PDA

View Full Version : Irony of Ironies: Bush ofc'l calls Obama "Intellectually Lazy?"



Nickdfresh
09-24-2007, 03:24 PM
Bush official: Obama shows 'intellectual laziness'

by Frank James

As we noted in an earlier posting, today's Examiner newspaper, has an article based on its reporter Bill Sammon's new book on President Bush called "The Evangelical President" in which Bush says Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) will be the Democratic presidential nominee.

In that same article, a White House official criticizes Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) as demonstrating "intellectual laziness" during his campaign, for allegedly trying to get by on charisma alone and not doing the heavy lifting expected of serious presidential candidates.

We won't be the first to note the irony in that the senior White House official works for a president who himself has been often criticized for not exactly exercising his neurons as vigorously as he exercises his muscles. But that doesn't make it less ironic.

The attribution by the White House official of laziness to Obama may also strike some as having a racial component. And it may in some way play off the stereotype of blacks being lazy though, in fairness, a certain laziness has also been ascribed to Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson as well.

Here's the relevant passage from the Examiner article:

As for Obama, a senior White House official said the freshman senator from Illinois was "capable" of the intellectual rigor needed to win the presidency but instead relies too heavily on his easy charm.

"It's sort of like, 'that's all I need to get by,' which bespeaks sort of a condescending attitude towards the voters," said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity. "And a laziness, an intellectual laziness."

He cited an example from Obama's memoir, The Audacity of Hope, in which the senator complains that many "government programs don't work as advertised." Five days after the book was published last fall, Obama was asked to name some of those government programs by Tim Russert on NBC's "Meet the Press."

"And he can't give an example," the official said. "Look, if you wrote the book, you should have thought through what it was. But he's sitting there, fumbling around."

As for Obama, a senior White House official said the freshman senator from Illinois was "capable" of the intellectual rigor needed to win the presidency but instead relies too heavily on his easy charm.

"It's sort of like, 'that's all I need to get by,' which bespeaks sort of a condescending attitude towards the voters," said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity. "And a laziness, an intellectual laziness."

He cited an example from Obama's memoir, The Audacity of Hope, in which the senator complains that many "government programs don't work as advertised." Five days after the book was published last fall, Obama was asked to name some of those government programs by Tim Russert on NBC's "Meet the Press."

"And he can't give an example," the official said. "Look, if you wrote the book, you should have thought through what it was. But he's sitting there, fumbling around."

Obama did tell Russert that "we don't use electronic billing for Medicare and Medicaid providers." But the White House official said the vast majority of such transactions are indeed billed electronically.

In Audacity, Obama also recalls his first meeting with Bush, who invited newly elected senators to the White House in 2005 to hear about the president's second-term agenda. Bush took the opportunity to pull Obama aside and give him some friendly advice.

The president cautioned the newly minted senator that his enormous popularity would make him a target for rivals on both sides of the aisle. Obama thanked Bush for the advice and later recounted the episode in "Audacity." But in the same passage, Obama described Bush as a zealot whose demeanor was downright frightening when he laid out his agenda.

"Suddenly it felt as if somebody in a back room had flipped a switch," Obama wrote. "The president's eyes became fixed; his voice took on the agitated, rapid tone of someone neither accustomed to nor welcoming interruption; his easy affability was replaced by an almost messianic certainty. As I watched my mostly Republican Senate colleagues hang on his every word, I was reminded of the dangerous isolation that power can bring and appreciated the Founders' wisdom in designating a system to keep power in check."

When The Examiner quoted from this passage to Bush, the president seemed irritated to learn he had been taken to task by the senator he once counseled.

"I thought I was actually showing some kindness," Bush said. "And out of that he came with this belief?"

The president added with a bit of a scowl: "He doesn't know me very well."

Nor does Obama know his facts very well, according to the senior White House official. The official said in March, Obama was flummoxed by questions about his health care plan at a Democratic forum in Las Vegas. Two months later, the candidate drastically overstated the death toll from Kansas tornadoes.

"Ten thousand people died," Obama told an audience, when the actual death toll was 12.

"Over time, we'll see other things like that," the White House official said. "I'm going to be validated on Barack. He's not done the hard work necessary to prepare himself. And it's too late to do it."

Since that prediction, Obama has made a series of foreign policy gaffes that that has allowed Clinton to cast herself as the candidate of experience.

Baltimore Sun (http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2007/09/bush_official_obama_shows_inte.html)

LMAFO! Is there any commentary required? That's great comedy, assclowns!:D

LoungeMachine
09-24-2007, 03:56 PM
No wonder all of the Bush apologists in here have slinked away, or changed their stripes.

:gulp:

Warham
09-24-2007, 04:02 PM
Obama's pretty intelligent, but he's an awful candidate. Hillary is mopping the floor with him in every poll right now.

I don't forsee her picking him as a running mate either.

LoungeMachine
09-24-2007, 04:10 PM
Speak of the devil :)

Warham
09-24-2007, 04:14 PM
I've changed some stripes, but I'm still a zebra. :)

FORD
09-24-2007, 05:43 PM
Every time Chimpy opens his mouth to criticize someone else, be it Democrats, foreign leaders or whomever, he always says something more true about himself than about whomever he's talking about.

I believe that was called "Projection" in Psychology 101.

studly hungwell
09-24-2007, 08:58 PM
Isn't there the slightest possibility that he isn't as dumb as is the popular perception?

Nickdfresh
09-24-2007, 09:13 PM
Well, with the dismissive arrogance and "INTELLECTUAL LAZINESS" that is epic, the inability to read even the most basic independent news or intelligence reports, and the fact that he's never read a book that didn't already fit into his stilted world view - it's pretty tough to tell...

FORD
09-24-2007, 10:07 PM
Originally posted by studly hungwell
Isn't there the slightest possibility that he isn't as dumb as is the popular perception?

Ask Nelson Mandela.


Oh that's right.... Mandela's "Dead". Chimpy said so. :D

LoungeMachine
09-25-2007, 12:35 AM
Originally posted by studly hungwell
Isn't there the slightest possibility that he isn't as dumb as is the popular perception?

none.

Warham
09-25-2007, 07:33 AM
Democrats say he's stupid, but he's run circles around them the last seven years.

What does that say about them?

Nickdfresh
09-25-2007, 11:19 AM
Originally posted by WAR
Democrats say he's stupid, but he's run circles around them the last seven years.

What does that say about them?

Bush? Yeah, he's managed to lose his party's supposedly terminal majority in congress and has made himself so politically impotent, his ideas like Social Security "reform" are laughed out of the halls of gov't faster than he can pronounce nu-cu-lar...

He's waddling around Democrats like a lame duck with veto power...

LoungeMachine
09-25-2007, 11:30 AM
Originally posted by WAR
Democrats say he's stupid, but he's run circles around them the last seven years.

What does that say about them?

That thanks to him, we're looking at controlling both houses as well as the White House next year....

And over the next 8 years, thanks to Chimp, we'll porbably appoint 1-2 Supreme Court vacancies....

GWB is repsonsible for the Democratic Landslide of 2008.

[before you predict anything, war, just remember your track record in here on predictions]

:gulp:

Warham
09-25-2007, 03:46 PM
Originally posted by LoungeMachine
That thanks to him, we're looking at controlling both houses as well as the White House next year....

And over the next 8 years, thanks to Chimp, we'll porbably appoint 1-2 Supreme Court vacancies....

GWB is repsonsible for the Democratic Landslide of 2008.

[before you predict anything, war, just remember your track record in here on predictions]

:gulp:

Oh please. Who predicted Kerry would win in 2004 around here?? Nobody's got the track record around here to call me out. Who said Karl Rove would be indicted? Who said Bush would be impeached? Not I!

Hillary winning the White House is no sure thing. Not by a long shot. They already control both Houses, but they've been totally inept since taking control. The only way the Iraqi parliament looks good is to compare them to our Congress and what they've accomplished over the last two years.

Warham
09-25-2007, 03:49 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Bush? Yeah, he's managed to lose his party's supposedly terminal majority in congress and has made himself so politically impotent, his ideas like Social Security "reform" are laughed out of the halls of gov't faster than he can pronounce nu-cu-lar...

He's waddling around Democrats like a lame duck with veto power...

Bush isn't responsible for the Congress changing hands. They made their own turd and sat in it.

And Social Security does need to be reformed. I actually commend Bush for having the stones to try to do something about it.

Nickdfresh
09-25-2007, 04:06 PM
Originally posted by WAR
Bush isn't responsible for the Congress changing hands. They made their own turd and sat in it.

Bush IS their turd! Their total ass-licking and complete lack of political accountability and chiseling the separation of powers is their undoing, and Bush is very much a part of that.


And Social Security does need to be reformed. I actually commend Bush for having the stones to try to do something about it.

And the complete lack of political credibility to do anything about it?

Social Security may need reformation, but not auctioning off and outsourcing, which is what Bush wanted...

Warham
09-25-2007, 05:23 PM
No, Bush is his own man. Remember, Democrats voted for the war and they voted for the Patriot Act, all things you complain about. Republicans would have never been able to pass those things without Democratic support, period.

Social Security is the third rail. Politicians don't want to touch it, but they'll have to when it becomes obsolete. By then, it'll probably be too late.

FORD
09-25-2007, 05:48 PM
Originally posted by WAR
Oh please. Who predicted Kerry would win in 2004 around here?? Nobody's got the track record around here to call me out. Who said Karl Rove would be indicted? Who said Bush would be impeached? Not I!



The only reason Bush hasn't been Chimpeached is that (unfortunately) certain foreign interests have too much control over certain members of congress, and these foreign interests want the disastrous BCE/PNAC foreign policy to continue.

Patrick Fitzgerald issued a "sealed indictment" in the Plamegate case. In all probability, it was Karl Rove who was indicted, The only other likely suspect would be Cheney himself.

As for Senator IsKerryot, not only is he the rightful winner of the 2004 election, it's possible that he got as much as 367 electoral votes (http://www.progressiveindependent.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=120&topic_id=3585)!!

Warham
09-25-2007, 05:51 PM
There's no proof Kerry won in 2004. Even he knew that. Gore had a much better case, and even that was laughable.

LoungeMachine
09-25-2007, 05:54 PM
Originally posted by WAR
There's no proof Kerry won in 2004.

Bullshit.

What you meant to say, was "there's no proof I would accept"

:gulp:

Warham
09-25-2007, 05:59 PM
He never fought the results.

Therefore, there was no concrete evidence the election was stolen.

I hear and read alot of conjecture, but little proof.

Nickdfresh
09-25-2007, 06:17 PM
Originally posted by WAR
No, Bush is his own man.

He's an arrogant, superstitious asshole that discounts the opinions and advice of others.


Remember, Democrats voted for the war...

No. They voted for "the authorization of the use of force." There's a difference. Bush didn't have to go to War. He certainly didn't have to invade, conquer, and occupy a country with too few troops, either...

He could have used a more muscular version of the Clinton-era "Desert Fox" and supported the super-popular American expatriate Iraqi Shiites as they gloriously liberated their land from Saddam...


...and they voted for the Patriot Act, all things you complain about. Republicans would have never been able to pass those things without Democratic support, period.

They didn't vote for the wholesale, illegal violations of domestic spying and the ignoring of the FISA Courts, and the shitting on of civil liberties...

And even if they did, does that make it right or any more moral?


Social Security is the third rail. Politicians don't want to touch it, but they'll have to when it becomes obsolete. By then, it'll probably be too late.

Well, Bush's scare tactics and extreme positions of thinly veiled anti-New Deal legislation was hardly the right start...

LoungeMachine
09-25-2007, 06:22 PM
Originally posted by WAR
He never fought the results.

Therefore, there was no concrete evidence the election was stolen.




:lol:

LMMFAO

Therefore...

That HAS to be the silliest argument you've ever posted here. :D


God, that was priceless.

Therefore, I need a drink

:gulp:

Warham
09-25-2007, 06:34 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
He's an arrogant, superstitious asshole that discounts the opinions and advice of others.

But yet every liberal here claims he's a puppet who listens to TOO many people, like Karl Rove, etc.


No. They voted for "the authorization of the use of force." There's a difference. Bush didn't have to go to War. He certainly didn't have to invade, conquer, and occupy a country with too few troops, either...

He could have used a more muscular version of the Clinton-era "Desert Fox" and supported the super-popular American expatriate Iraqi Shiites as they gloriously liberated their land from Saddam...

They voted for the same thing Republicans did, period. If they didn't ever want him to use force, they shouldn't have voted for it, period. They authorized it, he used it.


They didn't vote for the wholesale, illegal violations of domestic spying and the ignoring of the FISA Courts, and the shitting on of civil liberties...

Then what did they vote for?


And even if they did, does that make it right or any more moral?

I don't know. Let's go ask John Roberts and the Supreme Court what they think of the Patriot Act.



Well, Bush's scare tactics and extreme positions of thinly veiled anti-New Deal legislation was hardly the right start...

Scare tactics? I don't think Bush is the only one saying that Social Security is in need of an overhaul. That's been said by others including Bill Clinton.

Warham
09-25-2007, 06:35 PM
Originally posted by LoungeMachine
:lol:

LMMFAO

Therefore...

That HAS to be the silliest argument you've ever posted here. :D


God, that was priceless.

Therefore, I need a drink

:gulp:

Not really.

Why didn't he fight that 'stolen election', Lounge?

Nickdfresh
09-25-2007, 06:50 PM
Originally posted by WAR
But yet every liberal here claims he's a puppet who listens to TOO many people, like Karl Rove, etc.

I'm not talking about elections-wise, I'm talking foreign policy-(disaster)wise.




They voted for the same thing Republicans did, period. If they didn't ever want him to use force, they shouldn't have voted for it, period. They authorized it, he used it.



Well. They did, didn't they. But they didn't send the troops there, nor did they come up with one of the worst war-plans in US history, did they?

And the vote was made under presumption that the Administration would make every endeavour short of war, before we invaded...


Then what did they vote for?

They voted for the Patriot Act. Not illegal domestic surveillance. Try not to cuntfuse them...


I don't know. Let's go ask John Roberts and the Supreme Court what they think of the Patriot Act.

It's provisions have been altered, and will continue to be so pending it's annual review...

Robert's has nothing to do with it...




Scare tactics? I don't think Bush is the only one saying that Social Security is in need of an overhaul. That's been said by others including Bill Clinton.

No. But he was one of the few that made it sound as if it was situation critical when SS can be funded for another 40+ years...

Warham
09-26-2007, 07:47 AM
Yeah, let's wait until the last few years before we decide to fix Social Security. I might be a procrastinator, but I sure as hell don't like when my government is.