Just caught this in an e-mail from the Obama-friendly New Republic:
Really doesn’t seem he talks about much else.
Just caught this in an e-mail from the Obama-friendly New Republic:
Really doesn’t seem he talks about much else.
Labor union leaders emerged from talks with President Barack Obama on Tuesday vowing a side-by-side battle against Republicans to bring about higher taxes on the wealthy as part of an effort to avoid the so-called fiscal cliff.
Seems like for this president it’s always about doing partisan battle.
Yesterday, the Obama campaign release a “creepy” ad where some tattooed actress compared voting for Obama to having sex. Today, Mitt Romney is giving a speech on the economy in Ames, Iowa. This follows Paul Ryan’s “serious and substantive speech at Cleveland University” on Wednesday.
I’m with Ace on this one; it’s neither funny nor cute, nor persuasive, “unless you think the important issues in this campaign are Binders Full of Birth Control“:
It underlines the essential triviality of Obama and his Government Client & Upper Upper Class White Voter agenda. There is nothing to his campaign except very small social-progressive appeals to people who are simply not affected by the economy, whether they are too poor to notice a bad economy, immunized from the economy by being a government worker, or so rich they have nothing at all to fear from a bad economy.
Conservatives are having a field day mocking this bizarre ad as they, are having a field day mocking another juvenile Obama utterance, as Ed Driscoll deadpans on Instapundit, “SHOVEL-READY JOB: Conservatives hijack president’s ‘bullshitter’ remark via #bullshitter Twitter hashtag.”
Sister Toldjah finds the juvenile remark telling:
You know what? I know a POTUS has to deal with a lot of stress and has to blow off steam, and sometimes cursing is a part of that, but – dang it – Presidents are role models for kids and language like this should be left behind closed doors. It’d be one thing if this was an unintentional hot mic moment or if he were speaking out of frustration and in the heat of the moment cursed, but it’s not. He said this knowing it had the potential for being published, knowing that teenagers read this unabashedly left wing magazine. (more…)
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…)
“On his first full day in office,” report Bloomberg’s Jim Snyder and Danielle Ivory, “President Barack Obama ordered federal officials to “usher in a new era of open government” and “act promptly” to make information public.”
Yet, their article headlines that his cabinet has flunked this test with 19 of 20 ignoring the law:
Nineteen of 20 cabinet-level agencies disobeyed the law requiring the disclosure of public information: The cost of travel by top officials. In all, just eight of the 57 federal agencies met Bloomberg’s request for those documents within the 20-day window required by the Act.
“When it comes to implementation of Obama’s wonderful transparency policy goals, especially FOIA policy in particular, there has been far more ‘talk the talk’ rather than ‘walk the walk,’” said Daniel Metcalfe, director of the Department of Justice’s office monitoring the government’s compliance with FOIA requests from 1981 to 2007. (more…)
“Just nine months into the Obama presidency“, wrote Dan Spencer on RedState on June 17th
the New York Post reported that Obama surpassed former President George W. Bush on the number of days spent on the golf course when Obama played a round of golf for the 24th time in his presidency — a milestone it took Bush almost three years to reach.
On that same day, CBS News reported
President Obama spent about 4 hours on Father’s Day playing a round of golf at the Beverly Country Club with two old friends and an aide. It was his 100th round of golf since taking office.
(Emphasis added) Father’s Day? Father’s Day? You’d think a man who uses his children as an excuse for not doing his job would spend Father’s Day with them:
President Barack Obama dismissed criticism he doesn’t spend enough time developing relationships with Washington deal-makers who can help push his agenda forward.
In an exclusive interview with CNN chief White House correspondent Jessica Yellin, Obama said he is determined to make time for his family.
“Sometimes Michelle and I not doing the circuit and going out to dinners with folks is perceived as us being cool,” Obama said. “It actually really has more to do with us being parents.”
UPDATE/CLARIFICATION: The purpose of this post is not to suggest that Obama is a bad father, rather, as per one of the categories in which I included it (“Liberal Hypocrisy”) that he’s a hypocrite. I agree with U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) said that Republicans’ problem with President Obama was “isn’t that he’s a bad person. By all accounts, he too is a good husband, and a good father — and thanks to lots of practice, a pretty good golfer.”
By all accounts, he does seem to be a good father.
Like many parents with time-consuming jobs, he could have made choices. Given the time he devotes to his children, he would have to give up some of his recreation, like golf. He could have used that time to do the schmoozing essential to his job.
How many parents give up going to the movies so they can do their jobs and spend time with their children.
I apologize for any misunderstanding this post crafted in haste may have caused.
Although President Obama’s current claim to support gay marriage puts him at odds with Chick-fil-A President Dan T. Cathy, a devout Christian who supports the traditional definition of marriage, the Democrat shouldn’t have any problem enjoying a chicken dinner at one of Mr. Cathy’s franchises. After all, the socially conservative entrepreneur didn’t build that enterprise. Somebody else made that happen.
Anyone who has spent time about Hollywood wannabes (and yes, I once was just such a wannabe) knows that talent, hard work and determination do not necessarily yield success in this town.
Here, you see people work hard, hone their craft, invest their own money and receive little return. They may audition for countess roles and never get cast. They may write, rewrite and re-rewrite scripts only have production companies reject them having only read the log-line or the first few pages. They may raise their own funds and devote their own time to producing a movie, only to see it languish it film festivals — and never get a distribution deal.
And then you’ll see someone else, knowing the right people (or knowing the people who know the right people) or having the look — or the story — they’re looking for, move to town and find success in a matter of moments. It may not seem fair, but that’s just the way it is in a competitive business. Hard work here does not necessarily yield reward.
Perhaps, President Obama was thinking of the way things work in this part of the world when he remarked last Friday in Roanoke, Virginia that “there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there”:
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.
He’s right that every successful person received help along the way. There’s a reason the ancient Greeks honored Athena — and depicted her helping their heroes. They knew a man often required the assistance of others to accomplish his goals.
He is, however, wrong about who made things “happen.” Although most entrepreneurs received assistance as they built their enterprises, they did indeed build them. No one makes it own their own, that is, without the support of others. (And more often that support comes from the private sector, a venture capitalist, an encouraging friend or family member, a devoted mentor.)
In the end though, it is, by and large, an individual’s grit and determination which account for his success.
Far too often, in the entertainment industry, however, hard work alone often yields little reward. Such is the nature of a highly competitive field. (more…)
Last Thursday, I wondered whether the president “ever cites specific Bush policies when he laments all the problems he inherited from his predecessor.”
In the comments, none of our critics answered the challenge implicit in that statement of wonder. They did not point to specific speeches by the incumbent president where he made reference to specific Bush era policies. They did, to be sure, cite one particular policy, the Bush tax cuts, a policy which President Obama chose to continue when he signed a law in December 2010 to keep the Bush tax rates in place for two more years.
So, they’ve got Obama blaming Bush for creating an economic mess with a policy the Democrat chose to continue.
One critic did lament that “it was going to take a looooong time to dig out of this and 4 years probably weren’t going to be enough.” And this got me wondering, what specific plans does Obama have to dig us out of the mess that Bush supposedly created?
And how, should he win reelection, could he get a Republican House to act on those plans? And how do they differ from those policies which were adopted in the first two years of his term?
After the market meltdown in September 2008, most Democrats (as well as their allies in the legacy media) pointed, in the most general terms, to Bush-era “deregulation” as the cause of the crisis. They did, to be sure, often have trouble identifying specific regulations the then-president lifted–or laws and regulations that Republican Congresses had repealed while W served as the nation’s chief executive.
Indeed, three years ago, I reminded our readers that
Even Obama-supporting columnist Sebastian Mallaby wrote, during last fall’s campaign, that the “claim that the financial crisis reflects Bush-McCain deregulation is not only nonsense. It is the sort of nonsense that could matter.”
Last night, as I was reading Karl’s post how how extremism is “not just a GOP P.O.V“, a similar thought about Obama’s rhetoric came to mind. Just as he and his allies blamed deregulation in the abstract in 2008, now, they’re blaming Bush policies in the abstract for the crisis which Republicans believe to be the collapse of the welfare state model. ”In the Obama version”, David Brooks writes, “the welfare-state model was serving America well until it was distorted a decade ago by a Republican Party intent on serving the rich and shortchanging the middle class.” (H/t: Karl who excerpted it.)
And just how, Mr. President, did George W. Bush and his Republican minions distort that model? What specific policies did they implement which shortchanged the middle class?
Am wondering if Mr. Obama ever cites specific Bush policies when he laments all the problems he inherited from his predecessor. And, no, whining about tax cuts for the wealthy doesn’t count (particularly since Mr. Obama chose to extend the Bush-era tax rates–and the Bush cuts didn’t just go to the wealthy).
Tax cuts don’t cause market meltdowns.
FROM THE COMMENTS: Our critic Levi helps make my point:
Bush is responsible in that there was no atmosphere of regulation from the federal government, so all these financial entities went berserk. Additionally, the tax cuts that Bush passed freed up a lot of rich people’s money, which directly lead to more severe inflation of the housing bubble and made the impact when things burst that much more dramatic. It definitely has to do with some policies that Bush enacted, but it’s his responsibility mostly on the basis of his inaction.
No atmosphere of regulation? What does that mean. And note that the only specific Bush policy he cites is one that Obama chose to continue.
Last month, we joined other conservative blogs in reporting how the Obama White House had inserted the incumbent president into the biographies of his predecessors on the White House web-site.
Well, it seems the White House has responded to the outcry. Over at Reason, Scott Shackford thought the White House had removed the bullet points “promoting Obama’s accomplishments at the bottom of the biographies of other presidents, Democrat and Republican alike.”
But, it turns out, as he soon learned that the Democrat’s web team just reformatted the web-pages: ”The Obama infoboxes are still there, but they appear to have been redesigned to look less like part of the other presidents’ biographies.” Seems the redesign was in response to the outcry.
Amazing. They respond to the outcry, but just can’t remove the talking points. They just have to politicize everything.*on the White House web-site.
(Via the Anchoress on Facebook.)
*on White House web-page.
“Why,” asks the Telegraph’s Tim Stanley writing about the excerpt in Vanity Fair from David Maraniss’s soon-to-be released biography of Barack Obama,
. . . didn’t we know all these details four years ago – even though some of them were published in a best-selling autobiography that was sold to us as if it was a fifth gospel? And yet we knew everything there was to know about Sarah Palin, despite the fact that she was in the race for a much shorter space of time than Obama – and only running for veep.
Via Powerline Picks where John Hinderaker, who has read a good chunk of the excerpt, highlights an event that Obama apparently manufactured for his memoir, Dreams From My Father. Genevieve Cook, a woman he once dated in New York, says he never took her to the theater despite Obama’s claim that he had taken a girlfriend in New York to the show:
No such play, no such dialogue. Maraniss charitably supposes that the event involved a different, later girlfriend in Chicago who was part of the “composite” girlfriend character. But Obama places the play in New York, not Chicago. My guess is that the incident never happened at all: one nice thing about fictionalizing an autobiography and including fake characters is that it gives you license to include events that didn’t happen but, from an artistic standpoint, should have.
When people who read my novel asked if it were autobiographical, I quipped that I changed the facts to make the truth more manifest, but I made clear that I was writing a novel. I made clear I wasn’t telling the story of my life. By calling his a memoir, Obama indicates that he is telling the story of his.
There is a real question here not just about the misrepresentation, but also about the stories Obama chooses to tell (and apparently invents) to define who he is.
*NB: Changed the title to more accurately reflect the meaning of the post.
And this story then deserves far greater consideration than inquires into Mitt Romney’s mode of transporting his pet in the early 1980s. And Ann Romney’s wardrobe. More on this anon.
A journalist committed to “accountability journalism” would ask the Attorney General about this video:
Readers of this blog are well aware of the high regard in which I hold Peggy Noonan, having dubbed her the Athena of punditry in 2005. She lost a lot of favor with conservatives at the tail-end of the 2008 presidential campaign when she commented favorably on the Democratic nominee for president and his campaign.
Her hope for ability to unite the nation and transform its politics has changed. She has long since soured on the Democrat, having castigated him earlier this year for (and again on Friday) for his policies mandating “that agencies of the Catholic Church would have to provide birth-control services the church finds morally repugnant.”
In that same piece, she questioned whether the president has a relationship with the American people:
A president only gets a year or two to forge real bonds with the American people. In that time a crucial thing he must establish is that what is on his mind is what is on their mind. This is especially true during a crisis.
From the day Mr. Obama was sworn in, what was on the mind of the American people was financial calamity—unemployment, declining home values, foreclosures.
As the American people were thinking about such things, the Democrat’s mind was elsewhere: ”on health care.”
Read the whole thing and note especially the “entirely abstract sense of America” held by what she dubs the incumbent’s “hermetically sealed inner circle”.
And she offers the defining irony (perhaps) the president’s most intense reelection campaign: Obama “is said by all who know him to be deeply competitive, but . . . doesn’t seem to like his job that much.” He wants to win for the sake of winning — and not for the job that comes with the laurels*. No wonder he’s been holding so many fundraisers. (And still has “has less cash on hand in his re-election bid than [did] his predecessor.)
Must be part of the Democrats’ plan.
Glenn linked this yesterday; it does show the former Speaker, rhetorically at least, at the top of his game. He makes his point clearly, but does it hold water?
Perhaps the greatest irony of the tension between congressional Republicans, who want to hold the line on federal spending and the growth of government, and President Obama, who has ratcheted up federal spending and spurred the growth of the federal leviathan, is that he has outmaneuvered them on a plan to reduce the flow of revenue to Washington:
A payroll tax cut for 160 million Americans, set to expire at the end of this month, would be extended through December under a bipartisan deal announced early on Thursday by U.S. congressional leaders.
The accord would also renew expiring jobless benefits for millions of others and prevent a pay cut for doctors of elderly Medicare patients.
The comprehensive agreement represents a victory for President Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats in Congress, and allows Republicans to put behind them a tax debate that threatened to hurt them in the November elections.
Seems the Democrat learned well from Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. Tax cuts are good for the economy and popular with voters.
The president, however, hasn’t indicated how he plans to compensate for the funds that will no longer flow to Social Security. ”The payroll tax,” as Mario Loyola reminds us, “is a uniform (non-progressive) tax invented as a way for all American workers to pay into the Social Security and Medicare benefits that virtually all of them will be eligible for when they retire.” And we learned this week that Social Security Is Failing Even Faster Than We Thought. (more…)
Concluding his post on the president’s budget, Larry Kudlow observes, “The U.S. is in a heap of fiscal trouble — on the verge of bankruptcy“, then asks, “What are we going to do about it?”
The man who as presidential candidate contended we were “living beyond our means” has put forward, as president, yet another budget under which the federal government would act in the manner he decried on the campaign trail. Obama, Jennifer Rubins writes, “has once again demonstrated his lack of political courage by refusing to lead on fiscal discipline.” Calling the president the “punter in chief,” Frank Donatelli derides the budget for kicking “all our fiscal problems down the road, to a day of reckoning“.
This is not a serious budget. If anything, it is as Senator Rob Portman (R-OH) put it an “entirely political document,” a means to show the special interests which make up his party’s base that he’s committed to their causes.
Taking a pass on reining in government growth, President Obama unveiled a record $3.8 trillion election-year budget plan Monday, calling for stimulus-style spending on roads and schools and tax hikes on the wealthy to help pay the costs. The ideas landed with a thud on Capitol Hill.
He’s not raising taxes to pay down the debt, but as Kudlow put it, “this is a budget that says we must raise taxes in order to raise spending.”
“After having presided over three of the largest deficits in our history” writes Yuval Levin, “the president wants to go for four, and to end his term having added $6.4 trillion to the nation’s gross debt (about as much total debt in four years as the United States amassed in its first 225 years combined). ” By contrast, “The national debt increased $4.9 trillion during the eight-year presidency of George W. Bush.” 30% higher in half the time.
The incumbent looks smaller than previous sitting presidents, as did Jimmy Carter. His efforts in the Oval Office have not been generally understood as successful. There’s a broad sense it hasn’t worked. And Democrats don’t like him, as they didn’t Jimmy Carter.
This continues as one of the most amazing and underappreciated facts of 2012—the sitting president’s own party doesn’t like him. The party’s constituent pieces will stick with him, having no choice, but with a feeling of dissatisfaction. It is not only the Republicans who have been unhappy this year. All this will have some bearing on the coming year.
Anecdotal evidence suggests some truth to this assertion. Like the Athena of punditry, I live in a very blue island and find many of the incumbent’s erstwhile supporters less than satisfied with his performance in office, with one Democratic friend dubbing his party’s standard bearer a “failure.” Seems Noonan has had heard similar complaints.
We see this in polls showing Democrats dispirited about voting in 2012. A December 14 poll showed Republicans far more enthusiastic than Democrats. Yet, Obama’s approval remains strong among Democrats. Perhaps that approval is only lukewarm? Or reflects his recent battle with House Republicans over the payroll tax rate?
Whatever the case, there do seem to be many dispirited Democrats in blue enclaves. So, what’s your view? Is Peggy right? Do you have a sense from talking to your Democrat friends that they don’t make care for the incumbent President of the United States?