Below is my rebuttal...
So now Obama is too smart to be President. Is that your final answer?
How about this: Obama, like Wilson before him, has a preconceived world view and is too stubborn to abandon it. His ego, not his intellect, prevents him from acknowledging any errors in judgment at all, despite his having no previous experience in running anything except a little law review that was made up of likeminded individuals, responsible for nothing more than thinking about something.
Or how about Obama, like any other child abandoned by his father clung to the romanticized picture painted of his father by his activist mother. The fathers causes becoming his own, despite the fact that other than the man's own mother and sister, no one else cared for the once philandering idealistic man turned mean drunk crippled by his drunk driving,
Or the Obama who found acceptance among the Chicago socialist terrorists and adapted their ideas as his own.
Or the Obama that is pure politician that will make up stories of his childhood, twist the image of his own grandmother, say anything to anybody just to gain political advantage or get a vote.
Sorry Ms Dalmia, Barack may be a lot of things, and his Presidency indeed has a multitude of reasons for not succeeding, but his being too smart and making decisions that are too thoughtful are not among them.
I do however have another theory I'd like you to entertain. Perhaps Republicans are not anti-intellectual. When someone promises an open administration, we want them to be truthful enough to provide it. When they promise fewer lobbyists and intellectuals, maybe we don't want to see special interest groups virtually set up office in the White House. When the candidate says he wants to unify an America that has become polarized, we don't want to see him exploit differences to incite bias or fear to accomplish his job. When he assumes the office of the most powerful man in the free world, we do not expect him to be so petty as to remove a Churchill bust from US soil (like a closet wasn't extreme enough).
Maybe, just maybe, Republicans are Pro-Intelligence over intellect, Pro-Character rather than overlook shattered campaign promises, Pro-Unity than fear mongering. Maybe we want a bigger man for the job even if it is a woman who has a liberal flaw of good hair.
I don't understand your high-horse position of dismissing opposing views as not being as intelligent as you. That's audacity. This past week I've heard your highly intellectually superior peers make fun of Christies weight, while admonishing bullying. You support Women's Rights yet use the pettiest of sexist criticisms against them should they venture too close to power (Hillary included). You sing praises for billions of dollars going out in loans to create few jobs, with little to no hope of repayment after criticizing the recklessness of Wall Street. And my personal favorite, you follow the President around like lemmings nodding in agreement as he says “Pass my bill now!” and blaming the evil “Party of ‘no’” ignorant Republicans for it not happening, when the fact is, Harry Reid is the only democrat to put his name on the bill as sponsor, and even he won’t bring it up for a vote.
How about this: Obama, like Wilson before him, has a preconceived world view and is too stubborn to abandon it. His ego, not his intellect, prevents him from acknowledging any errors in judgment at all, despite his having no previous experience in running anything except a little law review that was made up of likeminded individuals, responsible for nothing more than thinking about something.
Or how about Obama, like any other child abandoned by his father clung to the romanticized picture painted of his father by his activist mother. The fathers causes becoming his own, despite the fact that other than the man's own mother and sister, no one else cared for the once philandering idealistic man turned mean drunk crippled by his drunk driving,
Or the Obama who found acceptance among the Chicago socialist terrorists and adapted their ideas as his own.
Or the Obama that is pure politician that will make up stories of his childhood, twist the image of his own grandmother, say anything to anybody just to gain political advantage or get a vote.
Sorry Ms Dalmia, Barack may be a lot of things, and his Presidency indeed has a multitude of reasons for not succeeding, but his being too smart and making decisions that are too thoughtful are not among them.
I do however have another theory I'd like you to entertain. Perhaps Republicans are not anti-intellectual. When someone promises an open administration, we want them to be truthful enough to provide it. When they promise fewer lobbyists and intellectuals, maybe we don't want to see special interest groups virtually set up office in the White House. When the candidate says he wants to unify an America that has become polarized, we don't want to see him exploit differences to incite bias or fear to accomplish his job. When he assumes the office of the most powerful man in the free world, we do not expect him to be so petty as to remove a Churchill bust from US soil (like a closet wasn't extreme enough).
Maybe, just maybe, Republicans are Pro-Intelligence over intellect, Pro-Character rather than overlook shattered campaign promises, Pro-Unity than fear mongering. Maybe we want a bigger man for the job even if it is a woman who has a liberal flaw of good hair.
I don't understand your high-horse position of dismissing opposing views as not being as intelligent as you. That's audacity. This past week I've heard your highly intellectually superior peers make fun of Christies weight, while admonishing bullying. You support Women's Rights yet use the pettiest of sexist criticisms against them should they venture too close to power (Hillary included). You sing praises for billions of dollars going out in loans to create few jobs, with little to no hope of repayment after criticizing the recklessness of Wall Street. And my personal favorite, you follow the President around like lemmings nodding in agreement as he says “Pass my bill now!” and blaming the evil “Party of ‘no’” ignorant Republicans for it not happening, when the fact is, Harry Reid is the only democrat to put his name on the bill as sponsor, and even he won’t bring it up for a vote.
Share your opinions below...
