I have previously referenced President Obama’s outrageous—and I know I may use outrageous hyperbolically at times, but this really was outrageous—twice in recent posts without focusing on it specifically. However, since I believe it might be the single most petulant, unfair, dishonest, un-Presidential public statement ever uttered by any U.S. Chief Executive—certainly abroad—attention must be paid. Obama’s statement reflects directly on his character and leadership.
It is signature significance regarding Obama’s arrogance and narcissism, and more important for those analyzing what went so horribly wrong in his quest for “Hope and Change,” it is decisive evidence rebutting the default excuse offered by Obama’s unshakable supporters that he has been the innocent victim of a Republican Congress that would not work with him. It is the President’s duty to work with Congress, which means that while individual members may say impolitic things about him, it is counter-productive and incompetent for the President to issue blanket insults to the opposition party that he must negotiate with. Every effective President has understood this. Obama has never understood it, and the nation has suffered as a result.
It must have felt good for Obama to say, in a press conference in France…
“These are the same folks who suggested they’re so tough that just talk to Putin or staring down ISIL [will work] … but they’re scared of widows and orphans… First they were worried the press was too tough on them in the debates, now they’re worried about 3-year old orphans. That doesn’t sound very tough to me.”
A competent President knows when his personal, inner asshole must be switched to silent, however. Such a statement would set off an ethics screening alarm in the brain of any non-totalitarian leader—you know, the kind who doesn’t have to care what anyone else thinks—while it was still being composed and before it vomited out of the mouth….anyone but Obama, apparently. This really is going rogue, and nothing Sarah Palin ever said in public was as inappropriate, in part because she wasn’t the President at the time and could afford to mouth off.
Let’s identify the internal ethical breaches here as well as the macro one, which is that Obama was in a foreign country, and it is always wrong to use a foreign stage to attack other elected officials from the U.S. (He has done this before.) Moreover, Obama’s political opposition was not the topic at hand nor what he was supposed to be focusing on. Paris and France had just suffered a devastating tragedy at the hands of ISIS terrorists, but what Obama was really upset about was that his refugee resettlement plan was being attacked at home. This wasn’t about him, in other words, but with pathological narcissists, everything is about them.
As for the statement itself..
- Putin was irrelevant to the event, and no Republican ever suggested “that just talk to Putin or staring down ISIL” was all that had to be done. It was a gross misrepresentation, and petty whining.
- The debates comment was wildly inappropriate and irrelevant, puzzling to anyone not following post-GOP debate discourse, and a low-level partisan swipe in the wrong forum at best.
- The widows and orphans slander is the kind of statement that would have prompted duels in the early 19th century. Of course, it is also a blatant straw man and a misrepresentation in all directions. All the refugees are not widows and orphans. Nobody is concerned about terrorism from 3-year old orphans, and while widows are certainly capable of being terrorists, it is the young men among the Syrians who raise legitimate concerns. Thus the swipe was just a nasty insult for the purpose of being nasty and insulting. Presidents don’t talk like that, not about other high elected officials who he must work with in the future, not in foreign countries, and not if they understand that their office demands exemplary conduct, deportment and rhetoric. Except President Obama, that is.
I have written that Obama’s statement is that of an asshole; at best it is a marvelous impression of one. Senator Ted Cruz, who was impugned both generally and specifically in Obama’s remarks (he spoke of critics who had benefited from U.S. asylum policies, meaning Senators with Cuban refugee parents. like Ted Cruz), replied with the restraint and precision that Senators (and civil and responsible Presidents) realize they are bound to display, and answered:
“I want to encourage you, Mr. President, come back and insult me to my face. Let’s have a debate on Syrian refugees right now. We can do it anywhere you want. I prefer it in the United States and not overseas where you’re making insults. It’s easy to toss a cheap insult when no one can respond, but let’s have a debate.”
Perfect.
I find Cruz’s Christians-only prescription for Syrian refugee settlement wrong (it is not Muslims we don’t want to let in, but Muslim terrorists), unrealistic (How hard is it for a Muslim terrorist to say he’s a Christian?) and pandering to the Christian right (Cruz’s three great talents are pandering, grandstanding, and demagoguery). This is, however, a fair and necessray rebuke: factual, biting, and well withing established boundaries of fair political rhetoric—unlike Obama’s childish taunt.
__________
ADDENDUM: I also want to send kudos to Ann Althouse’s readers. The center-left law professor has an erudite and witty audience, and she moderates her blog with a firm hand, so only the best or most provocative comments get through. I want to highlight their responses to Obama here. I read a lot of comment threads, and almost all of them—Mediate, Politico, ThinkProgress, Res Ipsa Loquitur, The Daily Kos, The Daily Beast, The Daily Caller, The Blaze, Reason (Hit and Run), even the once unreadably academic Volokh Conspiracy, now that it has moved to the Washington Post, have been overrun with trolls and hyper-partisan jerks. (Noble exceptions include Popehat and Barry Deutch’s Alas! A Blog.)
Here are some of the best of Professor Althouse’s reader’s take on Obama’s Paris tantrum:
Bay Area Guy said…Obama really does not know how to debate. He constantly makes the strawman fallacy. Yes, we really, really, really don’t want widows and orphans from Syria, Mr. President.
Brando said…Rather than see these two pandering popinjays debate, I would actually like to see a good faith debate between those insisting that we can adequately verify that the Syrians in question will not include terrorists and so we should let them in, versus those arguing that we can never be certain and so we must figure out something else to do with them. The cheap shots I’ve seen on social media (e.g., “if you believe only a small minority of gun owners shouldn’t be reason for gun control, why should a small minority of dangerous Syrians be reason to keep them all out?”) suggest we’re past the point of trying to sensibly debate this troubling issue and we’re now just signaling. Just like usual.
TreeJoe said…What a petulant president. I realize most historians will be kind to him for a variety of reasons, but Obama deserves personal skewering for centuries to come for his enjoyment of punching down at opponents while simultaneously castigating them for being obstinate.
Nonapod said…Given the ridiculous number of strawmen Obama is constantly constructing there’s gotta be a worldwide shortage on straw. Doesn’t he care about all the hungry livestock he’s depriving?
n.n said…Obama would prefer to avoid acknowledging responsibility for the humanitarian disaster created by his political opportunism, staged coups, regime assassinations, and social justice policies. His solution is to propagate a refugee crisis, while leaving other people and a wasteland behind. Fortunately, a Russian-led coalition has stepped forward and is confronting the chaos on the ground.
eric said…What a child. A petulant little child.He must be surrounded by grinning sycophants to think these types of things should be said and not be immediately embarrassed for his ass hattery.
Monkeyboy said…My guess that the president responds with “well your mom takes Syrian refugees”, and the left hoots like howler monkeys.At some point we are going to get what we deserve as a people, and it’s worrying how little I care.
YoungHegelian said…I think Congress should put forth a bill that admits the Syrian women & children & leaves the men of military age behind.Let’s see Obama veto that…The lefties need to move on past this & start coming up with good-faith bi-partisan actions. If Obama, by executive action, settles a bunch of refugees here, and if even one of them goes on a rampage under his administration, the Democratic Party can kiss its ass good-bye for the next ten years.
Coupe said…While Obama and his Army are trying to assassinate and overthrow the head of a foreign government, they get upset that Americans don’t want to house the people fleeing their imperialism.It’s just not fair.
Thorley Winston said...I agree with Brando. This is a serious issue and I’m tired of “signaling” being a substitute for the kind of discussion needed to find a proper resolution to it. Even though I’m not a Cruz supporter, I blame Obama more so for it because he’s the president and it’s his responsibility to either get people on board with his policies or find one that can be supported an implemented when he’s left office a little over a year from now. He’s had 27 governors who have said “no” and while he might have the power to run roughshod over them, trying to do it unilaterally like his amnesty via executive order isn’t sustainable.If you want to look at things from just a pure politics perspective, the person who could benefit most from this is Hillary Clinton. I think if Mrs. Clinton (who I assume favors bringing in the “refugees”) said publicly that we should disclose to the governors (at a level that doesn’t adversely impact national security) how we’re screening the people claiming refugee status and that we would offer incentives to cover the costs for States that accept them, she’d look a lot more presidential than the guy holding the job now. I don’t however think that’s in her nature.
Good stuff. There are no genuine defenses of the President to be found, either, which should not be surprising, since his comments were indefensible.
Ethics Alarms 
Did you miss the Islamic terrorist attack this week that used an 11-year old girl?
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/18/africa/nigeria-blasts/index.html
Another offensive part was Secretary of State Kerry talking about how the Paris bombings were a ‘setback’ to their Syrian refugee strategy. Yes, the regrettable thing about Islamic terrorist attacks is it makes it more difficult for you to import more Islamic terrorists. Although it has been said that bringing in only Christian refugees is unrealistic, how is it more unrealistic than declaring that the entire countries of Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Eritrea, Sudan, and Lybia count as ‘refugees’ and deserve asylum in nicer countries as Europe has done? Refugee status isn’t supposed to be for entire countries, but for people with an above average risk of severe persecution (death) in their country. The ENTIRE country is not at above average risk. The widows and orphans are not at elevated risk. Christians, however, are a persecuted group there.
Obama has basically gone rogue, and there is no reason for him not to – he has one more year in office, there are no more elections until the end of that year, and he believes his opponents are stepping all over themselves and getting in each other’s way. His future is set: he’s going to get a cushy, highly paid, no-show position at some law school, sit on a bunch of corporate boards, and give speeches at $1M a pop. He doesn’t give a damn about anyone or anything else because he doesn’t need to. Most Democrats are shaking inwardly at this point, because they know that if one Paris-style attack happens here on their watch, they’re done. Obama either believes that can’t happen, or has stopped caring and is just going to dump it into the lap of the next president.
But that’s the thing, he doesn’t need to do this! Once we get the ten thousand, all it takes is for one of them to blow up a school and having put his brand to it, he’ll forever be known as the guy who empowered terrorists to blow up some kids. There isn’t any long term political currency in this.
It’s like…. I’m trying to think of a reason. Does he really not think there will be terrorists in the mix? Does he think that it’s more important to help the ten thousand even if it costs American lives? Or is this just another example of an inflexibility to change when presented with new information…. Does he think he’s saving face by not doing a 180, and he needs Kerry to say something stupid and Putin to call a bluff to fix this?
Here’s the answer (from Instapundit):
Excuse me while I attempt to vacuum my grey matter out of the carpet.
This is worse than being asleep at the proverbial wheel. This is deliberately steering for the rocks.
You know what works? Lemon juice!
Say WHAT?!
It’s perfect calculus actually.
With a little over a year before we have a new president (supplicate for grown ups please), any radical with a desire to Kill a massive amount of Americans will likely be incapable of acting on their desires during Obama’s term.
With the coming election the Republican’s to lose (given the incapacity for a single national level Democrat to appear capable of leading our Nation), there is a very good likelihood that any attack on American soil killing a mass amount of Americans will happen on a Republican’s watch. And we know what the Democrat Lap-dog Media will do with that.
Now, in the meantime, Obama knows that Republicans will do everything to stop his proposed reckless inflow of refugees (whether the quantity of 10,000 can be met or not), during an election year, the media, doing it’s loyal Party duty, will use this as a cudgel to beat millions of little CharlesGreensians and Bethians and Deerians over the head about how evil and xenophobic Republicans are, on the off chance this will help out in making the election harder for the Republicans, for whom this election IS theirs to lose.
(of course that is the most cynical case scenario)
You think? I can’t think of a time where an attack on America didn’t boost the Republicans. Even under GWB, where the attack could arguably (and I’m using that term loosely) be laid at the feet of his administration, people rushed right.
I don’t understand. For the longest time I’ve been rebuffing the people who say that Obama is a terrorist sympathizer… Mainly because that’s insane… But more and more I understand where they’re coming from, even as I continue to disagree with them.
What’s the thought process? Why the mad dash to bring these guys in? What political points are there to be had? Why the flagrant dismissive attitude towards legitimate concerns? We have BLM doing their best to brew up racial tensions, so let’s bring in some religious tension to even it out! Who the hell thought this was a good idea?
I understand that Obama is a poor crisis manager, but these situations still manage to surprise me.
He has a world view based on ideology, and because he is a narcissist, is incapable of accepting that he could be wrong. Thus he persists in conduct and rhetoric in defiance of reality.
And as we are seeing (to the point where we can say we foreknow), this kind of unpresidential behavior will, without a doubt, continue in a Clinton presidency.
Didn’t Hillary say her enemies are Republicans and the NRA?
No. Hillary has many flaws, but she’s better than that.
Apologies if I’m confused with respect what post you’re replying to, but in the first debate Hillary identified her enemies as, “Well, in addition to the NRA, the health insurance companies, the drug companies, the Iranians; probably the Republicans.”
That’s OK, I can’t tell who YOU are replying to.
I will say that calling the opposing party in a two party system “enemies” is totalitarian in mindset, and comparing drug companies, which save lives, and insurance companies, which provide an essential service, and the NRA, which is a zealous advocate for the Bill of Rights, with Iran is disgusting.
I don’t know about that. President Obama said we should bring in 10,000 refugees. She sextupled-and-a-half down on him, declaring that we should bring in 65,000, in a feeble attempt to appear even more magnanimous and humanitarian than her former boss, with silly lip serve about the vetting process. She also dismisses any national security concerns as those belonging to the knuckledraggers and teabaggers. Shameful.
jvb
I think we have reached the point where Hillary can be both a dramatic upgrade over Obama, and a terrible president.
I never questioned that for a second.
Although many of the French continued to dislike us for years after we “destroyed Normandy” while saving them from Nazi Fascism, Obama’s behavior is a new, awful, and _real_ reason for the French to dislike us. Obama was there to support France. Period. Not to take this opportunity to take potshots at his own citizens and espouse his own objectives that the French did not want, or need, to hear.
If I was a Democrat (and I’m not) and Obama was a stock, I’d take my loss and sell it quick before it makes it to the pink sheets. Good for Althouse in having the integrity to post these comments as well as Ted Cruz willingness to go mano a mano with Obama.
Can impeachment possibly happen this late in Obama’s second term?
Can it? Yes. Will it? No. There simply aren’t the votes.
Oh, sorry. I must be ignorant of what majority is required. Is there a 2/3 rule? Ignoring that Republicans break ranks more than Democrats do (or “defect,” as the Minitrue outlets describe Democrats who break ranks), I thought that at least theoretically, a Republican majority in both Houses would be enough, if the vote was strictly along party lines.
Oh, there are enough votes to start the process, but you need a 2/3 vote in the Senate to convict. The GOP doesn’t have that, and there’s no way they can convince any Democrat to break ranks with the odious Harry Reid.
Besides, do you want Joe Biden as your president?
No, and it would be suicidal to try. No President has ever been successfully impeached, including Johnson, who was incredibly unpopular and was being impeached by his own party, and Clinton, who deserved to be. Obama has arguably done more deserving impeachment than either, but the United States cannot impeach its first black President. It’s bad enough that the first and only (so far) BP is among the 5 worst—impeaching him would look racist, no matter what the justification. Then there’s Biden.
The President can only plausibly be impeached for unequivocally non-political “crimes” (Nixon) and who has 30% approval ratings or lower. Obama, because blacks would support him 95% even if he was found to be pimping out his daughters yo Syrian refugees, will never dip below 40%.
He can’t be impeached because he’s sort of black? There must be some kind of ethical issue here to consider. Avoiding the appearance of “racism” by Congress and therefore not acting seems to me to yielding to implicit blackmail. If he gets his way re: the Syrian “refugees” thus putting the country in peril, that might possibly be grounds for impeachment. It’s certainly dereliction of duty.
It’s very disheartening to read Facebook Friends cheering this statement by Obama, which really is objectively disgraceful. Privately most Democrats admit as much. If you really approve this sort of rhetoric from a President abroad, I am fair in saying you really don’t understand enough about governance, democracy and leadership for your opinion on anything to be taken seriously. Then there are bloggers like this Canadian jerk—check out his photo, which says it all
—who writes that Obama’s dishonest, childish smear is why he LOVES the President. I’d tell him to stay in Canada, but he’d find lots of pals here, including many of my Facebook friends. Ugh.
Kinsella. He’s the token Liberal in Quebecor’s Sun Media. I call him scarecrow because I think that Sun picked him for his tendency to go so far left off the reservation almost anything he says is amazingly easy to knock down.
The FB meme that almost made me toss my iPad across the room this morning was ” We should not let young white men into theaters and churches unless we can be 100% sure they will not harm us” in reply to a Paul Ryan Tweet saying that we cannot bring in refugees unless wwe were “100% confident that they are not here to do us harm” . Since early this morning (in my time zone) there have since been a spate of posts saying much the same thing. “If we let in Syrian refugees there might be shootings in a theater…..oh, wait…..never mind”.
Really?
I’ve decided 99.99 percent of memes that aren’t just funny are stupid and dishonest. OccupyDemocrats turns out one whopper after another, and young progressives bark like seals
That’s pretty much my experience. I’ve learned not to respond when my friends like them, and usually not to respond even when they share.
Not me. I explain in excruciating detail what dishonest, unfair or flat out wrong with the memes. I lose a lot of FB friends this way..the refugee memes today are especially idiotic, mostly of the “But what about the children?” variety.
Just lost one when I told him a meme that said to hate refugees while you prepare to celebrate a middle eastern couple seeking shelter was a cheap attempt to link Christmas and current events and tar those who disagree as bad Christians. Screw you if you can’t handle being called out.
I saw that one. The effort to explain why that is awful logic and miserable debating technique is gift. Fools can sometimes be saved by having their foolishness explained. If they don’t want to be saved, the hell with them.
Those who post that stuff are not interested in having a debate or a discussion. They want to tar the other side as haters, racists, and all around bad people who are only there so those who are good look better.
Their attitude when they post these things is so superior, so ‘Gotcha! I’m smarter than you’ . Despite my desire to stay in touch with far-flung friends and relatives, looking at FB is becoming more and more repugnant.
Has anyone noticed that Congress is being criticized for trying to pass a bill to make the President do exactly what he said he would do? How Hillary Clinton is complaining that this is outrageous and unAmerican?
We now have a trash talker in chief who spends his time hanging out golfing and playing hoops with retired high performance jocks rather than schmoozing legislators and making deals and, you know, leading the free world.
Or he hangs out with Valerie Jarrett and his wife. Who’s the Secretary of Defense these days anyway? Cindy Sheehan? There’s a war going on and we have a pacifist President.