Obama's Lack of a Coherent Strategy

[jordan179]

Neil Snyder, in "Obama's Strategy? He Doesn't Have One?" in the April 14th, 2011 American Thinker (http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/04/obamas_strategy_he_doesnt_have.html) points out a specific aspect of our Emperor's lack of clothes.

One

Comments

[operations]

I think you're being overly optimistic about the Democrats telling Obama to fuck off in the primary and running another candidate. Which means we HAVE to put up a GOP candidate that can win, or a serious third party candidate that can win and not just split the vote to had it to Obama.

[jordan179]

I never said that Obama couldn't win. What I said is that he's extremely incompetent as an administrator, which means that a second Obama term would be truly disastrous for the Republic and possibly the world. This should make him rather vulnerable as a candidate in 2012, if the American people are paying attention -- and they seem to be doing so.

[anonymous]

Our president's inability to grasp strategic concepts is so pervasive that the King of Saudi Arabia said recently that President Obama is a threat to Saudi Arabia's internal security.

That's a bad thing?

[jordan179]

He's not a threat to Saudi Arabia's internal security because he has a carefully-laid plan to destablize Saudi Arabia, he's a threat because he's so air-headedly incompetent that he flails around more or less at random in diplomatic mattters. The point is that foreign heads of state are noticing Obama's extreme incompetence.

[kalance]

I knew he was incompetent with regards to diplomat matters when his first state gifts to foreign leaders consisted of an iPod and DVDs.

[gothelittle]

Hee, I remember, region 1 DVD's sent to a European leader!

[melvin_udall]

every day is a day on the campaign trail, and he says whatever he thinks will score points with a particular audience. This is a chaotic way even to campaign: it doesn't even count as national leadership.
I disagree to some degree. He has a plan. This chaos is part of it.

Chaos is the friend of the Leftist. Remember, the sheep of the Left spend their every day filtering out any information that doesn't conform to their ideology. They do it by reflex. In addition, most accept anything they don't like as what's necessary to further the agenda.

By constantly contradicting himself Obama lets his Liberal followers, including the mainstream media, cherry pick the quotes or positions they like and run with them.

It's become clear to me that those running the Democrat Party want as much chaos and confusion going into the next election as possible.

Or, if he does not really expect this, at least he is setting it up as an excuse, so that months down the road, when he still has no realistic budget formulated, he can whine "Congress didn

[dexeron]

Hilary Clinton... Let him set the world on fire then she can step in to save us from the chaos... With food and gas we can't afford we'll welcome it.

Damn... Hilary Clinton is the Feyd Rautha to Obama's Beast Rabban.

[melvin_udall]

Heh

[brezhnev]

So where do I sign up to ride the giant worm?

[dexeron]

I agree with operations, but wow: could you imagine if Obama lost the primary? I don't think the DNC will allow it to happen, it's too much of an admission of guilt/failure, and voters will flee. Yet still, I have to admit that if, say, Hilary was the Democratic candidate, we'd have a damn interesting race on our hands (and while I'd be very loathe to vote for her, I can think of a couple of Republican candidates that could possibly drive me to it

[melvin_udall]

I agree with [info]operations, but wow: could you imagine if Obama lost the primary? I don't think the DNC will allow it to happen, it's too much of an admission of guilt/failure, and voters will flee.

WHAT?!? The Democrat base has been taught to mindlessly hate and await their leaders' orders. They will vote for who they are told. No matter who they vote for they know it's better than da eval RepubliKKKan.

That leaves fooling the independents, who just have to be sold on Clinton "the moderate".

Except for the fact the GOP frontrunners are largely unelectable and lousy, they'd be fools not to go this route.

(If I were a real silly conspiracy theorist I'd say hold your breath for the convenient assassination to come)

Yet still, I have to admit that if, say, Hilary was the Democratic candidate, we'd have a damn interesting race on our hands (and while I'd be very loathe to vote for her, I can think of a couple of Republican candidates that could possibly drive me to it.)And this is why it really isn't that absurd

[jordan179]

Given all of Obama's MASSIVE failings and hidden history, and the deep deep depths the Clinton machine is willing to go to dig up dirt, how is it Obama was literally selected for the job by the Party elite?

The Democratic leadership realized that Obama projected the right image (incorruptible New Man of the Hour) better than did Hilary Clinton (who had damaged her reputation in defense of her husband one too many times). Also, the larger Democratic leadership may have been taken in by Obama's sub-faction: their habits of political correctness may have blinded them to the very concept of "Communist infiltration" and made them wary of challenging the credentials of a properly-liberal black man.

The Clintons illegally pulled FBI files to deal with enemies. But they sat down for the Party CHOOSING Barry despite that Hillary had the popular vote?I think that Hilary saw that if she fought Obama to the bitter end in 2008 she'd split the party and lose the general election even if she won the nomination. By compromising, she kept her

[melvin_udall]

I agree with all of this.

[ext_321631]

One doesn't have to posit a conspiracy or a puppetmaster to explain all this.

Politics has evolved towards a perpetual campaign season. It's only natural that politicians will spend more and more energy on campaigning and less on governing; and there's always a (growing) risk that we'll elect people who are better at campaigning for the job than doing it.

It's a problem whenever you have a system for evaluating people. You could get employees who are better job applicants than workers; you could get scientists who are better grant-writers than researchers; you could get students who are better standardized test-takers than learners. You have to be careful what you optimize for. Create a system where the most powerful man in the world is the man who can get the most Americans to pull a lever -- and eventually, the most powerful man in the world will have, as his ONLY skill, the ability to get Americans to pull a lever.

[jordan179]

I agree. It's the job of the American people not to get fooled by superficial charm, and we let ourselves down in 2008. What's more, it was the job of the American media to vet the candidates, and they let us down.

We can't fire ourselves, short of allowing a dictator to take power, but we can fire the mainstream media. And we're in the process of doing so, right now, as we turn to "new media" sources of information and increasingly ignore the newspapers and TV networks. Which may make a difference in 2012. :)