Who IS this guy?!

'Niceguy' Eddie

Political Talk Show Host and Internet Radio Personality. My show, In My Humble Opinion, aired on RainbowRadio from 2015-2017.

Feel free to contact me at niceguy9418@usa.com. You can also friend me on Facebook, follow me on Twitter, and Tumblr, and support my Patreon. Also, if you don't mind the stench, you can find my unofficial "fan club" over HERE. ;)


Saturday, March 20, 2010

"Terrific" Article on Obama from "the WSJ"

I want to take a break from the more controversial stuff for a little while, and go back to preaching the choir for a bit.  I need a break. LOL

So I'd like to share with you some of the e-mail that I occasionally receive from my conservative friends, family and co-workers.  Mind you, these are all people I love and/or respect, but I just cannot reconcile my generally positive view of them with some of the absolute trash they forward on from their inbox.  It's like these otherwise sane, mostly educated, usually intelligent people, just turn their brains off and let their eyes glave over when they get a few words of conservatism thrown their way.  It's insane. 

Anyway, I recently got the following email from my Dad. 

The subject field read: FW: A MUST READ!!! Wall Street Journal Article on Obama

It was described as a

"Terrific Article on Obama ! ! !" and an "Article from the Wall Street Journal Form by Eddie Sessions:"

Now... first off, I'll bet the house that my father honestly believes that "Eddie Sessions" is a WSJ contributor, and they Journal actually PRINTED this piece of crap.  I'm sure he has no idea that anyone can write whatever they want to on the WSJ FORUM, including himself and me.  As "terrific" as this write-up is, and as much as Uncle Ruppert has corrupted the once proud Journal, I think it's telling that even HE [Murdoch] knows this is crap, and that it's lack of veracity, utility and over-all quality is self evident for all to see. (So while he's perfectly willing to LIE, he recognizes THIS LIE as being so absurd that it's not even USEFUL.)  Here's the "terrific article on Obama" from the "WSJ" (forum.)

"I have this theory about Barack Obama. I think he's led a kind of make-believe life in which money was provided and doors were opened because at some point early on somebody or some group took a look at this tall, good looking, half-white, half-black, young man with an exotic African/Muslim name and concluded he could be guided toward a life in politics where his facile speaking skills could even put him in the White House."
Opening paragraph: One sentence.  Not a good sign, right at the onset.  It's a nice "theory" though... let's see if this simpleton can produce any EVIDENCE to support it...
In a very real way, he has been a young man in a very big hurry. Who else do you know has written two memoirs before the age of 45? "Dreams of My Father" was published in 1995 when he was only 34 years old. The "Audacity of Hope" followed in 2006. If, indeed, he did write them himself. There are some who think that his mentor and friend, Bill Ayers, a man who calls himself a "communist with a small 'c'" was the real author.
Who else do I know who's written their memoir by age 45?  I don't know.  But who else has been elected President by age 47?  Must have a pretyt interesting life.  I'm not sure why it's significant in any negative way that his previous book was published by age 34.  Seems rather a positive accomplishment, until... ***BULLSHIT ALERT***  it was written by his "communist" "friend" Bill Ayers.  You know... that close friend he barely knows.  Does Ayers get royalties from the book he wrote?  Seems he should if that were the case.  I guess it all part of the conspiracy to get a Muslim, Communist, puppet of Bill Ayers in the White House.  (Cuckoo - Cuckoo - Cuckoo.  Either it's 3:00 or this guy's crazy!)
His political skills consisted of rarely voting on anything that might be deemed controversial.. He went from a legislator in the Illinois legislature to the Senator from that state because he had the good fortune of having Mayor Daley's formidable political machine at his disposal.
OK, so... you can't find any votes you actually disagree with, so you go with the old "rarely voted on anything controversial" shar.  The next sentence pretty much means he was a Democrat from Chicago.  I'm not sure why that machinery benefited him as opposed to any other Democrat.  But, I guess those Daly's have a really good record when it comes to racial issues.  NOT!
He was in the U.S.. Senate so briefly that his bid for the presidency was either an act of astonishing self-confidence or part of some greater game plan that had been determined before he first stepped foot in the Capital. How, many must wonder, was he selected to be a 2004 keynote speaker at the Democrat convention that nominated John Kerry when virtually no one had ever even heard of him before?
So we're back to the false dilemma of either arrogance or a conspiracy that's to explain for the fact the HE WON THE ELECTION.  (Perish the though that he was the best man for the job.)  As for the second part, it might just be possible that the Howard Dean gets his knowledge and information from more that just Right Wing sources.  Just sayin'.  Also, it's becoming obvious this was written by a conservative, because all he's doing to support his "theory" is essentially giving more "theories" - Asking [scary sounding] questions, and making [ealisy debunked] implications rather than pointing to any actual FACTS to support his "theory." 

He outmaneuvered Hillary Clinton in primaries. He took Iowa by storm. A charming young man, an anomaly in the state with a very small black population, he oozed "cool" in a place where agriculture was the antithesis of cool. He dazzled the locals. And he had an army of volunteers drawn to a charisma that hid any real substance.
WTF does this even mean?  Being "cool" is somehow bad becasue famers aren't cool?  Maybe that's not it, but I just don't get it.  Remember: OBAMA was the one who knew thee guys grew Arugula, while it was the RW'ers who made fun of that and acted like ignorant morons.  But he certainly seemed to hit it of with them well enough.  Also, I don't think he meant that last bit: His "charisma" "hid" "any real substance."  I'm pretty sure he meant "hid any LACK of real substance." But that's also a matter of opinion.  So far, I'd say it's the "terrific article" that lacks any real substance.

And then he had the great good fortune of having the Republicans select one of the most inept candidates for the presidency since Bob Dole. And then John McCain did something crazy. He picked Sarah Palin, an unknown female governor from the very distant state of Alaska . It was a ticket that was reminiscent of 1984's Walter Mondale and Geraldine Ferraro and they went down to defeat.
 The most inept candidate since BOB DOLE?!  OMG!  The ONLY republican candidate between Bob Dole and John McCain was GEORGE WALKER BUSH!!!  I'd say, clearly, that HE was the most inept candidate they've fielded is YEARS! DECADES! Shit, GENERATIONS! You'd have to go back to HERBERT HOOVER to find a worse President and ALF LANDON to find a worse candidate! You've got to stand gobsmacked at the lack of... what? SHAME? SELF-AWARENESS? Of someone who can construct conspiracy theories about OBAMA's road to the White House and suggest that Dole and McCain were inept, but BUSH was somehow both QUALIFIED and LEGITIMATE.  Remember... this was a "terrific article."

The mainstream political media fell in love with him. It was a schoolgirl crush with febrile commentators like Chris Mathews swooning then and now over the man.. The venom directed against McCain and, in particular, Palin, was extraordinary.

Wha...? First of all... Mathews in particular has a long history of kissing Republican ass, especially McCain and Giulliani, but others as well.  (MMFA named in "misinformer of the year" in 2005! Behold the liberal media!) And this "schoolgirl crush" nonsense is just the sour grapes of someone who's party lacks any charismatic eloquent speakers.  Just because YOU disagree with his policies doesn't mean he does a bad job PRESENTING them.  Also... just one paragraph ago you said McCain was CRAZY for picking Palin, who somehow transformed him into Walter Modale c.1984?  Dude? Seriously: The press did all it could to carry Palin.  They were genuinely interested in learning more about this "unknown." It's not the press' fault that she's dumb as a stone, and can't remember the name of a single newspaper.  (Or a supreme court decision, other than Roe v Wade, to give as an example of the 'Judicial Activism' she was campaigning against at the time!)  If this article had been about PALIN, the "theory" and "evidence" and conspiracy theories, while still weak, would be a lot closer to the truth.  Amazing how much these people project.

Now, nearly a full year into his first term, all of those gilded years leading up to the White House have left him unprepared to be President. Left to his own instincts, he has a talent for saying the wrong thing at the wrong time. It swiftly became a joke that he could not deliver even the briefest of statements without the ever-present Tele-Prompters.

The "joke" is one that only circulates among right-wingers who would also call this "article" "terrific," can't think of anything to criticize him on substantively and are too lazy to even make something else up.  And it's a tired one.  EVERYONE use teleprompters, and Obama's repeatedly been shown to be better on his feet that McCain or Palin.  Again: PROJECTION.  Put YOUR OWN FLAWS onto someone else, so no one will notice them in YOU.  Also, I'll say it again: Just because YOU disagree with someone, that doesn't mean he said "the wrong thing."  50% of these "wrong thing's" have been outright misquotes and the rest have been things that actually MAKE A LOT OF SENSE, assuming your not blinded by right-wing group-think, or outright racism, and actually THINK about them.

Far worse, however, is his capacity to want to "wish away" some terrible realities, not the least of which is the Islamist intention to destroy America and enslave the West. Any student of history knows how swiftly Islam initially spread. It knocked on the doors of Europe , having gained a foothold in Spain ..

Refresh my memory... WHO was it that ignored the threat of Militant Islam during his first year in office?  George... something or other? (Weren't there two REALLY BIG buildings that used to be here?)  Remember folks: PROJECTION.  Whatever you biggest flaw is, make sure you say it about the OTHER GUY.  You'll look that much better by comparison.  Doesn't have to be true either. The press never bothers with mundane thigns like FACT-CHECKING anymore.  Whoever says it first WINS.  (And that will ALWAYS be the Right, since the Left don't actually possess these flaws.  So... nothing to project!)

The great crowds that greeted him at home or on his campaign "world tour" were no substitute for having even the slightest grasp of history and the reality of a world filled with really bad people with really bad intentions.

Again... I'm almost as stunned by the writer's 'grasp of history' as I am by the evidence, or lack thereof, that he presents to support this "theory."  Remember: "TERRIFIC ARTICLE." Not 'ignorant rant by some loser on an internet forum,' but a "terrific article" by the "Wall Street Journal" no less!

Oddly and perhaps even inevitably, his political experience, a cakewalk, has positioned him to destroy the Democrat Party's hold on power in Congress because in the end it was never about the Party. It was always about his communist ideology, learned at an early age from family, mentors, college professors, and extreme leftist friends and colleagues.

Again: EVIDENCE? What "communist ideology"?!  Can this moron point to ONE THING that Obama has done that has even a HINT of "communist ideology" in it? No. But why do you need evidence when you're preaching to the choir?  Remember: "Terrific Article."

Obama is a man who could deliver a snap judgment about a Boston police officer who arrested an "obstreperous" Harvard professor-friend, but would warn Americans against "jumping to conclusions" about a mass murderer at Fort Hood who shouted "Allahu Akbar." The absurdity of that was lost on no one. He has since compounded this by calling the Christmas bomber "an isolated extremist" only to have to admit a day or two later that he was part of an al Qaeda plot.

Gates was being questioned by police for breaking into his own house.  No matter what else happened, that's the bottom line.  Apparently, the writer here sees the same wisdom in that that he sees in LYNCH MOBS.  Now... so do I!  But where I see NONE, he sees 'the way things ought to be.'

He is a man who could strive to close down our detention facility at Guantanamo even though those released were known to have returned to the battlefield against America .. He could even instruct his Attorney General to afford the perpetrator of 9/11 a civil trial when no one else would ever even consider such an obscenity. And he is a man who could wait three days before having anything to say about the perpetrator of yet another terrorist attack on Americans and then have to elaborate on his remarks the following day because his first statement was so lame.

Gitmo has written Al-Quaeda's propaganda for them since the day it opened.  And the last time I checked, "fair trials" was one of the "American Values" we were fighting to DEFEND!  I thought the militant Muslims wanted to destroy our freedoma? WHY, therefore, would we want to HELP THEM succeed?!  Oh yeah... and Bush waited FIVE DAYS to make a statement following Richard Reid's failed shoe-bomb attack, so let's get over the fact that Obama waited three.  Again: Whether or not comments are "lame" is a matter of opinion.  Personally, given the propensity of the RW press to constantly mischaracterize his words, I can't see how there's anything wrong with a little "clarification."

The pattern repeats itself. He either blames any problem on the Bush administration or he naively seeks to wish away the truth.

WHO'S trying to "wish away the truth" here?  Are you beginning to see what I mean by a 'lack of self awareness?'  Remember: "Terrific Wall Street Journal Article."

Knock, knock.. Anyone home? Anyone there? Barack Obama exists only as the sock puppet of his handlers, of the people who have maneuvered and manufactured this pathetic individual's life.

It the author who's "pathetic" here.  He's yet to name WHO this 'sock puppet's' "handlers" ARE, or offer any EVIDENCE of their existance.  But a crazy conspiracy theory must be more comforting than admitting (1) that you're wrong. (2) That you're misinfoimred. (3) That you've been lied to for going on 20 years now by the RW media. (4) That your entire political philosophy and world view are informed by these lies, and you really are no more than a mindless automaton still clinging to the false words of it's master.  I can see why the author wouldn't want to consider that possibility.

When anyone else would quickly and easily produce a birth certificate, this man has spent over a million dollars to deny access to his. Most other documents, the paper trail we all leave in our wake, have been sequestered from review. He has lived a make-believe life whose true facts remain hidden.

Just curious, because I don't really watch them but does even Fox News still take the Birther's seriously?  I've got a newsflash for this intrepid reporter: He DID produce it.  He also put it on his website and had it authenticated by several official sources.  He did not spend so much as a single penny to "keep it hidden."  As for the "facts" about his "life?"  Well... as you pointed out in your second paragraph, he's written two books covering two generations of his family and then some.  WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT TO KNOW?!

The REAL question is: What "facts" will you be willing to accept?
We laugh at the ventriloquist's dummy, but what do you do when the dummy is President of the United States of America ?"

Well, speaking for myself, I counted the days until January 20th, 2009.  I also cursed the Supreme Court decision in Bsh v Gore as often as I could. (Now THAT was 'judicial actvism'!) What I DIDN'T do, and IMHO have never done, is to write a piece of crap like this and email to all my friends claiming it's a "terrific article" from the "Wall Street Journal."

If the Wll Street Journal even PRINTED this piece of crap, this blog deserves the PULLITZER Prize.

So if I ever seem overly sensitive or angry, just remember: THIS is what I have to put up with! LOL

Have a nice weekend everyone!


  1. The article is typical right-wing trash--from what you quote, it ddoesn't make a single substantive point. The thing about Obama and his teleprompter is an example of how the American conservative elite can say almost literally anything to those within the conservative bubble and have it accepted as gospel:
    Those "jokes" came after a campaign in which Obama must have debated his various opponents 40 or 50 times, totally unscripted and coming out on top of virtually every scrap. I honestly thought Obama's trip to that Republican retreat earlier this year would have put a stop to that--there were something like 150 Republicans vs. just Obama, and HE outnumbered THEM. Inside the bubble, though, reality does no penetrate.

    It's particularly bizarre given that, when all that talk about Obama and his teleprompter started on the right, the sitting Republican president was barely able to make a single entirely coherent public statement even WITH a teleprompter.

    BTW, you really did Obama a disservice when you said he'd been shown to be better on his feet than McCain or Palin. Palin makes Bush look like a MENSA candidate, and, while McCain can actually form sentences without having them written down beforehand, he usually ends up putting his foot in his mouth. Whatever else Obama may be (and I'm not a big fan), he is a very good public speaker, and he's certainly no Reagan-style line-reader.

    (Reagan would tote around index cards with prepared answers to possible questions. He did this even with meetings with foreign leaders. Sometimes, he would pull out the wrong one, which made for great--if chilling--entertainment.)

    Honestly, I don't care much for the talk of "projection." It seems too much like canned, dime-store psychological analysis, but in the case of the teleprompter business, that's definitely the case. Conservatives have so little self-awareness that one of them, over on the NextRight site where I post sometimes, just wrote an angry post about how Democrats are very selective in their concerns about constitutionality, unlike the constitutional stalwarts we find among the Republicans. Bush hasn't even been out of ofice a year and a half, and this fellow not only wrote that, but did it in public. He had plenty of defenders of his view, but I, one of the token lefties there, was the only one to point out to him this incongruity.

  2. Thanks for your comment, but I don't understand the following:

    "BTW, you really did Obama a disservice when you said he'd been shown to be better on his feet than McCain or Palin. Palin makes Bush look like a MENSA candidate, and, while McCain can actually form sentences without having them written down beforehand, he usually ends up putting his foot in his mouth. Whatever else Obama may be (and I'm not a big fan), he is a very good public speaker, and he's certainly no Reagan-style line-reader."

    I'm not sure where I suggested any of the negative about Obama that you've stated, nor how the resto of it constututes a "diservice." Saying he's better on hi feet that Palin may be a collosal UNDERSTANTEMENT, but it's still true, and still a GOOD THING. I'm sure that one of us is misunderstanding the other (or I mis-typed something and still don't see it) so, if you be so kind as to humpor me, please explain.

    As for the whole "projection" thing? The way I see it, the whole 'dime-store' psycho-babble thing, comes in if you try to explore WHY they do it. I don't really care WHY. (But in fact I know why: It serves their purpose and it's effective.) So there's really no deep-toughts type psycho-motivational stuff needed to explain the behavior. I get what your saying, but when I hear these people talk (Limbaugh, Beck, Palin, etc...) all I HEAR is PROJECTION. I hear them saying that the THE OTHER GUY is the one that possesses any/all of the flaws that they do. And when you then go to point it out - that they're the ones who are actually [whatever] - it's sounds like your the one who's saying "I know you are but what am I?" In effect THEY'RE the ones doing just that, they're just beating you to it, by doing it backwards. (And lying.) It also COULD BE a 'lack of self awareness,' but personally I see it as strategic dishonesty on the part of the talking heads and a lack of awareness on the part of the audience.

    Thanks for your comment, but please let me know about the whole disserivce thing. I AM a 'fan' of Obama, so if I did, I certainly did not intend to.

  3. You understood it--it's a disservice by way of being such an understatement. Obama is quicker on his feet that Palin or McCain, but so is the average 12-year-old. Obama is actually extraordinarily "quick on his feet," thoughtful and quite intelligent, if not showing much indication of being terribly learned in contemporary politics.

    The latter is at the heart of many of his chief failings, and it's why I'm definitely not a fan--he looks and acts like an amateur. Entire volumes will be written, in the future, about the opportunity he totally wasted in his first year. It wasn't just the first year he wasted in this, either; it's likely he's pretty much shot the rest of his administration in the head, as well.

    The bubble people who make up much of American conservatism's rank-and-file are the best trained faction in terms of doublethink the U.S. has ever seen. They can literally believe one thing one day and the opposite the next, and it never gives them a moment's pause. I suppose one could admire their "discipline," but that isn't the sort of discipline that is in any way admirable.

    You're entirely right about the conservative elite who lead them--they say and do what they say and do because they know they can get away with it. The audience to whom they're speaking have almost all of their critical thinking capabilities switched off. The audience is told Obama can't communicate without teleprompters, and no amount of evidence to the contrary will ever wring from them that view--the only thing that would ever change it would be a sufficient number of their elite (Limbaugh, Hannity, etc.) reversing course and saying the meme was nonsense.

    Sometimes, this works against the elite. For example, on the birther thing, from your original post. That phony "issue" divides the elite (people like Limbaugh push it, for example). Being so easily disproven, it has become a loud embarrassment to much of that elite, but it's still held as an article of faith by the rank-and-file because it perfectly dovetails with what they've been told by the elite about "liberals" and "Democrats." This was also the case with "death panels." ANY reasonable human being, upon hearing the allegation that the President of the United States was trying to institute panels of bureaucrats for the purpose of killing the elderly and infirm, would meet the very suggestion with laughter, find it ludicrous on its face. The conservatives believed it instantly, and that's directly reflective of what they've been taught to think about the left.

    The rank-and-file inside that bubble can push for a lobbyist-authored Republican health-care bill when it's about defeating Clinton's "socialist takeover of 1/6 of the U.S. economy," then angrily denounce that same plan when adopted by Obama as, again, a "socialist takeover of 1/6 of the U.S. economy." They can be solidly behind a spending freeze when it's a John McCain idea, then dead-set against it when Obama adopts it as his own. They see no disconnect when their Republican congressional representatives denounce the stimulus bill, vote against it, rant against it on Fox News, then return to their home states and districts and take credit for all the money the stimulus bill is bringing in. And so on. It's very clear that even if Obama suddenly adopted all-conservative-Republican politics, he'd still be denounced as a sub-human socialist. That's exactly what Clinton did, and exactly what happened to him as a consequence.

    Maybe we should try to lobby Obama to come out for continuing and expanding the U.S. occupation of Iraq--that would be the one way to get the conservatives to finally come out against it.

  4. For some reason, reading this right-wing crap, I am reminded of the movie Contact, and in particular the revelation that Jodie Foster's character, Ellie, has been groomed from birth to become a scientist...

    I am also reminded of the end of the movie (SPOILER ALERT), when her findings are blocked by a congressional committee...

    As the alien put it, as a species, we "are capable of such wonderful dreams and such horrible nightmares." I would classify the GOp propaganda as one such nightmare.

  5. nice take on this "terrific article" my first clue was "democrat party" another code from the wackjob right.the idea that obama has no substance is really laughable.george bush was pretty much an empty suit with last name recognition.i loved bill clintons comment when he was running against al gore.he said his campaign slogan should be "vote for me,my daddy was president" by the way did you see rush limbos comment that obama was like a third world president.my first thought was yea after 30 years of conservative ideas he pretty much is.i really cant believe people in this country are as stupid as they are.lonesome rhodes beck was crying about the hcr vote being held on sunday as an affront to god,when terry schiavo bullshit govt intervention vote was held on palm sunday.the last time i looked palm sunday was a pretty big day for christians.have these people ever heard of video recordings?everything these days is recorded.oh the stupidity!!!!!these people are the gift that keeps on giving,everyday its something amazingly stupid.sometimes i have to laugh,but its kind of scary.i mean people voted for numbnut bush a second time?i was glad to hear you were working more hours,michigan will come back in spite of conservative bullshit policy's.the bbc has a documentary on detroit,i saw the trailer it looked pretty good.anyway keep speaking the truth,i am riding shotgun with you bro. jm

  6. Classic - OK, we're in sync on this one. I get you. Next time I won't hold back so much. LOL.

    KK - Personally? I keep thinking about [Orwell's]1984. "Did you hear? They RAISED the chocolate ration!" (From 5 grams to 4 grams, in case you don't remember that one.) Scary thing? If it had been called 19NINETY4, it wouldn't have been all that far from the truth!

    Jonny - Yeah, it's amazing how much they bank on the intellectual sloth of their audience. And what's reallys sad is just how safe a bet that ends up being! And don't forget: MORE people voted for him the second time! Thank god for the LIBERAL MEDIA, huh?

    Thanks again for your comments.

  7. I think I have a renewed interest in reading 1984 now... of course the GOP try to make Obama sound like Animal Farm or Brazil...

  8. If you haven't read 1984, do it. It is THE major political book of the 20th century, and virtually a textbook on today's politics.

  9. KK, Classy,

    Agree completely on 1984, and also on Animal Farm. If you haven't read them recently, DO SO. Orwell wrote them as both a criticism and a WARNING, and yet our modern-day conservatives read them as if they were INSTRUCTION MANUALS. I'm almost surprised the haven't tried banning them yet. (Or have they just not succeded? I'm sure Texas will be the first.)

    Thanks for your comments. Enjoy your increased chocolate ration!

  10. Its like you learn my mind! You seem to grasp so much
    approximately this, like you wrote the book
    in it or something. I think that you can do with some p.
    c. to pressure the message home a bit, but instead of that,
    this is wonderful blog. An excellent read. I'll certainly be back.

    My web page best weightloss

  11. s6shqpy1f

    Here is my homepage :: electric toothbrush