● Defending Obama’s Glorious Record: The first big problem for Obama is his record. From causing the Great Recession to unbelievable debt and deficits, to the lost credit rating, to his failure to fix too-big-too-fail, his failure to fix the mortgage crisis, his failure to create any jobs, soaring gas prices, soaring energy costs, increased dependence on foreign old, overseas surrenders, his “failure”/attempt to enact gun control, “failure” to create a single-payer healthplan/his attempt to seize the medical system, his “failure”/attempt to enact cap and trade, his “failure”/attempt to end the Bush tax cuts and No Child Left Behind, his failure to close Guantanamo, or a dozen other things, no one left, right or center likes this man. Here’s how Team Obama plans to spin this.
First, blame Bush. The Economist put it this way, “considering the circumstances, he has not done badly.” In other words, Bush set him up for failure. They then credit him with preventing a Great Depression, rescuing Detroit’s carmakers and “stabilizing the banks.” If by “stabilizing” they mean “making the situation much worse” and by “rescuing” they mean “delaying the inevitable,” then sure, he did do those things. Claiming the Great Recession as a good thing is perverse, and they do it by claiming that “more Americans would be out of work today” if not for Obama. This is nonsense, but can’t be proven either way.
The Economist then finishes by crediting Obama with “battering al Qaeda” and killing Osama bin Laden. On point two: who cares, he wasn’t in charge anymore and it clearly didn’t stop a damn thing. On point one: where exactly is the proof for this? We are the ones with our tails between our legs in Afghanistan. Piracy, a new al Qaeda venture, is out of control. There are record numbers of terrorists attacks each year. How exactly did Obama neuter al Qaeda?
Our troll ran with this too. He points to bin Laden’s death (yawn), and he claims the Navy freed someone from the Somali pirates. He doesn’t seem to realize that under Obama there’s be a 625% increase in the number of ships taken, a 3,600% increase in the amount paid per ship, and a total increase in profits of 22,527%. At least somebody’s better off under Obama.
He then says: no one can name anything Obama did which “would remotely qualify as Marxist.” Well, I’m relieved. Then he lists some policies without mentioning they didn’t work -- the stimulus, the auto industry bailout, putting “attractive tax write-offs” on hybrids. . . which aren’t selling. He lists spending on various things as if that was somehow a good thing: high-speed porno for schools and increased infrastructure spending “after years of neglect.” He also lists some things that didn’t happen like healthcare coverage being given to four million more children, the closing of offshore tax safe havens, and “making more loans available to small business.” That’s all simply false. And this one I love, he “instituted enforcement for equal pay for women.” Uh. . . no. Obama made a point of not promising that the other day. Instead, he’s promising to pay for family medical leave and condoms.
That’s the laughable game plan for selling Obama’s record. Notice they don’t even try to defend the bad parts, they just gloss over those. But even more importantly, all of the above misses the key problem: the average American voter is much worse off than they were before Barry took over.
● The Campaign: Because Obama’s record is so horrible, Obama will run a vile, racist campaign. To prepare everyone for this, The Economist notes that this will be an ugly election. . . because of Romney. Apparently, the vile Romney must plead to the Republican base’s “hatred of Mr. Obama” to win the election. This will cause Mr. Obama to “run a more partisan campaign this time around.” Yeah, they really described it that way.
Then they said something hilarious. See, for reasons unknown to The Economist, Obama just happens to have been “portraying the Republicans as ruthless asset-strippers who care nothing about the middle class so long as they can promote the interests of the super-rich,” when good fortune smiled upon him: “How lucky for Mr. Obama that the super-rich Mr. Romney made his fortune in the cut-throat business of private equity.” Wow, what a coincidence? Obama just happens to be blasting the vile rich for no apparent reason, and then the vile-rich Romney gets the nomination. That’s so perfect, you would almost think Obama was saying those things intentionally. . . unless you work for The Economist, then you just see this as a lucky coincidence.
They continue by noting that Obama has been claiming the Republicans “embrace a form of ‘thinly veiled social Darwinism’ that would deprive needy children of healthy food, slash cancer research, close down national parks and eliminate air-traffic control in swathes of the country.” Why The Economist says this isn’t clear, unless they just want to spread the word for Obama. Indeed, that seems to be the case based on the very next sentence: “It sounds scary, and it contains more than grain of truth,” even though the Republicans “have proposed none of these specific cuts.” In others words, it’s scary because it’s true, even though it’s not technically true. Wow.
At least they do point out that Romney responded to this by arguing that these are straw men arguments. Of course, then The Economist says: “Coming from the Republicans, this is rich. They have attacked a straw man since the day Mr. Obama was inaugurated. They labeled his conventional Keynesian response to a deep recession ‘socialist.’ They called Obamacare unAmerican, even though this market-based scheme to extend health cover to 30m uninsured Americans is almost identical to the one Mr. Romney adopted.”
Can you feel the tears? Those evil Republicans made The Economist cry and we should therefore ignore the truth of what the Republicans say. Notice also the massive double-speak here. Obamacare is not a market-based scheme by any definition. It is not identical to Romneycare. It was supposed to cover 43 million Americans, not 30 million. Keynesianism plus nationalizing banks and car companies, taking over state budgets, forcing unionization on companies, etc. etc. is socialism.
And again, notice how perfectly these whiny lies fit with the troll, who assures us there is no proof Obama is a Marxist. The troll also said, this is “why Republicans want to put the full weight of the National Debt on American Workers, while the super-rich get even richer.” Tell me that doesn’t sound like The Economist’s little tirade about the Republicans as “asset-strippers who care nothing about the middle class so long as they can promote the interests of the super-rich.” Sounds like somebody cheated off somebody else’s paper!
To its “credit,” The Economist does note that Romney has correctly attacked Obama for not coming up with a serious plan to tame entitlements, BUT “there is plenty of blame to go around.” Then they point out how Obama tried to do this last summer but was frustrated by Congress, and then they credit him with $1.2 trillion in phantom cuts. (By the way, this same magazine attacked those cuts as dangerous at the time.) They also note that the “Buffett rule” is just a gimmick. The Buffett rule, in case you didn’t know, is “supposed to make millionaires like Mr. Romney pay at least the same tax rate as their secretaries.” And for the record, Obama paid less than his secretary this year. . . as did his crony buddy Warren Buffett.
Finally, they finish with the old “can’t we all just get along” which liberals always use when they are going to lose.
That is Obama’s campaign in a nutshell. These are the talking points you will hear liberals start repeating now ad nauseam until you are ready to strangle every last one of them. And if you do indeed feel that need, don’t let me stop you.
66 comments:
I'm sorry about that folks. This is the second time this week the automatic publish has failed to publish. :(
RWR isn't helping with their constant complaints about Romney not taking it Obama. Romney isn't a firebrand. He is just the expert you call when your financial house isn't in order.
We need a rich guy in charge to help us out of Obama creating more poor. Rich guys create riches. Riches pay for things. Obama is the one who wants us figuratively enslaved begging him and his cronies for scraps.
Joel, Clearly you didn't get the talking point, Romney is "super-rich" which means he strips assets and pushes debt on the middle class. That's all the rich "really" do.
I agree about talk radio. Their incessant whining and willful ignorance is truly getting annoying.
Look at it this way, Andrew: Apparently we get enough attention that someone out there felt the need to dispatch a troll over here. Sort of a backhanded compliment. :-)
Interesting. I don't think that will work, but it probably will work with some people.
T-Rav, Yep. It's always good to be trolled, I guess? LOL!
DUQ, Don't discount the strategy. Most people won't know what's true and what isn't. I'm sure most of the good liberals who read The Economist read the article and say, "hey, he hasn't been that bad at all."
The troll will obviously be less effective.
troll'd!
and hell no, i'm not going to try and get along. this will serve as the left's notice.
Andrew......another great insightful article. While I know the leftists and Democrats (but I repeat myself) will spin everything to their advantage, in Obama's case, they now have the disadvantage of the old Groucho Marx statement....."Who you gonna believe....Me or your lying eyes?!" He now has a record that people can see. And most sentient Americans have seen and heard from these type BS'ers their whole life. This just happens to be coming from the most powerful position in America, and not the smarmy Senior Class president who everyone knows is a shmuck.
Bottom line....30% are true believers and will never vote for the other side. Namby Pambys like a lot of Americans ...Independents/Libertarians.....will look at the results and compare them to the sales job and say "ENOUGH"
He has probably never been held accountable before. He's about to be welcomed to the real world.
Andrew: I'll promise to stop reading The New Republic if you'll promise to stop reading The Economist. They seem to bring out the anger in us.
I love the progression from eating the rich to eating the super-rich. When that fails, Obama will switch to eat the supermega-rich. He calls that policy. I call it socialism on LSD.
"...deprive needy children of healthy food, slash cancer research, close down national parks and eliminate air-traffic control in swathes of the country..."
This is exactly what we discuss at our super-secret Republican Evil Rich People meetings. In particular we discuss how we can deprive needy children of nutritious food while we eat caviar, expensive French champagne, and lots and lots of cake and ice cream...
Patti, Yeah, we got trolled. LOL!
I'm not playing to get along either. That's something liberals say when they know they are going to lose.
Bev, you clearly skipped out before the talk got down to how we could make sure lots of kids get cancer, and how to rapidly pollute as much of the environment as possible. It was a great brainstorming session, I tells ya.
Bev and T-Rav: I tried to attend that meeting, but left because I thought I had accidentally walked into a GSA convention. But I did sample the caviar before exiting.
Patriot, Thanks! I don't think his strategy will ultimately work. He'll get the true believers as you note and he'll get some of the moderates. I think neither side can really fall below 43% in any election.
But beyond that, I just don't see this plan working to sell anyone on his re-election. Even if we believed it all, and we don't, NONE of it impacts individual voters. There is nothing here which I think will make people forget that their paychecks are smaller, that things cost more, that they are losing their healthcare, that their friends and neighbors have lost jobs. He's basically talking about the wrong stuff.
Moreover, the attacks on Romney won't help because Romney is Mr. Bland and doesn't at all sound like the person Obama is trying to make him sound like.
Lawhawk, the super-mega-rich! LOL! Yeah, it seems that attacking the rich wasn't working because too many people wanted to be rich. So now they attack the super-rich, who we know are pure evil.
I'll tell you, I should stop reading this thing. For every decent article, there are four or five that just set my blood pressure boiling. This one was pure propaganda.
Bev, That's what we talk about too! Then we talk baseball. ;)
It's absolutely shameless to me that Obama would make this kind of vile attack on the Republicans and yet the MSM not only doesn't him call it on that, it passes it along and it tells us "this is true, even though it really isn't." WTF?
I would respond, but my hair is now on fire!
Joel, I noted first thing this morning the hand-wringing meme that Romney may not be tough enough to take on 0bama. I can't help but relate this to the previous Romney meme: that he was so darn mean to Lil' Lord Santleroy.
I won't ask for an explanation as to how Ricky, who couldn't even stand up to "Powder Puff Willard," was expected to take Barry to the mat.
T-Rav, LOL! True. That was a heck of a session. I thought the idea to give kids cancer by letting them eat pink slime was a good one. Too bad the Democrats caught on to that. :(
And don't forget, our plan to simultaneously let in millions of Mexicans so we can exploit them while forcibly deporting them to break up their families. Ah... good times.
Lawhawk, That GSA scandal just won't end! And the funny thing is that I bet they keep right on doing these things even after getting caught.
tryanmax, Sorry to hear about the hair. Might I recommend the steady application of water?
tryanmax, I think that meme is ridiculous. How can Romney not be tough enough when they simultaneously complained about his scorched earth attacks on Santorum? Romney won despite the full-on attack by the Republican establishment and Obama.
Andrew, Excellent article. I have started to hear some of these same points being made by the talking heads on CNN. I think this will be the Obama plan. Will it work? I doubt it.
Short version. Left: Obama = FDR.
Andrew: Romney isn't Republican establishment?
Shirley you jest.
Thanks Doc! I think you'll be hearing a lot more of this.
K,
Not Obama = FDR; Obama = Carter with a steroid deficiency and an over abundance of w)hormones.
Romney is less establishment than Palin.
K, Yeah, this secret "Republican Establishment" run by RINOs is no more. They ceased to be in the 1990s when the Religious Right flooded the party and drove out the country clubbers -- there are still a couple, but they are few and far between. If you look throughout the party now, you will find that the establishment, the people holding the power, are religious right mixed with a few money-types, and with the most prominent talking heads like Rush. The "the establishment is out to get me" rhetoric is just meant to trick audiences into seeing these guys as battling outsiders.
Joel, Obama wants everyone to see him as FDR, but you are right, he is really Carter -- or Nixon.
That's an interesting statement about Palin! I'm sure a lot of Palin supporters would not be happy to hear that.
Joel, I don't know that Palin is establishment, but I do know that the Republican establishment -- the elected officials, the party officials, the opinion makers -- all refused to endorse him and kept looking for anybody but Romney until they finally ran out of people: Christie, Daniels, Jindal, Ryan, Jeb Bush. They tried to get each of them to run so they wouldn't have Romney.
Doc, That is correct. They spent all of last year trying to get anyone to jump into the race so it wouldn't be Romney. Romney didn't become "establishment" until Newt and Santorum became the last two standing and then they incredibly tried to paint themselves as outsides and him as establishment.
when you have nothing to sell yourself, divide and victimize. Good post, Andrew
Palin listened to establishment when they said not her. She endorsed two establishment candidates, not including McCain. Romney is more old school politician which is NOT the establishment today. I don't see Palin so much as establishment, but I see Romney as less establishment than her.
Thanks Jed. I think that's Obama's plan. Lie about his record to make it sounds like he actually did something and then do his best to smear Romney. Fortunately, that won't work because it's his record which is on trial in November.
Joel, I see. I don't think of her as establishment really because she's not part of the club yet -- though she is in at Fox News (the flagship of the modern establishment). But I think she's been fooled by the establishment, looking at her endorsements.
Excellent post Andrew. I see where their defense of his record makes sense because most people probably don't pay attention to the news.
Thanks Ellen. I suspect that many people will fall for this because they won't remember or never learned the truth. They will just take it on fact that the money was well spent and solved the problems. But we'll see. I think more than a majority of the country has already made up their minds about him. That's why he can't get out of the 40% range in terms of approvals ratings.
Andrew, I've been wondering about that. I know the polls don't matter, but it must mean something that he can't get to 50%? Don't they always say an incumbent below 50% is in trouble?
Ellen, As a general rule, an incumbent below 50% is in serious trouble. Most of those people will lose the election because undecideds tend to break for the challenger about 2-1.
What I think is more important about these numbers is how consistent they've been. All incumbents hit the 40s at some point and the 60s at others. But the thing is... they keep bouncing around, Obama hasn't. He's steadily dropped to around 45% and stayed there. That tells me he's lost different segments of the population bit by bit and they are giving him no chance to win them back.
That's why I think this race is over, and that's why he needs to make this race about the Republicans. But they haven't given him a target.
I'm with Bev, that's exactly what our righ-guy meetings are all about.
It makes me wonder that anyone can say these things with a straight face? Have they no sense of shame? And then for "The Economist" to repeat that and basically say: "it's true, even though it isn't," is just asinine.
Also, Andrew, have you considered that the troll works for "The Economist"? Or maybe they both just work for Obama.
Terry, I suspect they just share a mind, not a paycheck.
I have long wondered how liberals could be so shameless. And the answer is actually not very surprising -- they have no sense of shame. They know they are always right and everyone thinks like them, so whatever they think must be acceptable. And if that means exaggerating the truth to keep the evil-doers out of power, then that's a small price to pay.
I want to know where my "Republican Evil Rich People meeting" invitation was??? I am so hurt that I wasn't invited! Oh, wait - that was the thing that was the same night as my Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy meeting!! Now I remember! We all gotta make choices...
I am still bummed I missed the last troll. I guess they hang out under the Billy Goats' bridge during the day?
As for all of the talking points, I am awfully afraid that too many people still listen to the MSM. That they might poll low based on real life but vote based on "what they heard". It's like the monster under the bed - I worry about it coming out and munching when I least expect it... But it is awfully nice of them to stick to the same script!
rlaWTX, That's the problem with having all these different conspiracies... scheduling conflicts. LOL!
The troll came late and left early, leaving only the one troll-dropping. He probably got paid for posting the same garbage all over the web.
You are right that there is a very real danger with the electorate. And these talking points aren't bad for convincing people who haven't paid attention. But I think the odds are seriously against Obama this time. He can't get his approvals above 50%, which tells me people have made up their minds. There is nothing here to inspire his side. There is nothing here which will work against Romney.
I think Obama loses 54% - 46%, but the electoral college makes it really close -- 2-3 states.
P.S. the monster under the bed! LOL! Nice metaphor!
"this secret "Republican Establishment" run by RINOs is no more"
Glad to hear it. Perhaps it's the Evangelicals who are supporting Dick Lugar then.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/75312.html
"Romney is less establishment than Palin."
If you mean he's further to the left of the Republican electorate than Palin is to the right, I'd have to agree.
K, I'm sorry if you don't like the reality, but this secret RINO establishment doesn't exist. It is made up so all these insiders can pretend to be outsiders. And the fact that some old timer moderates still can call upon favors from a couple of other old-timer moderates doesn't change that.
Are you denying that the establishment (i.e. everyone with a famous name in the Party) spent last year trying to find an acceptable replacement to Romney? How can Romney be the establishment guy when they were doing that? Or was that just to fool us all into thinking they really didn't want Romney when they secretly did?
Also, let me ask, do you really think Newt or Santorum are outsiders?
I think the Journolist is still around. How else can it be that the Democrats and the MSM are so good at suddenly speaking the same words in roughly the same order at once. It's like a light switch, a group mind.
Palin isn't left or right, she has no ideology at all that I can tell.
Ed, In truth, they don't need the Journolist to get talking points out because the White House can just e-mail its memos out directly. I've seen the kinds of e-mail lists they use and it will have 200 or so journalists on it. Ostensibly this is just a press release. But they know these journalists will run with it nearly verbatim and will begin to work those ideas into their stories.
At the same time, they can send the same e-mail to their "consultants" who then go on CNN, Fox or whatnot and repeat the points.
There's no magic to it.
Andrew, That's probably true, especially as they are used to groupthink in the first place, so it probably doesn't take much to get them all on the same page.
Andrew, I see the person who listed that "carving" hasn't renewed the ad. I'll keep checking on it once in a while, and see if the price gets dropped again. Do you still think that even with the magic word of "free", it won't be enough of an incentive?
Ed, That's true. And when you have a recognized source of authority telling you what to believe, it gets even easier to fall into groupthink!
Jen, I'm not at all surprised. I think they've missed the bus on selling that kind of art. Maybe 3 years ago, but not now.
I was just funnin' with you abut the carving! LOL!
With the exception of maybe my next door neighbors (I DO get along with them really well though--imagine that, and I'm not referring to "The Professor" either), I don't know of anyone else personally that believes this garbage. Maybe it's just where I live? I don't think so. I talk to a lot of people that I have to deal with because of what I do, and they are not very happy with what is going on in the country.
Jen, I still can't see them selling any of those!
I know a couple die hard liberals who believe it. They are truly brainwashed. They simply will not accept any facts which go against what they want to believe. They are beyond hope.
I also know some others who don't care, they just want their benefits and they think Obama is most likely to make sure that happens.
But the vast majority of people I know are very much unhappy with Obama.
Pretty much spot on Andrew, and like I said they’re literally running against themselves, and George Bush. We are hearing, over and over, “ do you want to return to the failed policies that got us here in the first place.” My office TV may not survive this election. There is so much wrong with that statement, I’d need an entire blog post to answer all the reasons why. To name a few however, Washington is a failed idea, and all of our problems have been festered by both parties for decades JFK forward. You can go before that with Wilson and FDR, they laid the ground work for JFK’s executive order 10988 in 1962, allowing government employees to unionize, LBJ’s “The Great Society,” this one piece of legislation has taken the steering wheel of state, while driving us into the perpetual ditch. Nixon’s EPA, The War on Drugs, Taking us off the Gold Standard, Ford maintained the status quo, Carter’s crap is legion, but one massive pimple Community Reinvestment Act 1977 (CRE). Even the great Reagan, falsely believed the left was dealing in good faith, Amnesty, 1986 Tax Reform (sorta Flattax). Bush 1, “no new taxes,” Thousand Points of Life, New World Order. Slick Willy, NAFTA, DADT, hit the accelerator on CRE. Bush 2 (W) Prescriptions Drug Benefit for Seniors, TARP. Barry my God, he sucks. He took incrementallism and put into an overt gallop, he’s toast. This is what any President is facing “Maybe” just maybe Romney will begin a return to sanity?
This fits well in my speech.
Thomas Sowell’s “Random Thoughts”
“In politics, few talents are as richly rewarded as the ability to convince parasites that they are victims. Welfare states on both sides of the Atlantic have discovered that largesse to losers does not reduce their hostility to society, but only increases it. Far from producing gratitude, generosity is seen as an admission of guilt, and the reparations as inadequate compensation for injustices – leading to worsening behavior by the recipients.
Stan, Thanks! I wish your office television the best. This is going to be a hugely unpleasant election because they will be lying through their teeth, smearing everything.
"Washington is a failed idea." Bravo! Very well said! And that's an excellent list of failures. Let us hope someone in Washington is listening and realizes this. I do have faith in the Tea Party people to slowly but surely correct these things, but it will take a lot of time and will require a lot of work.
Obama will win the election because the Republicans can't escape what Bush did to the country.
Anon, Good luck with that. Four years is ancient history and Bush is gone. Even your base won't care about him anymore.
Andrew, amazing isn't it? The "Bush's fault" that is.
Every year on Labor Day weekend, there is a motorcycle ride to benefit MDA. The route goes past my house, and there were also a few years that it didn't for some reason. I wasn't always home because of my job at the time, but now that I am here, I usually see most of the participants. When Bush was still president, the ride would last at a minimum of an hour, and forty-five minutes (that's when I was actually paying attention to the first bikes going by). In 2008 (we already knew who the presidential candidates were by then), the time had dwindled to around forty-five minutes. The number of riders didn't drop until that year. Last year, it was barely thirty minutes.
I started noticing things going downhill shortly after Obozo was nominated. In 2009, I had three people in the course of one week that came to me looking for a job. I couldn't even pay myself at that time, and still have not fully recovered from then.
As for that "carving", I can't see any of them selling either. I was just trying to be funny (I wanted to throw the "free" word in there just for kicks). You can only pull the wool of BS over people's eyes for just so many times before they've had enough. A lot of the people I have to deal with come from all over, including different states. My brother gets around quite a bit too (his job requires driving), and he doesn't hesitate to talk to people about this kind of thing. They aren't happy either.
Jen, Yeah, it's amazing they still think the Bush's fault thing will work.
The first time I really noticed Obama was in troubling with the public was in mid-2009, when I started noticing people who normally didn't speak politics suddenly voicing how upset they were with Obama. You would suddenly see these random comments on sports sites, flikr, videogame boards, etc. from people who never said anything political before. Of course, the liberals would immediately attack them to shut them up, but this time others jumped in to defend them. This told me the public was at the bursting point. Then Rick Santelli did his thing a few weeks later and the Tea Party was born.
What I'm seeing now is that no one is bothering to talk about Obama anymore -- he really is being ignored by the public. That tells me people have stopped listening. You can also see this in how his poll numbers are flat and (more importantly) how his television ratings have fallen in half and keep falling each time, and how he never gets a bump for good news. Essentially, the verdict is in and everyone is just waiting for November for it to be read.
Andrew, yeah, I remember hearing the Rick Santelli rant. I guess time will tell come November.
I'm glad I found out where everyone went--those who commented at Big Hollywood a few years back, including yourself. I really enjoy being with like minded people. Those brain-dead Kool-Aid drinkers should see how much we trash The One to show them how much they really are in the minority. A few even have the audacity to comment here--like they really have a chance.
Jen, Yeah we ended with a lot of BH people over here, and it's worked out pretty well.
What's funny is that so many on the left are entirely oblivious to the number of conservatives ready to throw them out. They only read liberal sites, watch liberal news and talk to liberals and they really have no idea that the public is lining up against them.
That's what happens when you live in a bubble and you attack anyone who tries to offer contrary evidence... you miss what the rest of the public is doing.
Andrew, a stealth attack, that's what I like. The left is totally clueless to where they won't know what hit 'em! I also don't care if they read this, because, they won't get it anyhow. Let them keep living in the bubble. Just wait until it POPS!
Jen, They wouldn't understand it at all -- or believe it... or suspect that a great many people believe it.
Post a Comment