Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Obama’s Middle Eastern “manhood problem”

Obama’s Middle Eastern “manhood problem”

No one jumped to Obama’s defense when the charge was made

David Brooks’ questioned whether Obama has a “manhood problem” in the Middle East.

Note the reaction Chuck Todd. Not even a head shake of disagreement. Neither David Gregory nor the other panelists jumped to Obama’s defense.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


I’d like to know why he put it in such terms. Surely he knows the definitions of the nonsexist alternative words such as “credibility” and “resolve.” Perhaps he thinks an effective foreign policy is written with a penis?

    Henry Hawkins in reply to Valerie. | April 20, 2014 at 7:04 pm

    Perhaps he realizes that in much of the Middle East effective foreign policy sort of is written with one’s penis.

    It may be that Todd and Gregory’s failure to jump to Obama’s defense was because they saw Brook’s assertion as an indictment of Middle Eastern machismo, not of Bunky’s lack thereof.

    wyntre in reply to Valerie. | April 20, 2014 at 7:39 pm

    ‘I’d like to know why he put it in such terms.’

    Because he’s a leftie loonie lib who thinks political correctness is for thee and not for he.

    Because he’s an arrogant self-satisfied elitist who worries more about perfect “creases in one’s pants” rather than sound domestic and foreign policy.

    Listening to David Gregory, Chuck Todd and David Brooks talk about “manhood” is like hearing the Little Sisters of the poor speak of prostitution.

    They are textbook examples of metrosexual gender-neutralized manlessness.

    I hope Vlad sees that clip. I’m sure it will make his day,

    Estragon in reply to Valerie. | April 20, 2014 at 8:06 pm

    Maybe because the last woman who had a clue about foreign policy was Jeane Kirkpatrick?

    tom swift in reply to Valerie. | April 20, 2014 at 10:07 pm

    Perhaps he thinks an effective foreign policy is written with a penis?

    Well, where do you think useful foreign policy comes from?

    redc1c4 in reply to Valerie. | April 21, 2014 at 12:49 am

    because that term is descriptive, accurate and easy to understand?

    as well as for the fact that, especially in the Arab/Moose Slime world, diplomacy is very much based upon perceptions of strength or weakness.

    in the Arab world, they will always choose a strong horse over a weak one, and, lets be honest, Obumbles is a Shetland Pony type of horse.,_Politics,_and_the_Clash_of_Arab_Civilizations

      Kepha H in reply to redc1c4. | April 21, 2014 at 9:28 pm

      You forgot that not only is the O a Shetland pony, but one with a leg missing as well–to say nothing of being a gelding.

    Sanddog in reply to Valerie. | April 21, 2014 at 2:24 am

    credibility and resolve? The hell with that. I’d settle for decisiveness but President Candy @ss can’t even manage that.

    Oops… how sexist of me.

Odd that Gregory and Todd did not leap to Obama’s defense.

These two have been among the most obsequious little toadies in the entire fawning mainstream media. They have licked Obama’s boots from the beginning, dismissed his lies, covered up his scandals, and generally pretended he hasn’t been a complete failure at everything except for taking expensive vacations and throwing lavish parties.

Perhaps it is a signal of the official Lame Duck Period, which once upon a time began at the election of a successor but has trended earlier in recent decades. Now it’s okay to sit by and let someone criticize Obama without responding with a visceral attack on the credibility and motives of the source.

The worst President ever may yet be exposed in the media by the time he leaves office. But they will do it only in great pain.

The Times of London has this headline:
US ready to target Russian president’s hidden $40bn stash

… so is somebody going to tell me that the CIA missed $40 billion in Swiss bank accounts tied to Putin when they were looking for possible sanctions in rounds I & II ?

Obama’s rhetoric problem isn’t Low T. It’s that when he’s speaking (red lines … keep doctor … shovel-ready … illegals not insured … not a smidgen … most transparent … never heard Wright … Benghazi video … etc.) he’s lying.

He’s got a manhood problem here at home. Mom Jeans, anyone?

Agree, it is a problem of effective leadership not a lack of “manhood”. It was a lazy shorthand of the panelists to define it as such. Also in the clip, it is stated that “no one disagrees with Obama’s policies, just with his rhetoric” which is simply not true. The lack of leadership arises directly from the administration’s policies and actions. The empty rhetoric doesn’t help.

Mr. Obama has concluded that even if there is a resolution to the current standoff over Crimea and eastern Ukraine, he will never have a constructive relationship with Mr. Putin, aides said. As a result, Mr. Obama will spend his final two and a half years in office trying to minimize the disruption Mr. Putin can cause, preserve whatever marginal cooperation can be saved and otherwise ignore the master of the Kremlin in favor of other foreign policy areas where progress remains possible.

… notice that this sounds so much like a story that started with “I Won”

    2nd Ammendment Mother in reply to Neo. | April 21, 2014 at 11:38 am

    Still would like to know what was meant when Putin was told that Obama would be more flexible after he was re-elected….. must be that no one would actually expect him to block Putin’s expansion plans…. One doesn’t merely occupy neighboring countries without having a plan.

Captain Keogh | April 21, 2014 at 10:47 am

In 2008 the ever mundane and droll David Brooks was admiring the crease in Obama’s pants. Brooks (amongst others) is part of the problem, a sycophant and a guy who thinks because he writes for The New York Times he has special virtue and insight into the problems of the world.