Gay Patriot Header Image

Since Obama can only win by dividing. . .

. . . how can he hope to govern after running such a campaign?

Should the Democrat prevail, he is likely to face a Republican House, if not a Republican — at least a more Republican & more conservative — Senate.  Not to mention all those Democratic Senators from “red” states whose seats will be up in 2014 and will be wary of running for reelection with an unpopular incumbent from their party in the White House.

You may say that if he wins, he won’t be unpopular, but the point of this post is that should he win, he will have done so by demonizing his opponent rather than improving his public image.  His negatives will remain high, his approval low.

Is Mitt Romney following Jerry Brown’s lead?

Yesterday, Jennifer Rubin cited yet another article detailing just how much the Obama campaign has spent in “swing states” (something we discussed here):

The extent of that effort is only now becoming clear. The Associated Press reports: “President Barack Obama’s campaign has spent nearly $100 million on television commercials in selected battleground states so far, unleashing a sustained early barrage designed to create lasting, negative impressions of Republican Mitt Romney before he and his allies ramp up for the fall.”

. . . .

Virtually all of the ads were viciously negative, and judging from the number of Pinocchios they’ve racked up, continually and materially false.

But it didn’t work. Romney and Obama are still deadlocked.

And another batch of swing state polls shows a tight race in 4 “swing” states, including Colorado, Florida, Ohio and Virginia, with Obama’s approval at or below 46 in each state.

In the summer of 2010, it seemed every time I looked up at a TV monitor, I saw one of Meg Whitman’s ads, many (if not most) of which attacked her Democratic rival in the California gubernatorial contest.  That rival, a Mr. E. G. Brown, Jr. kept his powder dry — to the consternation of some of his partisan allies.

Come September, however, he and his union allies, took to the airwaves.  Mr. Brown defeated Mrs. Whitman by nearly 13 points.

Wonder, if given, Mr. Obama’s negatives, Mr. Romney has chosen to keep his powder relatively dry until more people start paying attention to the presidential contest.  Given those deadlocked polls and Mr. Romney’s current fundraising success, this could be bad news for Mr. Obama.

But, then again, Mr. Brown received in 2010, as Mr. Obama is receiving now, a generous assist from the legacy media.

Speaking about sealed documents, Mr. Obama. . . .

The younger Donald is onto something:

Today, Donald Trump explained that Mitt Romney should release his tax records … but not until Barack Obama releases his college records. “Obama should give his college applications and records – you talk about transparency,” said Trump.

“Those who call for Romney to release all evidence of his finances”, adds Ben Shapiro, reporting Trump’s remarks, “should also be calling for Obama to release his college records – a period of his life in which he visited Pakistan, finagled an entre to Columbia University, and began his community organizing career in Chicago.”

Fascinating watching how, with the cover of and amplification by the legacy media, Democrats are desperately demanding that Mitt Romney release all kinds of records.  At the same time, our supposedly accountable journalists are giving short (if any) shrift to conservative concerns about records that Mr. Obama refuses to furnish.

In his post, asking “Who is Barack Obama?“, Roger Kimball posted an image listing some of the Democrat’s sealed records as well as repeating some of the unanswered questions about the Obamas.

FROM THE COMMENTS:  V the K “would rather see the Fast & Furious documents. Nobody died from Mitt Romney’s tax returns.”

What has Obama done to change the tone in Washington?

On August 28, 2008,” The Washington Free Beacon’s Matthew Continetti reminds us, when Barack Obama

. . . officially accepted his party’s nomination and launched [that] fall[‘s] campaign, he said his presidency would break from the “politics of the past,” diminish the “cynicism we all have about government,” and change “the idea that people cannot disagree without challenging each other’s character and each other’s patriotism.” Politicians who “use stale tactics to scare voters,” who say an opponent is “someone people should run from,” and who “make a big election about small things” had held the American people hostage for far too long. Obama would be different.

Well, he doesn’t seem to have succeeded.  Yesterday on CBS “Sunday Morning,” the Democrat acknowledged that “Washington ‘feels as broken as it did four years ago,‘”:

He says he’s most frustrated by the inability “to change the atmosphere” in the nation’s capital “to reflect the decency and common sense of ordinary people” who want their leaders to solve problems. . . .

Reflecting on more than 3 ½ years in office, Obama said, “I think there’s no doubt that I underestimated the degree to which in this town politics trump problem solving.”

So, we elected a man who had served in the United States Senate and remained clueless as to the way the city worked?

With a bit of snark, Howard Portnoy reminds us that the president acknowledged his own naivete instead of responding to the question whether he “he was on the list of those deserving some of the shared blame“:

So, when Sen. John Kyl (R-Ariz.) raised an objection in January of 2009 to the idea of a tax credit for people who don’t pay income taxes, the president’s haughty response—”I won. So I think on that one, I trump you”—did not in his view fan the flames of resentment or hostility.

Do wonder if anyone can detail what precisely Obama has done to to fulfill his campaign promises to change the tone in our nation’s capital?