Bush official: Obama shows 'intellectual laziness'

I'm not sold on Obama yet, but I know he is smarter and more ethical than Bush could ever be.

As to work ethic I get the feeling he has had to work harder in his life than bush ever did. Editor of Harvard Law Review isn't a job they hand out to people who make do with a "Gentleman's C."

What this shows is that the Republican party doesn't want to run against Obama, they want to run against Hillary. I don't blame them.

Also, isn't it classic GOP spin to attack your opponents for faults that they don't have and the GOP does? It kind of immunizes them from attack. Think John Kerry and Chickenhawk Bush and the Swift Boaters.

The GOP is terrified of Obama.

"Bush Official: Obama Shows 'Intellectual Laziness"?

Huh? compared to Republican Prez 29% every single one the Presidential candidates look like Albert Einstein.

The Wingnuts are afraid of Senator Obama and I'm loving it!

"BIG POPPY SPEAKS" THROW YOUR HANDS IN THE AIR OBAMA JUST DOESN'T CARE"

George Bush is throwing stones America. George Bush is playing the part of Karl Rove in hopes of starting a mouth fest between the two Presidential front runners.

I doubt that it works though, Bush was a C- Student at best, Obama has too much intellect to fall for 'LITTLE MAN SYNDROME" that George Bush suffers from.

Wow, BIG POPPY SPEAKS.

As for Obama... was "capable" of the intellectual rigor needed to win the presidency but instead relies too heavily on his easy charm.

"It's sort of like, 'that's all I need to get by,' which bespeaks sort of a condescending attitude towards the voters, and a laziness, an intellectual laziness."

I couldn't have said this better myself.

The irony of this source working for Bush does not lessen the cogency of this statement one bit.

The GOP is terrified of Obama.

Posted by: nisleib | September 24, 2007 1:12 PM

Why would they be terrified of somebody who will not win the nomination? Explain please.

Speaking of lazy, does taking extensive dictation from an unnamed White House official who sounds a lot like Dick Cheney qualify as working hard? Author Scammon brings us this wisdom through Regnery Publishing, which is an important conduit for handouts from the wingnut welfare state, and which publishes nothing but right-wing writers whose talents are insufficient for Harper Collins.

After trashing Obama, the hard-working reporter does not trouble to tell us what those foreign policy gaffes were, or why they were gaffes.

And Mr. James just repeats it all as though anonymous attacks coming from the White House are worth the intellectual effort to read them without laughing. Nice work.

Bushes thoughts about the next presidential election and the democratic candidates is so meaningless. He should spend more time on the real government issues like ending the war already.

I wish more candidates would express what they can do for America and not negative politicking.

The Republicans are definitely afraid of Obama and they should be because they've been stinking up DC for the past 6+ years and Americans are sick of it.

Senator Barack Obama has a distinct habit of sticking it to the man. Remember when he spoke to Detroit auto workers about higher fuel standards? While many candidates eagerly tell their base what they want to hear (imagine Romney being for choice before he was against it), Barack Obama has consistently told America what they need to hear. As he says himself:

Obama said in a recent interview with The Associated Press that he is determined not just to campaign by telling people what they want to hear, but to win support for an agenda for change.
Please appreciate it people, from what I can tell, only Obama and Edwards tell Americans the truth. Obama's latest confrontational policy after the fold.

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama told Wall Street investors Monday that several of them have been too focused on their own gain at the expense of struggling Americans and echoed Franklin Delano Roosevelt's call for a ''reappraisal of values.''
So begins the latest NYTimes discussion of Obama policy.

He said a ''what's good for me is good enough'' mentality has crept into parts of the business world while working men and women toil longer hours and still struggle to pay for health care, tuition and taxes.

''If we are honest, I think we must admit that those who have benefited from the new global marketplace -- and that includes almost everyone in this room -- have not always concerned themselves with the losers in this new economy,'' the Illinois senator said.

''The danger with this mentality isn't just that it offends our morals, it's that it endangers our markets,'' Obama said. He's talking to Wall Street (Republicans/Neocons). I wonder if they really want to hear what he has to say?

Obama blamed Wall Street for wasteful and unethical anti-market practices such as corporate boards that allow executives to set the price of stock options to guarantee they'll make money regardless of performance and CEOs who get massive severance packages or perks even when workers lose their jobs or pensions. But he also accused the Bush administration of approving mergers with little scrutiny and maintaining more than $1 trillion worth of corporate tax loopholes.
Wall Street may love the consolidation of corporate business into as few hands as possible, but the results have been offensive. Fox News fighting in court to prove that truth in news is just a policy, not a rule and "the Democrats are divided" meme are just a few examples the results of corporate media consolidation.

He used the subprime mortgage crisis as an example, saying it started as a good idea until some lenders and brokers began lowering their standards as they saw how much money could be made. It was tempting to look the other way, he said.

''The consequences are now clear: nearly 2.5 million homeowners could lose their homes'' and millions of others could see their homes devalued, Obama said.

Obama said markets need to be more open and transparent to keep the trust of investors and the public. He said that trust can be restored by federal action like:

-- New mortgage rules with tough penalties for lenders who trick homeowners into loans they can't afford;

-- An investigation of the relationship and business practices of rating agencies and their clients;

-- A five-star credit card rating system to inform consumers about the level of risk for their credit card, including how easily the company can change the interest rate;

-- A request that lenders show some flexibility to people trying to sell or refinance their homes.
Once again, Barack Obama goes into the belly of the beast and outlines not just problems, but solutions. No soundbites, just honesty. It is the reason why Barack Obama is one of two candidates I support for the nomination.

"The attribution by the White House official of laziness to Obama may also strike some as having a racial component. And it may in some way play off the stereotype of blacks being lazy though..."

So now Swamp disgustingly resorts to race-baiting in aid of their man.

The fact of the matter is the Bush official is probably right. I've been amazed at how little depth the senator has displayed on issues any candidate should be all over.

He's obviously smart. So although I personally have attributed his inability to say anything of substance to an arrogant disregard of voters, intellectual laziness (or some combination of the two) is not outside the realm of possibilities. And it doesn't strike me as racist to say so.

Wait, Bush and his administration is actually stating the gaffes made by Obama? In every single speech Bush makes, there is a gaffe. There are books out there about Bush's dumb speeches. How about when Bush called Australians Austrians a few weeks ago? He was in Australia! The President shouldn't throw stones at glass houses. Bush cannot speak to save his life. Bus is the worst President of all time.

I am no fan of GWB or his peeps but this person is 100% accurate. Just saying you are diff and the right person does not make it so.

Bush ? I thought The G in his name was for Gaffe.

Frankie, how exactly is stating that Obama is intellectually lazy, possibly racist? It's like when Joe Biden said Obama was articulate. You PC nuts thought that was racist.

Anyway, Nislieb please explain Obama's ethic greatness. Let's see, he's been in bed with indicted felon Tony Rezko. He's been in bed with the corrupt Illinois Democratic machine. He personally endorsed the ethically challenged Alexi Giannoulias. He also stood side-by-side with the corrupt the Pretend Crooked County Board president. Has Barack Obama ever made a comment all the invesigations and corruption by his party and its politicians in Illinois? Did he ever push any kind of ethics legislation while in Illinois? In DC? Obama says nice, sweet little soundbites, but that is about it.

Bush just got it good and he know he can or anyone in his camp can say anything they want, but it doesn't mean nothing!

Frank
Your implied "racism" charge is pretty bad.....even for you.

First Dubya takes a whack at Hillary & now Obama.

What's up here is Dubya is pathetically trying to be relevant in the '08 election.

His support continues to come from the 29% dead-enders. The dead-enders who would walk right off the cliff with him without ever looking down.

The Republican presidential candidates not wanting to join in the lemming march hardly ever utter his name and when they do it's with muffled derision. (Witness John McCain & Willard Romney's recent comments.)

No, let's be clear here. Dubya doesn't like being irrelevant and he doesn't mind getting more people killed so that doesn't happen.

We don't know if Obama got some of his opportunities in life, including admission to Harvard law, because he was African American or not. We'll likely never know. Far more people apply to Harvard Law than get in, and many excellent candidates are likely rejected, for a variety of reasons, including, probably, that they don't help that insitution meet affirmative action goals. That's more of a problem for minorities in our 21st century affirmative action society.
Minorities just don't know if they could have gotten some opportunities on their own. They'll never know.

Obama's problems are not that he is lazy. They are that he bit off more than he could chew. Despite all the gadzillions in donations from the golden
boys and girls of our society (and Oprah) and the wizardry of David Axelrod,
his significant gap with Hillary Clinton suggests that people just don't trust him with the country.
Too young, too new, too inexperienced in foreign affairs...too black doesn't enter into it. At the end of the day, our lives could be at stake in an increasingly volatile international environment.
We don't want to trust them to the novice Obama. And I write this as someone who
views Hillary as unprincipled, the Republican candidates as a bunch of losers, and John Edwards as a little too glib. And I'm strongly against the Iraq war. But that doesn't mean I'm not a little uneasy about our relationship with the Middle East and other volatile areas. So at the end of the day, I'll probably vote for Hill (and Bill). It's safer. So will a majority of voters.

John D

Tony Rezko - Sure, he did some deals with Rezko. Bush was hip deep in Ken Lay's money too, some of this is inevitable. Bush, however, imminent domained land for a baseball stadium then turned around and ran for governor of Texas on a anti imminent Domain platform. Of course the farmer they stole the land from sued, and won. And of course the accounting entity setup to do the deal was gone by then and the city of Arlington ended up paying the farmer...

Illinois Democratic Machine - Wow, an Illinois Democratic state legislator dealt with the Illinois Democtats? Who'd a guessed it?

I don't really know much about Alezi Giannoilias or the County Board President, but really, could it be worse than the freaks Bush takes money from? No, it can't.

Did he ever push any kind of ethics legislation while in Illinois? In DC? Yes John D, he did. He helped pass a far-reaching ethics and campaign finance bill in the Illinois state Senate and made the issue a priority on arriving in Washington. Much to the displeasure of his colleagues, Obama promoted an outside commission to handle Senate ethics complaints. He co-authored the lobbying reform bill awaiting President Bush's signature and pushed - again to the dismay of some colleagues - to include a provision requiring lawmakers to report the names of their lobbyist-bundlers.

Sorry John D, I'm not the biggest Obama fan but he is way more ethical than Bush (or Hillary) could ever hope to be.

Thanks to the Photo-op president and his talking- points and sound bites party for trying to help the Democrats out by letting them know that Obama is intellectually lazy.

Coming from the guys whose first response to Hurricane Katrina was to get their pictures taken with their shirtsleeves were rolled up, you know Bush admin staffers are qualified experts in laziness. They have proven time and again over the last six years that nobody knows nore about laziness and stupidity than the president and his staff.

Since they have also proven themselves to be compulsive liars, I doubt many Democrats will care much what they have to say about Obama.

John D can rant all he wants about Obama being somehow corrupt. The fact that he defends a President, and a party, that are utterly without moral authority shows his inability to disseminate fact from fiction.

The fact that a White House official criticizes Barack Obama as demonstrating "intellectual laziness" is utterly laughable. Better yet absurd. The Bush Whitehouse has brought disgrace to the American people. The Republican candidate in 2008, whoever it is, will pay for Bush's lies and irresponsibility. The American people will speak at the polls.

Vote Democrat in 2008.

The fact-challenged Frank James calling out somebody else for intellectual laziness? THAT'S irony.

Frank James is so intellectually lazy, not to mention intellectually dishonest, that he trots out the tired old "racism" canard to try and smear anyone who disagrees with his fantasies.

Helena, sorry to rain on your stereotypes, but Obama was Editor of the Harvard Law Review--the most prestigious gig at any law school. You get there by being the smartest person in the room, not by affirmative action, and the smartest people at Harvard Law are very smart indeed.

Obama is inexperienced in foreign affairs? No more so than Hillary, who you say you will vote for, unless sharing living quarters in the White House counts as experience. At least Obama is on the foreign relations committee.

But if you really want experience in foreign affairs, you have to consider Biden, chairman of said committee, and the only one who is trying to offer a real plan for withdrawal. If you watched MTP this week you know that your candidate has a long list of missions for the troops even after she's elected. Biden has a plan to get them out of there without leaving a worse bloodbath behind.

"Tony Rezko - Sure, he did some deals with Rezko. Bush was hip deep in Ken Lay's money too..."

"Illinois Democratic Machine..."

"...Alezi Giannoilias or the County Board President... could it be worse than the freaks Bush takes money from?"

...and so on and so on and...

Posted by: nisleib | September 24, 2007 3:28 PM

nisleib,

You and so many others are missing a very obvious point. The Obama-is-just-like-everybody-else defense is no defense at all. Admiting that he wallows (has always wallowed) in the same filth as every other politician -- while lamely proffering that gosh, other people are worse -- is an admission that his marketing campaign is a big lie. There is no reason for any sane, informed voter to accept his manure about "changing the way politics is done" -- not given his history.

So we have to put the sloganeering aside and look at his resume. It's thin. An (admittedly impressive) diploma but very little legislative history, and a losing campaign for congress against Bobby Rush.

Meanwhile his policy statements are by turns vague or disturbing (ask Pakisatn about that).

So there's no reason to hand him the presidency... fortunately the electorate agrees with me.

Helena,

Well said.

Anonymous

His resume is every bit as impressive as Hillary's and John Edward's.

Also, he could have taken a job on wall steet after college and made millions. He was editor of the Harvard Law Review, that usually means big money awaits. He didn't, he chose to try to make the world a better place.

Listen, I'm really not sold on Obama, but compared to the other candidates from both parties he doesn't look bad. The most experienced on the Dem side are Biden and Richardson, neither of whom stand a chance in the primary.

The Republican candidates are all pro war (except Ron Paul, who I like, but doesn't stand a chance in the GOP field.) Therfore unless the GOP candidate does 180 on their Iraq policy they won't win. That, I think, is why the media largely ignores them, they just don't matter.

And here is the rub, more experience doesn't always help. As a matter of fact more experience as a congeressman usually hurts candidates. Rember Bush going through Kerry's record and claiming that he had voted tax increases on nuns 77billion times while in congress (exageration, but not by much.)

Obama has at least tried to clean things up, in both Illinois and in DC. Nobody else in the current field even tried. We'll never find a perfectly clean politician, on either side of the aisle. Our system is not set up that way. I really liked McCain in 2000 because he at least gave lip service to campaign finance reform. Did I think McCain was clean, no, I knew about the Keating five. Who, besides Obama and Edwards is doing that now?

In the end, as long as it isn't Hillary or Mitt, I'll be happy.

The fact-challenged Frank James calling out somebody else for intellectual laziness? THAT'S irony.

Frank James is so intellectually lazy, not to mention intellectually dishonest, that he trots out the tired old "racism" canard to try and smear anyone who disagrees with his fantasies.

Posted by: Bruce | September 24, 2007 4:08 PM

Bruce this comment is comical coming from you. Bruce, The Swamp's minister of propaganda!!!

It doesn't really mattter what Bush's staffers think of Obama or any one of the other Democratic candidates. The Republican goal is to be negative about the opposing side since the Bush people have to find something wrong with their opposition to deflect from all the corruption perpetrated by the Bush people these past six years - remember Tom DeLay, Abrahamov, Rumsfeld, Gonzalez, Rove, etc. If the opposite of laziness is the likes of these Bushites, then I hope we do get someone who embodies the Republican idea of "laziness", because it is sure a lot more promising and safer than the "industrious" mischief of the current Bush administration and the shameful performance of his staff and supporters.

It doesn't really mattter what Bush's staffers think of Obama or any one of the other Democratic candidates. The Republican goal is to be negative about the opposing side since the Bush people have to find something wrong with their opposition to deflect from all the corruption perpetrated by the Bush people these past six years - remember Tom DeLay, Abrahamov, Rumsfeld, Gonzalez, Rove, etc. If the opposite of laziness is the likes of these Bushites, then I hope we do get someone who embodies the Republican idea of "laziness", because it is sure a lot more promising and safer than the "industrious" mischief of the current Bush administration and the shameful performance of his staff and supporters.

But he looks good in a swimsuit????

nisleib,

I think I can safely say that we agree on this: the whole field of wannabes is less than stellar. There isn't an FDR or Lincoln in the bunch.

"e don't know if Obama got some of his opportunities in life, including admission to Harvard law, because he was African American or not. We'll likely never know. Far more people apply to Harvard Law than get in, and many excellent candidates are likely rejected, for a variety of reasons, including, probably, that they don't help that insitution meet affirmative action goals."

Wow, give me a break. You just tried to downplay Senator Obama's achievements by suggesting he got where he is because of affirmative action. Folks like you allow keep the thought of racism(like the one in the article) alive.

Nisleib, John Edwards resume is very thin too. He was a do-nothing Senator who was going to lose re-election so he decided to run for prez and became a VP nominee. I also love how he lives high on the hog (something BC refuses to believe though), yet the hedge funds in he invests in and helps lead evicts poor people from New Orleans and New York. I guess Edwards does know something about two Americas.
Hillary's resume also is thin. Serving as a Coirupt First Lady and then six years as a do-nothing senator is no experience either.
All of the leading candidates for the Demoncraps are incompetent boobs who give a crap about the U.S.

It doesn't matter what the candidates are like as Bill Clinton is going to win.
Don't you remember how you (Republicans) got him on a silly sexy moment and made the country suffer for it? He wants his time again just like Junior wanted to get his dad's assasin Saddam.
Clinton will be president again I assure you all and his wife will cook him a nice dinner each night too.

[quote]
I also love how he lives high on the hog (something BC refuses to believe though)

Posted by: John D | September 24, 2007 8:21 PM
[/quote]

I "refuse to believe that he lives high on the hog? Really? GOT ANY PROOF, LIAR?

Didn't think so - as usual for John D "the Joseph Stalin of Streamwood".

At least Edwards has EARNED his wealth through pulling himself up his bootstraps from a modest beginning in life, as compared to pResident Doogie Howser, who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and has lived off daddy's friends and influence his whole life.

These Reps are scumbags. Rove's protege coin new terms everyday, ie, flip-flop. Now they added another buink to Obama, 'intellectual laziness'. What could be more laughable than Bush's gaffe everyday, ie, "Mandela is dead" ??

Republicans know they can attack Hilary than they can do it for Obama. Sure, Reps are playing psycho game with Dems.

Suggest you read, "Can a past of Islam change the path to president for Obama?"

http://www.examiner.com/a-534540~Can_a_past_of_Islam_change_the_path_to_president_for_Obama_.html

I simply cannot fanthom why Obama would even be considered for the presidency.