With so many reports coming out of the White House that President Obama views Mitt Romney with “disdain,” let’s assume they’re true. Now let’s ask why the president has such contempt for his opponent.
The first explanation came in a book in August, where Glenn Thrush wrote that as the 2012 campaign approached, Obama “quickly developed a genuine disdain” for Romney.
“There was a baseline of respect for John McCain. The president always thought he was an honorable man and a war hero,” an Obama adviser told Thrush. “That doesn’t hold true for Romney. He was no goddamned war hero.”
So Obama looks down on Romney because Mitt was never captured by the enemy and tortured? That’s weird, given that Obama himself never served in the military, though he did famously complain that working in a private business was like being “behind enemy lines.” I guess you had to be there to appreciate his pain.
Another explanation came the other day, when The New York Times included the president’s contempt for Romney in a litany of excuses for Obama’s debate flop.
“Mr. Obama does not like debates to begin with, aides have long said, viewing them as media-driven gamesmanship,” the Times wrote. “Mr. Obama made clear to advisers that he was not happy about debating Mr. Romney, whom he views with disdain.”
So the president doesn’t like debates, and especially doesn’t like debating Romney because of Obama’s “disdain.” This is more circular than enlightening, and begs the question of why.
Why does Obama hate Romney?
Here’s my view: the president has been totally corrupted by power. His already excessive self-regard has grown out of control thanks to an entourage of yes men, a fawning press and the presidential bubble. He actually believes in the messianic cult of the “black Jesus” that surrounds him, and has a Nobel Prize to authenticate his personal exceptionalism.
The result is that Obama is no longer capable of dealing with ordinary disagreement and difference. He can only demonize it as unworthy and illegitimate. Honest disagreements are beneath him. Thus, Romney is a “liar.”
We the people disappoint him, too. His desire for “more flexibility” reflects a desire to be freed from our messy democracy, as did his comment that it would be easier to be president of China. The Constitution, he complained, is too limiting, signaling he doesn’t like the Founders’ whole point of limited government.
Another sign of irritation is his constant boasting and use of the word “I.” This is more than a bad habit. Whether from deep insecurity or narcissism, or both, he views his election as a blank check for power that he constantly tries to cash. Think czars and end runs around Congress, along with a public scolding of the Supreme Court.
Tellingly, he rejected Republican suggestions over the stimulus with a conversation-stopper: “I won.” And his decision to leak the details of how he personally decides who will live and die during drone attacks reeks of madness. The program put him as close to absolute power as a man can get, but instead of humility, he pounds his chest.
These are not stray episodes. His politics are intensely psychological and the key to his governing. People who have met with him report that he doesn’t listen or engage in substantive conversations. His ideas are immutable to facts or fresh thinking. “A stubborn worldview” is how one Democrat described it.
Romney, in so many ways, embodies Obama’s worst nightmare. His life story explodes Obama’s crude assumptions of the wealthy, which is essentially that behind every great fortune lies a great crime. Romney did build his fortune.
Romney also has the nerve to challenge the president’s statist philosophy. By attacking dependency and government power, and promoting individual opportunity and capitalism, Romney might as well be arguing that the world is flat.
Even more offensive, the election is close, and the would-be usurper thrashed him one-on-one. This means war.
Therein rests the truth of Obama’s disdain. It’s not really personal, it’s business. It is the business of a king clinging to power, for the simplest, most human reason of all.
As Mel Brooks said, “It’s good to be the king.”
NYC has fine time ripping us off
It wasn’t always a compliment when, during the days of John Lindsay, New York was dubbed “Fun City.” The way the Bloomberg years are going, “Rip-off City” might stick, and that will never be said in praise.
Hardly a day goes by without a report of a city agency slapping a financial penalty on a business or resident that is widely out of proportion to the alleged offense.
One day, it’s a restaurant fined thousands of dollars for a missing sign; the next, it’s a vendor whose cart is an inch too big.
Now comes a report that some intersections with red-light cameras have faster yellow lights than others, with the result that cameras unfairly capture more motorists running the red. The report, from AAA and carried in The Post, accuses the city of rigging the system for the $50 fine it collects from every “guilty” driver.
Mayor Bloomberg casually dismissed the report, but a better answer would be to recognize how onerous the fine system has become and rationalize enforcement.
Some candidates for mayor, including Council Speaker Christine Quinn and Public Advocate Bill de Blasio, are ahead of Bloomberg, saying the fines are all about raising revenue and are back-door tax hikes.
They’re probably right in many cases, but they have yet to take the logical next step. To wit, the city needs every penny it collects from the fines, and then some, because of programs they help put in the budget.
Quinn and de Blasio can’t have it both ways. If they want to cut the rip-offs, they must cut spending. Only then can they remove the tax-and-fine yoke from the backs of New Yorkers.
Let the bidding begin.
Now watch ’em take a hike!
The idea of a legislative pay raise in Albany is preposterous, given the level of corruption and the “bonuses” handed out like candy for leadership roles. Yet now that Gov. Cuomo says he won’t support raises until we “get to Election Day and see who wins,” it is only right that all the candidates tell voters where they stand before Nov. 6.
Here’s the question they should answer: “Do you believe you deserve a pay hike, and would you accept one if elected?”
Watch ’em squirm.
Oh, just picture it
Reader Harold Theurer mocks the paradox in a requirement for high-school students taking SAT exams.
“In an effort to suppress test taker turnout, the College Board is requiring seniors to show photo ID.”
Quick, get Eric Holder on the case.
Add a cup of Sesame
All this talk about getting rid of Big Bird, but does anybody know what kind of bird he is? I ask because otherwise, it’s impossible to find the best recipe.