When B.H. Obama talks, people don’t listen

Obama is to political leadership what anti-matter is to matter; the more strongly he argues for a position, the more the public’s support for it is destroyed. An AP poll taken since he began aggressively pushing the health care bill again shows that 27 percent of the public support his goal of having the Democrats ram through the bill without any Republican backing, and 68 percent of the public want a bipartisan bill—which, of course, they’re not going to get. Meanwhile, 24 percent of Democrats are “very enthusiastic” about voting in November, as compared with 42 percent of Republicans. Allahpundit, who is blown away by the 68 to 27 differential, discusses the poll in depth.

- end of initial entry -

Tim W. writes:

Peter Jennings was fourteen years early. Back in 1994 he famously accused the voters of throwing a temper tantrum when they voted in a Republican Congress. Jennings charged the electorate with being angry (I think that’s also the election where the media coined the “angry white male” term) and swinging wildly, not caring what the consequences of their vote would be. They just wanted to punish the incumbent Democrats without thinking about the consequences.

Jennings was wrong. The GOP that year offered a very detailed Contract with America and the voters preferred it to HillaryCare, homosexuals in the military, and other liberal proposals the Clintons were pushing (after being elected as “new Democrats” who allegedly weren’t liberal).

But Obama indeed was elected in large part because voters were furious with Bush and the GOP and wanted to punish them by electing whoever wasn’t them. That’s why so many people tuned out any criticism of Obama, and why the messiah image took hold so readily. Back in 2008 any mention of Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, or Obama’s record as the most liberal senator would cause his independent supporters to cover their ears and say they didn’t want to hear it. They just “knew” we needed a change, and that the GOP had to be punished.

It was the ultimate temper tantrum election. And those independents and moderates who put Obama in office and gave his party huge congressional majorities don’t want to be reminded of it. They know they did something irrational. So they tune Obama out and storm the polls to elect Scott Brown in hopes of doing penance and maybe saving the country from the Democrats’ excesses.

Bruno L. writes:

Hello. I have a question concerning your comments on the current American president’s rhetorical skills. You said that he “makes normal people want to run away from him.” If that’s the case, may I ask why he was elected president, then?

I mean, if he was SO BAD as a salesman, as your comment seems to imply, he wouldn’t have had the masses flocking to him and voting on him in 2008, would he? After all, politicians are nothing but salesmen of themselves, while the mean of exchange they ask for is called “vote.”

LA replies:

But aren’t you aware that even many of Obama’s former supporters are appalled and dumbfounded that the thoughtful, deeply intelligent, appealing, nice, conciliatory, non-confrontational, post-partisan, post-racial candidate turned out to be the most thoughtless, radical, hostile, obnoxious, confrontational, and partisan president in American history?

Even Obama’s biggest critics during the campaign, who saw him as a dangerous leftist radical, did not predict that he would be as bad as this.

The discontinuity between Obama as candidate and Obama as president is a mystery that needs to be explained.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at March 10, 2010 06:03 AM | Send

Email entry

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):