Gay Patriot Header Image

Does Obama Take His Campaign Rhetoric Seriously?

“In his half-hour infomercial” the Wednesday before the 2008 election, the Washington Post reported, candidate Barack Obama “repeated earlier assurances that he had ‘offered spending cuts’ to pay for every cent of the post-election bonanza that he plans to shower on his fellow Americans.”  (Emphasis added.)  Indeed, in the third debate that fall, pointing out “that we’ve been living beyond our means and we’re going to have to make some adjustments” he told what he’d been doing “throughout this campaign”: he had proposed “a net spending cut.”

So, if he favored a net spending cut throughout the campaign, why would he be so upset if Republicans opposed en masse a post-election spending bonanza that didn’t offer any compensatory spending cuts as Obama promised in his infomercial:

Three days after he decried the lack of civility in American politics, President Obama is quoted in a new book about his presidency referring to the Tea Party movement using a derogatory term with sexual connotations.

In Jonathan Alter’s “The Promise: President Obama, Year One,” President Obama is quoted in an November 30, 2009, interview saying that the unanimous vote of House Republicans vote against the stimulus bills “set the tenor for the whole year … That helped to create the tea-baggers and empowered that whole wing of the Republican Party to where it now controls the agenda for the Republicans.”

So, we see two things here about Obama.  He’s incredulous that his political adversaries would act in the spirit of his campaign rhetoric.  And that he responds to a grassroots political movement based on principles identical to that rhetoric.

Guess he just assumed those ideas would stop resonating once he won election.



  1. Q. How does a liberal take his coffee?
    A. Black and weak… like his president.

    Comment by V the K — May 6, 2010 @ 12:45 pm - May 6, 2010

  2. GayPatriot » Does Obama Take His Campaign Rhetoric Seriously?…

    Trackback from PunditKix…

    Trackback by PunditKix — May 6, 2010 @ 1:10 pm - May 6, 2010

  3. Liberals have implicitly adopted an “ends justify the means” rationalization that is analogous to one held by Islamic extremists—just as lying is acceptable if it serves Allah and the objectives of Islam, liberals do not believe that lying is unethical provided that it serves the objectives of liberalism.

    In a few months, we will see the Democrats prove this beyond dispute. One of Obama’s most powerful campaign promises was that the taxes paid by the middle class would not be raised by one penny. Specifically, Obama unequivocally guaranteed that he would not increase taxes on households earning less than $200,000 annually ($250,000 annually for married couples). No one can dispute that Obama repeated this promise so many times throughout the campaign that even Americans with no interest in politics were aware of it. (I feel safe estimating that at least 8-10 different video clips could be compiled in which either Obama or Biden make this unequivocal pledge). It was a powerful promise and there is no doubt it helped Obama win the election.

    Recently, Obama has sent clear signals that he has no intention of honoring the promise. He was asked if he would consider tax increases on the middle class to pay for Obamacare and the entitlements that already exist—his response was that he was “agnostic” regarding tax increases on the middle class. He said everything is on the table so that the “deficit reduction panel” can do its work. Naturally, the commission is not scheduled to provide its recommendations to Obama until AFTER the mid-term election. The MSM had zero interest in reporting Obama’s statements or investigating the implications of his statements (duh).

    We already know what the recommendation will be—huge new taxes across the board and/or a value added tax similar to the ones in Western European countries (20-25%). When Obama moves forward with implementing the commission’s recommendations, it will simply prove once again that he is a shameless, lying sociopath devoid of character and ethics. This will make no difference to the Left and Obama’s foot-soldiers will be doing triple back flips to help the Administration blame the GOP for Obama’s lies and broken promises. The plan for how Obama will get away with it has been in place all along:

    Obama knows we can’t pay for Obamacare and all of the other unfunded entitlements without MASSIVE tax increases. That’s why whenever you ask a liberal how we are going to pay for all of it, the canned response is that you’re an evil, greedy, violent racist. After the election, Obama will finally admit that we can’t pay for these programs without increased taxes on the middle class and he’ll play the usual blame game, demonizing Republicans and “the rich” for somehow FORCING HIM to break his promise of no middle class tax increases. He’s planned this all along—Obamacare is designed to make massive tax increases inevitable. Thus, Obama will shirk all responsibility for breaking the very promises that got him elected.

    Charles Krauthammer, as always, called Obama out weeks ago:

    “American liberals have long complained that ours is the only advanced industrial country without universal health care. Well, now we shall have it. And as we approach European levels of entitlements, we will need European levels of taxation. Obama set out to be a consequential president, on the order of Ronald Reagan. With the VAT, Obama’s triumph will be complete. He will have succeeded in reversing Reaganism. Liberals have long complained that Reagan’s strategy was to starve the (governmental) beast in order to shrink it: First, cut taxes — then ultimately you have to reduce government spending.
    Obama’s strategy is exactly the opposite: Expand the beast, and then feed it. Spend first — which then forces taxation. Now that, with the institution of universal health care, we are becoming the full entitlement state, the beast will have to be fed. And the VAT is the only trough in creation large enough.”

    So, ramming Obama’s financially irresponsible new entitlement program through Congress was done KNOWING that we couldn’t pay for it (much less that it would save us money) so that the massive new taxes suddenly become an “inevitable” reality that Obama should not be blamed for. Isn’t

    1. Win election by repeating over and over again the powerful campaign promise that the middle class will not have their taxes raised by one penny.
    2. Instead of taking action to make existing entitlement programs solvent, ram massive new entitlement programs through Congress that the US also has no ability to pay for.
    3. Delegate the responsibility of determining how the US can avoid total financial ruin to a commission that will not provide its recommendations until after the mid-term elections.
    4. When the commission releases its recommendation that massive new taxes and/or a value added tax be imposed, praise them for their “work for the American people” and then break the news that Congress has no choice but to move forward with implementing the commission’s recommendations.
    5. Angrily assert that the new taxes do not represent a lie or a broken campaign promise because it turns out that the economy inherited from the Bush Administration was “worse than we thought” and that thanks to those mean, greedy conservatives, the middle class will suffer. Argue that the new taxes would not be necessary but for America being financially plundered and bankrupted by Wall Street fat cats and evil, greedy Republicans until all state-controlled media outlets and “progressive” blogs adopt it as truth and propagandize accordingly.

    It would not even occur to a liberal that the above plan implicates any moral or ethical issues whatsoever. If institutionalized, irreversible liberalism is the objective, anything that furthers that objective is a virtue. That’s who we are dealing with. If we elect conservatives that understand this, they can be stopped. But if the GOP is too dumb to realize that it got played by their “esteemed colleagues” on the Left by stupidly engaging in bipartisan charades and compromises with them when the Dems were in the minority and there was no reason to do so, then it’s all over. Liberals are interested in bipartisanship and compromise when they are in the minority and they don’t have a choice. But from the moment they became the majority they have done whatever the hell they wanted and they told the GOP to go fu*k themselves. Those are the rules and if we don’t play the game exactly as the Dems do, we don’t have a chance.

    Comment by Sean A — May 6, 2010 @ 2:50 pm - May 6, 2010

  4. It all evens out, because I don’t take Obama seriously at all.

    Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — May 6, 2010 @ 3:29 pm - May 6, 2010

  5. Obama is a calamity (Sean – this would be true even if he were white 😉 ).

    Just like the Greeks, the libs can’t grasp the idea that there just isn’t enough money. Even increases in taxes and a VAT won’t solve the problem (how many European countries balance their budgets? Germany, maybe?). Portugal, Spain, Italy, Ireland, and the UK all are in desperate straights.

    At some point, the productive will figure out that there’s not much reason to produce above some baseline (and/or figure out that they need to get gummint jobs). Then where will the money come from?

    Yet the left continues to metastasize.

    Comment by SoCalRobert — May 6, 2010 @ 7:18 pm - May 6, 2010

  6. #5: “At some point, the productive will figure out that there’s not much reason to produce above some baseline (and/or figure out that they need to get gummint jobs). Then where will the money come from?”

    The last of it will come from draining the defense budget. Obama will not be done “transforming” America into an inconsequential welfare hellhole in the mold of our declining Western European allies until he has gutted the armed forces and seen to it that we no longer have the option of doing anything crazy like defend ourselves from our enemies. That’s the last stage of the transformation–ensuring that our military’s function is limited to marching in parades and escorting debutantes to their coming out balls. Maybe then Obama will rescind DADT–he knows the gays look sharp in a uniform and he wouldn’t want them to miss the parties (and the top brass certainly won’t care anymore).

    Comment by Sean A — May 6, 2010 @ 8:17 pm - May 6, 2010

  7. Does Obama Take His Campaign Rhetoric Seriously?

    Good grief, why would he?

    Look at gillie, look at Tano, look at Levi, look at Lloyd, look at any one of the leftist trolls around here and state without laughing hysterically that a single one of them would hold Obama to his word on something.

    Obama has spent his entire life in the company of people who are mentally and intellectually incapable of calling him a liar or pointing out his contradictions. Thanks to leftist liberal academia and the Obama Party, in which a black drug-using prostitute can accuse white men of rape without a bit of evidence and have the entire university not only supporting her, but attacking the white men AFTER the drug-using prostitute has been demonstrated to be a pathological liar, we now have the example of Barack Obama, an individual who completely and thoroughly believes that he can say whatever he wants without ever once having to follow through on it.

    Barack Obama is a black liberal. He has never been held accountable for anything. Why on earth would anyone expect him to take anything seriously?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 6, 2010 @ 9:21 pm - May 6, 2010

  8. Obama’s words are ephemeral. They are meant so sound good at the moment, not have long life. They may become ineffective at once, or be thrown under the bus later as they become inconvenient. They are essentially meaningless.

    He has a list. It is a hard left list — conceived in radical meetings, college classes, conversations with friends — that is unchanging. Things like Republicans bad, military bad, unions good, capitalism dubious, government good, ethics inconvenient, ends not means, nukes must be abolished, free health care good, my charm and smile can overcome anything. That sort of thing. His list includes accomplishments that when completed will make him a world historical figure. That’s my take, and I’m sticking to it.

    Comment by The Elephant's Child — May 7, 2010 @ 9:06 pm - May 7, 2010

  9. […] the Democratic nominee used to win over voters in the middle.  Recall, as I pointed out in a recent post, how Obama promised, in the campaign to hold the line on spending: “In his half-hour […]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Mark Lilla, Obama’s 2008 Majority & Tea Parties — May 10, 2010 @ 6:07 pm - May 10, 2010

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.