Smitty over at R.S. McCain’s blog asks “What if he really wants to be impeached?”
I submit that the continued provocations such as the KSM trial, the obsession with the previous administration, the wrenching changes from spendthrift to fiscal hawk could, if he’s a committed con man, be deliberate provocations towards impeachment.
I’m throwing out the idea that the ultimate Blame America piece will be when, pushed beyond all tolerance, there is a serious demand for impeachment. The con has reaped all of the desired financial rewards, and needs to exit the stage before the bankruptcy of the domestic policy meets the bankruptcy of the foreign policy somewhere around his head. The shiny factor of being POTUS is all drained away, leaving more disgruntled voters than W ever faced.
This is a bizarre possibility. I’d laugh at it, if not for the series of bizarre incidents that form 2009.
Jimmie Bise at the Sundries Shack says:
the trial does give the President a chance to make the pouty lip about the sins of America, which the world could love if only she’d throw off the bleak cloak of Bushism, while promising that he’ll put everything. But that’s his go-to and I’m pretty sure that’s he’s practiced that routine enough to do it whether KSM is standing tall before a judge in Manhattan or a military tribunal in Gitmo.
Shannon Love over at Chicago Boyz says:
For over two hundred years we were careful to keep a firewall between civil and martial law. We did so because civil and martial law are polar opposites. Civil law is focused on protecting the rights of the accused against the overwhelming power of the state. When there is doubt, the accused walks free. Martial law is focused on imposing a minimal order on bloody chaos. It was focused on allowing the military to complete its mission and win wars. When there is doubt, the accused is presumed guilty.
Now, Obama wants to bring martial law into a civil court room in Manhattan. In order to let a civil conviction of KSM stand, the higher courts will have to overturn almost all the current constitutional protections of the accused.
The Neo-Neo Con Says:
…Obama has some of the qualities of the best con artists. That’s not to say that Obama is literally a con man; he’s not pulling the old Spanish Prisoner scam. But he shares more than a few of their attributes.
Obama held himself out to be one thing during the election (a bipartisan moderate), and on taking office became quite the opposite. Cons, like Obama, are ordinarily out to deceive people as to their true purposes. But it’s an error to think they come across as sleazy. The most effective ones are unusually likeable and charming, even as they pull off their scams. This likeability is not a tangential characteristic of con artists, either; it is a central one.
“Con”, after all, is short for “confidence”. The con artist works by gaining the victim’s confidence and trust. The successful con artist is so very likeable, in fact, that he seems especially credible, and people who might otherwise be wary and cynical drop their guard around him. They don’t examine him too closely, so great is their desire to believe.
Contradictions are waved away. Acts that would arouse suspicion if they were committed by someone else are excused. Important omissions go unnoticed. Inconsistencies are rationalized. Shady company is defended or ignored. Sound familiar?
The con artist is able to gain trust by using the right vocal inflections to fit the mark (or, in Obama’s case, the audience), changing accents and speech patterns to match. In addition, a con doesn’t usually stay in one place very long (it has been remarked how often Obama changed jobs) because, although people may not catch on to his game all that quickly, he is afraid that if he sticks around they eventually will.