Thursday, January 28, 2010

Obama's Oxymoron

President Obama in a recent interview with Dianne Sawyer said, "he'd rather be a really good one term president than a mediocre two term president." Let's dissect that statement a bit and try and figure out what he's trying to say.  Before Obama was elected we had 43 presidents, and not all were elected. Some succeeded to the presidency after death, resignation or assassination, but only 7 who had been elected, attempted to, but  failed to win reelection...John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Benjamin Harrison, William H.Taft, Herbert Hoover, Jimmy Carter, and George HW. Bush. Grover Cleveland served two elected terms but not consecutively, and after his second term did not seek reelection.

Of those 7 presidents who were elected to a single term and lost their reelection bid, do any of those names stand out as a quote, " really good one term president?" You could make the case that George HW. Bush had success running Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait, but his broken promise of no new taxes, and the third party candidacy of Ross Perot caused his down fall. The rest are not really household names, and other than the answer to obscure trivia questions, nothing stands out about their presidencies. There are also many presidents elected to two terms that historians would describe as mediocre. Now if president Obama is saying he'd rather be a really good one term president than a mediocre two termer, isn't that phrase "a really good one term president,"  an Oxymoron. There are many known oxymorons...  Jumbo shrimp, a fine mess, boneless ribs, forgotten memories, alone in a crowd, half empty, etc. "Really good one term president" seems to fit. The idea that a really good one term president wouldn't get reelected is ludicrous.

Maybe he's trying to tell us more. Wouldn't history have shown that those infamous seven were vindicated over time if they'd taken that bold initiative, that history proved right, but was rejected contemporaneously,  and cost them reelection. Is he saying he's willing to forgo a second term to do what's right for the American people? Or is there a hidden message in that phrase and an explanation behind it? I vote for the later. Those presidents that failed at reelection didn't really have a distinguished or historic first term, unless the historic nature of their presidency was not a good thing in the minds of the electorate. 

We all watched with anticipation the president's state of the union address Wednesday night, and many of us hoped that we would see a moderation and a definite pivot from policies that lost the democrat party two state house and one senate seat over the last three months. No one can deny that those elections were a rejection of the Obama agenda and the democrat leadership in congress. But instead we saw a defiant president, willing to double down on his signature agenda items of health care reform, cap and trade and a continual expansion of government and record deficits. It's clear he can't accept the conclusion that most Americans have already come to. And that conclusion is less Obama, and more freedom. So what is he trying to tell Diane Sawyer?

I don't pretend to be Dr. Phil, but what we see in this president is a continual hubris that defies description. If it's true he's willing to forgo a second term to become in his words , "a really good president," He has basically dismissed the entire, or a least a majority of the electorate as imbeciles. They are neanderthals, that lack the evolution and intelligence that only he and his Kool-aid drinking sycophants possess. They are unaware of his historic purpose here on earth, and as the first messiah was rejected by the chosen people, he finds himself in a similar dynamic. If only they understood who he was, and why he's here. He came to change America, and the world, and it was all going so well. The campaign saw women fainting at his appearances, and countless thousands waiting for hours to catch a glimpse of him. His Berlin speech announced his appearance to the rest of world. The Nobel committee understood his mission and gifted his arrival as a fulfilled promise like the maji of long ago.

Now he's left to sacrifice his power to one four year term, which is one year longer than the first messiah's ministry on earth. He came to change America for the good of the people, and un-clinch the fist of our enemies, kind of like, "peace on earth, good will toward men." He told Harry Reid after he complimented him on another masterful speech, "I have a gift," and now he's saying that gift may be to sacrifice long term power form what he considers long term gain, and to remake America. What are the American people left to conclude from what has transpired over the last twelve months? Is he the one, that gifted orator and intellectual giant, that came to save us from ourselves, and usher in a new age , an egalitarian utopia, a transformational historic figure? Or is he just another narcissistic elite, that suffers from a messiah complex and delusions of grandeur? Once again I vote for the latter, and recommend we grant his wish, "to sacrifice a second term for good of the people."
Check out my other blog....Con Men 4 Palin


  1. Oxymoron, indeed. It stands to reason if a newly elected POTUS has a successful first term, then most likely he will be reelected for a second.

    I truly believe that the words behind this statement speak volumes. That his sole purpose is to "fundamentally change" this country, as he spoke so many times during the campaign, and would only need one term to complete his objective. Many of us knew his objective, and voted against him. But unfortunately, many voted for his lies and believed he was their savior. Now many of these people are experiencing "buyer's remorse" and are clearly turning against him. So he will not only be a failed president, but his failed plan for the destruction of the United States of America will be his legacy.

  2. Does any of this sound familiar?

    Profile of the Sociopath:

    • Glibness and Superficial Charm
    • Manipulative and Conning

    They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. They may dominate and humiliate their victims.

    • Grandiose Sense of Self
    Feels entitled to certain things as "their right."

    • Pathological Lying
    Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities. Extremely convincing and even able to pass lie detector tests.

    • Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt
    A deep seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their core. Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way.

    • Shallow Emotions
    When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion it is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive. Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person. Since they are not genuine, neither are their promises.

    • Incapacity for Love
    • Need for Stimulation
    Living on the edge. Verbal outbursts and physical punishments are normal. Promiscuity and gambling are common.

    • Callousness/Lack of Empathy
    Unable to empathize with the pain of their victims, having only contempt for others' feelings of distress and readily taking advantage of them.

    • Poor Behavioral Controls/Impulsive Nature
    Rage and abuse, alternating with small expressions of love and approval produce an addictive cycle for abuser and abused, as well as creating hopelessness in the victim. Believe they are all-powerful, all-knowing, entitled to every wish, no sense of personal boundaries, no concern for their impact on others.

    Other Related Qualities:
    1. Contemptuous of those who seek to understand them
    2. Does not perceive that anything is wrong with them
    3. Authoritarian
    4. Secretive
    5. Paranoid
    6. Only rarely in difficulty with the law, but seeks out situations where their tyrannical behavior will be tolerated, condoned, or admired
    7. Conventional appearance
    8. Goal of enslavement of their victim(s)
    9. Exercises despotic control over every aspect of the victim's life
    10. Has an emotional need to justify their crimes and therefore needs their victim's affirmation (respect, gratitude and love)
    11. Ultimate goal is the creation of a willing victim
    12. Incapable of real human attachment to another
    13. Unable to feel remorse or guilt
    14. Extreme narcissism and grandiose
    15. May state readily that their goal is to rule the world

    To read more, go here:


  3. It is clear that President Obama not only suffers from antisocial personality disorder, but the following as well:

    Narcissistic Personality Disorder


    A person with narcissistic personality disorder:


    * Reacts to criticism with rage, shame, or humiliation
    * Takes advantage of other people to achieve his or her own goals
    * Has feelings of self-importance
    * Exaggerates achievements and talents
    * Is preoccupied with fantasies of success, power, beauty, intelligence, or ideal love
    * Has unreasonable expectations of favorable treatment
    * Requires constant attention and admiration
    * Disregards the feelings of others, lacks empathy
    * Has obsessive self-interest
    * Pursues mainly selfish goals


  4. I think the point was that he doesn't mind making decisions that are politically unpopular if he feels it's for the better good. Doesn't really matter and doesn't warrant over-analyzing because I can't see the future.