Newsweek Editor: Obama “Is Sort of God”
It’s utterly unbelievable, but it seems that Robert Fisk isn’t the biggest Obama worshipper in the (media) world. Here is what Newsweek editor Evan Thomas recently had to say about the 44th president of the United States:
Newsweek editor Evan Thomas brought adulation over President Obama’s Cairo speech to a whole new level on Friday, declaring on MSNBC: “I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God.”
Sort of? What do you mean “sort of”? Just say what you mean: He’s God. “There is no God but Obama, and Robert Fisk and Evan Thomas are his prophets. Something like that.
As if that’s not enough:
Matthews discussed Obama’s upcoming speech marking the 65th anniversary of D-Day and compared it to that of Ronald Reagan. He then turned to Thomas and asked: “Reagan and World War II and the sense of us as the good guys in the world, how are we doing?” Thomas replied: “Well, we were the good guys in 1984, it felt that way. It hasn’t felt that way in recent years. So Obama’s had, really, a different task We’re seen too often as the bad guys. And he – he has a very different job from – Reagan was all about America, and you talked about it. Obama is ‘we are above that now.’ We’re not just parochial, we’re not just chauvinistic, we’re not just provincial.”
Right. That chauvinist pig of a Reagan! How dared he defend American values?
Just one minor issue: if Reagan was so chauvinist, why is he considered a hero in Europe as well? Wouldn’t only Americans love a chauvinist president? Reagan is considered the man who destroyed the Soviet Union here as well. American conservatives aren’t the only ones saying they need a ‘new Reagan.’ Us Europeans are constantly calling for a European Reagan as well.
Reagan did not embody American values solely, he embodied the love for freedom.
On top of that, you won’t ever hear a serious conservative commentator compare him to God. And the reason for that is that most conservatives aren’t into heroworshipping, because they understand that, even when a politician may have a lot of strengths, he still is a man with his weaknesses.
Is this what passes for quality journalism these days?
Eww boy, here we go! I didn’t think the deification of Barack Obama would happen so soon. What is really scary is that Obama himself probably agrees with Evan Thomas. There has been talk of the dangers of the “Imperial Presidency” for decades, but no one thought of elevating an American president to Heaven.
Obama’s constituents consist of only two groups: Wall St. financiers and the left. Both exercize “selective tolerance,” one through money and the other through direct government action.
The American people have forgotten (as obviously Evan Thomas has) that a president is an EMPLOYEE of the American people. He/she works for them; takes an oath that preserves, protects, and defends their constitution.
It’s wishful thinking, but what wouldn’t I give for a president a little along the lines of Harry Truman? Unlike Obama and Judge Sotomayor, Truman deliberately did NOT use his upbringing and ethnicity before making many decisions. His executive order eliminating segregation on all U.S. military installations was considered premature by many of the top brass. Truman told them that whatever his personal feelings about blacks (from his upbringing) he had a duty as president to act in accordance with his oath. How quaint. How corny. And how valuable to a republic.
Not anymore, though. America did not elect a god. America elected its first black Jimmy Carter.
Not just conservatives/classical liberals, but many Americans and people across the world loved (and still love) Reagan for two main reasons: first, he was a MAN (as Michael points out) of conviction; second, he was a great LEADER. In a sense, we revere the man, but we revere him as a man. We are grateful for his leadership at a critical juncture in history, but many guys also look up to him as a male role model. Similarly, I might also look up to John Wayne, in part for different reasons. Both Reagan and Wayne were quintessential American men, though, representing values like rugged individuality, personal responsibility, liberty bound by the rule of law (not socialistic “social justice”), etc. Obviously, Reagan was far more important in the grand scheme of things than was Wayne (sorry, Duke), but the point is that great mean inspire us to be better men.
Obama is revered for differentg reasons. His identity as a man with XY chromosomes is practically incidental. Indeed, his acolytes regard his as having transcended traditional manhood: both in the sense that he is a 21st century “evolved” new male (sort of a metrosexual philosopher king), but also as Evan Thomas suggests, in the sense that he is more than human – basically, a demi-god (as opposed to mortal “heros” like Reagan or Wayne). At the same time, up to this point, Obama has not demonstrated that he has any real convictions beyond the acquistion of power (using ends-justify-the-means Alinskyite tactics). Once he has acquired sufficient power – although some would say there is never enough – maybe then he will demonstrate his true convictions, but the contrast between Reagan and Obama in this regard is stark. And Obama is a very weak leader, but it does not matter. His power is acquired and exercised by acclamation, not via leadership.
Buckeye: I agree to a very large degree, good comment. One thing I do disagree with: I think he does have convictions, that he showed them throughout his career when he thought nobody was watching, etc. and that they are ultra-left. The policies he has enacted thus far prove that as well.
Michael,
As someone who’s not a Republican but supports third parties, and is deeply concerned with things like ballot access and election reform, what killed any appreciation I might have for him is he did things like sue his opponents off the ballot. Obama is an ends justifies the means type of politician, just like Clinton. I don’t think Clinton was purely pragmatic either; when nobody was watching he also talked ideology.
He definitely is an “ends justifies the means type of politician,” Redfish, which is exactly why I considered him such a hypocrite to criticize John McCain for running a “nasty campaign.”
None of it, of course, the real negative candidate was Obama, not his opponents.
Remember the left is on a mission to mainstream far left ideals. They deflect, change the subject and return to the few things they have traction with. The bloggers need to be aware that Obama and his minions have an active network of commentors who fill the comments section to make sure that anything about Obama is spun into the right hand of god.
If this story gains traction the left will be talking about George W. Bush and torture here shortly. Its the only thing they have traction on that seems to be resonating with the people and it will deflect the story away from anything that appears negative to the Obama administration.
The spotlight must remain on Obama for him to squirm a bit and be accountable. He promised accountability and refuses to even divulge the cost of his publicly funded date.
Michael, you’re right, it was too strong for me to remark that Obama had not demonstrated any convictions. Yes, earlier in his career, he was about as far left as any American could have been in the immediate post-Cold War world, at least anyone who had any sort of political aspirations (and he did, even then). Moreover, since becoming President, he has done numerous things that have either been facially “progressive” left, or have set the groundwork for future far leftist agendas/maneuveurs. The thing is, he is such a cynical, Chicago-style pol and amoral Alinskyite that it is hard for me to tell what he will do – in addition to what he is already doing – once the smoke clears. When/if he has freed himself to pursue his real convictions, will he act as a garden variety liberal-progressive, or will he kick into hard leftist mode?
I am myself pretty tired of people trying to turn Obama into something he is not? To me, he appears to be a cold optimist, a pretty mundane and hard figure. I don’t think you need to wax lyrical about him or project anything on him.
“That chauvinist pig of a Reagan! How dared he defend American values?”
By aiding and abetting people who tortured and persecuted democratic and/or left-wing people in Iran and South America?
Why does so many on the right-wing, often deifying people like Reagan or Thatcher unquestionably, see themselves fit to complain about Obama’s fervent supporters?
What comes after “ultra-left”, anyway? Mega-left? Left 2: Electric Boogaloo? Special Extreme Leftofascism Decaf Nouveau?
It’s funny, how the enemies of the left rid the word “liberal” of all meaning and had to resort to “socialist” in an attempt to dictate the rules of every narrative and discussion. Let me know when you decide to go full Godwin so I can get some popcorn ready.
Reagan never apologized to the Soviets.