Obama’s Scoreboard
[Guest post by DRJ]
From GatewayPundit:
“Reporter: Some of your advisers today said that this announcement [that Iran has a second nuclear enrichment facility in Qom or will allow inspections of it?] was a “victory.” Do you consider this a victory and, if so, why didn’t you announce it earlier since you’ve known since you were President-elect?
Obama: Well, this isn’t a football game so I’m not interested in victory. I’m interested in resolving the problem. The problem is that Iran repeatedly says that it’s pursuing nuclear energy only for peaceful purposes and its actions contradict its words.”
Obama speaks like a lawyer who isn’t a football fan because ending the threat from rogue nations like Iran is more like a football game than mediation. Like football, international relations has a scoreboard and I don’t want this one to read “Iran, 1 — Israel, 0.”
— DRJ
Isn’t that a contradiction in terms??? Wouldn’t it be a victory for the world if Iran didn’t have nukes, but all he wants is to solve the problem of Iran having nukes???
He tries so hard to be “cute” when he talks that he ends up saying the most ridiculous things….
God, I hope he ends up with the victory he’s not interested in….
Or, Israel will win it for him….
reff (502473) — 9/26/2009 @ 10:12 pmI’m not sure which “announcement” they are talking about — the existence of the second enrichment facility or that Iran will allow inspections. Either way, I want Iran to lose. Why doesn’t Obama?
DRJ (b008f8) — 9/26/2009 @ 10:17 pmPlease see my comment in:
Obama: Iran Presents “Added Urgency”
on this board.
I posted before this thread started.
Thanks.
Ag80 (592691) — 9/26/2009 @ 10:20 pmObama is not like any president we have ever had with a possible comparison with John Breckenridge who was Buchanan’s VP and then joined the Confederacy. He helped transfer Union supplies to the secessionist states after Lincoln’s election. I just don’t think Obama likes America very much.
Surprisingly, even the WaPo wasn’t happy with his UN speech.
Mike K (2cf494) — 9/26/2009 @ 10:46 pmI’ll tell you why I stopped believing everything I ever believed in from a political perspective because it came down to one moment, and it wasn’t 9-11:
President Clinton shook his finger at the world and said:
“I never had sexual relations with that woman.”
And, I believed him. By God, I believed him. I remember that day. I remember going into my boss’s office, a fellow Democrat, and talking about it. “If he said it it, it was true,” I remember saying.
I know better now. I know when politicians lie, left or right. And lie, they always do.
Ag80 (592691) — 9/26/2009 @ 10:50 pm“I’m not interested in victory”
I don’t know whether this is the PC bullshit that liberals try to drill into everyone these days where self-esteem and participation are the important aspects, but Obama sure tries to downplay America’s leadership role in the world and its exceptionalism. Hey people, we’re no better than Zimbabwe! Suhweet Barack, I’m down with that, bring it!
We need a little more Conan the Barbarian out of a President when stone age theocrats like the Islamofascists in Iran threaten world peace, rather than president pantywaist. To Conan, the best in life was;
“To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women!”
That’s what I’m talking about!
daleyrocks (718861) — 9/26/2009 @ 11:08 pmI know better now. I know when politicians lie, left or right. And lie, they always do.
Comment by Ag80 — 9/26/2009 @ 10:50 pm
Sorry, but I’ve already put dibs on political agnostic. But there’s plenty more monikers from where that came from. Gag80? Crude, yes, but so descriptive when considering what passes for political ethics these days.
political agnostic (091271) — 9/26/2009 @ 11:12 pmEvery candidate who runs against Obama in 2012 or against a Democrat in 2010 should consider using a clip of Obama saying “I’m not interested in victory” in their ad campaign — and that’s especially true in areas where Obama doesn’t poll well.
DRJ (b008f8) — 9/26/2009 @ 11:15 pmSurprisingly, even the WaPo wasn’t happy with his UN speech.
When I first saw your reference, and before I clicked on the link, I was prepared to see a glimmer of common sense peeking through the brain fog that often shrouds the official voice of the Washington Post. But the opinion you referenced actually was from one of that paper’s columnists, the rather right-leaning Michael Gerson.
Gerson or anyone else for that matter shouldn’t be surprised to see “goddamn America” sentiment emanating from a person — whether he’s speaking at the UN or certainly a private fundraiser in San Francisco — who embraced a Chicago-based spiritual leader for almost 20 years who touted “goddamn America” rhetoric.
A good portion of the American electorate, by making the choice it did in November 2008, has, in effect (wittingly or unwittingly), been God damned.
Mark (411533) — 9/26/2009 @ 11:32 pmDRJ – I’m pretty fond of his “Let’s have an honest debate” line since I can’t think of one the Democrats have had yet. That line could segue into a panoply of flip flops and lies on all sorts of issues.
daleyrocks (718861) — 9/26/2009 @ 11:35 pmI’ve been trying to think like a lawyer when reading Obama’s words.
The problem is that Iran repeatedly says that it’s pursuing nuclear energy only for peaceful purposes and its actions contradict its words.
I may be dusting off the tin foil hat here, but the question I have is this:
For Obama, are Iran’s actions the problem or are Iran’s duplicitous statements the problem?
Is he saying it would be all right for Iran to pursue nuclear weapons if they were open about it? That the true problem is the lies and not the behavior?
Presidents who don’t believe in victory…this is, I think, our second. I’m still baffled how Jimmy Carter was able to hide his true nature during his time in the Navy.
Britt (8d5885) — 9/26/2009 @ 11:41 pm“Well, this isn’t a football game so I’m not interested in victory.”
???
“Well, this isn’t one of my political campaigns so I’m not interested in victory.
Fixed.
Dave Surls (04b483) — 9/26/2009 @ 11:43 pmI think the score would end something like “Iran 1, Israel 150”, not that that would help Israel (or anyone else) much.
Kevin Murphy (3c3db0) — 9/27/2009 @ 12:43 amI don’t think you’re much of a Football fan either… There’s no way to have a 1-0 score, even a forfeited game goes down as 2-0 in the record books…
And Obama told me all I needed to know about his Mad Football Skills when he called Penn State the “Nittily” Lions..check it out on You Tube sometime…
And Qoms one of those Religious Targets I mean Cities where they train Mullahs how to convince naive teenagers to blow themselves up for a 72 year old Virgin…
And does Barak at least pronounce “Nuclear” correctly???
Frank “Hope I didn’t Offend anyone” Drackman
[Released from moderation — DRJ]
Frank Drackman (899115) — 9/27/2009 @ 2:40 amNope,
checked out your clip…he pronounces it “Nuc-ular” just like the last President who Invaded I-ran… Jimm-ular Carter…
Now I see why Barak’s College Transcripts are such a State Secret…I’m thinkin lots of “Fission for Shysters” courses..
Despite his diction “W” was pretty Sharp…learning to fly an F-102 without killing yourself is something you can’t fake…
Frank
[Released from moderation — DRJ]
Frank Drackman (899115) — 9/27/2009 @ 2:46 amAsk a stupid question, get a stupid answer. Victory? In what? Against whom? Iran’s announcement was like biting into an apple and when you go for the second bite seeing a half-eaten worm in it.
nk (df76d4) — 9/27/2009 @ 5:52 amVia Drudge, Polanski has been arrested in Switzerland pending extradition to the United States. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090927/ap_on_en_mo/eu_switzerland_polanski
nk (df76d4) — 9/27/2009 @ 6:05 amObama is a lawyer who doesn’t know diddly squat about football –or much about competitive life.
He wants the scoreboard in any game He referees to read Team A zip, Team B zip, Referee Zero? Big score, round of applause he’s da winner.
What a narcissistic wussy.
Mike Myers (710e8b) — 9/27/2009 @ 6:09 amIf you’re not with us, you’re against us. President Pantywaist is definitely not with us. I actually now believe he is colluding with our enemies in secret.
Peg C. (48175e) — 9/27/2009 @ 6:39 amEr, it’s not so secret.
Peg C. (48175e) — 9/27/2009 @ 6:39 amAs MacArthur said: “In war there is no substitute for victory.”
The shooting may not have “officially” started yet, but war it is.
And President Obama, who is deficient in his knowledge of history (among a host of other subjects), should heed this quote from MacArthur:
navyvet (c7f520) — 9/27/2009 @ 6:42 amBut the opinion you referenced actually was from one of that paper’s columnists, the rather right-leaning Michael Gerson.
I agree but they did publish it, even if only on their web site. Maybe the Chinese wall between the legacy media and the truth is trembling.
Obama has been shepherded along all his life by others. We still don’t know much about how he ended up at Harvard Law. He was editor of the Law Review without ever contributing an article. He got million dollar advances for autobiographies when he was under 40. He was an adjunct professor.
Of course he has no experience with victory except when others took care of the details. Louis XVI might have said the same thing about Robespierre.
Mike K (2cf494) — 9/27/2009 @ 6:57 amSo he knew this, that Iran was lying to him, when he let the regime kill its own people in Tehran streets?
Unbelievable!
Patricia (c95a48) — 9/27/2009 @ 7:50 amWhen even the President of France rebukes you for all – encompassing wussiness, you know you’ve got problems.
Dmac (b905fa) — 9/27/2009 @ 8:24 am“So he knew this, that Iran was lying to him, when he let the regime kill its own people in Tehran streets?
Unbelievable!”
Not unbelievable at all.
MikeD (c83900) — 9/27/2009 @ 8:27 amJuan Williams this morning on FNS seems to be angling for an administration job. His obsequies to Obama are cringe worthy.
I expect Afghanistan and Iran to be both disasters by 2012.
Mike K (2cf494) — 9/27/2009 @ 9:05 amObama as President of the United States is to our enemies around the world as blood is to sharks in the sea.
ELC (7bf716) — 9/27/2009 @ 9:09 amHow did Obama become president?
See news here:
Nevada Attorney General indicts ACORN after raiding offices.
” . . .field manuals on how to commit Voter Registration Fraud seized.”
Official Internet Data Office (918234) — 9/27/2009 @ 9:24 amSad but true, MikeD.
Patricia (c95a48) — 9/27/2009 @ 12:06 pmObama speaks like a lawyer who isn’t a football fan because ending the threat from rogue nations like Iran is more like a football game than mediation. Like football, international relations has a scoreboard and I don’t want this one to read “Iran, 1 — Israel, 0.”
Twenty-six comments in and no one’s pointed that DRJ must be a dirty European hippie if the scoreboard at the football game reads “1-0”?
SEK (9e7eee) — 9/27/2009 @ 12:07 pmNothing like a visit from the mendoucheous twatwaffle SEK. Go get your gang of haters all riled up, SEK.
JD (24e83b) — 9/27/2009 @ 12:17 pmGo publish someone’s emails without their consent, JD. Better yet, how about you stay on topic instead of using this space to attack me for posting a perfectly acceptable comment.
SEK (9e7eee) — 9/27/2009 @ 12:22 pmI’ll tell you why I stopped believing everything I ever believed in from a political perspective because it came down to one moment, and it wasn’t 9-11:
President Clinton shook his finger at the world and said:
“I never had sexual relations with that woman.”
And, I believed him. By God, I believed him. I remember that day. I remember going into my boss’s office, a fellow Democrat, and talking about it. “If he said it it, it was true,” I remember saying.
Wow. You fell for it? Even my lib-Dem boss had the ‘I dont care about it one way or another’ fall-back, prior to the stained dress. From the get-go, the story had for me ‘the ring of truth’ but then I was a VRWC person that Hillary suspected. It’s like that old joke – “How can you tell if a politician is lying?” “His lips are moving.”
The under 30 crowd were taken in by Obama to a great extent, while us older and wiser folks knew to ignore his campaign and look at his prior actions… This pointed to him being a Chicago pol whose associations were all leftwing or corrupt or both. I week after he was elected, I told an Obama voter that I fully expected Obama to be the worst president in my lifetime – Carter, but with a bit more brass knuckle leftism.
So far, my assessment has been dead-on target.
Travis Monitor (e991bc) — 9/27/2009 @ 12:22 pmYou guys are so totally right. Obama’s “not interested in victory.”
(dissatisfied whispers from the crowd)
“Context”? What the fuck is “context”? “Context” is for dirty little socialists. And “resolving problems” is for weak-kneed liberal pussies.
Leviticus (30ac20) — 9/27/2009 @ 12:28 pmSEK,
Actually, Frank Drackman noticed it first but I just released his comment from moderation, so you are the first to have a comment posted.
As for the score, I think you’re kidding and you got my point. But, if not, then what would it take for Iran to score a field goal and make the score 3-0? Would that be the equivalent of a dirty nuke and 6 (or 7) points for the real thing? Alternatively, what makes you and Frank so sure Obama was talking about American football?
DRJ (b008f8) — 9/27/2009 @ 12:44 pmYou got him, DRJ, with that last point. Somebody should ask president European what a typical football score is.
Mike K (2cf494) — 9/27/2009 @ 12:59 pmDRJ – With Obama, Iran and others would be more likely to nail him for a safety. Feel free to update your score accordingly.
daleyrocks (718861) — 9/27/2009 @ 1:20 pmRemember how often our friend SEK criticizes the Right for being oversensitive and not having a sense of humor? Run back the tape and you will see it is an ongoing theme.
But, as usual, it is different when someone criticizes him. He even trots out the “perfectly acceptable comment” trope, when as a committed relativist, he should know better. He was just irritated with JD and needed to make himself feel above it all with a verby slap.
As one academic to another, SEK: think before you write, especially when you are irritable. You have to know this when you correct student papers.
The “posting e-mails” comment was particularly ironic, given a post or two from SEK describing the behavior of students or their parents (though I think the latter story was inflated to make the teller appear more brave and superior than what likely transpired).
All you have done is make yourself look petty and snide. It takes away from what you claim you wish to do: shed fair light upon political discourse, rather than trade barbs.
I’m starting to think you are more interested in the latter.
Eric Blair (0b61b2) — 9/27/2009 @ 1:32 pmGreat point, DRJ. But SEK will craft his own facts and his own Narrative, reality be damned.
JD (6ed8b2) — 9/27/2009 @ 1:47 pmLeviticus – In what “context” has Barcky improved things?
JD (6ed8b2) — 9/27/2009 @ 1:50 pmDear Leviticus:
I think your post at #34 suggests that you are little unhappy with our POTUS for saying such an…um…ill-considered thing in front of live microphones. It’s giving the RNC free advertising in the 2010 elections, isn’t it? Gotta be upsetting.
Hence the tough guy sentence.
Funny how “well spoken” the President is, isn’t it? Folks weren’t sold a bill of goods on that by the media, were they? I mean, everyone says dumb things from time to time. But it is tough, after eight years of lambasting GW Bush for malapropisms, and then electing someone all “smart and clean,” to have the New Guy Who is Hip and Smart say new-cue-lar as well.
Anyway, I know you think that those nice coarse Saxon words (even on a Sunday) are associated with maturity and incisiveness. Your choice. But they ring quite hollow in this context.
You are a good guy, and I have read plenty of posts where you attack the Left as well as the Right for nonsense. I look forward to more of that.
Eric Blair (0b61b2) — 9/27/2009 @ 1:51 pmAm I claiming he’s improved things? Or am I claiming that saying Obama’s “not interested in victory” ignores the context of his statement and downplays the weight of “solving problems” (which is a perfectly legitimate way to think of the situation with Iran)?
And he hasn’t improved things. In any context (that I can think of, anyway).
Leviticus (30ac20) — 9/27/2009 @ 1:53 pmAs I say, Leviticus, I think you are with me, in the “throw all the bums out” category.
But this President, for all his supposedly intelligence, sure says some thoughtless things.
It must be that experience issue. Except we were all told (not by you, I know) that running a campaign was great experience.
Except Axelrod isn’t POTUS.
Eric Blair (0b61b2) — 9/27/2009 @ 1:55 pm…and Axelrod isn’t TOTUS, either.
Dmac (b905fa) — 9/27/2009 @ 2:03 pmDRJ:
I think you’re kidding and you got my point.
That would be correct.
Eric Blair:
But, as usual, it is different when someone criticizes him. He even trots out the “perfectly acceptable comment” trope[.]
1. JD calling me a “mendoucheous twatwaffle” isn’t a criticism — it’s an insult.
2. My comment was “perfectly acceptable,” as DRJ’s response indicated.
3. I’m not irritated with JD, nor did I say anything irritable. I find it odd that you’re concerned with the behavior of the guy who cracked a joke, but the guy who, unprovoked, calls someone a “mendoucheous twatwaffle” isn’t mentioned . . .
. . . and it just occurred to me why I must have sounded irritable to you. This weekend, a conservative blogger our host would prefer we not link to published a personal email I had sent him. JD was sounding off in the comments over there, so he knew exactly what I referred to.
I think the latter story was inflated to make the teller appear more brave and superior than what likely transpired
You misremember:
SEK (9e7eee) — 9/27/2009 @ 2:04 pmObama is good at reading speeches. Some of the speeches he reads are better than others. He doesn’t always think well on his feet as we all know, hence his addiction to TOTUS and scripted situations.
daleyrocks (718861) — 9/27/2009 @ 2:05 pmIf you call popping off agreeing that you were being fundamentally dishonest, then yes, I was. My favorite part was about your gang of haters. Cute stuff.
JD (6ed8b2) — 9/27/2009 @ 2:11 pm“I think your post at #34 suggests that you are little unhappy with our POTUS for saying such an…um…ill-considered thing in front of live microphones. It’s giving the RNC free advertising in the 2010 elections, isn’t it? Gotta be upsetting.
…
Anyway, I know you think that those nice coarse Saxon words (even on a Sunday) are associated with maturity and incisiveness. Your choice. But they ring quite hollow in this context.”
– Eric Blair
Actually, I was being totally sarcastic in #34. I don’t think there was anything wrong with the way Obama parsed this particular issue, and I was petulantly mocking those who would instinctively react with condemnation to the notion that there might be more than one way to think about foreign affairs. To blazes with the RNC – they’re going to be a bunch of dishonest weasels in 2010 regardless of the relative innocuousness of Obama’s statements.
And no, I don’t think “those nice coarse Saxon words” are associated with maturity and incisiveness. I myself associate them with immaturity, aggravation, and lack an extensive vocabulary (all of which I am often guilty)… but in this case they were used intentionally, to convey a message about the mindset of a certain segment of a certain slice of the ideological spectrum. So…yeah.
Leviticus (30ac20) — 9/27/2009 @ 2:13 pmPointing out when someone has been dishonest in now an attack. That is absurd, I tell you, absurd.
JD (6ed8b2) — 9/27/2009 @ 2:14 pmYou might reconsider your statement that you used those terms “petulantly,” Leviticus.
I don’t see you as acting in a petulant fashion. Many other people, yes. You, not so much.
Eric Blair (0b61b2) — 9/27/2009 @ 2:16 pmFor the record (and for assistance in identifying further sarcasm from my corner), I will not use the phrase “dirty little socialists” in anything other than a contemptuous manner. I think it’s one of the more ham-handed characterizations to come out of Obama’s presidency up to this point. So if I say “dirty little socialists”, I’m being sarcastic. Bank on it.
Leviticus (30ac20) — 9/27/2009 @ 2:16 pmNow that is ironically funny:
Once a humorless PC relativist, always a humorless PC relativist.
Eric Blair (0b61b2) — 9/27/2009 @ 2:18 pmAnd it is petulance, Mr. Blair. If DRJ and aphrael and Corwin and a bunch of others can sort through the ins and outs of these issues without resorting to foul language or name-calling, then my failure to do so stems from a petulance which I’ve yet to master.
Leviticus (30ac20) — 9/27/2009 @ 2:19 pmOh, and as for the other bit: I think you left out a few things when the big bad parent was mean to you. Like you shooting your mouth off away from a nice safe classroom.
But then, I have seen one or two of your lectures.
Eric Blair (0b61b2) — 9/27/2009 @ 2:20 pmLeviticus, you might be frustrated and irritated, but you are not petulant. I admire that about you, truly.
Eric Blair (0b61b2) — 9/27/2009 @ 2:25 pmJD was sounding off in the comments over there, so he knew exactly what I referred to.
Then why bring it up in the first place? No one care about what dramas you’re engaged in regarding other blogs – stick to the post in the future, Mr. Peabody.
Dmac (b905fa) — 9/27/2009 @ 2:32 pmDRJ – Sorry for responding to that lying dishonest sophist in such a manner, and temporarily derailing the thread. I realize that has no place here, other than to point out the obvious.
Since winning is off the table, and only resolving the problem is important, maybe someone should ask him what the hell he plans to do to resolve the problem. I know, read a speech from TOTUS, and a sternly written letter.
JD (2ed087) — 9/27/2009 @ 2:33 pmIt was my fault, Dmac. I pointed out a fact based on his actions at another place. I should have just ignored the racist sophist.
JD (2ed087) — 9/27/2009 @ 2:36 pmDmac, I haven’t thought about Mr. Peabody and his boy Sherman in a long, long time.
Wait a minute. Is the “..and his boy…” bit yet more racist code? Here is the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YunO4Wc8E28
Look at the racist, sexist, hierarchical language. Bigotry abounds. This cartoon calls out for deconstruction and literary analysis!
Eric Blair (0b61b2) — 9/27/2009 @ 2:36 pmI need a scorecard for these Scoreboard comments. This is getting confusing.
DRJ (b008f8) — 9/27/2009 @ 2:39 pmDon’t worry, DRJ. Soon the thread will die a natural death.
Without any kind of Death Panel.
Eric Blair (0b61b2) — 9/27/2009 @ 2:47 pmMy fault. Sorry.
JD (2ed087) — 9/27/2009 @ 2:48 pmWe just need to use the WABAC machine and go fix it. Right?
Eric Blair (0b61b2) — 9/27/2009 @ 2:55 pmI’d rather go with Fractured Fairy Tales.
Dmac (b905fa) — 9/27/2009 @ 3:18 pmDoes this mean we’re not going to get a massive dose of classic condescension and lecturing from Mr. SEK with its attendant polysyllabic profundity?
Count me disappointed. Back to cleaning my combs.
daleyrocks (718861) — 9/27/2009 @ 3:20 pmMe, too, Dmac.
And daley? It’s sad that William Safire’s death happened, as well, since he practically invented polysyllabic profundity: “...nattering nabobs of negativity…” and “...hopeless, hysterical hypochondriacs of history..” I like that last one.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/28/us/28safire.html?_r=1&hp
Interesting fellow. A life well lived.
Eric Blair (0b61b2) — 9/27/2009 @ 3:33 pmEric – I don’t think Safire was as much of a sophist as is SEK.
daleyrocks (718861) — 9/27/2009 @ 3:53 pmSEK,
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 9/27/2009 @ 4:05 pmGiven who the blogger is, you shouldn’t have been surprised. His lifeblood is conflicts with targets outside the blog.
John Miller at NRO’s Corner writes:
Worst President Ever.
SPQR (26be8b) — 9/28/2009 @ 1:38 pm