President Obama, Joel Gehrke reports in the Washington Examiner:
. . . defended himself over calling Mitt Romney a “bullshitter” when a Denver reporter asked him to justify that remark in light of his promise to improve civility in Washington, D.C.
“You know, this was a conversation after an interview, a casual conversation with a reporter,” Obama, who was visibly irritated at getting the question, told 9News’ Kyle Clark.
Emphasis added.
It’s unfair to hold him accountable for something said off the record. Unless he’s standing behind a lectern it doesn’t count.
Well, even then it only counts if it’s not embarrassing.
“Do as I say, not as I do”?
“If there’s one thing we know from the viral idiocy of 2012 campaign coverage, it’s that the only thing the media will be buzzing about is Obama’s naughty word…
Conservatives will see the b-word …. as just one more piece of evidence that the president is not the kind of clean, Christian gentleman who should be occupying the White House. Democrats will laugh and hope it doesn’t cost any votes. And the media? The talk won’t be of whether Romney is the bullshittingest presidential candidate in history… It will be—like so much of what passed for campaign “news” this year—all about an ill-considered word that leapt out of a candidate’s mouth…”
“And with the presidential debates complete, there is barely an issue area on which Romney hasn’t undergone a change just in the last few weeks. … if there’s one thing he believes it’s that the wealth and privilege of the wealthy and privilege must be maintained and enhanced. But he even flip-flopped on that, not only pledging not to cut taxes on the wealthy (in contrast to what he said during the primaries), but actually proposing a huge tax increase on them”
… He calculated correctly that with the election so close his base wouldn’t care, that they’d accept anything that might improve their chances of getting rid of Barack Obama. Perhaps they’re grumbling in their private conversations… They know that what matters is winning. They also understand that keeping a President Romney in line will take some work, but that’s an effort they’re ready for.”
Consider all of what Uncle Barry sez and does, and how he sez and does it. O’Bama is simply a misplaced dictator. His dream for America is nothing more (or less) than him with the power of Fidel Castro. Naturally, this is EXACTLY the type of government structure that formed the paradigms of USA
Honestly I don’t really care what Obama’s opinion of Romney is at the moment. Obama has proven himself a liar and an incompetent.
I will take my chances with the”bullshitter” I don’t know than the definite “bullshitter” I do know.
At the moment Obama has fed me far more BS than Romney has ever thought of feeding me.
It is time for the bullshitter in chief to go back to Chicago.
Because he’s never been held accountable for anything. In his bio he said something about how his grandparents felt sorry for him and never punished him, even when he was doping in school. He could do what he wanted and other people made excuses for him.
Fifty one is a h*ll of an age to learn you’re not perfect. It’s a difficult process and I think to an extent it shocks him to find himself in a position of even being questioned.
Obama’s comment does worry me slightly. Because He, of all people, would most surely know a fellow bullsh*tter when He sees one.
“Why would Obama get visibly irritated with a reporter?”
Because how dare anyone question God! – he is infallible, why on earth doesn’t the reporter know that?
I’ve never seen a polititian less questioned, and put on the spot by the old media.
Yet he acts so put out and offended. The fifth estate are a bunch of whimps. Americans shouldn’t just laugh it off. 4 died in Libya, shouldn’t the whimps be shouting questions by now?
Obama is full of blather and platatudes. Don’t actually expect him to live the way he speaks. He learned well at the knee of Rev Wright.
#3 above is amazing:
Whew!
While poor little Obambi did conger up the ill-considered word, he had no control over it and it overwhelmed Obambi entirely and leapt right out of the poor little Obambi mouth. Get it? The word threw Obambi under the bus.
Apparently, however, this would not have happened to a “clean, Christian gentleman (…..) occupying the White House.” Since the “b” word makes Democrats laugh (according to the commenter) it seems that the Democrats also place no particular premium on looking to place a clean gentleman of faith in the Oval Office. I really rather doubt that, but that is what I glean from #3 above.
Now this business about Romney flip-flopping on “taxing the rich” is really (pardon the play on words) rich. The link in #3 is to a screed headlined:
What sort of mind reads such a headline and bothers to read anything more? Any sentient being should know immediately that “emptiest candidate” is a meaningless phrase and as such, there is no way to measure all presidential candidates throughout American history in terms of comparing their “emptiness” quotient in order to determine who is the “emptiest.” In fact, isn’t it true that when you have reached “empty” that there is nothing you can do to get “emptier”?Daffy Duck nailed it.
But wait, there is more! The headline proclaims that “Mitt Romney believes in nothing.” Look, to coin a phrase, you can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time. OK, maybe I stole that from a clean Christian gentleman in the White House. Like Abraham Lincoln. But if Romney believes in nothing, don’t you think that someone along the way might have noticed? A man with no belief system, no principles, no core, no ideology, no reason to be, no character, no sense of loyalty or commitment or earned trust is not just an empty vessel; he is not human.
Moving on to the taxing or not taxing the rich: there are only a few variations on this theme. If the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire, the taxes on the rich go up as do the taxes on the middle class and the lower middle class and the less than middle class. So, according to the Democrat plan, you let the taxes on the “rich” expire, but you consider people above a certain level of income to be “rich.” “What is that level ?”, I hear you cry. Well, Obambi says it is $250,000 of income per year. But, that means every sub-chapter S corporation, partnership or sole proprietorship that earns (not profit) $250,001 is “rich” and taxed at a higher rate even if it had to plow the income right back into the business to keep it going.
Romney wants to keep the Bush tax credits in place. That, according to Democrats, means he wants to help the “favored and privileged” keep more of their money. Well, it is all their money until the government takes it away from them at a point of a gun. It is not the government’s money which the government generously allows the earner of the money to retain. Since the “rich” invest in getting “richer” it is they who hire people to scrape the barnacles of the hulls of their yachts and make sushi for their lawn parties and park the cars of the rich who come to lawn party.
If the Democrats had any balls, they would define “rich” in terms of actual earnings above costs and take confiscatory amounts away from athletes, Hollywood stars, hedge funds managers and people like Warren Buffet who utilize the capital gains tax as their tax bracket on earnings. That would include Bill Gates and, yes, Mitt Romney. But it also includes Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Bill Clinton and thousands to millions of other “investors” who have enough money that the 15%-20% capital gains tax bracket is enticing. Oh, yeah, and retirement funds, pension funds, insurance funds, savings plans also love that same tax formula.
So to come here with how Romney is pulling the wool over people’s eyes is one of two things: disingenuous or flat out ignorant. It you want to go down that road, please, please, please investigate Bill Clinton. I suggest you start with his rip-off investments in cell phone service in third world places like Haiti. He is very good as kissing the people he is screwing.
Meanwhile, keep linking us to people as ignorant as you appear to be. Until you can return and refute what I have written and defend your blather, I bid you a good morrow.
Heliotrope, it’s not ignorance. It’s blind stupidity.
The sort of mind, heliotrope, that would read a headline about a left-wing organization ‘proving’ conservative racism via carefully manipulated opinion polls – and take it seriously.
The AP (left-wing organization, as you know) conducted a “poll” in which *the questions explicitly asked/caused respondents to start thinking about people in terms of racial categories and stereotypes, whether or not respondents would ever do so on their own*, and then – Shock of shocks! – found that respondents were racists! People thinking in racial stereotypes!
It went on to find that the people who were 5% more likely self-consciously edit the (suggested, prompted) racial stereotypes in real-time reactions to the pollster were trained liberals – which ‘proves’ that conservatives are the bigger raaayyyyysists!
LOL – So pathetic… Only leftists can believe, much less invent, that kind of lameness. And yet, we have a thread at the moment where PB pushes it with a straight face. Like it’s supposed to mean something.
(continued) And pushes it with blithe unconcern for the facts of American history… in which Democrats fought to preserve slavery, Democrats instituted Jim Crow laws (which Republicans opposed), Democrats founded and manned the KKK (which Republicans opposed), leftists like Margaret Sanger founded Planned Parenthood specifically to control the black population (while Republicans disagreed with her), Democrats like Franklin Roosevelt interred the Japanese in WW2, Democrats today continue to support race distinctions (just white-inferior ones, instead of white-superior), etc., etc., etc.
And don’t forget, ILC, the very first Democrat president made his name by committinggenocide against American Indians so their lands could be redistributed to slave owners. His picture is on the 20 dollar bill.
This tradition of taking things away from people who don’t vote for them and giving them to people who do goes back to the beginnings of the Democrat Party.
Is there any Progressive site where people of conscience and intelligence actually address issues? If so, why don’t any of them ever come here and have an adult back and forth?
I know that I am being naive and whinny, but good golly these Levi and Passing Gas types sure make me wonder if honesty and integrity have been entirely run over by the moral relativism bus.
These people would go all out for a Madonna-Lady GaGa ticket.
The typical prog believes they *are* a person of conscience and intelligence. They can’t stand having their bubble punctured.
Remember Cas? She made a great show of being thoughtful, but couldn’t deal with new information. When I’d make a point, she would literally, directly pretend that I somehow had not just said the thing I’d said. Or she would stoop down to nitpick a weed, the better not to see the forest (the main point). She also made a great show of being civil… while repeating/supporting all of the most hostile, insulting and incivil tropes that lefties try to spread about conservativs. She couldn’t stand having that hypocrisy pointed out, either.
I’ve thought about this a lot. The issue, for lefties, is one of moral legitimacy.
The committed, hardcore leftie knows that his positions are essentially immoral – and likes it that way. He consciously is after power – and secondarily, to strike a blow against traditional morality. But he knows that he can’t come out and say that; he must preserve a veneer of moral legitimacy. And he knows that confusing the moral issues is the best way to confuse, and thus disarm, his opponents. So he makes a huge investment in framing his case as morally superior.
The innocent/confused leftie does NOT know that her positions are essentially immoral. She sincerely believes the propaganda put out by the hardcore leftie. She believes it because she wants “cheap grace”: being a leftie is how she designates herself a “good person” (in her mind, and to the world). Her self-esteem is tied up in being Left, which she equates with being Good (and/or Cool). So she, too, has a huge investment in framing her case as morally superior.
When lefties argue with knowledgeable conservatives (or conservative-leaning libertarians as in my case), her arguments are usually destroyed. And, if her opponent knows what to do, especially her moral arguments / moral premises. That hurts, because it takes away the most precious part of the ground that she thinks she is standing on.
Thanks, ILC. I think that is great nugget of insight into the ultimate insecurity that I find in Leftists in general.
What tears at my gizzard is that they flock together and go into some sort of exclusionary ritual of being “worthy” while drumming out any diversity of thinking. The hypocrisy of it all is maddening.
When I clicked on the Passing Gas link in #3, I was stunned. Here is a site all dolled up like it is actually a go-to place for the thinking Progressive, but it is spewing propaganda and demagoguery of the most primitive and unpolished kind. Yet, it was not linked to us as an example of the joke and banal “BS” that it is, but as a “resource” worthy of contemplation.
This is Brownshirt indoctrination of the least sophisticated kind. It is aimed at feeding the useful idiot his daily dose of vitriol and charging his battery for disdain and further polarization.
What finally scares me is that these faithful foot soldiers of Newspeak and Big Brother are so invested in their allegiance to their “cause” that they will resort to any means necessary to read their goal. I tried not to bring “Godwin’s Law” into this, but what I am seeing at the heart of Leftism in remarkably like the “unmentionable” tactics and techniques of past fascist, communist, Nazi, masters and dictators who herded the sheeple.
When one person and one group of followers takes it upon themselves to order the universe of people under their control in their social interactions, economic exchanges and patterns of speech, thought and cooperation, we have ceased to be individuals, free or meaningful.
It is the willingness of the “useful idiot” that scares me. Obama has thrown gays under the bus and Jews and independents and he is now down to his unions and red meat base. Yet, the gays and the Jews and the women and so forth, still salute him and are willing to take the hit for “hope” and “change” because, in their minds, tomorrow still belongs to them. They have watched Cuba rot to the ground, but Castro is still the very best thing that ever happened because of his pure and noble heart.
“Can’t I just eat my waffle?” SnObama circa 2008.
Some things never change.
Regards,
Peter H.
A few years ago, I bought into Godwin’s Law. Now I don’t. It is, in itself, a leftie tactic for shutting down dissent. Call it “Godwin’s Law Squared”: the first person to mention Godwin’s Law in a debate, loses. When leftie tactics do resemble fascism (or derive from the same impulses), we should call it out. As you know, it was always the National **Socialist** German **Workers’** Party.
ILC, I think you make a great point.
At the core, Obama supporters/”progressives” are operating under the same premise as do Hamas and Hizbollah when they put missile launchers pointed at Israel in schools and hospitals.
Why do Hamas and Hizbollah do that?
– They believe that the Israelis will put the lives of others ahead of their own.
– They believe that there are enough people who hate Jews to ensure that Israel will be blamed regardless of the outcome.
– They are aware that Westerners live under the fallacy of perfect outcomes – that is, there is one in which both the Israelis and Hamas/Hizbollah would get what they want, and that this can be twisted to get Westerners to blame Israel for not “doing enough”.
That’s really all it is. Hamas, Hizbollah, Obama and “progressives” are not particularly intelligent or smart, all things considered; however, what they are is malicious, ruthless and willing to do anything to get and hold on to power.
And they must be treated accordingly. One can no longer assume that Obama and “progressives”, for example, will actually respect or follow the law in this country, much less moral codes or standards. As we saw with their gyrations over the FRC shooter and Jared Loughner, their desperation to see conservatives silenced, destroyed and killed extends to inventing rationalizations such as “your ideas provoked them” to justify why they want conservatives silenced, imprisoned, and murdered. They are doing things like turning children into programmed little suicide bombers who are ordered to spy on their parents, berate them as racists for even thinking of criticizing or voting against Obama, and then turn them in to the Obama Party authorities for re-education.
None of these fall under the legal, much less civilized, aegis. But they are part and parcel of “progressive” thought and what the Obama Party did and continues to do.
And, ILC, you are completely correct. What started out as a good idea — keeping ordinary disagreements from escalating into Nazi comparisons — has been hijacked and is being abused by malicious and amoral “progressives” to silence others while they themselves throw Nazi comparisons left and right.
This is why the only way to break the back of the fascist left is to remove as much power from the government as possible. “Progressives” and the Obama Party have demonstrated repeatedly that the only purpose they see for government is to enslave others. In order to stop them from doing so, the government must be stripped of the power to enslave, period.
“Any sentient being should know immediately that “emptiest candidate” is a meaningless phrase … in terms of comparing their “emptiness” quotient in order to determine who is the “emptiest.” In fact, isn’t it true that when you have reached “empty” that there is nothing you can do to get “emptier””
Daffy Duck nailed it.
“But wait, there is more! T… if Romney believes in nothing, don’t you think that someone along the way might have noticed?”
So, Passing Gas rules that half full/half empty is equal to empty. Well, by any measure known to man that is mindless, stupid, idiotic and certifiable.
Now go play in the traffic and hope that John Edwards can win you tickets for the mud wresting finals at the Clinton Library.
“rules that half full/half empty is equal to empty”
“But wait, there is more! T… if Romney believes in nothing, don’t you think that someone along the way might have noticed?”
“LOL”
” Well, by any measure known to man that is mindless, stupid, idiotic and certifiable.”
Well, Passing Gas, you have now slipped the surly bonds of intelligence to slap the face of reason. Your time in the sandbox may be quality time to you as you favor throwing sand and peeing on anything and everything that distracts you, but others see you for what you are.
I am certain that you can keep up your hissy fit for an eternity. But what will you have gained? Your insistence that empty is a word that can be compared is the most absolutist, most unbrokenest, most perfectest, most singularest, example of your most completely whole and most paramount lack of understanding of the English language and its usage.
I bow to the bubble you have created for yourself and in which to prefer to dwell. Have some warm milk and cookies and tell the other inmates that I said hello.