For your pre-State of the Union pleasure.
The administration—whose latest foray into unobstructed, unlegislated, we’ve-got-this, go-it-aloneism was the fabulously ‘effed up roll-out of HealthCare.gov—is going to make 2014 the year of the Executive Branch takes on the world without the messiness of involving the People’s Branch of the federal government?
This’ll be something to see…
-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from The Ranch)
Democrats and their allies in the legacy media keep telling us that the GOP is in dire straits. And I’ll grant that my party has work to do. But, I do wonder if the president’s party is not in straits even more dire than that of is political rival, its problems papered over by the strong support Barack Obama enjoys in some segments of society (especially in the various newsrooms that dot America’s coasts).
If the Democrats have such an appeal with the American people — and are so confident in their message, why must they regularly resort to dishonest demagoguery, misrepresenting Republican stands on issues and regularly calling their partisan rivals “extreme.” Bear in mind that Barack Obama did not win reelection running on his record but by demonizing Mitt Romney, airing over a quarter-billion dollars of attacks ads — before the party conventions.
Saw two examples of this yesterday on Facebook:
Ms. Gillibrand is trying to advance her own cause by misrepresenting her partisan rivals — and stirring up fears among African-Americans.
Look likes Ms. Gillibrand’s dishonest, mean-spirited rhetoric has earned her an interesting admirer: (more…)
Take a gander at this screen capture. Interesting juxtaposition between ad and article, no?
Question for the day: does his perpetual campaigning help compromise the Democrat’ “Reputation for Integrity”?
And please tell me how did Mr. Obama acquired such a reputation? Through his actions? (What specific actions helped him earn it?)
I admit the ‘word cloud’ technique is a pretty sketchy way to analyze a speech. Still, it can be fun. Zero Hedge gives us an example. From their analysis of a few speeches:
- Reagan 1981 [inaugural speech]: – ‘believe’, ‘freedom’, and ‘government’
- Schumer 2013: – ‘America’, ‘Today’, ‘Finished’, ‘People’
- Obama 2013 [inaugural speech]: “America People Must Believe”
Got it, America? You must believe!
But the main point, for me, is simply the prevalence of “must” in Obama’s speech. As others have remarked: In his vision of the world, no one who opposes him ever does so in good faith. Whatever he believes is an imperative.
UPDATE: A cloud on Hillary’s Benghazi hearing. “People think know committee SEC”… Huh? It sounds like they spent much of that hearing on the question of what people knew or thought when, but why would the SEC pop into it?
Well, that is what we would be hearing if there were a Republican President with this same war-mongering record of death.
Drone strikes dramatically increased after US President Barack Obama took office in 2009. There were only five drone strikes in 2007, but the number rose to 117 in 2010 before declining to 46 last year. Exact casualty figures are difficult to verify. Most of those killed are militants, but some civilians have also been killed.
More innocent children have been killed by the drones of Tyrant Boy-King Barack Hussein Obama than by the guns of Adam Lanza, Jared Loughner, James Holmes, Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris combined. By far.
The decision that President Obama, the head of the federal government, made yesterday to wade into the politics in one state seemed a defining one.
Instead of being the postpartisan political healer he claimed to be in the 2008 election, he seems to feel that he just has to interject himself into contentious political issues, not as the mediator, but as the combatant.
He seems more interested in playing partisan politics than in working with the opposing party to effect a consensus.
ALSO SORT OF RELATED: Protesters to march on Michigan capitol over “right-to-work” vote (Note how Yahoo!’s editors put right-to-work in quotation marks. Did they ever so reference the “Affordable Care Act”?
UPDATE: How civil: Democrats threaten violence on Michigan House floor. The article includes this interesting factoid, “Michigan has both the highest unionization and unemployment rates in the Midwest.”
ADDENDUM: I had meant this to be a longer post, addressing the frustration we Republicans feel in the wake of Obama’s victory that we’ll be subject to four more years of his divisive rhetoric, but by the time I got to this post, I had little energy to write. I have been working a great deal on my fantasy epic and have now completed (and am busy editing) the second chapter of the epic and finding myself scribbling notes for the third chapter. (more…)
Although Barack Obama saw his support among twentysomethings decline from 2008 to 2012, he still won a solid majority of those voters.
Their support seems based more on a blind faith in the incumbent than in an appreciation for his accomplishments. “The overall unemployment rate for 18-29 year olds for November 2012 is 10.9 percent“, with one out of every eight young Hispanics out of work and nearly one in five young African-Americans out of work.
The study linked above showed that the unemployment rate for twentysomwethings “would rise to 16.4 percent” if nearly two million young voters hadn’t dropped out of the workforce:
The declining labor force participation rate has created an additional 1.7 million young adults that are not counted as “unemployed” by the U.S. Department of Labor because they are not in the labor force, meaning that those young people have given up looking for work due to the lack of jobs.
That the Democrat’s support slipped among young voters suggests that at least some have woken up to the reality of Hope and Change™.
Four years after Hope and Change™, we are, as a county, more divided than ever. A liberal friend posted on my Facebook page that Mitt Romney makes her sick. How did she come to gain that opinion of a good, decent and compassionate man?
Other friends have called him a “vulture capitalist” or repeated slurs about his faith. Where do these slurs get started? Have top Democrats differentiated themselves from such rhetoric? Has Obama himself asked his supporters to tone it down and to focus on the issues?
No, instead, he tells them that “voting is the best revenge.” For that Democrat, as Ed Morrissey puts it, Spite and revenge is the new hope and change:
. . . Obama’s “revenge” remarks are at least as revealing about this campaign, and of Obama’s approach to both this election and to public policy, as were Romney’s 47 percent statements. The president, in both his campaign and his administration, has gone fully populist, attempting to divide the country along class lines as a distraction from his record in his term in office. In fact, the best description of Obama’s politics since September 2011 is “the politics of revenge.”
Read the whole thing. (Via Instapundit.)
ADDENDUM: If you have friends on both sides of the political aisle, just take a gander at your Facebook feed, you’ll often wonder what happened to civil discourse. Our side abandons civility too sometimes. But, at least the GOP presidential nominee is not encouraging such rhetoric.
From his first appearance on the national stage, his key-note speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, Barack Obama has cast himself a post-partisan figure who could transcend the polarized politics of the past dozen years or so. That image was central to his appeal in his 2008 bid for the White House — and likely caused many wavering centrist voters to shift their support to him in the campaign’s closing days.
They might not share his politics, but they did like him as a man, at least as the man he projected himself to be. He has not governed as he campaigned, first pushing a “stimulus” bill crafted by Democratic legislators — without Republican input — in the back rooms of Capitol Hill. When a Republican Senator questioned him about the bill, instead of meeting that challenge in a civil fashion, the Democrat retorted, “I won.”
This was the first of his many partisan retorts. And the partisan pugnacity that defined his presidency would define his reelection campaign. At least since August 2011, his campaign aides made clear that their reelection strategy would focus on destroying the then-likely (and now-current) Republican presidential nominee.
Obama is closing the campaign the same way he began it – on a negative note. Parts of his speeches sounds like they’ve been recycled from the 2008 campaign, as if he’s still running against George W. Bush, only he has sharpened his attacks. He attacks his opponent as a stand-in for the former president, strongly suggesting that, nearly four years after the Texas Republican left office, he’s still responsible for incomes which declined and deficits which increased under Obama’s watch.
And then yesterday, he asked his supporters to vote, not out of love for country but out of revenge.
“If Obama wins,” John Nolte writes, “I don’t know how he plans to govern after running the nastiest and most divisive presidential campaign in memory. He’s looked nothing like a president during this campaign and everything like a nasty, Chicago union thug.” (more…)
Earlier today, Bruce blogged about Mitt Romney’s “barnburner of a” closing argument. It was a most upbeat speech.
By contrast, in his closing speech, President Obama said, “Voting is the best revenge.”
Which candidate is best qualified to unite the nation after this divisive campaign?
UPDATE: The Weekly Standard John McCormack calls this revenge talk . . .
. . . strange rhetoric from any politician, especially one who sold himself to the country as the candiate of hope and change. In fact, before Obama’s remarks today, I had only ever heard one politician encourage people to vote out of revenge: failed 2009 congressional candidate Dede Scozzafava.
UP-UPDATE: The winning argument?
UP-UP-UPDATE: John Hinderaker doubts that “Obama’s blunder” will “tip the scales with many voters, but in the closing days of the campaign it serves as a useful reminder of Obama’s dark side.”
UP-UP-UP-UPDATE: Obama campaign struggles to explain ‘revenge’ remark It’s not good to be playing defense in the closing days of a campaign.
UP-UP-UP-UP-UPDATE: “Revenge for what?” Jonah Goldberg asks. Read the whole thing. It’s short.
FROM THE COMMENTS: Our reader Kurt
. . . was thinking about Obama’s whole anger and revenge thing and what I earlier called the “divide and conquer” approach, but it occurred to me that the better term is really “divide and agitate” since he only seems to know how to make people angry, resentful and worked up. (more…)
“Romney’s message,” report Connie Cass and Jennifer Agiesta
a vote for Obama is a vote for more gridlock — seems to be getting through. An Associated Press-GfK poll shows that almost half of likely voters — some 47 percent — think the Republican challenger would be better at ending the logjam Thirty-seven percent say Obama would.
37%? That’s far fewer than the percentage supporting the president. It seems even a good chunk of Obama’s supporters know that lacks the skills he, in his last campaign, claimed to possess. (more…)
A reader in Nevada reports hearing an ad that “went something like ‘what will you tell your friends if you don’t vote and they lose their healthcare, etc., etc.’” Reading about his ad, I was reminded of the creepy “Future Children Project” ad. When you read the lyrics, you can see just how much it, like the Nevada ad, plays on people’s fears, not their hopes.
Both were about the parades of horribles that Democrats imagine happening should Mitt Romney win next week.
More evidence that Barack Obama is not the Democrats’ Ronald Reagan.
This is how they Gipper wanted to be remembered:
Whatever else history may say about me when I am gone, I hope it will record that I appealed to your best hopes, not your worst fears, to your confidence, rather than your doubts.
Go back and read the Gipper’s speeches from the 1984 campaign. Watch his campaign commercials. You’ll see that he wanted to be remembered the way that he governed, the way that he appealed to the American people.
He didn’t campaign on the parade of horribles that he imagined taking place if he lost. He campaigned on how America would improve if he won.
UPDATE: Contrast Reagan’s campaign commercials with this recent one from Obama.
“On September 11, 2012,” blogs William Kristol,
Rasmussen Reports had President Obama’s job approval at 52 percent approve, 47 percent disapprove. Today, October 27, the numbers have reversed—47 percent approve, 52 percent disapprove. The economic news over these past six weeks has been on the whole a bit better than expected, so it’s hard to believe that’s the cause of the change. The campaign and the debates could of course have played a role. But the main real-world event that might have affected voters’ approval or disapproval of President Obama’s job performance is Libya.
Maybe Kristol’s right. Maybe it is Libya.
Or, perhaps, it’s something else. Perhaps, it’s that then on September 11, barely a week after the Democratic National Convention, a good number of Americans saw Obama as the legacy media covered the Democratic convention.
They saw an upbeat Obama. And they liked that image of the incumbent. Only, in the next month, with the trickling out of news from Libya, accompanied by his first languid and listless, then his angry and accusatory, debate performances. they saw how how much their idealized image of the incumbent differed from the reality of the man.
The campaign/media created image of Barack Obama has always been more palatable to Americans than the reality of his administration.
In a blog post titled, Closing (Negative) Argument, left-of-center reporter/commentator Mark Halperin observes that a
. . . new Obama TV spot, which the campaign says will run in four states, will annoy some Romney supporters, but the upper echelon in Boston will surely say it shows the incumbent knows he’s losing.
Via HotAir headlines.
UPDATE: Even Yahoo! is picking up on the negativity:
UP-UPDATE: Even creepier than the Lena Dunham video?
This headline from Yahoo! Finance says pretty much all you need to know about today’s job growth figures: Stronger Than Expected 3Q Growth Weak By Historical Standards. Obama and some liberals on Facebook (and on twitter, as I understand) are trying to spin this as a positive sign, but the first two paragraphs of the article (from a usually Obama-friendly source) should dispel any notion that this is great news:
The U.S. economy picked up some steam in the third quarter. The Commerce Department reported that GDP grew at a 2% annualized rate from July to September. That’s an improvement from the sluggish 1.3% pace in the second quarter but nothing to get excited about, says David Rosenberg, chief economist and strategist at Gluskin Sheff.
The higher growth in the third quarter was due to increased government spending, which is unsustainable, he tells The Daily Ticker. Factoring that out means growth was 1.3% in the private sector, virtually unchanged from the previous quarter, says Rosenberg.
On Facebook, Bruce shared this chart:
So, while Obama may boast that the economy is growing, the bigger issue is that it’s not growing as fast as the Democrat promised, particularly when he sold the nation on his $800-billion “stimulus.”
Growth, in short, “is less than half of what the White House projected growth would be this year” — providing further evidence that we can’t put too much stock in Obama’s economic forecasts — or his policies.
Earlier today, I linked a Yahoo! piece noting the increasingly snarky tone of the president’s campaign and observing how most incumbent presidents leave the personal attacks to their surrogates.
Unbeknownst to me then, the story of the president’s very unpresidential would only get bigger today. Now, comes word that Mr. Obama described his opponent as, well, here’s the quote: [LANGUAGE WARNING after the "more" link] (more…)
Even the legacy media is beginning to take notice of Barack Obama’s, well, less-than-uplifting rhetoric of late, as Russell Goldman reports:
If you’re President Obama, you know you pushed the sarcasm envelope at Monday night’s debate when even Rachel Maddow describes the way you spoke to Mitt Romney as being in “very, very overtly patronizing terms.”
Maddow probably meant it as a compliment, but there have been plenty of other observers who were critical of the president’s use of Seinfeldian set-ups and snarky punch lines to score points about military spending and the state of U.S.-Russia relations.
Time’s Mark Halperin described the president’s style as “belittling.” Mike Allen at Politico called it “snide derision.”
(H/t: Reader Kurt.) Candidates, to borrow Goldman’s expression, tend to leave “most of the snark to their staffs and surrogates”, but Mr. Obama seems to relish making snide remarks himself. (more…)