His Imperial Ubiquity

Ray G. writes

Not even counting the bin Laden incident, is anyone else as sick and tired as I am with the non-stop, 24/7, “Obama: The Marketing Product”? His voice, his face are everywhere, giving the impression that not a blade of grass grows without his Divine Desire. Every issue, large and small, must be about him. Talk about cult of personality!

I fear it’s too late; the media and the Beltway are in a symbiotic relationship (deadly embrace?) that appears never ending.

The GOP will not likely defeat him in 2012. He is simply too smooth talking and too media savvy for any Republican. Elections don’t have much to do with philosophy or political ideology or even policies. They have to do with having the gift of gab and whether or not the media like or hate you. Period.

LA replies:

I watch TV very little, and so I’m not aware of this phenomenon as you are, though I’m sure, from the relatively little I’ve seen and heard, that it’s true. Since I can’t stand watching him at all and avoid doing so (I find his demeanor, facial expressions, and intonations intolerable, not to mention his constant lies which transcend even the lies of Clinton), I can’t imagine what it would be like to be seeing him all the time.

Obama’s imperial ubiquity (in the title of this entry, I turn the description into a royal title) is connected with the fact that he’s not a part of America and has no fondness for it. He is imposing himself on America.

Also, conservatives would be doing themselves a big favor by watching less TV and keeping more of a distance from the 24/7 cable unreality.

- end of initial entry -

Sage McLaughlin writes:

Ray G. is right about the wearying ubiquity of Obamus Maximus. But I heartily disagree with the sentiment that he is unbeatable by any Republican, and certainly on the grounds that elections are entirely about “the gift of gab and whether or not the media like or hate you.” George Bush had no such gifts and the media despised him, but he won election twice over liberal Democrats because most Americans don’t really like liberal Democrats (which is why they only win elections by denying that that is what they are). [LA replies: However, neither Gore or Kerry had Obama’s (supposed) gift of gab, nor his (supposed) smoothness, nor his sacred aura as the first nonwhite president.] The media’s greatest service to Obama has been its constant covering up for his radicalism, but the story on that is out by now. That doesn’t mean he’s destined for defeat, either, of course.

Lastly, I would also point out that the supposedly media-savvy Obama has managed to bungle almost every public relations task that either circumstance or his own policies have contrived to bequeath him. Libya, health care, Israel, Guantanamo, the KSM trial, the Osama killing—the Obama administration has somehow managed to screw up the “messaging” on every last one these and he’s taken real political damage as a result. I’d grant, of course, that the damage would have been much more debilitating with a hostile press, but the point is that Obama is increasingly seen as vacillating, weak, petty, and generally unlikable, at least by people who follow the news. I doubt his re-election is assured and I tire of hearing such prognostications 18 months from election day, especially regarding a Democratic president whose support among independents cratered months ago and who faces economic circumstances worse than any other incumbent President has had to overcome in my lifetime. I doubt very much that Obama’s advisors would agree that his election is assured at this point.

(Remember when McCain was thought to be absolutely dead in the water as a potential GOP nominee? [LA replies: Yes, but that was immediately after the defeat of the 2007 National Suicide Comprehensive Immigration bill of which McCain was the noisiest Republican backer. In the following months, he repeatedly and with manifest dishonesty claimed to have “learned his lesson” about amnesty, and his support among idiot Republican voters steadily increased.])

LA replies:

I agree with many of your points about the increasingly negative way many people see Obama.

Gregory W. writes:

Do you get irritated with Obama’s over-pronunciation of “Pakistan” and “Taliban”? Phonetically, he says “POCK-e-ston” and “TALL-e-bon”. To me it’s an act of sensitivity to Muslims, as if he does not want to pronounce it like an English-speaking American. The same goes for newscasters and politicians who over-pronounce Hispanic names, yet do not say “MEH-he-co” for Mexico.

LA replies:

I listen to him so little that I wasn’t even aware of his pronunciation of Pakistan!

Greg W. replies:

Ha. I cringe at the sound of his voice when speaking. It’s so unnatural. When people talk to me about what a great speaker he is, I just laugh.

LA replies:

If he just did his fake intonation once in a while, that would be one thing. But he uses it with every sentence. Think of the irritation I spare myself by not listening to him.

David B. writes:

Like you, I don’t watch much TV and in particular can’t stand watching Obama. I couldn’t stand Clinton either. Remember how Clinton seemed to be everywhere and sounding off on TV all the time?

I once read that in the 1950s, you could read the front page of a major newspaper and not see President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s name. John F. Kennedy is said to be the first television president. However, I have read that JFK was concerned about being overexposed and did ration his TV appearances.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at May 06, 2011 07:50 AM | Send