| | I'm not buying what Tibor is saying here. It doesn't resonate with my gut impression of the glib prevaricating egotist I've come to loath.
For example: Like those ever-permissive parents who always have an excuse for what their offspring are doing, no matter how mischievous or outright evil it manages to be, for Mr. Obama those who attack America, actually attack innocents everywhere, just could not be all bad, unworthy of understanding.
This does not square with the way Obama treats Republicans. He doesn't act like a permissive parent with them. I think Obama's treatment of foreign leaders has more to do with a combination of deference to foreign leaders who are modern liberals, and a sense of liberal guilt for imagined or real historical sins leading to excessive acquiescence to those leaders who are not Caucasian males. Between those two categories, that pretty much eliminates any foreign leaders for harsh treatment.
It shows a spirit of perpetual self-criticism and mea culpa, attitudes that appear to dominate the president’s conscience
This does not mesh with my impression of him as an egotistical bastard who can't conceive that he could possibly be wrong about anything.
This mentality of turning the other cheek, no matter what, appears to underlie the widespread distrust people have of Mr. Obama’s emotional makeup.
Again, this does not comport with his treatment of Republicans. Obama does not turn the other cheek with them -- more like he drops trou and tells them to kiss his cheeks.
I do think Tibor is right about Obama being naive about the viciousness and depravity that some people are capable of -- if they are NOT leftists.
I think the following description of Obama explains almost all of his actions:
He is a glib, shallow, compulsive liar who does not think deeply or rigorously about the possible consequences of his actions. He is an egotistical bastard who has extreme difficulty conceiving that he could possibly be wrong about anything, and has uncritically bought into conventional leftist thinking, though he is willing to compromise those ideas to perceived political expediency, so long as that expediency is articulated by other liberals. He does not understand economics at all, and reflexively thinks the solution to almost any problem is more powerful government.
|
|