0bama’s intellectual shallowness


DON’T KNOW MUCH ABOUT HISTORY: Obama: “Texas has always been a pretty Republican state, for, you know, historic reasons.”

Apparently, when Obama taught Constitutional Law he never got around to teaching the Texas White (Democratic) Primary cases. Or talking about which side was which in the Civil War . . . .

Updated to make clear to people who don’t click the link that it was the Texas Democrats who excluded black voters (and Mexican-Americans) from their primaries (and then dodged further with the Jaybird Democratic Association when the courts struck down the White Primaries). This is a major set of cases under state action, and I’m surprised that Obama is unfamiliar with this history. I wonder what he covered in his Constitutional Law classes?

Remember, guys, this clown was sold to us as an “intellectual” unlike the “stupid” Bush. His followers even claimed he was a constitutional law professor at U. of Chicago, when in fact he was a mere adjunct lecturer and never had regular faculty status. (This is not surprising in light of an essentially nonexistent scholarly publication list.) The blogprof has more on 0bama’s academic (non)career, and Doug Ross claims to have gotten off-the-record comments from a senior law prof at U. of Chicago that put 0bama’s time there in an unflattering light to say the least.

But I leave the last word to Powerline:

Barack Obama is a creature of the modern university and therefore an amazingly shallow man. I have written about his historical howlers in the New York Post column “Anti-terror oops,” in the Weekly Standard column “The Kennedy-Khrushchev conference for dummies,” and in the Power Line post “Obama veers into the Daily Ditch.”

Obama’s historical ignorance could be a full time beat for somebody who does this work for a living, and it tells us something truly important about Barack Obama. His ignorance is as broad as it is deep. Not that you couldn’t deduce that on your own from his performance on the job.

Yesterday he was at it again, in his peevish interview with the feisty local broadcast reporter from Texas. Why are you so unpopular in Texas? the reporter asked. Obama being Obama, he was unable to laugh off the question and say he’d do better next time around. Obama responded: “Texas has always been a pretty Republican state, for, you know, historic reasons.”

Has the guy ever heard of LBJ? You know, the fellow who first brought us socialized medicine? Has he ever read a single volume of Robert Caro’s monumental biography of LBJ? It’s hard to miss the extent to which the Democratic Party dominated Texas politics for the duration of LBJ’s (long) political career.

Obama majored in political science at Columbia. Did he miss the fact that Texas was part of the solidly Democratic South — the slaveholding, segregated, Jim Crow South — more or less from statehood in 1845 until Nixon’s 1972 landslide?

Did Obama skip class the day he might have learned that in the the postbellum South, including Texas, the Republican Party was virtually nonexistent? Apparently so. Or maybe he was just deploying his skills as a bs artist to deflect a question that could not be reconciled with his self-worship.

JOHN adds: I’ve concluded that Obama isn’t a smart person. He just plays one on television.


Tea Party, Charles Coughlin, and “Social Justice”

James Taranto’s Best of the Web (link to latest edition available) always eminently worthwhile, has a few items today that I cannot resist commenting on.

AOL News reports that House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer is backing away from a USA Today op-ed he penned with his boss, Nancy Pelosi, last August (which we criticized at the time):

Hoyer said [yesterday] that he regretted calling vocal opponents of health care reform “un-American” but compared the angry rhetoric of some Republican leaders who goad them on to the fiery rantings of a controversial Depression-era priest sympathetic to the Nazis.

Hoyer just got carried away and misspoke. He doesn’t think you’re un-American. He’s the first to acknowledge you’re as patriotic as any red-blooded Nazi-sympathizing priest!

The priest in question is, of course, none other than the infamous Father Charles E. Coughlin. Coughlin’s radio show, at its peak, reached an audience of as many as 40 million listeners — in the age before television, he was truly a mass media phenomenon.

However, Steny Hoyer might want to be careful with trying to paint him as the Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh of his age:

  • Coughlin started out his career as an enthusiastic New Deal supporter, before throwing his weight behind Huey Long. His disagreements with FDR had nothing to do with distaste for intrusive government or belief in laissez-passser capitalism — quite the reverse.
  • his main slogan, and the title of his newspaper, was, get this: “Social Justice”.
  • Coughlin was a virulent antisemite by any definition of the word. While antisemitism is today a marginal phenomenon in the Conservative movement (to the point that even L. Ron Luap’s son, Rand Paul, feels compelled to repudiate his father’s crackpot ideas on Israel), it has sadly become — fashionably disguised as “anti-Zionism” and Third-Worldism — at the very least respectable on the liberal left. [I hasten to point out that Steny Hoyer himself, whatever his faults, is a vociferous supporter of Israel.]
  • Coughlin was on the other side“anti-war”. Enough said.
  • In sum, Coughlin would find more in common with today’s Loony Liberal Left than with your average Tea Party demonstrator.

Claiming Charles Coughlin and the modern Tea Party movement have anything in common is like saying Jack Russell Terriers and Great Danes are very similar, since they both bark as well as have four legs, two ears, and a tail.