberal Democrats who give him a positive rating? Even people who supported Edwards during the primaries, like Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz, and notorious Obama hater Cenk Uygur support THIS intervention. And the Senate voted unanimously on March 1st in support of a UN no-fly zone, which means lefties like Al Franken, Boxer, Sanders, Wyden, et al. voted for the intervention.
Blogging cliques don’t represent the sentiment of actual voters in the Democratic Party. That’s why Edwards’ Beatles-like online support never translated into actual primary votes (thank god). http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2008/1/3/14649/23794
But go ahead, keep deluding yourself into thinking your online echo chamber of choice is the true base, and not simply a disconnected hive who could only muster an endemic 3.71% of the Nevada caucus vote for St. Edwards.
The reason “nobody persuadable is listening” is that he’s built a track record of talk without action. Remember the jobs summit in February, 2010?
As for dismissively saying “his base”, who do you exactly mean
That’s exactly who I mean — his remaining fans. The low-information, apolitical voters no longer are swayed by his speeches.
But go ahead, keep deluding yourself into thinking your online echo chamber of choice is the true base
I am under no delusions that I represent anything but a tiny minority. The vast majority of the Democratic base has shown they will, like the GOP base, support a Democratic president regardless of how much he betrays his principles and promises.
I am extremely disappointed that this country has shifted so far towards pro-war thinking that we’ve gone from 1990 — when a resolution supporting Gulf War 1 barely passed the Senate despite that war being framed as almost a classic “just war” — to 2011 when the majority of progressives get hard-ons at the site of missiles raining down on Libya (but they are smart missiles so they only kill bad guys).
By they way, your ad hominem:
People like you constantly scream Obama should use the bully pulpit,
isn’t true. I’ve always favored action over speeches. True, back in the first half of 2009 I would have LOVED to have Obama go on TV like Reagan did in 1981 when he peddled his trojan horse tax cut and explain in basic terms the need for real health care reform. And, like Reagan, with props and charts, not just a talking head. But he didn’t. And the opportunity was lost. Since then I’ve not argued he should use the bully pulpit because there was no point.
I repeat it again, because you seem to be sick: 91% of self identified liberal Democrats approve of the president. If you want to say 91% of liberals like Rachel Maddow, Juan Cole, Al Franken, Nick Kristof, etc., etc. are “low-information, apolitical voters” then you really are sick and suffering from Obama derangement syndrome.
Btw, it wasn’t a “jobs summit” in February of 2010, it was a HCR summit. Gawd, you guys are just like Palin – you think you know what you’re talking about, but every assertion is laughably wrong.
http://articles.cnn.com/2010-02-25/politics/health.care.summit.updates_1_obama-coverage-across-state
-lines-health-care?_s=PM:POLITICS
Now back to your ODS insane asylum.
wow — both ad hominem attacks and unable to read. Let me parse it for you:
If you want to say 91% of liberals like Rachel Maddow, Juan Cole, Al Franken, Nick Kristof, etc., etc. are “low-information, apolitical voters”
I didn’t say that. Let’s look at what I did say:
“That’s exactly who I mean — his remaining fans. The low-information, apolitical voters no longer are swayed by his speeches.”
Yes, his remaining fans — the 91% of of liberals — are still swayed by his speeches. By contrast, the low-information, apolitical voters are not.
See — there is a distinction here between two different segments of the population. I was definitely NOT saying “Rachel Maddow, Juan Cole, Al Franken, Nick Kristof, etc., etc. are “‘ow-information, apolitical voters'” — they most certainly aren’t.
And as for the jobs summit, you got me. It was in December, 2009, not February:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/12/03/politics/main5879345.shtml
Not that being off by two months makes any difference in the argument, but then you are using the same tactic the global warming deniers use — find a minor detail wrong and claim that this means the whole argument is invalid. (See, i can compare your argument techniques to wingnuts, too.)
You are apparently deeply upset about something and my post pushed a button with you to trigger that. But the things you are accusing me of aren’t accurate. What I did say (IMHO):
a) Obama gives good speeches
b) Obama has not done well on delivering results
c) As a result of (b), his speeches have less effect than they did during his campaign or early in his Presidency. His fans still listen closely, but most of the apolitical types are tuning him out.
d) Unrelated to the above three points, I am disappointed that most of America, including most on the left, approve of this military operation. This reflects a two-decade long trend of shifting American’s views towards a pro-war bent.
I suspect that what really pushed the button with you was (b). We can disagree on that. However, in 2008 we were on the same side. I was going door-to-door for Obama and donating as much as I could and probably you were too.
What differs now is that I see him as having betrayed his promises on way too many things, and having fallen short in competence in many of those areas where he tried to deliver. We can disagree on that. But I should tell you that one of the things that brought me to support Obama in the Spring of 2008 was his uncompromising stances regarding Constitutional rights and torture. I realize that most people don’t care about these issues, but I do. And when a candidate I worked so hard for does a complete 180 on issues that are important to me, as he has, well, there is no question that “promises betrayed” is a fair description of what he’s done. When people like Peter King and Dick Cheney go out of their way to praise Obama’s policies in these areas there really is no other interpretation that is valid.
So, call me sick, distort what I wrote, point out that he still has a very high approval amongst progressives. That doesn’t change his actions in these areas.
the GOP will be who they are. they aren’t serious about anything other than themselves, and don’t give a shyt about this country. I disagree with the President, but he won’t lose my support, even if it’s a worse case scenario.
What a wonderful comment.