Has Obama Ever Taken Responsibility for Anything Bad Ever?

If it’s not Sebellius brazenly looking down her now ten foot long Pinocchio nose and declaring, “‘I would suggest the website has never crashed“, it’s Obama’s ridiculous attempt to somehow pin the disastrous rollout on Mitt Romney, which even Mediaite rolls its eyes at.  The president, who somehow was never apprised of the implosion of the rollout, nor kept in the loop as the NSA spied on everybody with a pulse–but who still insists on his godlike power to indefinitely detain and murder anybody he pleases–is the ne plus ultra in Baby Boomer wish fulfillment narcissism, where all credit for good accrues to him and all responsibility for bad is due to Mean People who threaten his self esteem.  Memo to my generation: you’re in your 50s.  Grow the hell up.

""We actually have it in our Constitution that you cannot have titles of royalty and ..."

Some thoughts on the Royal Wedding
"I think that people are always drawn to pagentry and beauty. The trick is getting ..."

Some thoughts on the Royal Wedding
"Meanwhile the darling of the pro-life movement, Neil Gorsuch, was key to a Supreme Court ..."

Bravo, Mr. Rowen!
"Without sneering at anyone, I can only regard this PR stunt with the cynical skepticism ..."

Every Chilean Bishop Submits His Resignation

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Stu

    Three more years of President Passerby.

    • Jackets

      He had a 2.6 GPA

      • Chesire11

        President Obama’s GPA’s are not matters of public records, and he (like other presidents before him) has not released the colleges he attended from their legal duty to maintain the confidentiality of his records. Suffice it to say, the man was accepted into Columbia University, Harvard Law School, served as president of the Harvard Law Review, and went on to teach Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago School of Law, one of the most prestigious (and incidentally a rather conservative) law schools in the country.

        Like him or hate him, you can’t seriously try to portray him as academically mediocre.

  • Elmwood

    If Sebellius really felt like she was responsible for the debacle of Obamacare, she would step down from her position. That’s what would happen in any organization that practiced accountability. But we know that in the government when you make big mistakes you get promoted.

    • Chesire11

      I agree. Sebelius needs to step down. Her incompetence has created a political situation that threatens the successful implementation of the ACA, and legitimizes any and every myth or rumor uttered against it,m regardless of veracity. The only way to right the ship is for her to step down.

    • Marthe Lépine

      There was a popular book about “management” published in the early 70’s (unfortunately I cannot remember the author’s name just now and I would not want to smear another author by trying to guess at it) that claimed that everybody gets promoted up to their level of incompetence. I guess she has reached it. If I remember well, the author claimed that as long as someone did a good job, they were eligible for promotion. Once they reached a point where they were no longer able to do well, they were no longer promoted, therefore they stayed at the level where they did not manage to do the job! I think he also claimed that this explained why there was so much incompetence in governments (but I am not certain that is exactly what he said).

      • Donna

        I think the book was “The Peter Principle”.

  • Chesire11

    He’s a politician. I’m not being snarky here, but politicians in a democracy avoid or deflect responsibility as a fundamental principle of survival. I cannot recall, of the top of my head, the last time a politician of any stripe took meaningful responsibility for anything (mea culpas absent penance don’t count – they are just a cynical attempt to spin a bad situation by pretending contrition), unless cornered like a rat in a trap.

    Ironically, the tide of faux criticism of Obama (i.e.: “birtherism”, as well as claims that Obama is a crypto-Muslim, a crypto-socialist, he is using the IRS to punish political opponents, the ACA establishes death panels, and all the other tin-foil hat looneyisms) discredits LEGITIMATE critics and criticisms, making it that much easier for him to avoid responsibility for his mistakes and failures.

    It is not a fawning press that’s giving awarding Obama the “no-hitter”, but republican batters who swing for the fences at pitches that are in the dirt.

    • Noah Doyle

      RE: “he is using the IRS to punish political opponents” as ‘tin-foil hat looneyism’

      You may want to read this:


      There’s plenty of archives. Take your time.

      • Chesire11

        No, actually he didn’t, and the whole thing was simply another instance of trying to take an event out of its context, exaggerate it ad ascribe it to the White House. The whole thing was discredited quite some time ago, which is why the issue died away so abruptly. If there really were any legitimacy to the accusations, don’t you think that the Congressional investigation would have led to an attempt to convene impeachment hearings, or at the very least, the naming of a special prosecutor? Yet nothing – not even the teabagger caucus has pushed for any follow through on the story. A rational person would have to conclude that either there is nothing to the allegations, or radical right wing Congressmen are giving Obama a colossal “Mulligan.”

        Of course, to those partisan political tribalists dogmatically committed to the profoundly un-Christian attitude of interpreting everything done by this president as the work of the anti-Christ, all that matters is accusation and correlation, however, tenuous. For them, the accusations have served their purposes, though discredited, they have reconfirmed a latent, visceral hatred of Obama, and really, isn’t that all that the American public looks for from the news – confirmation of what we already “felt?”

        Things like evidence, and objective truth are for suckers.

        • Noah Doyle

          Sexual slurs? Really? You stay classy, Chesire11.

          • Chesire11

            No, not sexual slurs…irony actually.

            I would remind you that the use of that term to refer to members of the “Tea Party” originated…with the teabaggers themselves. Their unwitting embrace of such an otherwise coarse epithet is so ironically illustrative of their spectacularly enthusiastic celebration and indeed embrace of ignorance that it is an entirely appropriate term of reference to them.

            It is the ironic self-selection of the label that I invoke. That the minds of others fly toward a more prurient interpretation is hardly an indictment of my own class or virtue.

            In the spirit of compromise, and comity, would you prefer if, in future, I refer to them instead as “Frank Burns’ slack jawed progeny?” I could at least try to alternate between the two…

            By the by, thanks awfully for conceding the substance of my comments. It was as generous a concession as it was inevitable. 🙂

            • SteveP

              Those who insist on using the term “teabagger” do so out of a deep sense of envy as they belong to the “Eunuchs for Obama” PAC.

              • Noah Doyle

                Come now, replying in kind to sexual slurs is hardly charitable.

                • SteveP

                  Two responses: it is a slur only if it is not true – c.f. the number of contemporary persons who self-sterilize chemically or mechanically or demand their lover do so. Juveniles are best fed their juvenilia; delaying maturation harms both the individual and the community.

                  • Chesire11

                    Ah, but I do not self-sterilize.

            • Noah Doyle

              The Tea Party chose to call themselves by a sexual slur? Really? Can you show me where they did such a thing? I must admit that the only people I’ve ever seen, heard or read using it are those who disagree with them, and not once have I heard, seen or read of a Tea Party member or similar using that slur to refer to themselves. Or – are you saying that they’re so dumb they didn’t understand when it was applied to them, and so embraced it? Either way, even knowing it’s a sexual slur, you continue to use it?

              You accuse people of ‘tin foil hat looneyism’, and I present that there may be rational, sober people who think that there is something to those suspicions, and you respond with sexual slurs. When confronted with that, you return with the same thing, hiding behind irony, and offer more insult in the ‘spirit of compromise and comity’. You assume that those who might disagree with you are un-Christian, which is profoundly ironic, given your attitude shown so far.

              As for concession – I have no particular position on the issues of the IRS, and thus have no position to concede.I do not know if your position is correct, or if those expressed in the link I posted are. Your assumption of ‘concession’ smacks of smarm and pride.

              I understand that, from your statements, you feel very strongly about this, and if I have given cause to bring you to wrath or pride, I apologize. Could you show me the evidence to back up your position?

              • Chesire11

                I have only a few minutes just now, as helping my daughter with her homework/projects is consuming most of my time and energy today, however, since you ask for evidence supporting my claim regarding the origin of the term “teabagger,” Jay Nordlinger at NRO gave a fairly decent account of its origins and susequent use…


                In any case, I embrace the use of the term for the reasons I gave previously, and am frankly uninterested in it as a sexual slur, or the rather juvenile wordplay engaged in by the media..

                I would also point out a rather salient difference between my dismissive reference to a political movement, that shamelessly, and uncritically gives its imprimatur to every slander it can imagine against a particular individual, without regard for the evidence for or against or even the basic credibility of the accusations, on the one hand, and my well founded dismissal of that movement as an exercise in oblivious imbecility, on the other. They engage in intentionally uncharitable behavior towards an individual; I attack no individual, but excoriate a movement which is unworthy of our democracy, or the proper dignity and intelligence of its citizens.

                It is not that I disagree with the teabaggers – though I most certainly do – there are very many with whom I have profound political, philosophical or religious differences, for whom I have deep respect, and with whom I enjoy mutually respectful, edifying conversation. I object to the historical ignorance, credulity, and visceral, personal, irrationality with which those ideas are formulated and expressed.

                God endowed man with reason; it is our duty to both God and country to exercise that reason and not usurp it with mindless emotionalism. The teabaggers, in the political arena, most assuredly do not.

                • Andy, Bad Person

                  I know you can’t possibly miss an opportunity to defend Obama and the Left on Mark’s blog, but you’re looking nuttier and nuttier with your defense of that slur.

                  • Chesire11

                    Care to discuss the HHS mandate with me? Or the current administration’s policy on abortion? How about The incompetent roll out of the ACA? Perhaps his hapless Syria policy? His reluctance to engage on the issue of the persecution of Christian minorities? The manner in which he has prosecuted the drone war against Al Qaeda? Maybe we could talk about school choice…

                    There are plenty of areas in which I disagree with the current administration. Unfortunately, they are being crowded out by more sensational stories that are about spinning the optics for political advantage than they are about substance. The lunatic fringe has chosen to consume all of the oxygen in the room with their deranged hatred of Obama, and pass on the real, substantive issues.

                    But I suppose, if you can’t play the ball, you play the man…

                • Noah Doyle

                  After reading Mr. Nordlinger’s article (which supports my assertion of the use of the word as a sexual slur more than it supports your assertion of the targets of the slur ‘owning’ it, which hardly changes the meaning and intent), and seeing your continued use of that slur, your protestations of ‘uninterest’ ring hollow and cheap. You may not be interested in the word as a sexual slur, but that is the common, accepted meaning, as Mr. Nordlinger noted. You know what it is, and you continue to use it.

                  • Chesire11

                    I don’t suggest for a moment that they wish to “own it” now that they realize its meaning. The point of linking to the article was to substantiate my assertion about the origins of the term in relation to members of the “Tea Party.”

                    I continue to use the term, because it is emblematic of the aggressive ignorance that characterizes their movement. Insofar as my use of the term references its slang meaning, it is only in that the debasement and perversion of a human faculty that is, in itself good, described in its colloquial usage metaphorically reflects the “Tea Party’s” relationship to human reason.”Corruptio optimi pessima,” doncha know.

            • Noah Doyle

              On consideration, while I will not remove what I said before (below) – I will not hide my words – in the spirit of amity (with which I struggle, some days), let me render it down to this: I think you do yourself and your position a disservice by using sexual slurs, whatever their origin, to refer to people with whom you disagree, no matter how vehemently. I am not stating that your assertions are wrong – I am somewhat ignorant of the whole debacle, but from my experience of the past 5+ (really, let’s make it…20+) years, I have little reason to trust the President (and admittedly, especially this one). Or Congress. Or the Supreme Court. Or much of the news media. What I do present is that there are people who do disagree with you, and appear to do so in a sober, rational manner. Please, do not dismiss that out of hand, but take it into consideration, and present to me your evidence – could you show me where it was discredited?

              And if my last paragraphs read as passive-aggressive, or other somesuch dodge, please accept my apologies for that as well.

              • Chesire11

                Incidentally, I agree that there are a great number of people who disagree with me in sober rational manner, and I welcome that disagreement enthusiastically – I learn far more from the people with whom I disagree than I do from those whose views closely resemble my own. At the very least, they challenge me, and force me to confront the weaknesses in my own position.

                Unfortunately, teabaggers are neither sober, nor are they rational. I will, however, grant that they ARE terribly sincere.

        • The Deuce

          Intellectual dishonesty, thy name is Cheshire11.

  • ganganelli

    Just the latest example of how cynical our politics has become. While the President shares his part of the blame, it is revolting to see Republicans with their crocodile tears when they have absolutely no plan to address the millions of people in this country without access to decent health care.

    Oh and by the way, food stamps are being cut today. Way to go, America.

  • orlando buch

    Obama is the worst president in my lifetime. As someone who fled Cuba at the age of 7 in 1961, I can tell you for socialists and Marxists, lying is part of the game of taking over power from the people.

  • Eve Fisher

    I don’t know if he has or not, but Dick Cheney certainly hasn’t. He’s promoting more war (Iran and Syria, obviously), and defending the invasion of Iraq (we were right to go there because we proved there were no WMD!) with both fists flying all over the media. Any comment on that?

    • chezami

      Anybody familiar with my blog knows I consider Dick Cheney an odious man, as well as a self-serving coward. And yes, I condemn his war-mongering. But do be aware that it is Obama that is Commander in Chief and is the one now responsible if we plunge into another stupid war in Syria or Iran.