Rush Limbaugh has asked a very important and pertinent question: Is Obama delusional?
A full year into his Presidency and Obama is still using the blame-Bush answer to explain every flaw and failure of himself and his administrative team. It doesn't take a psychiatrist to recognize that this is an indicator of extreme narcissism.
Consider Obama's comment on the Brown victory in the Massachusetts Senate race:
"Here's my assessment of not just the vote in Massachusetts, but the mood around the country: the same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office," the president said in an exclusive interview with ABC News' George Stephanopoulos. "People are angry and they are frustrated. Not just because of what's happened in the last year or two years, but what's happened over the last eight years.
– Reference (1) at bottom.
The quote above triggered Limbaugh's question. But, what makes this statement a possible indicator of delusion? Simple:
The very clear and publically known platform on which Scott Brown ran and won the Massachusetts Senate race is obviously a clear indicator. Brown was very pointed and very specific in repeatedly declaring his opposition to Obama's policies, both ObamaCare and Obama's coddling of terrorists:
“During the campaign, Brown repeatedly railed against criminal trials for terrorism suspects, took out a television ad opposing giving “rights to terrorists who want to harm us” and declared that he did not view water-boarding as torture. And in his nationally televised victory speech Tuesday night, the senator-elect seized on the issue again.
“I believe that our Constitution and laws exist to protect this nation - they do not grant rights and privileges to enemies in wartime,” Brown said. “In dealing with terrorists, our tax dollars should pay for weapons to stop them, not lawyers to defend them.””
– Reference (2) at bottom.
Scott Brown strategist Eric Fehrnstrom made the following statement concerning their internal polling results:
"...people talk about the potency of the health-care issue, but from our own internal polling, the more potent issue here in Massachusetts was terrorism and the treatment of enemy combatants," says Fehrnstrom. Health care, he says, was helpful in fundraising, but it was the campaign's focus on national security in the final week that he believes helped to give voters another issue to associate with Brown.”
– Reference (3) at bottom.
And of course, Brown was very specific (even quantifying) in repeatedly stating that if elected he would be the 41st vote against ObamaCare. It would be virtually impossible for a rational observer to interpret any part of Brown's campaign as not being directed specifically against the policies of Obama and his administration.
In a state, Massachusetts, that is largely Democrat, largely liberal, and that just last year voted overwhelmingly for Obama, largely on a Bush-is-to-blame campaign theme, it is simply not rational to suppose that the Massachusetts voters rejected a Democrat for the so-called Ted Kennedy seat because they were angry with George Bush. In fact the ridiculous suggestion that the voter's actions in Massachusetts were some sort of continuing anger toward the previous Bush Administration is an insult to the intelligence of the voters of Massachusetts and to the American people.
It is exceedingly clear, to any objective observer, that the voters of Massachusetts voted thoughtfully and specifically in opposition to Obama's radical, leftwing political agenda. They clearly intended to send Obama a message, and they did. But did Obama receive and understand the message?
Whatever degree of anger can be attributed to the Massachusetts vote is undeniably an expression of anger at the Obama administration. Pretending otherwise borders on insanity. Obama's pretense is a clear example of either outlandish chutzpah and spin (certainly possible for Obama), or it is a clear example of a dangerously delusional man occupying the world's most powerful office. Frightening!
It is both a frightening and a sobering thought that we are possibly witnessing not just the actions of a deceitful (a redundant adjective for emphasis) spin machine, but the actions of a spin machine in the hands of a delusional leader.
Without a doubt, there is certainly spin.
Last year, when the Tea Party rallies were first reaching a fever pitch all around the nation, the left-stream media, Obama, and the Democrats tried to pretend that nothing was happening. Not important. Just a bunch of redneck Republicans. No story here. Pay no attention America. We, the Democrats, are in power and we have a mandate.
The casual on-looker could surely be excused if he thought the refusal to acknowledge the political importance of the Tea Party movement simply represented the typical 3-monkey response (see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil) from the progressive establishment to anything conservative. But is it more than that?
The White House's grand strategy for trying to marginalize the Tea Party movement was epitomized by a statement, issued on April 14, 2009 that "...the president is unaware of the tea parties and will hold his own event today.” Unaware? A vast disconnect or a blatant spin-effort? Which? Well it's just not likely that any modern observer of the American political scene could be that disconnected, unless they are delusional.
But Obama and his minions certainly know how to pivot away from explanations that make them look completely incompetent (a scenario with an increasing probability). On MSNBC’s “Daily Rundown” , on Wednesday 20th, two of the Obama minions pivoted from their last-year, idiotic dismissal of the importance of the Tea Parties:
“Axelrod and Gibbs each said several times that they understand that there is real anger in the country, a pivot from this summer, when they dismissed those who angrily protested the health-care bill at town hall forums.
“There’s a tremendous amount of anger,” said Gibbs, who in August called the town hall protests “manufactured anger.””
– Reference (4) at bottom.
David Axelrod and Robert Gibbs (two of Obama's chief minions and spin-monkeys) were given an exclusive appearance on MSNBC’s “Daily Rundown”. – Reference (5) at bottom. An immediate, Wednesday morning, exclusive appearance to attempt to spin-away the political thumping that Obama and the Democrats took on Tuesday in the Massachusetts Senate election.
Axelrod and Gibbs trotted-out the obviously pre-planned spin-message that Obama is not giving-up on health-care reform, and that the Obama Administration believes that it still has a mandate. But a mandate to do what? I suppose to finish their concerted effort to dismantle our national economy and our national security.
Although they have demonstrated zero ability to govern constitutionally, govern fairly, or govern effectively, there is one type of ability that Obama and his minions have demonstrated in super-abundance: Their ability to spin.
One of the critical questions for American voters, going into the November 2010 mid-term elections, is whether we are simply dealing with expert political spinners (bad enough), or if we are actually dealing with a dangerous mixture of spin and delusion (potentially catastrophic).
Obama's election was a glaring national mistake that must be corrected at the polls. But, the old political slogan “throw the bums out” just doesn't quite fit.
The slogan for November voting has to be more like “throw the wackos out.”
FOOTNOTES:
(1) President Obama Says Voter Anger, Frustration Key to Republican Victory in Massachusetts Senate
(2) Scott Brown imperils President Obama's terror policies
(3) Brown strategist: national security the sleeper issue of the campaign (updated)
(4) Following Scott Brown win, White House insists its mandate stands
(5) Axelrod, Gibbs spin day after Mass. loss
