Barack Obama

President Obama Sure Does Surround Himself With Irritating Young Speechwriters Named Jon!

|

The bro-dude on the left. ||| Originally obtained by the Washington Post
Originally obtained by the Washington Post

First up, there's 31-year-old Favreau (not the actor/director), with a Daily Beast column that lives down to its excrutiating subhed: "The handwringers and bed wetters in the D.C. punditocracy should know that Barack Obama will never be on their timeline, says his longtime speechwriter Jon Favreau." That jock ain't gonna sniff itself!

In the case of Benghazi, he was willing to accept the harsh judgments and sweeping recommendations of the independent Accountability Review Board because he holds himself responsible for the lives of the diplomats and intelligence officers he sends to dangerous places—something he said seven months ago. But he won't stomach more of the same debate about Sunday-show talking points that, 100 emails later, amounts to little more than the same interagency turf battles that accompany every piece of writing released by the federal government. I know, I was a speechwriter there.

In the case of the AP phone records, Obama the former constitutional-law professor cares deeply about the balance between freedom and security. This is the president who began the foreign-policy section of his inaugural with the words "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." And he wants Congress to debate and finally pass a media-shield law. […]

I was there, and you weren't. BOOM! ||| Pete Souza, Whitehouse.gov
Pete Souza, Whitehouse.gov

And in the case of the IRS, the president must have been furious when he learned the news. I can remember how angry he was during the GSA debacle (parties in Vegas; think there were clowns and jugglers involved? Wow). He was angry because he knows that a progressive vision of government requires faith that government is efficient, and responsive, and trustworthy—and the handful of morons who break that trust sully the reputation of all the federal employees who uphold those values every day.

That is who he is. The handwringers and bed wetters in the D.C. punditocracy should know that Barack Obama will never be on their timeline. He does not value being first over being right. He will not spend his presidency chasing news cycles. He will not shake up his White House staff just because of some offhand advice offered to Politico by a longtime Washingtonian or a nameless Democrat who's desperately trying to stay relevant. And if that means Dana Milbank thinks he's too passive; if it means that Jim VandeHei will keep calling him arrogant and petulant; if it means that Chris Matthews will whine about him not enjoying the presidency, then so be it. He'll live.

Because he is my bro-dude!

The face of authenticity. ||| Twitter portrait
Twitter portrait

Next up in off-putting apologia from a former White House speechwriter named Jon is Lovett (not Lovitz), from a recent commencement address at Pitzer College:

I believe we may have reached "peak bullshit." And that increasingly, those who push back against the noise and nonsense; those who refuse to accept the untruths of politics and commerce and entertainment and government will be rewarded. That we are at the beginning of something important.

We see it across our culture, with not only popularity but hunger for the intellectual honesty of Jon Stewart or the raw sincerity of performers like Louis CK and Lena Dunham. You can even add the rise of dark, brooding, "authentic" super heroes in our blockbuster movies. We see it in locally-sourced, organic food on campuses like this, at places like the Shakedown, a rejection of the processed as inauthentic. We see it in politics.

I believe Barack Obama represents this movement, that the rise of his candidacy was in part a consequence of the desire for greater authenticity in our public life.

I think Lovett at least is onto something with the hunger-for-authenticity bit (which he also extends to such non-Democratic politicians as New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Sen. Rand Paul), and he hits the bullseye with his concluding advice that "All you have to do is avoid BSing yourself—in whatever you choose to do." But the exercise of presidential power is fundamentally at odds with the fight against bullshit. As has been repeatedly demonstrated by our allegedly authentic president.

No amount of cloaking partisan power politics in the holy glow of "truth-telling" can alter the dynamic that Lord Acton identified long ago. When you apologize for corruption, you're adding to, not subtracting from, the net level of bullshit. All you have to do is avoid BSing yourself.

Advertisement

NEXT: NATO To Hold Summit in 2014 on Withdrawing Troops From Afghanistan

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Oh… My…. God……

    I believe Barack Obama represents this movement, that the rise of his candidacy was in part a consequence of the desire for greater authenticity in our public life.

    I can’t believe someone who worked for that narcissist can be so completely clueless!

    1. It’s a kind of insanity, this large-scale detachment from reality.

      1. It is called projection. This is how narcissists succeed. They get people like this guy who desperately want to believe in something larger than themselves to project all that they want onto the narcissist.

          1. [Makes long locks of hair swing around his head]

        1. Maybe we were better off with religion as opposed to worshiping men or government.

          1. I think maybe we were. Religion also sometimes will get people to check out of society. This kind of stuff never does that. It is first and always about politics and transforming society.

          2. I think it really depends on the religion. I can certainly point to aspects of Christianity (which is the only religion with which I am intimately familiar) that are either good in and of themselves, or which provided fertile soil for good secular ideals like those in classical liberalism to arise. Although, strictly speaking, even some really shitty things in Christianity helped encourage good things (e.g. the political need to overcome sectarian conflict between States encouraging religious pluralism in the U.S.).

    2. That was the phrase I picked out as well. Dear Leader reinvented bullshit and produced that shit in mass quantities; he’s the Henry Ford of bullshit. That mans spews so much manure, I quit fertilizing my plants and just play his speeches to them; I’ve doubled my yields.

      For anyone to believe what that guy said, they must be either extremely stoopid, or extremely sycophantic.

      I guess they could be both, as well.

      1. Sure, your yields are up, but I bet the fruit will be very, very bitter.

      2. It’s not his bullshit capacity–there are many in this world with that. It’s the fact that so many lap it up.

        1. It’s because he’s the Ur-Democrat. Is he a radical left-wing Christian? Sure, but everyone knows he’s also skeptical and secular. Is he a well-credentialed white Ivy League academic, or is he a pavement pounding urban black activist? Sure! Is he a radical mentored by a domestic terrorist, someone who will do whatever it takes in the name of the cause? Or he is a reasonable moderate who will bring the country together with the occasional beer summit? Absolutely.

          He’s whatever the hell you want him to be, as long as you’re a Democrat. Of course, as a downside, he’s also whatever the hell you want him to be as a Republican — whether it’s a closet Muslim planning to sell us out to the caliphate, or a Communist, or a warmongering corporatist sellout, or whatever.

          1. Reminds me of Zelig and when Woody Allen used to make good movies.

    3. That must be “authenticity” in the hipster sense.

    4. I like Obama supporters better when they can at least admit their hero is often completely full of shit.

      For example, you have the atheists who were never bothered by Obama’s membership in a politicized church, because “deep down, Obama’s an atheist like me. So I don’t care if he tried to get in touch with his African-ness by embracing Black Liberation Theology for a while, then abandoning it when it became a liability.”

      And isn’t there an Obama defender at H and R who freely acknowledges the Lightworker was flat-out lying about his position on gay marriage (AKA “the most important civil rights issue of our time”) until about a year ago?

      Yeah, choosing a church based on political convenience and lying about your SSM stance hardly strikes me as “authentic.”

      1. It makes them feel special. Like they are in on something. You see Obama tells one thing to the proles. But those of us in the know on the inside know what he really thinks.

    5. Right. I don’t usually think of Obama as genuine. I guess he does seem to believe his own bullshit, but at some point, what does it mean when someone keeps contradicting themselves or appears hypocritical? He does seem to mean well, so is this an act or is he just the ultimate politician or is he just that dumb? Really savvy politician or dumb as dirt?

      1. I think he does believe his own bullshit, but that does not excuse the fact that it’s bullshit. I found one of the most telling assessments of him came from French president Nicholas Sarkozy. Sarkozy had spent an intense 3 days with Obama and the British Prime Minister to prepare for a joint presentation to the UN. At the end of the three days, Sarkozy said he was surprised by the degree to which Obama was both arrogant and naive. He said that the combination of arrogance and naivete is a dangerous combination. Dangerous or not, it’s the perfect combination for self-delusion.

  2. We see it across our culture, with not only popularity but hunger for the intellectual honesty of Jon Stewart or the raw sincerity of performers like Louis CK and Lena Dunham.

    I feel like this is a sentence that I could see myself writing if I was being really sarcastic.

    1. Sarcasm is dead…

      1. no, sarc is alive and well!

      2. You can’t parody these people. You can only ridicule them.

    2. I think the phrase peak bullshit is quite appropriate for that article. 🙂

    3. These people are more authentic than their peers in their profession in some ways. But they are still misguided and arrogantly wrong in other ways.

      So I can see the authentic part but they still have a long way to go.

  3. Does anyone here really think either of these douche bags would hesitate to throw a brick through a window or order someone executed if Obama told them and they thought they would get away with it?

    This is the mundane face of evil. Evil is never that interesting in real life. Evil is pathetic and self absorbed. And is totally vulnerable to ridicule.

    1. What I find fascinating about these stories about Obama’s inner circle is that it’s clear he surrounded himself with bright-eyed bushy-tailed idealistic youngsters who had impressive qualifications in terms of degrees, but apparently zero real world experience.

      And now we are seeing the fruits of this decision. These are kids. And not only that but obnoxious late 20’s/early 30’s know-it-alls kids who have no idea how to operate an organization at this level. Thus we see amateur mistakes on a regular basis, which should not all that surprising.

      President Not My Fault needs to have people around him who he can talk down to, or he gets depressed.

      1. What I find fascinating about these stories about Obama’s inner circle is that it’s clear he surrounded himself with bright-eyed bushy-tailed idealistic youngsters

        So has the same taste in allies as a cult leader. Hmmm. That’s strange.

        1. When you think about, college basically has a lot of the same social forces at play as a cult. Young people, social isolation and anxiety, relentless social pressure in the service of an extreme ideology, many cultists are exposed 24/7 due to living in the compound on-campus and not really having a life outside, etc.

          Like some of the more successful cults, they have enough pull in broader society (through credentialism) to economically and sometimes legally reward their followers and punish their enemies with economic ostracism.

          Like some of the more successful cults, they extract exorbitant amounts of money from their followers by making those followers pay again and again for access to progressively higher “tiers” of knowledge (much of which is just bullshit that serves the cult). The cult leaders (tenured professors, and especially administrators) tend to be very well compensated, while the paying rubes and the low-ranking “clergy” tend to be exploited ruthlessly.

          1. by making those followers pay again and again for access to progressively higher “tiers” of knowledge (much of which is just bullshit that serves the cult).

            No way. Anything you learn in college can be learned independently if you put the work and time into it. I’m unaware of any colleges or universities that sue for IP/trade secret infringement to keep ideas from becoming public knowledge, as religious cults with enough money do (not mentioning any names!)

      2. The youth have been at the forefront of pretty much every idiotic and murderous ideology since the French Revolution. Demagogues love to pray on the young and use their eagerness and naivety to their advantage.

        1. It’s usually the youth of the upper-classes as well. There may be some proletariat muscle in the group but the kids who’ve never had to work a day in their lives write the best speeches on the evils of the employing class.

          1. Like Narodnaya Volnyia.

      3. One of my favorite parts of In The Loop: everyone in the White House is a teenager.

    2. John, although you may be right about your take that they would throw a brick through a window if the dear leader told them to do so, don’t you think that there is a chance that these flaks would consider it beneath themselves to be the actual brick tossers?

      1. Good point. They would gladly encourage and reward others to do things like that. They view themselves as too important to actually risk their lives doing the dirty work.

        1. Aside from being averse to risking their lives, don’t you think that they would not feel all that comfortable with the mob who would throw toss the bricks?

          After all, they were in the inner circle.

          BTW, some of the posters twisted your posts regarding the actions of mobs the other day.

          1. How so? Saying I argued for the mob? My views on the mob are very clear. It is what fascists use to corrupt the political system. Fascists win by using mob violence to make it impossible for their opponents to organize or function in public. Things like Alynskite tactics or shouting people down are nothing but less violent fascist political tactics.

            1. Yes, your views on the use and manipulation of mobs are clear, and imo, spot-on.

              The criticism stemmed, iirc, from your reference to the actions of the brownshirt mobs of the late Weimar Republic and setting forth some similarities to the actions and thinking of the Alynskyites, in general, and the Obama administration, in particular.

              1. Read what the Nazis did in the late 20s before they got into power. They are straight out of Alynski.

      2. They’d toss the bricks, if they could do it as part of a mob.

        Then they’d go home, exhilarated that they had participated in an action with the people. The story would be magnified in each telling: emphasizing how they had played an important role in the action, and how they had faced personal danger that night. Their act of mindless savagery, embedding themselves safely with the howling mob, would be transformed in their minds and words to a heroic act of courage and leadership.

        1. Well put, but couldn’t you just as easily envision them passing on the actual dirty work, as John phrased it, concerned (read: urinating in their undies) about risking their lives?

      3. Not this douche. He’d take the lead. He’s HARDCORE, BRO!

        DESTROY THAT SHIT! FOR PROGRESS!

    3. Exactly. Look at the head Nazis and Commies.

      A bunch of narcissistic weenies and outcasts, who through an accident of history were allowed to exercise their sociopathic nature with the protection and endorsement of the state. A common thread of obedience, brown nosing, and an “educated” life of non-production running through these toadies.

      1. Exactly GBN. The Nazis and the Communists were more than anything, losers angry that the world never recognized their genius. I guarantee you these guys both think they are geniuses. And they fully expect the world to recognize that.

        1. Who Goes Nazi? by Dorothy Thompson

          Sometimes I think there are direct biological factors at work?a type of education, feeding, and physical training which has produced a new kind of human being with an imbalance in his nature. He has been fed vitamins and filled with energies that are beyond the capacity of his intellect to discipline. He has been treated to forms of education which have released him from inhibitions. His body is vigorous. His mind is childish. His soul has been almost completely neglected.

          Kind, good, happy, gentlemanly, secure people never go Nazi. They may be the gentle philosopher whose name is in the Blue Book, or Bill from City College to whom democracy gave a chance to design airplanes?you’ll never make Nazis out of them. But the frustrated and humiliated intellectual, the rich and scared speculator, the spoiled son, the labor tyrant, the fellow who has achieved success by smelling out the wind of success?they would all go Nazi in a crisis.

          1. I love that article. It is one of the best things written in the 20th Century. Everyone should read it. Man, does she nail it.

          2. Damn, just read that article. Reminds me of Rand a bit.

            Excellent reading.

          3. Bookend this with Hoffer’s “The True Believer” and the section of his “The Ordeal of Change” on the role intellectuals play in revolutions and you have some real insight into world history. Hell, read all of The Ordeal of Change why don’t you?

            1. And Darkness at Noon. Darkness at Noon is just an amazing explication of how these sorts of ideology will corrupt the mind.

        2. That’s true. The original bolsheviks in Russia were a group of disaffected intellectuals. It’s a common thread, and always based on a distrust of the ordinary man and that person’s own ability to judge how to run their own life.

      2. Was Stalin a weenie? He was a psychopath for sure but I see him as quite different from Hitler. Hitler actually had to get votes from ordinary people.

        1. Hitler actually had to get votes from ordinary people.

          Wasn’t he voted in by parliament?

      3. I don’t know about your personal life, GBN, but chances are that both of these Jons get way more tail than you do. It’s kind of strange to see libertarians calling the stars of the left “weenies and outcasts”.

        They’re popular. We’re not. We have to accept that and work accordingly.

    4. …either of these douche bags would hesitate to throw a brick through a window or order someone executed if Obama told them and they thought they would get away with it?

      The get away with it bit is crucial. They have no consideration that they could be wrong; no ethical system to stay their hand; no independence of thought; a desperate desire to remake the world they hate into an earthly paradise.

      If they faced no harmful repercussions, nothing would stop them in their fanatical zeal.

    5. It is disturbing how cynically you view the world. Maybe you’re the psychopath? Ever been tested?

      1. It is disturbing how cynically you view the world. Maybe you’re the psychopath?

        HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

        Tony, when you try to accuse people who disagree with you of being mentally ill, you might want to use something more subtle than a massive nonsequitur.

        Come on man! You need to up your game to a level above embarrassingly sucky!

        1. You need to up your game to a level above embarrassingly sucky!

          Remember who you’re talking to here.

      2. It is disturbing how cynically you view the world.

        It isn’t the world he’s viewing cynically, USA for Africa.

  4. Isn’t Jon Favreau Mike Riggs’ good choom-buddy? Riggs wrote he smoked teh debbil-weed with a White House speech writer.

  5. Obama the former constitutional-law professor cares deeply about the balance between freedom and security. This is the president who began the foreign-policy section of his inaugural with the words “We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.”

    If the choice between safety and freedom is a false one, what is there to balance?

    1. If you read the quote, Obama says “our ideals” instead of freedom, and since his ideals have nary a connection to freedom, there is no contradiction.

      When he says:

      We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.

      He means that you’ll be very safe once he controls every aspect of your life.

  6. I believe we may have reached “peak bullshit.”

    As a speechwriter for the Obama administration, he knows a thing or two about bullshit.

  7. But he won’t stomach more of the same debate about Sunday-show talking points that, 100 emails later, amounts to little more than the same interagency turf battles that accompany every piece of writing released by the federal government.

    IOW, let’s all continue pretending we don’t remember the president went to the UN to shit all over free speech and undermine one of the only things that actually still makes the US better than most other countries.

  8. Wasn’t this the same kind of young go-getter brain trust that tanked Clinton’s first two years?

  9. He was angry because he knows that a progressive vision of government requires faith that government is efficient, and responsive, and trustworthy?and the handful of morons who break that trust sully the reputation of all the federal employees who uphold those values every day.

    [insert comment about cops, bad apples, etc.]

    1. It’s never the Czar, it’s always his ministers that are the problem.

    2. progressive vision of government requires faith that government is efficient, and responsive, and trustworthy

      at least he used the right word..

    3. If the progressive vision requires government to be efficient, responsive, and trustworthy, then it’s time they retired that vision. The ship has long since sailed on all three of those qualities. Government displays none of those things and has not displayed them, regardless of the party in charge, in at least a century, if not considerably longer than that.

  10. he knows that a progressive vision of government requires faith that government is efficient, and responsive, and trustworthy

    Indeed.

    1. If only more Americans were atheists in this regard.

      Poor proggies, they know Jesus won’t save them so govt will have to.

    2. a progressive vision of government requires faith

      Enough said.

    3. Oh yes, sometimes propagandists let the mask slip as you can’t write anything without some contribution from your self-conscious.

      The inclusion of the word “faith” is an instance of that. For everybody knows that faith is required for things that are either not self-evident or impossible to disprove.

      1. That is a great point. He could have said “requires the public be certain that government is efficient, and responsive and trustworthy”. Or better yet “requires the government to be efficient and responsive and trust worthy”

        He let it slip in two ways. First, he thinks that the public has to have “faith” rather than knowledge. And second, all that seems to matter is that the public believe the government to be so NOT for the government to ACTUALLY BE SO.

        Quite a telling sentence.

  11. We see it across our culture, with not only popularity but hunger for the intellectual honesty of Jon Stewart or the raw sincerity of performers like Louis CK and Lena Dunham.

    Please! I don’t don’t feel so good. Let me off this ride.

  12. In the case of the AP phone records, Obama the former constitutional-law professor cares deeply about the balance between freedom and security. This is the president who began the foreign-policy section of his inaugural with the words “We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.” And he wants Congress to debate and finally pass a media-shield law.

    What a trainwreck. Caring about “the balance between freedom and security” says jackshit about whether or not he cares about freedom. And his evidence that Obama cares about freedom is a speech he made. Oh, and he’s in favor of a law that gives the government the power to police speech even further by defining who is and isn’t a legitimate journalist. Pathetic.

    1. That is an amazing paragraph of mendacity there. Because Congress didn’t pass a media shield law, Obama was forced to let Eric Holder spy on journalists and treat them as criminal suspects. Got it.

  13. We see it across our culture, with not only popularity but hunger for the intellectual honesty of Jon Stewart or the raw sincerity of performers like Louis CK and Lena Dunham.

    Are we talking about the same Lena Dunham?

    Dunham was born in New York City.[3] Her father, Carroll Dunham, is a painter of “overtly sexualized pop art”, and her mother, Laurie Simmons, is a photographer and designer who creates artistic domestic scenes with dolls.[4][5] Dunham’s father is Protestant, and according to Dunham, a Mayflower descendant;[6][7] Dunham’s mother is Jewish.[8][9] She has a younger sister, Grace, a model and student at Brown University, who appeared in Dunham’s first film, Creative Nonfiction, and starred in her second film, Tiny Furniture.[10] As children, both Lena and Grace were babysat by artists Maghen Brown, C. Finley and photographers Orrie King, Sherri Zuckerman and Catherine McGann.[citation needed]

    Dunham attended Saint Ann’s School in Brooklyn, New York, where she met Tiny Furniture actress and Girls co-star Jemima Kirke. She graduated in 2008 from Oberlin College, where she studied creative writing.[11] While in college, she worked at Geminola, an upmarket fashion boutique in New York’s West Village.[12]

    BTW, her Mom’s first film, made in 2006, featured Meryl fucking Streep. It’s truly unfunny how undeserved her success is.

    1. That is a girl who has gotten to where she is in life purely based on patronage and checking all the right boxes.

      1. She is the ultimate insider. There is nothing honest or genuine about her. If she came out tomorrow and admitted the whole thing was a surrealist prank, it would make sense. Sadly, I doubt it is.

        1. If it was a surrealist prank, given her personality and upbringing, that actually wouldn’t surprise me. Sadly, it looks like it’s just a self-aggrandizing vehicle for women with bad personalities.

          The critics’ hook is that supposedly the cast is putting on a self-deprecating satire of the shallowness of 20-something urban/Jewish hipsters, but Dunham has never displayed that type of wry self-awareness in any interviews with her I’ve seen. She appears to take her characters and the show’s plots quite seriously.

          1. If this is the same woman who made that appeal for Obama’s re-election by saying that the first time she voted for him was a lot like the first time she had sex, then I wonder if she is in fact some surrealist prankster. I always found that comment to be completely unbelievable as anything other than some kind of ironic joke. First-time sex for women is typically reported to be disappointing at best and painful at worst. That’s why I found it very difficult to take her comment at face value. Even if the loss of her virginity in her own case was wonderfully orgasmic, she must be aware that it’s not the typical experience for most women. Sex is something they come to enjoy more with experience — it just isn’t all that right out of the gate.

  14. Are these people retarded? That isn’t a rhetorical question, I am genuinely intrigued by the possibility that Team Obama attracts social rejects with some form of high-functioning autism that allows them to spew this kind of bullshit with a straight face and without any trace of shame or self-awareness.

    1. It’s not a possibility, it’s an actual fact that Team Obama attracts socially retarded spergs.

      http://www.theatlanticwire.com…..ten/59082/

    2. It is a couple of things. First, the Left has run the education system for a long time now. And they have made it about credentials and rewarding the ability of people to tell their teachers exactly what they want to hear. Second, it is the result of having an entire class of people who are totally cut off from the real work and the rest of the country.

      So you take some special snow flake whose parents are wealthy or upper middle class. And they spend 20 years in school being fed lefty platitude and being rewarded for repeating the right talking points. All the while, they are living in a complete ideological cocoon.

      In short, these guys have been programed since birth to be this way. Whatever capacity they have for independent thought has long since gone away. And at this point, they have invested so much of their personal identity into their political beliefs, it would take a tremendous amount of personal character to question the beliefs.

    3. First step: Obtain desire to be presidential speechwriter.

      All the other steps follow naturally.

    4. Please, you don’t need to be autistic to spew bullshit. Being socially awkward or oblivious isn’t the same as having a self-contradicting belief system. Social awkwardness or nerdiness is not limited to a certain strain of political belief, any more than intelligence or skepticism is.

    5. People with HFA/Aspergers are indeed vulnerable to being swept up in warped ideological movements due to their lack of social attachments and (usually) fierce desire for consistency, even a warped consistency. But I seriously doubt that’s what’s going on with these guys. These guys are smooth operators.

  15. And he wants Congress to debate and finally pass a media-shield law.

    It’s called the First Amendment, you dumb poz. When Russia and China finally invade, I hope you’re among the first ones lined up and shot.

  16. I believe Barack Obama represents this movement, that the rise of his candidacy was in part a consequence of the desire for greater authenticity in our public life.

    HAHA, SUCKERS!

  17. You can even add the rise of dark, brooding, “authentic” super heroes in our blockbuster movies. We see it in locally-sourced, organic food on campuses like this, at places like the Shakedown, a rejection of the processed as inauthentic. We see it in politics.

    I believe Barack Obama represents this movement, that the rise of his candidacy was in part a consequence of the desire for greater authenticity in our public life.

    why didn’t he just write:

    “[scribble in stuff you like right here]. I believe Barack Obama represents this movement, that the rise of his candidacy was in part a consequence of the desire for greater authenticity in our public life.”

    1. Well, he did pretty much write that, but then he had to give it as a speech so the fill-in-the-blank thing doesn’t work so well.

    2. “I bet Obama rocks out to Mastodon like me and all my friends do!”

  18. “. . .hunger for the intellectual honesty of Jon Stewart. . .”

    Stewart is many thing (occasionally even funny) but intellectually honest is not one of his traits.

  19. And he wants Congress to debate and finally pass a media-shield law. […]

    So… he wants Congress to debate and pass the first amendment?

  20. I cannot help thinking “media-shield law” in this context means a law to shield the Presidency from those nosy meddling kids in the media.

    1. *golf clap*

      Is it commonplace for presidents to hire these frat boys as speech writers? Does my memory serve me that Clinton had a similar clutch of these?

    2. …”media-shield law” in this context means a law to shield only Democrat Presidents from those nosy meddling kids…

      FIFY

  21. a progressive vision of government requires faith that government is efficient, and responsive, and trustworthy

    He’s soooo close! And yet he still doesn’t get it…

    1. Remember, it only requires people believe that. It doesn’t apparently in this guy’s view require the government to actually be that way.

      1. What John said. The wreckers and kulaks who question the government are wrecking that faith and should be re-educated.

  22. No pretty sure Obama’s just inherently evil with bad intentions who wants nothing more in life but to fuck with the emotional state of average Americans. And also a gay Muslim.

    1. A gay atheist Muslim. Get it right.

      Though the REAL issue with O’Bama is his rampant Irish imperialism.

  23. In the case of Benghazi, he was willing to accept the harsh judgments and sweeping recommendations of the independent Accountability Review Board because he holds himself responsible for the lives of the diplomats and intelligence officers he sends to dangerous places?something he said seven months ago.

    Really? I thought he blamed some guy who made a shitty movie.

    In the case of the AP phone records, Obama the former constitutional-law professor cares deeply about the balance between freedom and security.

    First, false choice. Second, he sure as shit had me fooled, seeing as how he’s been warring against freedom and pissing off Muslims for the last five years.

    He was angry because he knows that a progressive vision of government requires faith…

    Progressivism is the bastard offspring of the Social Gospel so it’s not a surprise that they would remove God and replace it with the State.

  24. We see it across our culture, with not only popularity but hunger for the intellectual honesty of Jon Stewart or the raw sincerity of performers like Louis CK and Lena Dunham.

    *barf* “Intellectual honesty?” “Sincerity?” Please… go back to the kiddie table, you little walking cumstain.

    1. That whole screed of his was a single entry of diehipster all by itself.

  25. he hits the bullseye with his concluding advice that “All you have to do is avoid BSing yourself — in whatever you choose to do.”

    Easier said than done. The human mind is hardwired for self-delusion (as it is evolutionarily advantageous in many situations); you have to actively fight this tendency.

  26. everyone are intered in jerseys can feel free to
    http://mallsjersey.blogspot.com/ to us or go to our shop
    http://modernjerseys.org/ to know about jerseys details.
    1,nfl nike jerseys 1=22$,5=21$
    2,nhl jerseys 1=33.79$,5=32.9$
    3,mlb jerseys 1=17.3$/pcs,5=16.5$
    4,nba jerseys 1=19$,5=18.5$
    5,ncaa jerseys 1=17.3$,5=16.5$
    6,soccer jerseys 21$/pcs
    and other items price here.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.