Learning the Rules of an Unengaged President - Mark Steyn

[Chris_]

http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/obama-255034-one-president.html

What do Gen. McChrystal and British Petroleum have in common? Aside from the fact that they're both Democratic Party supporters.

Or they were. Stanley McChrystal is a liberal who voted for Obama and banned Fox News from his HQ TV. Which may at least partly explain how he became the first U.S. general to be lost in combat while giving an interview to Rolling Stone: They'll be studying that one in war colleges around the world for decades. The management of BP were unable to vote for Obama, being, as we now know, the most sinister duplicitous bunch of shifty Brits to pitch up offshore since the War of 1812. But, in their "Beyond Petroleum" marketing and beyond, they signed on to every modish nostrum of the eco-Left. Their recently retired chairman, Lord Browne, was one of the most prominent promoters of cap-and-trade. BP was the Democrats' favorite oil company. They were to Obama what Total Fina Elf was to Saddam.

But what do McChrystal's and BP's defenestration tell us about the president of the United States? Barack Obama is a thin-skinned man and, according to Britain's Daily Telegraph, White House aides indicated that what angered the president most about the Rolling Stone piece was "a McChrystal aide saying that McChrystal had thought that Obama was not engaged when they first met last year." If finding Obama "not engaged" is now a firing offense, who among us is safe?

Only the other day, Florida Sen. George Lemieux attempted to rouse the president to jump-start America's overpaid, overmanned and oversleeping federal bureaucracy and get it to do something on the oil debacle. There are 2,000 oil skimmers in the United States: Weeks after the spill, only 20 of them are off the coast of Florida. Seventeen friendly nations with great expertise in the field have offered their own skimmers; the Dutch volunteered their "super-skimmers": Obama turned them all down. Raising the problem, Sen. Lemieux found the president unengaged, and uninformed. "He doesn't seem to know the situation about foreign skimmers and domestic skimmers," reported the senator.

<exerpted>

Balance at link.........

doc

[Gratiot]

Interesting read, good find  

Albeit a sad indicator of what's going on 

[Eupher]

From one of the comments to the article, DRJ1400:

Obama is engaged, to a certain extent, in following his marching orders. Those orders were to bring this country as close as possible to Socialism, given a two-year window. Foreign policy has less to do with that, so his focus has been on redistribution, socialized medicine, nationalization of industries, growing government, increased regulation, higher taxes, cap-and-trade. He was never meant for a second term, as it was assumed that his ani-freedom agenda would be unpopular. A large part of his marching orders was to create a permanent, left-of-center, Socialist-friendly voting majority via mass amnesty, widespread voter fraud, and voting rights for felons. Given all that he has accomplished in just a year and a half, it can be argued that Obama has been more than engaged in the destruction of our Republic.

For all the head-scratching that Steyn comments toward, especially from Cohen's "Who is this guy" (Obama), "What are his core beliefs?" - a fundamentally ridiculous question if you've been paying attention at all, I think the comment -- less so the article -- is precisely on target.

Zero is all about obfuscation, empty rhetoric, faux toughness when it's clear that some "leadership" be exhibited. He makes a great victim, i.e., the insulted one with McChrystal et. al.'s comments as quoted in Rolling Stone.

Imagery and complete lack of competence, except in self-promotion (two memoirs by the time he's in his mid-forties? WTF?), and disengagement from anything other than his goals as stated above, well, there you have it.

I disagree that Zero's goal did not include a second term. His handlers miscalculated badly as to the length and breadth of the reaction to his policies, but Zero has accomplished a great deal of the Socialist's agenda, and it's my take that Zero's handlers will put up a vicious fight in the 2012 campaign.

There's also that chaos and instability that Zero has brought to the table, and I just can't get that out of my mind....

[Gratiot]

Zero is all about obfuscation, empty rhetoric, faux toughness when it's clear that some "leadership" be exhibited. He makes a great victim, i.e., the insulted one with McChrystal et. al.'s comments as quoted in Rolling Stone.

Imagery and complete lack of competence, except in self-promotion (two memoirs by the time he's in his mid-forties? WTF?), and disengagement from anything other than his goals as stated above, well, there you have it.

I disagree that Zero's goal did not include a second term. His handlers miscalculated badly as to the length and breadth of the reaction to his policies, but Zero has accomplished a great deal of the Socialist's agenda, and it's my take that Zero's handlers will put up a vicious fight in the 2012 campaign.

Eupher, as someone who has defended Obama on here before... I must say, that I'm in complete agreement with your assessment.

[PatriotGame]

Eupher, as someone who has defended Obama on here before... I must say, that I'm in complete agreement with your assessment.

Look in your left hand - ya see that? It's called shit.
Look in your right hand - ya see that? It's called Shinola.

Unfortunately, you don't know the difference...