Hugo Chavez, Raul Castro, and Vlad Putin all favor President Obama over challenger Mitt Romney.
The explanation for this is simple (and it goes beyond the normal birds-of-a-feather thing): the President makes them all feel less inferior about who they are and how they’ve performed.
(Disclaimer: no socialists were harmed in the forming of this hypothesis.)
The final presidential debate review may be framed accordingly: Obama will want to be judged on his foreign policy intentions; Romney will want voters to judge Obama on his foreign policy actions.
As with arms control (and government intervention, writ large), the problem with the Obama Administration isn’t that it hasn’t been given a chance to succeed; it’s that its success, like tomorrow, is always only a day away.
The Romney theme will be that America needs new leadership because the cost of the status quo is greater than the risk of change. The President—apparently both writing and believing his own press releases—said he’d restore America from the grinding foreign policy failures of George W. Bush. The reality is America’s position in the world is the lowest it’s been since the Civil War.
As Winston Churchill might have suggested, Obama has confused disarmament with peace. When we have peace, disarmament will follow. And to paraphrase Curtis LeMay, when you kill enough terrorists, they’ll stop fighting (and even the President knows this at some level, hence the ongoing drone wars). The lesson of history is that peace ends in war and war ends in peace.
Finally, the left’s pillow-biting media will remain incapable of understanding the difference between a man who sheds light and one who lights fires. The Barack Obama experience has been a fool’s errand and Americans have played the fool.
Things to do in Denver when you’re brain dead is a description of Mr. Obama’s debate performance a week ago.
And tonight it’s up to Joe Biden to put things right.
Who says God doesn’t have a sense of humor?
Appearing before a modest crowd at a $50,000 per plate fund raiser at the Aspen mansion of Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein, President Obama departed from his prepared remarks as he seemed to try to get inside the mind of his audience, mainly California über liberals, a state essential to his re-election hopes, with a dose of socialism and a dollop of dime-store psychology.
“You go into these smaller studios in Hollywood and, like a lot of the non-profit enclaves around Manhattan, Berkeley, Ann Arbor, and Boulder, and the jobs have been gone now for four years with nothing but a small amount of stimulus money, less than a billion, to replace them,” Mr. Obama said. “And somehow some people think these important efforts are gonna regenerate without government investment and they’re not. And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to their PBS and their paganism or show antipathy to people who aren’t like them and have anti-Texas or anti-capitalism sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
As the applause died down, even among these deep-blue partisans, Mr. Obama’s comments were endorsed as a reasonable and moderate distancing from those voters who don’t hold positive views on PBS, or paganism, or are somehow guilty of Mr. Obama’s pending Executive Order on thought crimes. Mr. Obama made it clear he endorsed these “bitter, clinging, left behinders” as justifiably angry and that he would address their complaints in his second term instead of, as he said, “leaving them behind to cling for themselves.”
After many of the guests had departed via their Gulfstream IVs for the ride home, aides explained VP Joe Biden would be expected to further clarify Mr. Obama’s remarks at tomorrow’s vice presidential debate in Danville, Kentucky.
Why has Bill Clinton become the face of President Obama’s re-election efforts?
It’s a simple case of distraction. Economic distraction. Barry’s surrogates are needed stat.
Next, in an attempt to mitigate the non-success of the Arab Spring, expect Hillary Clinton to become the face of Obama’s foreign policy efforts and for Barry to distance himself from his own Administration.
The first lesson: speeches (and policies) have consequences.
The second lesson: desperate acts for desperate presidents.
Finally, maybe Chelsea Clinton is available as a temporary Administration/campaign overhire?
Why isn’t the President down double digits in his re-election bid? After all, his record is horrible and his “accomplishments” have been poorly received by the American people.
First, there’s his base. In their hearts, Obama’s base knows the President has been a failure but they’ve invested so much emotional capital in the man they just can’t let go. It’s a losing internal game of double or nothing with the nation down $16 trillion-plus.
Next, there’s guilt, and specifically, white guilt; basically this is the antithesis of the theory offered by public intellectual Alec Baldwin.
Finally, there’s desensitization and blame: Obama, Obama surrogates, and the traditional media want you to believe this is the new American normal and that it isn’t the President’s fault.
Will these be enough to give Obama another term? Doubtful.
These factors have little staying power: the base will become increasingly discouraged by reality (this is a campaign that now runs on negative emotional energy and that’s seldom enough to carry the day); while Baldwin and others like him may indeed feel guilty for receiving rewards far disconnected from their value to society, most Americans recognize Hollywood-types (writ large) as the ignorant tools they are and instead vote their checkbooks and morals; few take the Administration at face value—how could they?—and fewer still believe the traditional (one-party) media.
And now a word on household income from Peter Ferrera, himself quoting the WSJ:
“For household income… the Obama recovery has been worse than the Bush recession.”
But, but, but… that’s impossible! It’s Bush’s fault! Pants on fire! Four Pinocchios!
No, it’s factual. From Ferrera:
Even if you start from when the recession ended in June, 2009, the decline since then has been greater than it was during the recession. Three years into the Obama recovery, median family income had declined nearly 5% by June, 2012 as compared to June, 2009. That is nearly twice the decline of 2.6% that occurred during the recession from December, 2007 until June, 2009.
Accordingly, Barry Oh! and his surrogates need to pull a manmade global warming and hide the decline. But what’s the real damage, Officer Ferrara?
In January, 2009, the month he entered office, median household income was $54,983. By June, 2012, it had spiraled down to $50,964. That’s a loss of $4,019 per family, the equivalent of losing a little less than one month’s income a year, every year.
Well, certainly the President and his Dems have improved the position of the poor?
Now The Huffington Post reports that the poverty rate is on track to rise to the highest level since 1965, before the War on Poverty began… [and] a consensus survey of experts across the political spectrum indicates the poverty rate could soar from the current 15.1% to as high as 15.7%.
So in summary: debt up massively. Unemployment up massively. Household income down significantly. Poverty up significantly. If only we’d had an empty chair like in the Eastwood skit, things wouldn’t be this bad. Instead we have an empty suit with initiative.
And to borrow an old line made modern by Obamanomics, Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how’d you like the play?
Obama 2012: fool us twice, shame on us.
The Obama campaign has its tail between its legs—another ethical fail—as the President’s super-PAC has created an anti-Romney ad based on a foundation of lies and mendacity.
Lies and mendacity are useful in attempting to have Obama’s record examined, but are they forms of protected speech?
The revelation drew an immediate rebuke from Romney campaign spokesman Ryan Williams, who said Obama and his campaign “are willing to say and do anything to hide the president’s disappointing record.”
“But they’re not entitled to repeatedly mislead voters,” he said.
Desperate ads for desperate campaigns.
President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign warned supporters in an email plea for cash on Monday that Mitt Romney’s vast fundraising edge means “we’re in trouble” with scarcely three months to go before Election Day.
“We got beat three months in a row,” the campaign said in the unsigned message. “If we don’t step it up, we’re in trouble.”
Does this mean the Barry Oh! campaign is facing reality? If so, someone in the campaign may want to let the President know: he’s almost certainly still in bubble-world and thinking big thoughts like “you didn’t build that.”
Additionally, it’s only a matter of time before the Administration has its fairness czars at the Justice Department and the IRS investigate Romney donors (oh wait, it’s already begun), supporters, and if they can figure out how, voters.
A desperate campaign will do desperate things. Just ask Harry Reid.
Barry Oh! is so hurting he’s using Harry Reid as a surrogate to attack Mitt Romney.
In a Huffington Post interview published Tuesday, the leading Democrat said that an unnamed investor with Bain Capital, Romney’s former private equity firm, told Reid in a phone conversation that Romney had not paid taxes for a decade.
As if the unnamed investor would have access to Romney’s tax returns. For a decade. Maybe the unnamed investor could instead lead Geraldo Rivera to Barry’s transcripts, college applications, LSATs, and ACT/SAT scores which are said to be sealed in the IRS wing of Al Capone’s vault.
And what, Dennis Kucinich, Barney Frank, and Nancy Pelosi weren’t available for Obama surrogacy so he had to go with B-teamer Reid?
Obama 2012: desperate acts for desperate men.
Kathleen Parker, a Washington Post-It house conservative, makes the point the Obama campaign has reached an all-time low:
When it comes to over-the-top politics, the Obama campaign has set a new standard with recent attempts to paint Mitt Romney as a felon.
This clever and utterly false allegation was advanced more than once by Stephanie Cutter, President Obama’s deputy campaign manager.
But what’s the conclusion Parker gives her piece on the bogus Obama smear, perpetrated in no small part by the aforementioned Cutter?
It’s a shame that Cutter, a smart, talented woman, was drafted for such a dastardly role. Negative ads are one thing; slander is quite another.
Drafted? Drafted?! Where’s the evidence of drafted? Cutter is Obama’s deputy campaign manager and this is politics: it’s an all-volunteer force.
So in summary, if I have Parker’s characterization correct, Cutter is an over-the-top Obama campaign mercenary who will apparently say and do anything in order to get her boss reelected. But yet at the end of the day, she’s smart and talented.
Kathleen, this sort of disconnect makes you unserious.
It seems there’s a new Batman movie set for release and its arch-villain is a character named Bane. It also seems there’s going to be an election in November.
From the Washington Examiner:
“It has been observed that movies can reflect the national mood,” said Democratic advisor and former Clinton aide Christopher Lehane. “Whether it is spelled Bain and being put out by the Obama campaign or Bane and being out by Hollywood, the narratives are similar: a highly intelligent villain with offshore interests and a past both are seeking to cover up who had a powerful father and is set on pillaging society,” he added.
Unless Romney stumbles badly between now and election day, expect him to squish Obama like a grape (and in another Dark Knight tie-in, for the Barry Oh! myth to end).
When the Obama operatives are reduced to saying the character Bane is a metaphor for Mitt Romney—totally contrary to the actual storyline, by the way—they’re signaling intellectual surrender.
The President’s apologists are in full denial regarding his “you didn’t build that” gaffe.
For a politico, a gaffe can take many forms, but it will normally be either: 1) saying something that’s obviously true but is politically incorrect, or 2) saying something you actually believe (but will be poorly received) with your out loud voice.
Barry Oh!, the greatest orator of all time and our most intelligent president ever, blundered on the second form of gaffe.
This means that post-gaffe, the Obama team is reduced to asking “What are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?”
Tim Cavanaugh destroys the deniers in full at Reason.com.
And while man remains the only creature capable of lying to himself, we’re finally starting to get more insight into what Obama really thinks.
Based on the magnitude of this particular gaffe, Barry is making a run at Joe Biden (who holds a huge quantitative lead) for the title of Administration GaffeMaster Flash.
The President is busy, busy, busy jetting around in Air Force One, doing all those fundraisers and re-election events and whatnot. So did his fatigue cause him to reveal more to the American people than is appropriate for his own good (emphasis added)?
…There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me — because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t — look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.)
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.
Yes, success is now attributable to—and limited to—the idea that it takes a (government) village.
Mr. President, have your handlers finally driven your modest intellect and learning over the economic cliff? If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. Really?
No business can succeed with with unending and unsupportable deficit spending. So what does the President do? He calls for more ruinous spending, advocates for class warfare (more taxes for the most successful; more bills for the young), and props up failure and rigs the game with government-driven market interference: bailouts, takeovers, public-sector spending, and crony capitalism.
The President made himself the face of the U.S. economy but as it turned out, his mouth was writing checks that neither his economic ideas nor his government authority could deliver. If voters don’t make him pay for the failures of Obamanomics in November, we’ll be getting the government we deserve.
Although it’s common knowledge to the traditional media that Barack Obama is our most intelligent president ever, he too often seems to possess a certain panache or savoir faire for looking like an idiot.
It might help if the President would preview his scripts in advance and ask a few questions as opposed to reading them cold off the teleprompter. (Yes, we know that fundraising keeps him hopping, but…)
Consider this howler offered by Barry Oh! with a straight face and plucked from a recent presidential speech:
The last thing we need right now is more top-down economics.
Barry, Barry, Barry. You’ve given us a command and control economy (legislation via regulation, policy directive, and Executive Order; Obamacare; automotive takeovers; bank and Wall Street bail outs; green “jobs”; the EPA; stimulus; crony capitalism; 40-plus months of above 8% unemployment; a massive growth in the federal debt; etc.) that’s proven to be an epic fail for America.
You, Mr. President, are the very face of top-down economics. Don’t you even have a clue?
And by the way, it isn’t the taxes. It’s the spending.
The iron logic of David Axelrod, one of the Democrat Svengalis handling Barry Obama, goes like this:
“Romney is more vulnerable than Obama because he is less known,” the president’s chief strategist, David Axelrod, told me in an email. “It’s all new information” — to most voters, anyway.
The problem with such iron logic is legion, but here’s a start:
First, Obama’s personal history is largely unknown. His “memoirs” include massive doses of fiction and and he hasn’t released his LSATs, ACTs, SATs, college transcripts, etc. These records haven’t been released for one reason: they would not benefit Obama’s re-election chances.
Second, the world has seen Obama and his performance is well known. The problem with Obama is he’s been revealed as the toxic intersection of overreach, inexperience, ineptness, poor temperament, lacking intellect, and flawed judgment.
While the rule of thumb is people will choose ‘the devil they know’ versus ‘the devil they don’t know,’ Obama has baggage which will damage his re-election chances. It’s called his record.
Lance Armstrong asserted it’s not about the bike.
The media reports Dem insiders think the 2012 election is about money.
…in a classic example of Citizens United-era subterfuge, a handful of the [Obama finance committee] attendees slipped away from the Renaissance Blackstone Hotel in the South Loop and headed to the bar. Over drinks, they met with Bill Burton and Paul Begala, leaders of the super PAC that is supporting Obama, Priorities USA Action, which is forbidden by law from coordinating with the campaign. Burton and Begala pleaded for help. “They said, ‘Don’t you know some billionaires you can send us to?’” says one of the finance committee members. “I tried to think of a couple.”
With every passing week, Democratic insiders are becoming more and more panicked that, by November, their Republican opponents will have buried them under a mountain of money.
Voters know it isn’t about the money. Rather the fall election is going to be a referendum on the presidency of Barry Oh!. To paraphrase Woody Allen, eighty percent of the election will be about Mitt Romney showing up.
And the media is not without a sense of irony, even if it’s inadvertent:
THERE’S ONE VERY OBVIOUS reason that Democratic super PAC fund-raising is lagging, and it can be gleaned from a cursory glance at the Forbes 400. “We’re not as rich as they are. It’s that simple,” says John Morgan, a personal injury attorney from Florida whose firm gave Priorities $50,000 and whom I reached as he waited on the tarmac for a flight to the French Open.
What a drag it is to only have John Morgan’s bank account when you want Warren Buffett’s.
Regardless, while it’s still early, the election is lining up in a way that is likely to be very ugly for the incumbent.
At least Jimmy Carter did the Habitat for Humanity thing for a while before reappearing as a unending plantar wart on the
sole soul of America. I wonder what Barry will do (besides have someone ghost-write/invent his memoirs)?
While the President’s apologists know that blaming George W. Bush for everything that’s gone wrong during the Obama regime is a risky (read poor) strategy, they have little else—really, nothing else—to draw on.
As proof, I submit the Daily Beast article (via Newsweak, emphasis added to the title) Paul Begala: Middle Class in Free Fall From the Bush Depression.
A recent report from the Federal Reserve documents the collapse of the middle class. Between 2007 and 2010 median wealth dropped a staggering 40 percent. As ever, the rich did fine, actually seeing their wealth increase as everyone else’s disappeared. That’s because those on top have less of their wealth tied up in real estate and more in investments like stocks and bonds, which have done better in the Bush Depression than home prices.
Begala whiffs on the real lesson, that government-driven market interference (like taking action to inflate real estate bubbles) have hurt the middle class. But he’s not done.
But we didn’t get into our current mess because we had too many teachers, cops, and firefighters. We got into it because we cut taxes, mostly for the rich, waged two wars on the national credit card, and deregulated Wall Street. We will never cure the debt if we don’t address its true causes.
Begala only half-whiffs on this lesson, that we got into our meta-mess because government (at all levels) spends too much.
But regarding tax cuts, liberal “wisdom” again strikes out. After all, whose money is it anyway? Instead, perhaps people should be able to make more of their own spending and saving decisions and government, given its record of non-performance with regard to creating value, should make fewer. Calling government spending “investment” or decreasing the rate of increase of government spending yet calling it “austerity” are both self-evidently absurd.
Will Democrat strategists draw on the President’s record? No, that’s political suicide.
Will Democrat strategists attempt to demonize Mitt Romney and blame Obama’s failures on others? Absolutely. Desperate acts for desperate men.