Free Markets, Free People


President thinks his biggest mistake of his Presidency is … “story telling”?

I swear I almost laughed out loud when I read this.  President Obama is asked in an interview what the biggest mistake of his presidency has been:

"When I think about what we’ve done well and what we haven’t done well," the president said, "the mistake of my first term – couple of years – was thinking that this job was just about getting the policy right. And that’s important. But the nature of this office is also to tell a story to the American people that gives them a sense of unity and purpose and optimism, especially during tough times."

Story telling is his biggest mistake?  He’s been telling “stories” for 4 years, most of them fictional.  It is his abysmal and clueless performance in office that’s been his biggest mistake.   OK, poor performance probably isn’t a mistake, it’s, well, poor performance.  Perhaps his biggest mistake was thinking he’s done well.  No, that’s just ignorance and ego.

No his biggest mistake was concentrating on his legacy while he let the economy go to hell and now it’s all but unrecoverable (in his 1st term, which is all that matters to him).   He continually told a story about how he and Sheriff Joe were “focused like lasers” on jobs and the economy.

And here we are.

But all of that is not why I almost laughed out loud. 

How many times have you seen the left and Democrats claim that it isn’t the message that is the problem but how it is delivered?

The above quote is the Obama version of that very premise.  You can’t instill a sense of unity, purpose and optimism when you’re continually taking away freedoms.

Cluebat for the left:  it has nothing to do with delivery, it has to do with the fact that most Americans think your policies (and ideology, at least the part that continually calls for more expensive and intrusive government and sees government as the solution to all problems) suck.

It isn’t the “story”, okay?

Forward.

~McQ

Twitter: @McQandO

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • email
  • Print
  • Google Bookmarks

40 Responses to President thinks his biggest mistake of his Presidency is … “story telling”?

  • “Perhaps his biggest mistake was thinking he’s done well. ”

    No, his biggest mistake was thinking he had the natural ability to lead the United States.

    He certainly had the ego, but was sadly lacking in all the other necessary departments.  We’ve said it all along, he’s not a leader, he’s a con-man, in way over his head.

    • No, that was the electorates mistake

      • Agreed, no doubt.   I’m convinced we could have elected a ham sandwich in 2008.   We practically did.

        This was really nothing more than Ocean’s (large number) from start to finish.   He conned ‘the players’ and they helped him con the country.

        But there’s someone behind him, he’s just not clever enough for all of this.  Somewhere there’s a group of grinning 60′s radicals and KGB fostered leftist miscreants who are laughing their asses off.

  • “…the mistake of my first term – couple of years – was thinking that this job was just about getting the policy right.”

    But since then, he’s recalibrated?  So NOW he’s getting the policy right AND giving us unity and purpose?!?!?
    Or is he just “getting the policy right” still?  I mean, help me figure out which delusion I have to deal with here!!!
    I DO have a strong sense of purpose, and feel unified with much of America.  This thug has to go.

    • “I tried hard mom!  I did!  I deserve another chance!”

      “Okay Barack, I’ll let you try one more – hold the egg like this, and tap it against the edge of the fry pan like this…”

    • Policy = Redistribution.
      Welcome to reality.

    • Ace has a great chart to go with this story.

  • It all comes back to post-modernist thinking.

    Always, always remember – to a leftist steeped in post-modernist thinking, there is no such thing as objective, external truth. Truth is socially constructed. That’s where the concept of the narrative comes from.

    To a leftist, establishing a dominant narrative is how you get society to accept your particular truth, from the “multiple truths” others are trying to foist. Even our idiot political science professor understands how post-modernism deals in “multiple truths”.

    To translate what Obama is saying, he didn’t get his narrative established as the widely accepted “truth”, and as a good post-modernist, that just means he didn’t explain his “truth” sufficiently well.

    Facts don’t matter in all this. He pulls out anything that sounds good, and that becomes his “facts”, used to bolster his “truth”, i.e., his narrative.

    He’s not lying when he says these things. He’s still hard at work, trying to sell his narrative widely enough that it becomes the “truth”. Since he doesn’t believe in the concept of objective truth, it’s impossible for him to step back and just embrace the fact that he was wrong. The only thing he knows to do is keep pushing that ol’ narrative.

    The only objective truth that he has to embrace whether he likes it or not is his removal from the office of the presidency. Even then, he won’t stop pushing his preferred narrative. He’ll be doing it in memoirs, speeches, and any other avenue he can find as long as he’s alive.

    Especially if, as I expect, we see a spectacular collapse of the blue social model. The facts about the collapse – for example, the math showing the unsustainability of the welfare state – will be totally ignored by Obama and the left as they work to establish their preferred narrative: “If only we had been given more control and more money, and you had adopted every leftist notion we came up with, everything would have turned out fine.” We’ve seen a preview of that in the arguments over the failure of the stimulus. 

    • Your narrative is most convincing.  I just hope we can somehow keep Pres. Paracosm* out of the UN.
      *Yes, Rags learned a new word!  http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2012/07/02/the-wild-the-innocent-and-the-e-street-paracosm/

      • Well, if you think about it, the whole idea of socially constructed reality, which includes the idea of a paracosm, is an ideal fit for a narcissist.

        Once upon a time, the Catholic Church went astray by insisting that mankind and the Earth were the center of the universe. But now we have something that allows a person to believe that the center of the universe is his own mind

        If someone like Obama could construct an entirely new reality, and have it seriously accepted by millions of people, I’d say that’s the ultimate fantasy for a narcissist.

        Even minor-league narcissists (or sandlot ones) get a kick from re-defining reality and language to suit their whims. We see that in the comment section here, when the moose don’t interrupt the internet connection from Maine.

        • You two are making me wonder who populates big-ears paracosm, and what it looks like.

          I’m having problems believing it has much more than a couple couches and jars of weed on coffee tables and end tables.  Oh, and a throne room.

    • So is that “(idiot political) science professor” or “idiot (political science) professor” or “idiot (political science professor)” or “(idiot political) (science professor)” ?
      Frankly, there is no such thing as “political science,” rather it is the “political arts” or “political dark arts.”

    • I find this notion of the left being
      completely divorced from reality, coming from the proponents of the meme’s of
      death panels, and the narrative that says that Obama has been on a wild
      spending spree, while the actual factual truth is that most of our deficits
      come from a previously unbalanced budget coupled with lower tax revenues that
      are the result of the worst recession since the Great Depression, which began
      before Obama was even the nominee.

      The truth is that federal spending has
      grown at its slowest rate since Ike brought an end to the Korean War. What
      conservatives like to call a spending spree never happened, but that doesn’t
      stop them from saying it, as nausuem.

      I get it that this is politics, and on both
      sides, the truth doesn’t matter, only what they think will work.

      But to quote a classic,  “Do not teach your grandmother how to suck
      eggs, Rosenberg.”

      The left lies, I don’t deny it, and the
      right lies, and you appear to be unquestioningly accepting the lies of one
      side, while pointing out the lies of the other side.

      • Death panels?  logic will dictate that there will not be limitless resources for certain treatments owing to cost containment, hence there WILL be rationing, and it WILL have the identical effect to a ‘death panel’ for some people.  The group that makes these decisions can wear Hawaiian shirts and drink Mai Tai’s while they’re making the decisions, but the effects will be the same.    You KNOW this will happen, it’s just plain common sense.  You can call it a Luau panel if you like Cap.

        “The truth is that federal spending has
        grown at its slowest rate since Ike brought an end to the Korean War. What
        conservatives like to call a spending spree never happened, but that doesn’t
        stop them from saying it, as nausuem.”
         

        Dude, how did that Koolaid taste? Kinda grape flavored?
        Whoosh, complete respect flush in a mere paragraph.
        Obama NOT Bush signed the FOUR appropriation bills providing for federal spending in FY 09.

        Cash for Clunkers – signed 8/7/09,
        Fy2009 Supplemental Defense spending – signed 6/24/09
        FY2009 Omnibus – signed 3/11/09
        Continuing Resolution – 3/11/09
        Recovery and Reinvestment Act – signed 3/17/09

        Damn that George Bush, he was sneaking into the White House and signing bills into law.
        Obama knows how NOT to sign things Cap.  Let’s talk about the creamy marshmallow fluff the bills had stuffed into them after Bush left the White House and before Barack signed them, or is Bush responsible for bills that were sent to the White House after he left too?
         

        • Bu…But you had all that contemporaneous Keynesian chest-thumping going on during all that NOT spending this idiot believes…and will solemnly pronounce to other idiots…didn’t happen.
          Stimulus schmulus.  Reality never occurred.  (Handwave)

          • We’re supposed to be like Progressives, there is no yesterday.  And we have always been at war with EastAsia.

      • So the annual deficit has increased by almost a trillion dollars, to over a trillion dollars per year,  since 2008 but federal spending has grown at its lowest rate since the Korean war, and there has been no spending spree. Really? Is that the “New Math” I have heard so much about? Or just delusion?
        Amazing.

        • Well, when you skip the first year and a half of Obama’s Presidency on the premise that ALL the spending that went on was George Bush’s idea….I mean, if you claim his first budget wasn’t until 2010, a year and a half into his presidency, it’s easy..

          Cash for Clunkers – signed 8/7/09,   -> BUSH
          Fy2009 Supplemental Defense spending – signed 6/24/09 -> Bush
          FY2009 Omnibus – signed 3/11/09 -> Bush
          Continuing Resolution – 3/11/09 -> Bush
          Recovery and Reinvestment Act – signed 3/17/09 (all changes made after January 2009….including the new GM bailout package that was set on March 30th, 2009, another tiny $21 billion on top of the $17 they had…Bush….)

          We call this fun with numbers.

           

          • “I mean, if you claim his first budget wasn’t until 2010, a year and a half into his presidency, it’s easy”

            From the WSJ Marketplace Online, supported by the CBO reports:

            http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-05-22/commentary/31802270_1_spending-federal-budget-drunken-sailor

            Before Obama had even lifted a finger, the CBO was already projecting that the federal deficit would rise to $1.2 trillion in fiscal 2009. The government actually spent less money in 2009 than it was projected to, but the deficit expanded to $1.4 trillion because revenue from taxes fell much further than expected, due to the weak economy and the emergency tax cuts that were part of the stimulus bill

            Here are the facts, according to the official government statistics:

            • In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion.

            • In fiscal 2010 — the first budget under Obama — spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.

            • In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.

            • In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.

            • Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term— spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion.

            Over Obama’s four budget years, federal spending is on track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an annualized increase of just 0.4%.

            When Obama took the oath of office, the $789 billion bank bailout had already been approved. Federal spending on unemployment benefits, food stamps and Medicare was already surging to meet the dire unemployment crisis that was well underway.

            Obama is not responsible for that increase, though he is responsible (along with the Congress) for about $140 billion in extra spending in the 2009 fiscal year from the stimulus bill, from the expansion of the children’s health-care program and from other appropriations bills passed in the spring of 2009.

            If we attribute that $140 billion in stimulus to Obama and not to Bush, we find that spending under Obama grew by about $200 billion over four years, amounting to a 1.4% annualized increase.

          • Right, the article that started all this, severely debunked and derided.    Really, you’re going with that?

            You understand you’re spending any earned capital you’ve gained by appearing to be reasonable when you show up and claim “Keynes on Steroids, Speed and Gurauna Obama” , the guys who insist we spend MORE and MORE suddenly claim they haven’t spent hardly anything at all and have been the soul of reluctant spending in the first 3 years of their administration.

            Let’s play the hand this way then….
            Well no WONDER it’s all screwed up Cap!  Obama didn’t spend enough!  He violated the Keynes theory of economic recovery!  HE HAS SCREWED US ALL for the last 2 years BY NOT SPENDING ENOUGH!

            Which way do you want your reality, either way, the idiot in the White House has screwed us.

            I started to go through the bills – do yourself a huge favor so you don’t look silly – go READ the spending in those bills, bills finalized AFTER Bush was in any position to do anything with them.   With a solid Democratic majority in both houses in 2008, they extended funding for most programs at fiscal year 2008 levels until March of 2009, then they sent them to the floor of the House and Senate – Blame Bush.  That’s 5 and a half months AFTER the start of the Fiscal Year, close to 2 months after Bush left office for the first bill signed, but Bush did it all?  With a House and Senate majority held by the Democrats, Bush did it all.

            WOW.

             


      • From:
        Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault
        Stephen R. C. Hicks
        Tempe, Arizona: Scholargy Publications, 2004
        xvi + 264 pp., index

    • It all comes back to post-modernist thinking.

      That last part is an oxymoron.

  • Barack Obama is the most uneducated man ever to serve as President.   The man combines sheer ignorance with stunning arrogance.   Does he still believe that if you like your heatlh insurance plan, that the the government will allow you to keep it?

    • ” Does he still believe that if you like your heatlh insurance plan, that the the government will allow you to keep it?”

      He NEVER believed that.  He’s not a dupe, he’s a liar.

  • (Overheard at the Ozymandias-on-the-Potomac Reelection Campaign headquarters somewhere off of the Interstate):

    Yo!! Pass me another can of Turtle Wax so’s we kin put another layer of shine on this here turd. Nobody’s done bought it out of the display window yet.

    Oh, and let’s spray it again with another spritz of that fine-smellin’ purrfyoom.

    My, that’s real pretty lookin’ and smells almost good ’nuff to eat! (Well, I sure wouldn’t, but I’m just sayin’…)

    Those gullible Lib/Dem voters will just LUUUUV it!!

  • Zombie has an article on pjmedia about the “little blue book”. Seems the left has taken to ignoring the rights arguments as an intended tactic. Perhaps not a good tactic, but when the truth favors the other side, whacha gonna do?

    • Fine by me.  Their echo-chamber delusions make them very, very weak.

    • The problem with ignoring the arguments of the Right is that it appears and, in fact, is identical to having no comeback.
      When you have all the right facts, you don’t need to concern yourself with what others say, so you not only don’t respond, you can’t respond because you haven’t got a clue.

  • President Obama believes that millions of Americans have lost their homes, their jobs and their livelihood because he failed to tell a good story. Being president is not about telling stories. Being president is about leading, and President Obama has failed to lead. No wonder Americans are losing faith in his presidency. — Mitt Romney

  • Captin Sarcastic supplied:
    “In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion.”

    Who signed the FY2009 budget Captin? Did Bush sign it or did Obama sign it, Captin?

    • “Who signed the FY2009 budget Captin? Did Bush sign it or did Obama sign it, Captin?”
      The 2009 federal budget for the 2008 fiscal year, which began in October 2008, was submitted to Congress by President George W. Bush in June of 2008 with total outlays of $3.1T. During the period when Bush submitted this 2008 budget and when he left office, Bush approved an additional $353B in spending to address the financial crisis (TARP mostly). After Obama came into office in January of 2009, he added $140B in spending for the 2009 fiscal year (mostly stimulus).
      So Bush submitted $3.1T in spending and added $353B (Total $3.45B) and Obama added $140B which brings us to the total actual federal outlays for fiscal year 2009 of $3.5T.
      Bush proposed the $3.1T and passed the additional $353B, bit never signed a budget bill for fy 2009, Obama signed it in March 2009.
      It is ludicrous to suggest that Obama was responsible for the spending that was already committed before he came into office, but it is fair to say that the $140B Obama added for fy 2009 would be Obama’s responsibility.
      From Factcheck.org:
      “We compared the total spending (see Table 1, outlays) in Bush’s last budget in 2009 to Obama’s proposed spending plan for fiscal year 2013. The difference is 8.1 percent — not 20 percent. Eric Fehrnstrom, a Romney spokesman, said it’s only fair to compare Obama’s spending to Bush’s 2008 budget because the 2009 plan includes spending from Obama’s stimulus bill. But the stimulus was a fraction of the budget and its overall increase. The CBO attributed much of the increased spending in 2009 to three government programs: the stimulus, the Troubled Asset Relief Program and legislation to address the mortgage crisis, all three totaling $353 billion. TARP and the mortgage bailout were passed under Bush. The stimulus, according to the CBO, amounted to $108 billion in spending in 2009. Obama certainly increased spending in 2009. But that doesn’t make the budget his.”

      • Budgets?  This country hasn’t had a budget since April, 2009.



        Mmmmmmmmm grape Kool-aid.

  • Captin Sarcastic said:
    “Bush proposed the $3.1T and passed the additional $353B, bit never signed a budget bill for fy 2009, Obama signed it in March 2009.”

    Excellent. Obama signed it. Not Bush. Now Captin, why was the 2009 budget not signed by Bush?

    • And where’s the HALVING of the deficit Bad Luck Barry promised…???
      And where’s all that RECOVERY the STIMULUS was SURE to bring…???
      And where’s all that IMPROVED infrastructure all those SHOVEL-READY jobs were building…???

      • If it had worked, you can bet your bottom dollar Big Ears Barry wouldn’t be blaming Bush for the spending.

  • “Excellent. Obama signed it. Not Bush. Now Captin, why was
    the 2009 budget not signed by Bush?”

    Well Anonymous, I really can’t tell you why GWB did not sign
    the budget, I can only tell you that GWB DID approve of the budget he proposed
    in February 2008 which included $3.1T in spending, and GWB did approve (in fact
    actively sought) an additional $353B in spending during his last year in
    office, which brought to the total spending for FY 2009 to $3.453T, all
    approved and in the books before President Obama took office..

    I assume you intend to argue that Bush did not sign it
    because he did not approve of the budget, and perhaps that is so, but he
    certainly approved of the amount of spending in the 2009 budget, because he
    proposed it..

    Here are three links showing Bush intended to spend the
    amount that was ultimately spent in FY 2009, except for $140B that Obama did
    add.

    Bush proposes $3.1T budget

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/washington/04cnd-budget.htm

    Bush signs Tarp

    http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/03/news/economy/house_friday_bailout/index.htm

    If you want to think that the $140B Obama added to the 2009
    makes him responsible for the entire 2009 Budget, I suppose you are entitled to
    that opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts, and the facts show
    the budget was submitted by Bush and was no more than Bush proposed included
    the additional spending Bush sought and signed.

    • “I really can’t tell you why GWB did not sign the budget”

      Ah, then pay attention – He didn’t sign it, because it was held in the Democratically controlled Legislature until after he’d left office.
      “With a solid Democratic majority in both houses in 2008, they extended funding for most programs at fiscal year 2008 levels until March of 2009, then they sent them to the floor of the House and Senate”

      that was an accurate statement when I made it, it’s still an accurate statement.

      Did the Obama administration follow through with the proposals in the Bush Budget for cutting expenses?  or not?

    • Captin Sarcastic wrote:
      “Well Anonymous, I really can’t tell you why GWB did not sign
      the budget,”
      Ah, you do not know.
      As looker said the Democrats, who contreolled both the House and Senate would not pass a budget for Bush, but left it off until after the election.

      Captin Sarcastic continued:
      “I assume you intend…”
      How about not assuming anything? At this point it is stupid to do so.

      Now, was Obama a member of the Senate during this time period and was he in favour of or against what his fellows did (withholding the budget)?

michael kors outlet michael kors handbags outlet michael kors factory outlet