The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

The Obama Watch

Our Prickly President

By on 7.6.11 @ 6:08AM

Obama gets irritated with those who dare question him.

Has the Anointed One disrobed before our very eyes?

The presidency of Barack Hussein Obama might very well have begun its sharp and steep descent towards its nadir last week with his ill-advised press conference which alienated his normally steadfast allies in the liberal media.

No member of the fourth estate was more perturbed with President Obama’s unpleasant disposition than Mark Halperin of Time magazine. While appearing on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, Halperin referred to Obama as “kind of a dick.” Halperin’s apology to Obama a short time later was insufficient for MSNBC, who indefinitely suspended him from running afoul of their Emperor. To put it into perspective, Ed Schultz was only banished for a week last May for referring to Laura Ingraham as “a right-wing slut.” At MSNBC, clearly some offenses are more equal than others.

Nevertheless, one could certainly take Halperin to task for being rude and impolitic. After all, his remark forced him to absorb the white heat of scrutiny which would have otherwise been directed towards President Obama. I suppose Halperin could have said that he was merely likening Obama to Richard Nixon. But alas that would have been tricky.

Perhaps Halperin ought to have given the matter another seven seconds worth of thought. Had Halperin done so, he could have just as easily found another word to describe the president’s performance that would have conveyed his displeasure without facing the consequence of disciplinary action by the overlords at MSNBC. Halperin would have been better served had he described President Obama as, well, prickly.

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines prickly in part as being “easily irritated.” Whether he’s impugning the motives of a Republican adversary from the Midwest or staring coldly at a stalwart ally from the Mideast, it doesn’t take much to arouse President Obama into an agitated state. Just ask Brad Watson, anchor and reporter from WFAA-TV in Dallas/Fort Worth.  Last April, Watson was granted an opportunity to interview President Obama at the White House. When Watson had the temerity to correct Obama about his margin of defeat to John McCain in Texas, Obama told Watson to let him finish his answers in the future. Unless Watson agrees to bow before him, I don’t think Watson will be granted an audience with President Obama again. Perhaps it’s just as well because somehow I suspect that Brad Watson is no Brian Williams.

Yet Barack Obama’s prickly disposition can hardly be described as a characteristic he inherited during his thirty months in office much less cast blame for it on George W. Bush. It was on full display during the 2008 campaign. Case in point: the question of Barack Obama’s patriotism. On June 30, 2008, in a speech given at the Harry Truman Presidential Library in Independence, Missouri, Obama admonished those who questioned his love of country:

I have come to know this from my own experience on the campaign trail. Throughout my life, I have always taken my deep and abiding love for this country as a given. It was how I was raised; it is what propelled me into public service; it is why I am running for President.

And yet, at certain times over the last sixteen months, I have found, for the first time, my patriotism challenged - at times as a result of my own carelessness, more often as a result of the desire by some to score political points and raise fears about who I am and what I stand for.

So let me say at this at outset of my remarks. I will never question the patriotism of others in this campaign. And I will not stand idly by when I hear others question mine.

Of course, Obama never identified those who supposedly questioned his patriotism much less how they purportedly did so. Yet almost exactly three years to the date of this speech, consider what President Obama said about those in Congress who want to check his powers where it concerns our involvement in Libya:

We have engaged in a limited operation to help a lot of people against one of the worst tyrants in the world — somebody who nobody should want to defend — and we should be sending a unified message to this guy that he should step down and give his people a fair chance to live their lives without fear. And this suddenly becomes the cause célèbre for some folks in Congress? Come on.

Well, so much for President Obama not questioning the patriotism of others. On the other hand, one could argue that Obama only promised not to question the patriotism of others during the 2008 election and that such noble sentiments didn’t apply once he took office. President Obama might deny there are “hostilities” in Libya but he has most certainly put his hostilities on full display towards anyone who dare cross his path.

Now when push comes to shove, the liberal media’s annoyance with Obama will be fleeting. Regardless of which Republican he faces next year, the liberal media will resume its role as Obama’s cheerleader, including Mark Halperin who will undoubtedly be eager to seek the forgiveness of The Anointed One. I fully expect that he and his cohorts will revert to a Nina Burleigh-like state in which they fall to their knees before Obama with their mouths agape.

Yet it might not be enough. Even the liberal media cannot stop Obama from self-destruction. If the economy continues to stagnate, Obama is one malaise speech away from being a one-term president. If Jimmy Carter’s three decades away from the White House is any indication, we will only have begun to see the prickliness of Barack Obama. But I would much rather have a prickly Obama outside the Oval Office than in it.

About the Author

Aaron Goldstein writes from Boston, Massachusetts.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (159) |

Clint| 7.6.11 @ 6:24AM

Michele Obama got A Prickly Pair & Barack Obama got PMS.

arlo price| 7.6.11 @ 6:26AM

The obamagedon PIMP thugocracy chugs along.

Alan Brooks| 7.6.11 @ 7:50AM

McCain would be in worse shape than Obama if he'd been elected; he'd be heaving up his Metamucil. So run better candidates. What were you thinking when you nominated McCain 3 years ago? what was going on in your minds?
Third question is: will you do the same thing a year from now?
a) yes
b) no
c) maybe

Answer: c

Publius| 7.6.11 @ 8:18AM

What were you thinking when you wrote this screed:

a) Idiocy in the defense of liberalism is no vice
b) With no capacity for wit, insults will have to do
c) Unable to defend Obama, I have to go back three years.

It's a trick question; the answer is all three.

Thanks for playing Alan, you do more to showcase the arrogance and bankruptcy of the left than most of us could ever do.

Alan Brooks| 7.6.11 @ 8:44AM

I know how old fashioned America is, because I live in the Heartland, so if you had run a better candidate than McCain in '08 the candidate would have won. Going by what has happened since 1988, you will run another RINO next year and he will either lose or be another Bush for four or eight years. It does appear at this time that the GOP will win next year because it doesn't seem possible the economy will pick up in the next 16 months if we are floating on a sea of debt-- in other words, Obama might very well be voted out because of a weak economy next year. But why is it you expect us to be enthusiastic about your RINOs? I never said I hated Bush, as a person he is fine-- but so was Jimmy Carter.

Just tell me: with all the decent conservatives in America you couldn't do better than Bush Dole Bush McCain?

Drunken Sailor| 7.6.11 @ 9:26AM

Alan, usually you simply spout Liberal talking points. Now it seems your newest line of attack is "Can't you guys run a decent canidate?" Is that the best defense you have for the President's Pricklish side? If so, I feel better already.

MikeBee| 7.6.11 @ 10:39AM

Alan does have some rather left-leaning tendencies. But, he is right about one thing: we ran a RINO candidate, about whom no one could get excited. In debates with Obama, Obama would say something, and our candidate would respond with, "Me too! Me too! I've been saying that for years!"

The reason that our party ran McCain last election is that, during the second W election, McCain received a LOT of primary votes. But they don't call our party the stupid party for nothing. We were stupid enough not to realize that most of those votes for McCain were Democrats voting in our primaries against W. In Michigan's open primaries, for example, Michigan Democrats came out in droves, voting to put the Republican candidate they thought was beatable (McCain) up against their candidate, rather than W. (McCain ended up winning Michigan.) Dems wanted McCain for a reason: they thought he was easy to beat. Four years later, our party, unable to read the stitches on a 40 mph fastball, put McCain up for bid.

Drunken Sailor| 7.6.11 @ 10:49AM

No doubt Mike, but read some of Alans post and its you will see the same trend lately.

MikeBee| 7.6.11 @ 12:15PM

D.S.,
You are right. Alan reminds me of my late uncle. At family gatherings, he would go around to one group, get them all arguing about something, then conveniently step away from the group, letting them continue their argument. He would approach another group and get them arguing, then leave them, to approach a third group. Eventually, the room was very loud with five separate arguments going on about different topics, all instigated by my uncle. He would be seen standing off to the side, smiling at his success.

Alan is an instigator on this pages, who enjoys "getting the dander up" of folks who post here. He is also left-leaning, at least in his comments, which are meant to instigate. But, sometimes his observations are correct.

Drunken Sailor| 7.6.11 @ 12:32PM

I agree. As a aside. First time I read your post I thought your handle was McBee. My grandfathers name so it caught my eye.

Alan Brooks| 7.6.11 @ 1:17PM

"Alan reminds me of my late uncle. At family gatherings, he would go around to one group, get them all arguing about something, then conveniently step away from the group"

Then I wont back off from your group. But considering how Obama is being held culpable for a situation which can be traced back to "read my lips, no new taxes", Obama cannot be blamed for being prickly. Mainly, I really think McCain would have broken under the strain of being POTUS-- that is the #1 issue to me.
Again, I wont back off like your uncle did, I will hold your feet to the fire about this: Obama has every reason to be prickly.

Die Fledermaus| 7.6.11 @ 5:25PM

It's official. You've gone off the deep end.

Why don't you go back and blame it Congress for not letting FDR pack the courts? Or maybe it's Cain's fault for killing his brother.

Obama is a snot-nosed whiny child. Halperin was correct: He's a dick.

Occam's Tool| 7.6.11 @ 8:18PM

Here's my view on Obama: I question his patriotism. I question it every day. I do not feel safe in this country while he is President. I fear for my friends and family. His friends and acquaintances are documented traitors, bigots, and scum. He does the absolute minimum he can do to protect this country while unravelling her defense. ALMOST any Republican Candidate would be better, except He who votes with Kucinich.

Von| 7.6.11 @ 7:42PM

So when Obama gives Hillary the finger during the debates, (and countless other incidents of Obama's d!ckishness) you are saying it's Bush 41's fault. The blame game only goes so far before it becomes really tiresome. As a side note McCain spent an awful long time in a P.O.W. camp and didn't break from the stress, and he passed up the chance to go home in favor of another prisoner who he felt deserved it more because he had been there longer. I would bet my life that Obama would have left his P.O.W. buddies behind and never looked back.

P.S. Not a fan of McCain politically.

Occam's Tool| 7.6.11 @ 8:28PM

So did Bush. Heck, so did Reagan. Great men are Great when things are difficult.

CtoC| 7.7.11 @ 12:04AM

Wait a minute, I'm not a big fan of that argument - let's see how does it go - blame bush and even though the 'prickly' one ran for the office, he had no idea what he's gotten himself into so we should have pity instead of expecting him to act correctly for this country? Nope, not buying it . . . whether you step away from it or not.
I'm in complete agreement on the we can do better, in particular Romney is just another of these Rinos ruining the conservative party, much the same as progressive liberals have destroyed the Democratic party. McCain is a Rino and would not have made a good president for that reason - but his experiences in the military gave him more than enough fortitude to be able to withstand the Presidency. Maybe if Obama was on his own mission and was considering the needs of this country, he would not be attacked so.
As far as being an instigator, yes you are Alan that's fine some people have to go looking for an argument, debate,whatever. The proof is your posting on this page, why do those who lean to the left continue to seek out conservative sites to speak the party line. I would never go over to something I consider a rag - say NYT or HuffPo and start debating the conservative line.

grethel| 7.7.11 @ 4:41PM

So McCain would have coughed and turned over so its better that we elected Obama? Really. Well McCain is still kicking, he speechifies as much as Obama, and old or not he travels around the world constantly. So I believe he would still be kicking as president regardless of whether we liked anything he did. Your issue seems to be that he would be room temperature so best not have been elected. If the alternative is Mr. Prickly, I disagree

Curtis Rasmussen| 7.6.11 @ 3:25PM

Brooks has to tell some truth to make himself sound reasonable, lending some credence to all his leftist claptrap.

Trust me, use the scroll button past this propagandist.

Alky| 7.6.11 @ 11:22AM

Maybe if libs/dems were banned from voting in Republican primaries, there would be less chance of getting RINOs!!!!

MikeBee| 7.6.11 @ 12:09PM

Alky,
Right on! In Michigan, we're trying to get the Repub party to hold caucuses, rather than open primaries, so that we don't have Dems influencing our elections. Actually, we influence their primaries, too. In fact, a number of years ago, Republican Gov. Engler was running for reelection. A group of Dems were competing to run against him, one of which was Jeffrey Feiger. Jeffrey was particularly evil and nasty in his accusations against Engler, and was highly favored in the black community, which would cause a big Dem turnout at election time. So, Republicans voted Dem in the primaries, voting against Fieger, and for one of the more easily-beatable Dems. Engler ended up winning reelection. So, both sides use this strategery in Michigan; we're just trying to get the Repub primaries closed down to only include Republicans voting.

Louis Jenkins| 7.6.11 @ 10:44AM

I believe that McCain was not nominated by the conservatives. Rather, he was nominated by MSN. There were a few better candidates out there. This year it's Romney this, Romney that. You see it on TV and hear it on the radio a lot. Romney is not the candidate. We're far better off with the "other choices."

KennesawJack| 7.6.11 @ 10:56AM

I have never sat out an election but, if Romney's our candidate I will be sorely tempted to make this my first (since '68). I am sick unto death of RINO's.

Teaghan| 7.6.11 @ 10:47AM

I have to diagree with you Allen. BO would have won if we had run Mother Teresa because he was the first person of color to be put on the presidential ticket. The hatred for Bush and the Republicans was at an all time high and BO was put in the wings to take advantage of that hatred at just the right time. When he spoke at the Dem. convention those many years ago, it was already in the cards that he run and win. The left had their screams of RACISM ready and waiting.

voted against carter| 7.6.11 @ 3:23PM

Hello TROLL.

See you around the web

Your comprehension ability is suspect so I try and keep it simple.

You are an idiot. STOP proving it with every statement you.

Alan Brooks| 7.7.11 @ 3:22AM

All of the above, Obama is a god, I would willingly serve as a human toilet for him.

Handy| 7.7.11 @ 9:30AM

You are a human public toilet.

Groad| 7.6.11 @ 8:55AM

McCAin was nominated by Liberals and Democrats in open primaries. Next year, go vote in your own primary, not the Republican. In PA anyway you vote in the primary in the party you are registered with. Last time around by the time it was primary day we had McQueeg, Rube Paul and Huckaphoney. No choice at all, so I left that solt blank. Open primaries need to be dropped.

Citizen Jerry| 7.6.11 @ 10:27AM

"What were you thinking when you nominated McCain 3 years ago?"

Probably the same thing going through some people's minds today as they cast a longing eye toward Willard Romney.

Alan Brooks| 7.6.11 @ 10:59AM

Since I ought to stay on-topic for once, the reason Obama is pricklish is because he inherited a very bad situation, comparable to what Nixon inherited in '69. For the same reason: to gain support for their respective wars, both LBJ and Bush spent an awful lot.
Yet there is no evidence Obama is more egotistical than 95 percent of politicians. Was he experienced when he was elected? no. Is he experienced now? hmm, well, he is getting up to speed. Even though I plan to vote for Obama, unless the economy picks up, he will lose. We are in fact floating on a sea of debt. How can the economy grow healthily in the next 15- 16 months with such debt? I feel like a champion of the obvious even asking it.

BTW, is the debt approx. 14 trillion, or is it about 62 trillion in unfunded liabilities?

pigletrios| 7.6.11 @ 1:41PM

The President needs to get past his "I inherited this bad situation" syndrome. If he is as smart as people say, he should have thought of that before hand and not after. I am very tired of all the whining on the part of some of our elected officials - many of whom held their same jobs during the previous administrations - take a look at the voting records of many of our officials and suddenly we get the picture. Americans are a pitiful bunch in that our memories tend to be so darned short. And I am not interested in an untried individual becoming president and then "getting up to speed" 2-1/2 years later. This country could implode before he 'really gets any good!"

Occam's Tool| 7.6.11 @ 8:20PM

Dear Alan: so the solution to a severe recession causing poor tax intake is to raise taxes and depress the economy more?

Barack is a traitor, folks. Tell me a single person in his inner circle who has been a hero for America, or who sacrifgiced ANYTHING for this country. No One.

Occam's Tool| 7.6.11 @ 8:21PM

Sorry, "sacrificed." But there are plenty of scum close to O. His wife, Rahmbo, Wright, Ayers...

DRed| 7.6.11 @ 9:51PM

We're actually technically not in a recession-we haven't been since 2009. The economy is growing. Sure, wages aren't rising, and unemployment is still really high, but the important thing is that the rich are getting richer. According to conservative economic theory, you should be happy. As the rich get richer, they'll trickle that money down to the rest of us. If it doesn't happen, that just means they're not getting rich enough, and we need to cut their taxes more.

CtoC| 7.7.11 @ 12:11AM

I hate to correct you here, but . . .
As I recall the liberals are now terming jobless recovery as growthless recovery.

Albert| 7.6.11 @ 11:23AM

No one here defends McCain, at least not that I've seen. No one here wanted McCain. I certainly didn't. Furthermore, McCain's selection as the Party's candidate was due mostly to the Republican Party's "leadership" making deals and to Democrat crossover primary voting in many key States. Conservatives did NOT select McCain. RINO's, "moderates", "leaders", and Democrats did.

That said, those of us who post here from a conservative bent would love to find and nominate a better candidate than McCain. Do you see an heir to Reagan in the current crop of candidates? Perhaps someone who has yet to toss in his hat? The closer a candidate gets to Reagan politics, the further he gets from the nomination. (This is one reason, by the way, why I quit the Republican Party 15 years ago.) And what of the alternative, 4 more years of President Bozo?

You always claim that Republicans put up bad candidates, but then you turn around and pledge support for President Bozo. You seem to desire ANY Democrat to any Republican, which is hardly a conservatice approach. You claim you want another Reagan, but support more Bozo. The disparity between these contradictory positions could not be wider. This is not rational.

Alan Brooks| 7.6.11 @ 1:24PM

"You always claim that Republicans put up bad candidates, but then you turn around and pledge support for President Bozo."

I did not vote for Obama in '08, I didn't vote that year out of disappointment at the economy, and the previous eight years being wasted. Plus I didn't know enough about Obama-- it takes years to know someone. I do plan to vote for Obama next year as it appears extremely unlikely the GOP will nominate someone of high quality.

Albert| 7.6.11 @ 2:15PM

If you are planning to vote for Bozo next year then you are planning to vote the USA into bankruptcy. There simply is no candidate on either side who is of lower "quality" than your hero President Bozo. You say you want another Reagan but you plan to vote for Bozo. This is not rational. You need help.

Indiana Alex| 7.9.11 @ 10:27PM

Takes years to know someone? That could be the most ignorant point you have ever tried to make, and that's saying a lot.

voted against carter| 7.6.11 @ 3:24PM

al,..

Hello TROLL.

See you around the web

Your comprehension ability is suspect so I try and keep it simple.

You are an idiot. STOP proving it with every statement you.

canuckistani| 7.6.11 @ 10:49AM

Name one cabinet department that wasn't dragged into the mud by Junior's minions the last decade.
Sorry to break it to you guys, but there was not one that was left in better shape than when they arrived.
As far as Obama's prickliness goes, how would you, as a Real Umerican, feel about the questioning of your birth being shared by a majority of your so-called legitimate opposition more than two years into the admin?

The debt ceiling debate is also rich, as we are continually bamboozled by GOP voodoo math - when the facts show it was ill-advised tax cuts, unpaid prescription drugs, Iraq and a calamitous head-shot to the economy on Junior's watch that got us here.

He trusted the GOP to act responsibly when he extended the Junior tax cuts, and now he finally realizes a diappointing friend in the Dem caucus is much more appealing than his deadly enemy in the GOP's.

Here's the Randian perspective on debt reduction:
"Of course, shedding the debt burden would be a happy development for our country, but it would nevertheless pose a big dilemma for the Fed. Our primary lever of monetary policy was buying and selling treasury securities-Uncle Sam's IOU's. But as the debt was paid down, those securities would grow scarce, leaving the Fed in need of a new set of assets to effect monetary policy." - A. Greenspan.

Prickly yet?

Citizen Jerry| 7.6.11 @ 11:01AM

I see the trolls have popped their heads out from under their bridges. And so early, too.
Sorry, but the statute of limitations has run out on blaming George Bush for every evil in the world.

Alan Brooks| 7.6.11 @ 11:12AM

Agreed, mostly. But though you didn't mention racism, it was foolish for Jimmy Carter to say Obama is hated or disliked for being black. America isn't like that anymore, and if a black conservative had been elected in '08 they would generally worship him. Obama is disliked for being left of center.
I grew up in the East, Canukistani, and thought America was more or less liberal/moderate. However after spending decades in the Midwest and West, I saw that the Heartland is old fashioned, superstitious, nostalgic, and a bit more violent than the East. So that Reagan became so popular was no surprise; or that Dubya was re-elected was not either.
BTW, blacks are still the most mistreated, but they are disliked because they can be marginalized (people don't usually like their 'inferiors', do they?), so whites press their advantages against blacks-- if they could marginalize latinos as much, they would do so.

Alan Brooks| 7.6.11 @ 11:17AM

"Sorry, but the statute of limitations has run out on blaming George Bush for every evil in the world."

But not for Clinton! you can mention Monica Lewinsky all you want and no one will protest at AS. you CAN blame Clinton for anything you want and no one will mind; you can write that Clinton degraded the military, leading to 9-11.

For you, Clinton is fair game... you possess a year-round hunting license to use against Clinton.

Albert| 7.6.11 @ 11:29AM

Clinton's issue is not Monica Lewinski. Clinton remains relevant because the Communist Chinese are right now building the largest and most advanced military in the World, a military that is not defensive in nature, but rather projects power outward, making them the #1 threat to Western freedom in the 21st Century. And the Communist Chinese are building this military machine with technology bought from Bill Clinton through bribes paid to him in the form of illegal campaign contributions. Simply put, Clinton could never have been elected or re-elected had it not been for illegal Chinese money, and as President, Clinton paid them back handsomely.

Drunken Sailor| 7.6.11 @ 11:36AM

Ahhh, but Clinton keep poking his nose and opinion in, so he is fair game. "W" was smart enough to keep his opinions out and has taken himself off the table.

Alan Brooks| 7.6.11 @ 12:24PM

"the Communist Chinese are right now building the largest and most advanced military in the World, a military that is not defensive in nature, but rather projects power outward, making them the #1 threat to Western freedom in the 21st Century."

First you say Obama is the #1 threat to the West (allegedly he is a progressive muslim socialist-marxist); NOW you say it is the ChiCom military. Or maybe our southern border is our (and the West's) #1 threat. Or al Qaeda is the West's #1 threat.
Or perhaps we do not know?

Albert| 7.6.11 @ 12:55PM

"First you say Obama is the #1 threat to the West (allegedly he is a progressive muslim socialist-marxist); NOW you say it is the ChiCom military..."

Please do not put words in my mouth. I said no such thing. Bozo is dangerous and destructive, that is obvious. But I did not rank him in comparison to other threats.

Alan Brooks| 7.6.11 @ 1:35PM

"Please do not put words in my mouth. I said no such thing. Bozo is dangerous and destructive, that is obvious. But I did not rank him in comparison to other threats."

If Obama is as dangerous and destructive as you write, then perhaps he is, deep in your mind, the #1 threat. And what evidence do you present that the Chinese military is more of a threat than illegal immigration? or EMP? or al Qaeda?
Naturally, you offered an opinion, but you wrote nothing whatsoever to back up your opinion that the ChiCom military is a more significant threat (in your opinion the largest threat) than any of the threats I mentioned.
Probably the Chinese are more of an ECONOMIC threat than a military one. Perhaps the Chinese will even wind up owning America.

Albert| 7.6.11 @ 2:11PM

You are not qualified to describe things "deep in" my mind. If the Chinese threat is economic only, then why the offensive capability build up? Plus, it is a matter of history that military power can be and has been used to expand economic power. Plus I said nothing to minimize the threat from illegal immigration or Muslim fanaticism.

Your posts are all over the place, full of assumptions, quoting out of context, non-sequiturs, and false dichotomies. You really make no sense whatsoever.

Appleby| 7.6.11 @ 2:38PM

IMO, China is building a large army because it has a vast mob of surplus young men and either it puts them in the army where they can be disciplined and watched, or they will turn themselves into gangs and mobs, and destroy China.

For some reason that the world is now figuring out the hard way, China didn't think of that old admonition "Be careful what you wish for -- you may get it!"

voted against carter| 7.6.11 @ 3:27PM

uncle Al,..

Please read this S L O W L Y. Maybe it will help.

Hello TROLL.

See you around the web

Your comprehension ability is suspect so I try and keep it simple.

You are an idiot. STOP proving it with every statement you.

Curtis Rasmussen| 7.6.11 @ 3:29PM

As a black man, I can say from experience that Alan Brooks is full of shit.

Hey Alan, pull your head out of your ass. It's a nice day outside of your anal cavity.

Clint| 7.6.11 @ 12:25PM

Debt vs. debt as a percentage of GDP:

Reagan: Up 14.9 percentage points
George H.W. Bush: Up 7.1 percentage points
Clinton: Down 13.4 percentage points
George W. Bush: Up 5.6 percentage points
Obama: Up 21.9 percentage points (through December 2010 only)

Alan Brooks| 7.6.11 @ 1:39PM

But if Obama has wasted two and a half years (if he has), Bush somehow wasted eight years-- a monumental achievement. Aside from DARPA, what did Bush promote?

Clint| 7.6.11 @ 1:56PM

Aaaand, Obama Has Another Year & A Half To Finish Killing Jobs & The Economy.

Appleby| 7.6.11 @ 2:41PM

Alan, in your finger-pointing at Mr. Bush's "wasting" his two terms, does 9/11/01 mean anything at all to you?

How do you think Zero would have "wasted" that situation plunked smack in the middle of his first year in office?

CtoC| 7.7.11 @ 12:18AM

Appleby - that answer is simple . . . Zero would have ignored it, same as Clinton did with the USS Cole - and thanks to him . . .
Second, Zero would have told us we must open our arms to those who attacked us and then he would have raised our taxes and given that same group billions of dollars in hopes of having him like us. That's most useless combination of actions I can think of that would be bad for this country, but that's neither here nor there. I did nail it though didn't I? That is exactly what he would have done.

JP| 7.6.11 @ 3:05PM

But we're not talking about Bush, are we? The President had a virtual lock on government for 2 years (or at least until Scott Brown got elected). He delivered what no Democrat since the New Deal could deliver - a federal takeover of all aspects of HealthCare. He also managed to create a new spending baseline, which is now measured near $ 4 trillion. And in the process he got nealry 30% of the voting population hooked on government lagress (student loans, subsidies to all sorts of industries including banking; the unemployed, home owners, small businessmen, etc...). The President, through his minons at the Fed and Treasury also managed to ressurect Wall St. Since Obama was inaugerated the DJIA went form 6000 to over 12000. Of course, most of the rise has more to do with the bloat of the Fed's balance sheets; however, US firms that have most of thier operations overseas about 50%) have benefitted from Obama's easy money program. The President's problem is his penchant for narcissism. He wants to be a beloved King! Reagan, despite all of the economic good he did for this nation was detested by over 35% of the voters. Reagan could handle that; Obama can't.

Finally, the President has created a situation where the federal government is the only game n town. And our government is broke beyond words. There is nothing he can do. The GOP knows this as well. Once they do begin trimming the budget in force a recession will likely follow.

Handy| 7.6.11 @ 6:59AM

The only transparent thing in this administration is Obama's narcissistic, sociopathic personality.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 7.6.11 @ 7:00AM

During the campaign there was an incident that was not reported on or taken seriously. It received brief mention but was very telling.

On October 21, 2006 Maureen Dowd wrote the following comment: "He’s intriguingly imperfect: His ears stick out, he smokes, and he’s written about wrestling with pot, booze and ”maybe a little blow” as a young man."

On Sunday, December 10, roughly 50 days later, noted in a column by Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times, Obama took on Dowd over arguably the least relevant item in that sentence:
(From the column)
Obama is very sensitive about his press. After his press conference, he headed toward New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd and chided her — in a kidding way — for a comment in the 12th of 14 paragraphs in an Oct. 21 column. She wrote that Obama’s “ears stick out.”

“I just want to put you on notice,” he said.

“I was teased relentlessly when I was a kid about my big ears.”

Maureen Dowd's response was: "We're trying to toughen you up."

It should have obvious to many at that point that he was a thin skinned "dick." But the liberal press ignored the warnings of his over sensitive ego and and circled the wagons.

If a white politician had done the same thing, they would have been finished and there are several examples of that.

tsd| 7.6.11 @ 7:56AM

the vanity of his ears.... he was picked on as a child and that is how we must deal with the President of the United States. First it was the race card and now we have to worry about the vanity of his ears, time to all grow up or be sent to bed early by the adults.

Lawrence D. Cannon| 7.6.11 @ 8:10AM

'Ol Dick-ears?

Appleby| 7.6.11 @ 7:03AM

Who was it that suggested when your opponent is self-destructing, do not stand in his way?

These know-it-all college kids are all prickly; look for Obama to start chanting HEY HEY! HO HO! any day now.

chuck| 7.6.11 @ 7:23AM

Careful now, or some lib will construe that to be a racist comment!

Albert| 7.6.11 @ 11:35AM

"Who was it that suggested when your opponent is self-destructing, do not stand in his way?"

If President Bozo completely discombobulated on live national TV, the "Media" would say it never happened, your didn't really see what you thought you saw, that was really Sarah Palin coming apart, and it was all a cheesy Republican trick anyway. And about 40% of the American population would believe just that. Just enough to keep Bozo politically "viable."

Appleby| 7.6.11 @ 11:57AM

George Orwell was a pessimist -- he thought it would take an immense bureaucracy and thousands of librarians to rewrite history. In fact, all it takes is an App that Everybody Else Already Has, and the replacement of books with Kindles and Tablets so that today's book will not be yesterday's book -- and the App that Everybody Else Already Has will tell you that today's book IS yesterday's book. Technology has already put tracking devices on every Tweethead and Binkie Slinger; they willingly post their whereabouts and the names of their companions "on line" or allow The App to do it for them, so it doesn't take any vast army to keep track of the Proles; they are it willingly themselves.

I await with interest the first trial at law which uses a big screen depiction of the suspect's whereabouts and his companions at the time of the crime, courtesy of The App. . .and the quiet satisfaction of those of us whose phones only make phone calls, and who can recall one Nikita Khruschev commenting, "We will not bury you. You will bury yourselves."

Shamus| 7.6.11 @ 7:11AM

Obama acts like a jerk. I hope voters will be sick of him next year when they go to the polls. I know I am.

Deborah D | 7.6.11 @ 7:25AM

I thought Halperin was refreshing. It's time his supporters finally look at this guy for what he is...maybe some ice is breaking, a little. We can "hope" for "change" -- can't we?

Bob Grant| 7.6.11 @ 11:29AM

The author was spot on when mentioning that the mainstream media will circle the wagons and propagandize for Obama as the election approaches. We cannot hope the mainstream media will turn on him in any significant way. It just wont happen.

The good news is, try as they might, the MSM will never be able to control the mood of the country because lies notwithstanding, the facts on the ground (unemployment, economic stagnation, general malaise) will trump ANY media spin thrown at them.

To them I say, give it your best shot!

Jason| 7.6.11 @ 7:28AM

Halperin sounded like Chris Matthews speaking about every Republican.

Carol| 7.6.11 @ 7:29AM

Prickly sounds too nice.

Obama is anything but nice all the time.

To hear an Obama bootlicker call Obama a dick was refreshing to the ears - and truthful.

Dave | 7.6.11 @ 8:21AM

As Barry often begins a comment: "Let me be clear ..."

OK, fine. In all clarity, let's clear things up. Premier Obama is indeed prickly, minus the ... ly.

How's THAT for clarity?

Teaghan| 7.6.11 @ 10:51AM

While he wags that long skinny finger. Can't stand to even look at him while he lectures us.

skip| 7.6.11 @ 5:39PM

The prickly dithering idiot liar in chief is perfectly prickly clear,

to all those clinging to their second amendment to the Constitution of the United States right to keep and bear their arms,

and to all those clinging to their first amendment to the Constitution of the United States right to their free exercise of religion,

the prickly dithering idiot liar in chief is, to the best of his prickly ability,

preserving, protecting, and defending, the Constitution of the United States,

as the prickly dithering idiot liar in chief has solemnly sworn,

while also not resting until all have jobs,

and the federal debt is eliminated,

all the unemployment and debt inherited from the predecessor of the prickly dithering idiot liar in chief,

while also not allowing the half of those not paying any taxes to bear the burden of the other half of those not paying their fair share of taxes,

and those clinging to any disagreement are racists.

Melvin| 7.6.11 @ 7:36AM

With any luck for us, the trickle will become a flood. Obama's Presidency is solely based on lies, division, and deceit. There is no strong foundation to support Obama's house of lies, and his house of lies will collapse like a Democrat inner city ghetto row house, that to was built on Democrat Party lies to the American people.

Star Tripper| 7.6.11 @ 7:43AM

Prickly - to be like or have the characteristics of a prick. Yeah, that works.

tsd| 7.6.11 @ 7:48AM

The only thing bigger than his love for this country is his love to change this country into something the majority of us will learn to hate. It is time he is seen for what he is and asked to leave!

JimH| 7.6.11 @ 7:51AM

If we are lucky we won't have Dick Obama to kick around anymore.

USSAlabama| 7.6.11 @ 10:21AM

I don't think he minds being called a d#ck ... it is the most masculine "compliment" he's ever had.

winterhawk| 7.6.11 @ 7:53AM

This is the sorriest excuse of a President I hae ever seen. It's as if he is still in training pants. But, I know his agenda and I for one will not be a communist.

Gladius| 7.6.11 @ 8:19AM

I believe if Halperin had used the word "prickly" nothing would have been done but b/c he said "dick" and someone in the basement at the WH saw him say it the fhit hit the san.

scotchieguy| 7.6.11 @ 10:05AM

Good thing he didn't say "niggardly."

Teaghan| 7.6.11 @ 10:52AM

Scotchie, you made me LOL!

Redstateboy| 7.6.11 @ 8:26AM

How have we come to this "Politically Correct" time in America when ya can't speak Truth? Hussein IS a Dick. Joe Wilson was and is right: He Lies.

Pecos Pete| 7.6.11 @ 8:40AM

Let me be clear ... Joe Wilson was correct, King O lies, and lies, and lies.

Bilzebub| 7.6.11 @ 3:58PM

How can you tell when Obama is lying?
When his lips are moving.

Rick V.| 7.6.11 @ 8:42AM

Mr. Goldstein, please, I'm begging you - never begin an article about Obama with "Has the Anointed One disrobed before our very eyes?" Secondly, it's "weinerly," not "prickly," okay?

MikeBee| 7.6.11 @ 8:46AM

Oh, so Obama's a PRICKLY dick, now! That works.

Obama gets very worked up every time he is not on the teleprompter. First, you're not supposed to ask him any questions for which he has not already memorized an answer, or hasn't a teleprompter to tell him what to say in response. Second, how DARE you criticize him in any way. A Messiah is beyond criticism. You have to think of Obama in much the same way as some Catholics think of the BVM. He was conceived without reproach. In particular, don't EVER say anything about his ears.

That's it: a prickly dick Dumbo!

hardcard| 7.6.11 @ 8:56AM

he's a prick'ly for sure, a dick, ok, just a little weiner or maybe worse !!! a thief, a commie, a toady for soros. I know all of the above !!!!

Anthony| 7.6.11 @ 9:06AM

Yes, as I said yesterday, poor, poor, Mark Halperin. We have to give Mr. Halperin some slack here, afterall, after 8 years of insane Bush bashing, with the most vile lies and distortions coming from the whores in the LSM, given with the acclaim and approval of the other whores in the leftist media, Mr. Halperin could be forgiven for his tepid and accurate comment about the petulent, rogue, empty suit of a president.
Halperin forgot; Obozo ain't Bush. Ain't no "new tone" in the Obozo regime. And like the arrogant, elitist, nasty, coldblooded SOB that Obozo is, reprisals were in order. Obozo, unlike Bush, doesn't remain silent, he goes for the jugular.
Now we find out Obozo and that other reprehensible POS, Chuck Schumer, Harvard Law graduates both, plan on having Obozo raise the debt ceiling without congressional approval. I think the Constitution has something to say about that, but what would a Harvard graduate know about the Constitution, I ask you?
We now have our own version of Hugo Chavez in the White House, a tinhorn, golf playing, dictator hell bent on the destruction of America.
Wake up Mr. Helprin & Co., get your heads out of your lefty butts, and for once in your pathetic lives, see what havoc your idiotic ideas have done to America!!!
You folks will be crushed along with the rest of us.

Petronius| 7.6.11 @ 9:07AM

There's nothing to over analyze here.
(Pinky) Biden:" What are we going to do tomorrow Brain?"
(Brain) Obama: " The same thing we do every day. We're going to take over the world Pinky."

Obama simply can't be bothered to conceal his intentions since he is too much, the true believer.

Drunken Sailor| 7.6.11 @ 9:29AM

Nice visual. The "brain" has big ears too.

Grzmlyk| 7.6.11 @ 9:12AM

I'm glad Goldstein acknowledges that the press will fall into line for the campaign. Even as we speak, they are jockeying among themselves for a chance to polish the ignorant brat's artificial halo.

The mainstream media will never, ever, ever give up its deification of Obama; look at the religious zeal with which they worship socialism despite overwhelming empirical evidence since the beginning of civilization that it never, ever works.

Faith trumps reason every time, and the most powerful drugs in this country's medicine cabinet are the twin elixers of moral vanity and naked greed - the very two ingredients essential to make liberalism palatable both to the faithful herd of bovine idiots desperately seeking secular salvation after they themselves have murdered God, and to the amoral felons who exploit them.

And while many stalwart, sanctimonious, preening moral fops still defend Obama in public, my hope is that, for many of them, such defenses are merely sniveling lies intended to maintain their position in the Mutual Admiration Society of the Very Good, and that Obama's near-50% approval rating will not be reflected at the polls. Because if half the country doesn't see this DICK for what he is, well, we don't deserve to survive as a nation.

And so I worry: I've long since given up on Americans as having enough common sense to come in out of the rain; I wonder if these self-satisifed socialists would not weep with joy even if they were plucked from their fashionably-appointed NPR cocoons to work in dreary, austere labor camps to better serve the almighty State.

As the great H.L. Mencken said, nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American people.

Nothing proves that more convincingly than the fact of Barack Hussein Obama.

DRed| 7.6.11 @ 9:53AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....r_embedded

Teaghan| 7.6.11 @ 10:59AM

A depressing but great post Grzmlyk~

Bob Grant| 7.6.11 @ 11:48AM

Grzmlyk -

Let not your heart be troubled.

The one thing that trumps moral vanity, lack of common sense, and the liberal religion:

Rational Self Interest

We'll see how many true believers there are when gas prices remain unnecessarily high, the ever increasing cost of living continues to soar, unemployment remains high, and housing prices continue to plummet or are stagnant (about which Obama hasn't done a damn thing!)

There remain too many people exposed to his disastrous policies i.e., people not benefiting from government largess nor on the government payroll.

Many, many pissed off middle class voters will storm to the polls and remove this POS.

No amount of media spin or stupidity can stop it!

KennesawJack| 7.6.11 @ 11:56AM

Bob Grant, problem is that rational self-interest gives way to enlightened self-interest when it comes to libs. God knows, they much prefer to be "englightened" than rational.

DRed| 7.6.11 @ 12:43PM

I wouldn't so be confident, Bob. Taxes are low, corporate profits are soaring, and yet nothing seems to be trickling down. So what's the solution? Apparently more tax cuts for the rich and corporate tax breaks-it's so vital that these corporations keep even more of their profits that it's worth sacrificing the creditworthiness of the United States on the altar of your failed economic theories. Maybe this time they'll really trickle down. Hold your cup out.

Skippy| 7.6.11 @ 1:45PM

Bless the corporations for realizing record profits. Profit is always good news.
And bless the Republicans for holding out for even greater tax cuts.
I pray that, as business exercises its power in the marketplace, the reflections upon Prince Bambo will make him appear ineffective and powerless.
Which he is.
Keep those trillions in capital until the climate shifts favorably towards profits, growth and liberty.
Kinda like the French hiding weapons until the Allies were near enough to be heard, then they dug 'em up and used 'em.
Keep the powder dry.

Bob Grant| 7.6.11 @ 2:21PM

You've told me nothing other than you are are class warrior.

I'll stick with my theory, thank you very much.

DRed| 7.6.11 @ 2:33PM

The basic republican economic theory is that taxes should be low, so profits will be high, and then those profits will be reinvested and everyone will be better off. Instead, taxes are low, profits are high, and only a small group of people are doing well. So what's your answer? The facts don't fit your theory. Now, you could claim, like Skippy that the current climate isn't favorable towards profit. But then you realize that saying the climate isn't favorable towards profit while corporations are raking in huge profits makes no sense.

Bob Grant| 7.6.11 @ 2:53PM

Who are you to define what is "huge"?

And what's so wrong with "profits"

"profits" i.e., cash, will not be hoarded because cash loses its value just like everything else. Those "profits" are the fuel to the economic engine that will, hopefully, grow overtime.

Like it or not, it's the only shot at getting us out of of this mess, your class war rhetoric notwithstanding.

DRed| 7.6.11 @ 2:59PM

Nothing is wrong with profits. Profits are great. What's wrong is that the trickling down that's supposed to occur isn't happening.

Drunken Sailor| 7.6.11 @ 3:12PM

They are not trickling down because no one is investing. Could that be because they are uncertain of their futures with Obama at the helm? Low taxes, high profits, rosy economic outlook = more spending and a self fulfilling growing economy, which benifits everyone. Or did I miss something?

DRed| 7.6.11 @ 3:19PM

Yes, there are low taxes, high profits, but no spending and while there is growth, it's almost entirely growth in corporate profit. There's no corresponding growth in wages or employment level. Corporations are doing well under Obama. Why would they be afraid to keep doing well?

Occam's Tool| 7.6.11 @ 8:24PM

It isn't 2014 yet, DRed. The hand grenade that is ObamaCare hasn't exploded yet.

Bob Grant| 7.6.11 @ 3:27PM

Remove the uncertainties (punishing taxes and regulations) and allow real price signals to facilitate supply meeting demand in the most efficient manner possible.

Even in poor economies, demand exists everywhere; especially in a large one such as ours.

Rich people generally don't hoard money because it loses value overtime. They desire to put it back in circulation, and as soon as possible.

Allow them to do so. Allow supply to meet up with demand. Government needs to take a hike for this to occur.

What's not to understand?

DRed| 7.6.11 @ 3:34PM

The punishing taxes that allow them to make high profits? That's what doesn't make sense. The proof is in the pudding-if taxes and regulations were so punishingly high, corporations wouldn't be able to profit. But they are profiting, so you claiming that taxes are punishing is illogical.

skip| 7.6.11 @ 5:59PM

How can anyone treat with anything other than ridicule a delusional idiot regurgitating talking points straight from the discredited hyperpartisan ultrabiased research organization Center for American Progress funded by Soros and dedicated to socialism?

DRed| 7.6.11 @ 9:11PM

Erudite as always, Skip.

skip| 7.6.11 @ 10:35PM

No denial.

As far as erudition, you've consistently ignored fact after fact cited from respected nonpartisan research organizations.

As always.

DREd| 7.6.11 @ 11:26PM

Um, Skip, you didn't present any facts. You went on a bit of a rant about a the Center for American Progress, whose website I've never even visited, and you confused a capitalist billionaire with a socialist. It was the sort of ignorant tour de force I've come to expect from you.

skip| 7.7.11 @ 12:09AM

Are you denying the fact that I presented the fact that you've consistently ignored fact after fact cited from respected nonpartisan research organizations, or just continuing to consistently ignore this fact I presented just like all the other facts after facts you've consistently ignored, or did you actually expect another actual fact from an actual respected nonpartisan organization so you could actually consistently ignore that actual fact in addition to the actual fact after actual fact actually consistently ignored from actual respected research organizations. or are you actually just another actually pathetic despicable unintelligent dishonest liberal that wouldn't actually know an actual fact if his actual life actually depended on it?

DREd| 7.7.11 @ 12:23AM

As far as I recall, skip, you've never presented a single fact in any of our discussions. Certainly not any from a respected, non-partisan organization. As far as I can tell, you don't even know what one is. Look here, you just had another golden chance to present me with some (or even just one) facts, but instead you offered another fact free run on sentence. I like posting here because the other posters challenge my opinions and expose me to viewpoints I don't encounter in my day to day life. You, on the other hand, are a tedious bore. You offer nothing but ill written insults. I suppose it reflects poorly on me that I'd expect a man who doesn't know how to use a period to be able to back his arguments up with some facts, but I suppose I'm a hopeless optimist.

skip| 7.8.11 @ 6:39AM

LIar | 5.27.11 @ 1:39PM:

"I think Obama's done a decent job."

skip | 5.27.11 @ 1:53PM:

"Obama has done such a decent job...his revised budget proposal just received zero votes for, versus ninety seven votes against, in the senate."

LIar | 5.27.11 @ 3:27PM:

"Always keeping me on my toes, skippy. I got that from the FCIC report on the financial crisis."

skip | 5.27.11 @ 3:48PM:

"The objectivity of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission of the Stanford Law School is beyond question. Sheesh. The Wall Street Journal criticized their dangerous conclusions."

LIar | 5.27.11 @ 3:58PM:

"Stanford just hosts the report on the web. You very clearly have no idea what you're talking about, Skippy."

skip | 5.27.11 @ 4:19PM:

"I provided you with a glorious opportunity to provide us with the background on FCIC, and yet you did not. Gee, I wonder why. You are delusional."

* * *

LIar | 7.7.11 @ 12:23AM:

"skip, you've never presented a single fact in any of our discussions."

LIar | 7.7.11 @ 12:23AM:

"As far as I can tell, you don't even know what one is."

You are a liar.

* * *

LIar | 7.6.11 @ 11:26PM:

"It was the sort of ignorant tour de force I've come to expect from you."

LIar | 7.7.11 @ 12:23AM:

"You, on the other hand, are a tedious bore."

You are stupid.

* * *

LIar | 7.7.11 @ 12:23AM:

"You offer nothing but ill written insults."

LIar | 7.7.11 @ 12:23AM:

"I suppose it reflects poorly on me that I'd expect a man who doesn't know how to use a period to be able to back his arguments up with some facts..."

You are pathetic.

* * *

Perhaps your repeatedly prickly demeanor repeatedly stems from being repeated bludgeoned repeatedly by your own repeatedly repeated lies by me repeatedly.

You are despicable.

* * *

Idiot.

doug| 7.6.11 @ 1:27PM

well said...mere government is loosed upon the
country

old guy2| 7.8.11 @ 8:04PM

Excellent ! I too have given up hope on a populace that is gullible, guilt ridden, immature, self-absorbed, weak-willed, ignorant, mesmerized, and hypnotized by evil vampires.

Tax All Liberals| 7.6.11 @ 10:10AM

Outside the Oval Office and we can all just laugh at his dickish behavior.

Ed| 7.6.11 @ 10:22AM

Obama uses the Straw Man argument so much that we should start calling him Scarecrow. Unlike the Oz version, this Scarecrow doesn't have much of a brain.

calvin | 7.6.11 @ 10:27AM

Why do you all play Mr. Brooks game?
The masochist said "beat me."
The sadist replied "no."

C Smith| 7.6.11 @ 10:29AM

The "Anointed One's" self-destruction is only a matter of time. But can America endure his anger? Following is a profile of his alter ego:

SUNDAY, OCTOBER 19, 2008
“Messiah” Obama

“Can two walk together, except they be agreed”?
(Amos 3:2)

On February 24, Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, before a black audience, formally “anointed” the “Messiah”:

"You are the instruments that God is going to use to bring about universal change, and that is why Barack has captured the youth. And he has involved young people in a political process that they didn't care anything about. That's a sign. When the Messiah speaks, the youth will hear, and the Messiah is absolutely speaking."

But who is Louis Farrakhan, the “messenger” heralding America’s “Messiah”? And what latent symbiosis exists between him and person who may become our next president? His words may reveal the answer:

White people are potential humans…. they haven’t evolved yet (Louis Farrakhan, The Philadelphia Inquirer, March 2000).

You [Jews] are wicked deceivers of the American people. You have sucked their blood (Louis Farrakhan, Savior's Day Speech, Chicago, February 25, 1996).

They call them terrorists [Hezbollah], I call them freedom fighters (Louis Farrakhan, District Council 33 Union Hall, Philadelphia, April 22, 1996).

Qadaffi's a revolutionary, he's my friend, he's my brother. And I would never deny him because you don't like him. You say, you say he's the one who set the bomb off that killed all those people on Pan Am 103 You're a liar (Louis Farrakhan, Savior's Day, Chicago, February 25, 1996).

It is an act of mercy to white people that we end your world (Louis Farrakhan, as cited in Matt Labash, Inside the March, The Weekly Standard, 10/23/1995, Volume 001, Issue 06).

God will destroy America by the hands of the Muslims. — God will not give Japan or Europe the honor of bringing down the United States; this is an honor God will bestow upon Muslims (Louis Farrakhan, as cited in The Anti-Defamation League, Press Release: Nation of Islam, New York, NY, March 5, 1996).

The Jews don't like Farrakhan, so they call me Hitler. Well, that's a good name. Hitler was a very great man (Louis Farrakhan, as cited in CNN Senior Washington Correspondent Charles Bierbauer, Million Man March, October 17, 1995).

Look at it so-called Jew. Look at it, imposter Jew. Somebody must call you what you are. Somebody must look you in your cold lying blue eyes and pull the cover off of you today. I don't give a damn about you and I will give you hell from the cradle to the grave (Louis Farrakhan, Black Holocaust Nationhood Conference (on the eve of the Million Man March), October 15, 1995).

Addendum: Obama not only attended the “Million Man March” but reportedly joined Farrakhan, Al Sharpton, and Reverend Jeremiah Wright in organizing the event.

Terrorism, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder (Louis Farrakhan, as cited in Mattias Gardell, In the Name of Elijah Muhammad, Duke University Press, December 1996).

In 1964, more moderate fellow Nation of Islam member Malcolm X revealed that their leader Elijah Muhammad had impregnated several of his teenage secretaries. An outraged Farrakhan responded: "Only those who wish to be led to hell, or to their doom, will follow Malcolm. The die is set, and Malcolm shall not escape, especially after such evil, foolish talk about his benefactor; such a man is worthy of death…." Malcolm's pregnant wife and four daughters witnessed the fulfillment of Farrakhan’s prophecy ten weeks later in Harlem's Audubon Ballroom.

In December 2007, Obama’s church and pastor publicly honored Minister Louis Farrakhan with the Trumpeter award, accompanied with a hagiographic eulogy in the church’s Trumpet periodical. Rev. Jeremiah Wright further alluded to Farrakhan as a man who “truly epitomized greatness.”

More recently, Obama found it politically expedient to disassociate himself from affiliations with Farrakhan, Wright, and other black leaders, but not the obeisance they bestowed regarding his “Messiahship.” However, considering the affinity of these men in recent decades, the question remains:

“Can two walk together, except they be agreed” (Amos 3:2)?

http://popularapostasy.blogspo.....32_19.html

PAUL| 7.6.11 @ 10:48AM

He should get prickly, don't these people know that guilt laden white liberals have been telling him how smart he is his whole life, great Americans like Bill Ayres and the "Reverend" Wright think he is the greatest thing ever, all his college students would hang on his every word, and when he was "community organizing," people would vote the way he wanted them to after he handed out some cigarettes or Colt 45 Malt Liquor! With a track record like that, why would mere mortals question him!

Louis Jenkins| 7.6.11 @ 10:51AM

Never before have I seen a president sit with his head in his hand. That's when Obama is angry. You can see it on many occassions.

Groad| 7.6.11 @ 11:27AM

It is well that the author put an -ly on the end of his adjective and did not use the word as a noun. He might have had some nasty responses.

Maddox| 7.6.11 @ 11:36AM

I thought that title would be much more appropriate.

don| 7.6.11 @ 12:04PM

typical for a sociopathic communist

California Dave | 7.6.11 @ 12:11PM

All this mainstream angst over Mark Halperin slipping past a 9 second delay and uttering the D-word to describe Morning Joe's buddy, Barack Obama, brought to mind a more civil time in our culture and how that same D-word might have been used, but with a much softer edge.

Some history ...

When I was a kid growing up in the San Fernando Valley during the '50s, we used to peddle our bikes over to George's liquor store on the corner, while dragging a Radio Flyer wagon behind us and trade in our collection of pop bottles for a couple pennies each. Either that or we'd cash-out for a few Mars bars or down payment on a Nesbitt's Orange Soda. Other times when the bottles were scarce, we'd just hand over the few we had in the wagon in exchange for some penny cubes of Dubble Bubble chewing gum. Back in the day, five pop bottles (at two-cents a pop) could get you ten chews. Not a bad haul. These days, homeless guys scoop them up and trade 'em out for a bottle of screw cap vino at the neighborhood mini mart. The concept is about the same, but the ol' Radio Flyer has been replaced by a Safeway shopping cart. I guess it holds more stuff.

For those a bit beyond the post-Beatles' years, pink Dubble Bubble used to have a small cartoon panel wound around the gum inside the wrapper. One of the main characters was a fat, goofy little kid who always wore a two color beanie and a stripped red and white shirt. For those of us who remember dragging that Radio Flyer around in '54 ... the kid's name was Pud.

Sometime over the next few years, Pud was sent packing. Probably gone because of his weight image, that and a snickering issue with the name. Later, his place in the panel was replaced by a more properly weight conscious kid. But the basic beanie and shirt combo remained.

It's been a lot of decades since I bought a pack of that pink bubble gum. And I sometimes wonder whatever became of Pud? It's never been fully confirmed but rumor has it that after he was eased off the gum wrapper, his mom got divorced, shipped him off to live with his grandma in Hawaii ... and the rest is history.

In hindsight , I suspect Mr. Halperin could have made the same point and still kept his panal seat at MSNBS had he simply used the P-word instead of that ... other one.

OK, that's about it from here. Enjoy your afternoon. Me? I still have a wagon load of pop bottles to cash in. Problem is, George's isn't around any more and the guy at Safeway told me to haul 'em over to the recycling center. I don't know, somehow it's not quite the same as getting a cube of gum for an empty Nehi grape.

Lesser Weevil| 7.6.11 @ 12:22PM

"Normally erstwhile"?? C'mon, Aaron!

Never use words whose meaning you are not sure of. If you break this rule you should look for other work.

V.S. Naipaul

Oldefarte| 7.6.11 @ 1:04PM

It's hilarious that a liberal commentator on MSNBC is resigned to solitary confinement over his criticism of El Chosen One. It makes the guilotining of Limbaugh at ESPN pale by comparison. Chosen is possibly prickly, but more likely he's simply a typical liberal, whose better-than-thou attitude from his Shakesperian liberal arts education from a northeast private university always casts its condescending look upon the rest of us ignorant fools. After all, we can't all quote poetry from Whitman's LEAVES OF GRASS to an underling, stary-eyed imbecile while eating pizza and smoking cigars, right?

play nice| 7.6.11 @ 1:15PM

The only way I can enjoy the comment section any more is to skip over Alan Brooks comments and the replies. 7:50 am is kind of early to be a dick.
WAFT.

Handy| 7.6.11 @ 8:46PM

The admonition at the bottom says, do not feed the trolls." People who respond to Alan Brooks are feeding a troll. They enable him and should stop it.

It's a pain to have to scroll past him and his respondents, but what else can one do?

shipley130| 7.6.11 @ 1:15PM

The prick-ly president has covered his true nature pretty well. I have a feeling there is a bit of a demon underneath.

Marc Jeric| 7.6.11 @ 1:35PM

Nobody is addressing Mullah Obama's system of local soviets (that's the Russian word for community organizations). The brownshirts and the thugs of ACORN, SEIU, AFL-CIO, AFT, NEA, AFSCME, and other unions are getting ready to perform a massive voter fraud, to intimidate and threaten, to march and protest and agitate - and Obama is still sitting on the $8 billion reserved for them from his stimulus bill.

Clint| 7.6.11 @ 2:25PM

Weiner was Prickly too.

Bob Grant| 7.6.11 @ 2:36PM

Weiner is plotting his comeback. After all, you cannot keep a good Weiner down.

DRed| 7.6.11 @ 2:42PM

I imagine it will be hard for him to return.

Ron| 7.6.11 @ 2:56PM

You know friends, I see a different view of all of this...Once again the ultra-left, liberal media and the ultra-left (that is an oxymoron is it not) are angry at NerObama for not moving the US to the left fast enough. That is where their outrage comes from with NerObama. He is not getting the US into the marxist-socialist hole they want fast enough to suit them, plain and simple.

Rick| 7.6.11 @ 4:00PM

Your a bigget and a rasist!

Skippy| 7.6.11 @ 5:36PM

Spreak Engriff!
Wee cannt unnerstam yu!

Wang Hung Lo| 7.6.11 @ 6:16PM

Yeah, Lick No Speakie English.

C.K. Amos| 7.6.11 @ 4:06PM

Please, do at least this Christian a favor: Stop calling Barack H. Obama "the Anointed One."

That's no less offensive now than when he was given that moniker by the pimpstream or drive-by media, your choice, in 2008.

But your and others' use of it surely must continue, in some way, to buttress Obama's megalomaniacal belief he is anointed.

Not by Jehovah, Adonai, though, who became incarnate in Lord Jesus Christ, the Messiah, the one and only ever Anointed One.

Thanks for your consideration.

SNAKESRULE| 7.6.11 @ 5:23PM

Agreed, "Mahdi" would be far more appropriate and accurate

Buck Ofama| 8.15.11 @ 12:41AM

Blah blah blah.

SNAKESRULE| 7.6.11 @ 4:42PM

The majority of this country could give a damn about this poseurs disposition. This is middle school crap....unsurprising from this regime.

Pat| 7.6.11 @ 5:13PM

A funny thing about cannibal society occurs when you have a strong hankering for long pig and you suddenly realize there are no defenseless missionaries in sight - at those times, it becomes socially acceptable to eat one of your own. So, the mainstream media decided to feast on one of their brethren, cannibals can be quirky like that and us missionaries needn’t feel sadness - or glee for that matter. There’s simply one less cannibal in the jungle, that should suffice without judging the severity of the meatloaf’s specific sin. To paraphrase an old saying: “A cat may look at a king, but a Liberal journalist can’t call an Obama a “dick”.

Paul| 7.6.11 @ 7:13PM

"Dick," would be a step up over Marxist, anti-Semite, anti-White, Anti-American, pro-Muslim, narcissist.

Cappicola| 7.6.11 @ 10:51PM

It almost looks as if Obama is thoroughly inconvenienced by the problems that historically go with the job. This should not have come as a surprise to him, as 43 others went before him. He might have realized had he spent more time researching the history of the office and its occupants.

That he gets in such a snit at times is baffling, especially since GWB didn't have the luxury of a lapdog media doing his bidding. To his credit, though, he shines magnificently when in the spotlight and is at his very best when he's the guest of honor, the focal point, the invited guest, etc.

If it's about him and as long as it's positive, the charismatic showman we saw campaign and get elected comes out in him.

I'd love to be a fly on the wall of the Nobel Prize committee's meeting room.

Handy| 7.6.11 @ 11:11PM

A fly who bit him would die of his toxic Commie blood and his racist patholgies.

weddingdress | 7.7.11 @ 5:15AM

It almost looks as if Obama is thoroughly inconvenienced by the problems that historically go with the job. This should not have come as a surprise to him, as 43 others went before him. He might have realized had he spent more time researching the history of the office and its occupants.

LarryG| 7.8.11 @ 12:11AM

He isn't worth the time or effort to use effective or pointed english, so: FUCK HIM!!~!

handbags| 7.8.11 @ 4:30AM

Apparently more tax cuts for the rich and corporate tax breaks-it's so vital that these corporations keep even more of their profits that it's worth sacrificing the creditworthiness of the United States on the altar of your failed economic theories.
http://www.ainibag.com

Richard Baker| 7.8.11 @ 5:17PM

His ire sounds more like that of a Mafia chieftain. What a disaster wrought by millions of our idiot electorate. Is it time to return to a modern form of literacy test for voting? Sample question: What is the name of this country and what is the name of the state in which you live?

banshee| 7.10.11 @ 3:57AM

Thank you,Richard Baker. In addition to your good start up there, let me offer:

Remember the butterfly ballots in Florida that the old folks could not make sense of? A simple tri-fold and they could not figure it out. They all voted for Pat Buchanan by mistake. In addition to literacy, we could do with some kind of sanity test.

Do-gooders should be barred from Nursing Homes and Senior Centers. Absentee ballots should be distributed and picked up by a precinct worker, sealed by the voter, within an hour. If the dodderer has not figured it out in that time, UNASSISTED, no vote. If you are 97 years old, heavily sedated, wondering why they haven't brought breakfast - and it is 4 in the afternoon, it is probably not that important that you vote.

Anyone wishing to vote in 2012 only gets a ballot in ENGLISH. It's no wonder California is broke - you should see the exotic languages our ballots are printed in - -

Anyone wishing to vote for President of the United States or anyone else, right down to dog catcher - must prove citizenship and true identity.

No helpful Democrat volunteers driving folks to the polls. If you want to vote in November 2012 , you have 16 months in which to save enough for bus fare or cab fare. Find a friend, on your own, someone who will not influence your vote, share a ride. But not with me. I don't contribute to the delinquency of sloths.

For the record, I will be 84 in August, still making it around the clock independently. In my view, voting is the most independent thing you can do - and you should not require help or guidance.

Nathan Bickel| 7.10.11 @ 11:51PM

I think that a more fitting title to this commentary would have been:

"Our Unconstitutional Illigitimate Prick of a 'President.'"

Nixonfan | 8.9.11 @ 12:07PM

The president inherited this trait from his father. Sally Jacobs has written an excellent bio of Barack Obama, Sr., The Other Barack.

Buck Ofama| 8.15.11 @ 12:39AM

Ovomit, Odick, Oprick, what's the diff?

Buck Ofama| 8.15.11 @ 12:43AM

I would have been, as Prickly Dick says, "perfectly clear" about the fake "president": not a dick but a c0cksucker.

John| 9.9.11 @ 1:33AM

spicejet booking

Great President

More Articles by Aaron Goldstein

More Articles From The Obama Watch

Obama’s Far Left Hand

May 15, 2013 | George Neumayr

That Is What We Do

May 14, 2013 | Jay D. Homnick

Obama’s Rising Inequality

May 8, 2013 | Peter Ferrara

Turning on Obama

May 7, 2013 | Ross Kaminsky

President Obama and ‘Uncaring’ Pro-Lifers

May 2, 2013 | Owen Strachan

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/07/06/our-prickly-president

ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Headlines

Not Ready for Primetime Players

Daniel J. Flynn|114 comments

Assessing a Week of Scandal

Matt Purple|126 comments

Oops, Maybe Government is Tyrannical

Marta H. Mossburg|61 comments

Soros Funds Anti-‘Torture’ Report

Mark Tooley|113 comments

Treasure State Treasury

Bill Croke|4 comments

My Generation’s Disease

Benjamin Brophy|72 comments

The View From the Other Side

George H. Wittman|17 comments

USPS: Radical Surgery Needed

Peter Hannaford|19 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Alan O’Day, R.I.P.

Aaron Goldstein | 12:26AM

Artur Davis Says Scandals Are Real

Quin Hillyer | 5.19.13

Good New Book: ‘Precipice’

Quin Hillyer | 5.19.13

The Spectator’s Spectacular: Most Read Stories, May 12-May 19

Patrick Ryan | 5.19.13

Elijah Harper, R.I.P.

Aaron Goldstein | 5.18.13

If Only the Tsar Knew!

F.H. Buckley | 5.18.13

Low-Level IRS Staffer: No, We Didn’t Mastermind This Entire Thing

Matt Purple | 5.17.13

UPDATED: IRS Acting Chief Apologizes, But Defends His Actions

Kaylin Bugos | 5.17.13

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

My Generation’s Disease

Benjamin Brophy | 5.17.13

The Liberal Union Behind the IRS

Jeffrey Lord | 5.16.13

Not Ready for Primetime Players

Daniel J. Flynn | 5.17.13

Assessing a Week of Scandal

Matt Purple | 5.17.13

Oops, Maybe Government is Tyrannical

Marta H. Mossburg | 5.17.13

From Bimbos to Benghazi

Jeffrey Lord | 5.9.13

Low-Level IRS Staffer: No, We Didn't Mastermind This Entire Thing

Matt Purple | 5.17.13

The View From the Other Side

George H. Wittman | 5.17.13

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.