John Hawkins's latest article. Read it. Then read this.
Hawkins isn't wrong, and it's not entirely unthinkable that Romney won't solve these problems. It's reasonable to assume that once he's in power, he may even ignore some of these problems.
But I am confident that no matter what he does in regards to the issues Hawkins points out, Romney will do a better job handling any of them and all of them, than will Barack Obama.
Why? Because the last four years have shown that Obama won't do ANYTHING to solve them, but the liberal media will ignore them for his sake. So, if he gets another term, we can count on all those problems to get worse, we can count on the president ignoring them, and we can count on the media ignoring the president ignoring them.
But the article also serves as a nice preemptive strike when it comes to what's going to happen should it be Romney who's victorious on Tuesday.
That is, the media will finally start acknowledging that these problems exist, and begin hand-wringing that Romney isn't the man to take care of them. And if these problems haven't disappeared on day one of Romney's presidency (and they won't), then the media will immediately call him a failed president who did not live up to the job.
Remember how often leftists demanded we leave Obama alone during his first 100 days in office during the early part of next year. At this point, I believe Romney has a very strong chance of winning (though nothing is set in stone), and if he does, I firmly believe that he will be excoriated strongly by the very same people who called us racist, angry, violent, dangerous people because Obama had only just taken office, so we couldn't judge him.
Think they'll show the same courtesy and respect they demanded we show then? Not hardly. Romney will become the punching bag for all the problems still facing the USA. These issues won't go away overnight. No, I don't think it takes more than a single term to turn them around and I think if Romney can't get us on the path to significant change by the middle of his first term, then there's a problem. But because these issues are many, and hard to solve, I know, I don't just think, that the same media, and the same rank-and-file Obama supporters, who are currently pretending things are good, or at least better, will suddenly realize all these problems exist and begin wailing that they're unsolvable, or at least, that Romney hasn't waved a wand and solved them overnight.
You watch and see.
Personally I really think conservatives aught to take advantage of the fact that so many common Americans are starting to self-identify as conservatives and Republicans again, and do something about this corrupt media. Protests might work, but massive campaigns promoting conservatives to become journalists, writers, etc. and find other ways to enter the media, and promote the media they make, will have a more lasting effect. Something's gotta be done about these bastards. They more than anything are what's harming America today.
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Friday, October 12, 2012
VP Debate 2012: Mr. Smith vs. Leslie Neilsen
A while back, I said that we need a candidate willing to get onstage and laugh at the Obama administration. Apparently Joe Biden read that and decided to get the jump on it by laughing at his opponent. But he got it wrong.
Joe, I wasn't suggesting that you laugh when your opponent talks about YOUR ADMINISTRATION's response to a terrorist attack. See, if you laugh at the other guy's absurd claims about his own record, or bizarre claims of racism from your side, that's one thing. Laughing about dead people? Not cool. Not cool at all.
Joe Biden, even to his own party, came off as dismissive, arrogant, jerkish, and un-serious. While Paul Ryan looked like an honest, open, earnest, serious young Mr. Smith (of Mr. Smith goes to Washington), Biden looked like Leslie Neilsen at his most obnoxious. This wasn't Leslie Neilsen in Airplane!. This was Neilsen in Spy Hard.
Now, I won't say that Paul Ryan did a 100% job. He gave a couple of weak answers here and there. Nothing approaching Obama's non-performance at last week's debate, but a couple of blunders. Light stuff. I could point out that it was his first debate ever and that Biden was an old hand at this, but I won't make any excuses, and besides, he doesn't need them. Weak moments aside, I saw a man that, at 42, is already more ready to be president than Obama was at 47. I can tell you right now, after watching this debate, that 2020 has a VERY promising incumbent VP Presidential candidate.
Joe, I wasn't suggesting that you laugh when your opponent talks about YOUR ADMINISTRATION's response to a terrorist attack. See, if you laugh at the other guy's absurd claims about his own record, or bizarre claims of racism from your side, that's one thing. Laughing about dead people? Not cool. Not cool at all.
Joe Biden, even to his own party, came off as dismissive, arrogant, jerkish, and un-serious. While Paul Ryan looked like an honest, open, earnest, serious young Mr. Smith (of Mr. Smith goes to Washington), Biden looked like Leslie Neilsen at his most obnoxious. This wasn't Leslie Neilsen in Airplane!. This was Neilsen in Spy Hard.
Now, I won't say that Paul Ryan did a 100% job. He gave a couple of weak answers here and there. Nothing approaching Obama's non-performance at last week's debate, but a couple of blunders. Light stuff. I could point out that it was his first debate ever and that Biden was an old hand at this, but I won't make any excuses, and besides, he doesn't need them. Weak moments aside, I saw a man that, at 42, is already more ready to be president than Obama was at 47. I can tell you right now, after watching this debate, that 2020 has a VERY promising incumbent VP Presidential candidate.
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Just Show Up and You'll Win: Obama Believes His Own Bullshit
Obama has declared before "You know, I actually believe my own bullshit".
Anyone who hears this story will find out that the president wasn't just kidding. He actually does believe his own bullshit.
Ever see a pre-schooler at a T-ball hit three strikes but walk from the plate smiling because he just hit the ball three times? You know, the ball that's sitting there right in front of him, on a poll, not moving? Well, that's Obama after last Wednesday's debate.
Apparently he believed all he had to do was show up, and he'd win. Worse yet, he still believed that after he strode from the podium, not seeing the fresh, steaming helping of his own ass that Romney had just handed him.
I can just hear it now "Oh, yeah, I'm the man. All I have to do is be here, and I've wrapped up this whole election. I rule. I RULE! Another four years! Heck, maybe during my fifth year I can get someone to lobby to overturn the 22nd amendment. And because I want it, I know it will happen. I'm the king, baby. Hail to the king."
This pic is funny, but apparently not accurate. It would be, if Obama lived in the same reality that everyone else does.
Even Obama's staunchest supporters immediately declared that the debate was a drubbing. Mitt Romney ate Obama's lunch, and watching guys like Chris Matthews or Andrew Sullivan melt down over it has been hilarious. Remember how Obama was "sort of God", or that he gave Chris Matthews a "thrill up his leg", so much so that he "forgot [Obama] was black"?
That's the effect you get when Obama is placed in a setting where he can hold court; where no one can challenge what he says, and when everything he wants to say is on a teleprompter. I also think it's funny that some of his supporters are now arguing that teleprompters should be allowed during debates. I wish I was making that up, but I'm not. This is how mindless liberals are.
For the last four years, Obama has enjoyed as president the same environment he has enjoyed his whole life; the environment where he will always be reassured that he's the smartest person in the room. Everything is handed to him; he got every "job" he's held because of how he was able to cultivate this image of a smart young black man. In interviews, no one asks him tough questions, and in the one interview he granted FOX news, he was visibly irritated that he wasn't allowed to just quote platitudes and get off lightly. That's what he was used to, and that's what he expected.
Notice that the more openly controversial his decisions became, the more he held "press conferences" where he refused to take questions, even from the liberal media? Obama can't handle being challenged.
He also carries with him the innate belief that he'll always win because he is who he is. This was clear to those non-racists who saw past his skin-color from the get-go, but now it's becoming clear to all Americans.
I'm gonna close with some advice for the brilliant Paul Ryan (who probably doesn't need it): don't believe the anecdotes that tomorrow night will be a walk in the park for you. Don't believe that all you have to do is show up to win. Yes, Joe Biden is an idiot, but he's a folksy idiot who can lie on his feet while smiling. Call him out, and call out the media for allowing him to get away with it for four years. Bring your A-game, because we know the best game Biden's got is a B minus. But don't feel like you can bring your C-game and win, like Obama clearly thought was the case.
Anyone who hears this story will find out that the president wasn't just kidding. He actually does believe his own bullshit.
Ever see a pre-schooler at a T-ball hit three strikes but walk from the plate smiling because he just hit the ball three times? You know, the ball that's sitting there right in front of him, on a poll, not moving? Well, that's Obama after last Wednesday's debate.
Apparently he believed all he had to do was show up, and he'd win. Worse yet, he still believed that after he strode from the podium, not seeing the fresh, steaming helping of his own ass that Romney had just handed him.
I can just hear it now "Oh, yeah, I'm the man. All I have to do is be here, and I've wrapped up this whole election. I rule. I RULE! Another four years! Heck, maybe during my fifth year I can get someone to lobby to overturn the 22nd amendment. And because I want it, I know it will happen. I'm the king, baby. Hail to the king."
Even Obama's staunchest supporters immediately declared that the debate was a drubbing. Mitt Romney ate Obama's lunch, and watching guys like Chris Matthews or Andrew Sullivan melt down over it has been hilarious. Remember how Obama was "sort of God", or that he gave Chris Matthews a "thrill up his leg", so much so that he "forgot [Obama] was black"?
That's the effect you get when Obama is placed in a setting where he can hold court; where no one can challenge what he says, and when everything he wants to say is on a teleprompter. I also think it's funny that some of his supporters are now arguing that teleprompters should be allowed during debates. I wish I was making that up, but I'm not. This is how mindless liberals are.
For the last four years, Obama has enjoyed as president the same environment he has enjoyed his whole life; the environment where he will always be reassured that he's the smartest person in the room. Everything is handed to him; he got every "job" he's held because of how he was able to cultivate this image of a smart young black man. In interviews, no one asks him tough questions, and in the one interview he granted FOX news, he was visibly irritated that he wasn't allowed to just quote platitudes and get off lightly. That's what he was used to, and that's what he expected.
Notice that the more openly controversial his decisions became, the more he held "press conferences" where he refused to take questions, even from the liberal media? Obama can't handle being challenged.
He also carries with him the innate belief that he'll always win because he is who he is. This was clear to those non-racists who saw past his skin-color from the get-go, but now it's becoming clear to all Americans.
I'm gonna close with some advice for the brilliant Paul Ryan (who probably doesn't need it): don't believe the anecdotes that tomorrow night will be a walk in the park for you. Don't believe that all you have to do is show up to win. Yes, Joe Biden is an idiot, but he's a folksy idiot who can lie on his feet while smiling. Call him out, and call out the media for allowing him to get away with it for four years. Bring your A-game, because we know the best game Biden's got is a B minus. But don't feel like you can bring your C-game and win, like Obama clearly thought was the case.
Friday, September 28, 2012
Conservatives Should Demand This From Any Liberal Hoping to Interview Them
I watched Ann Coulter brave the four harpies and the one MSNBC-Conservative on the View, and it reminded me of other times that I've watched conservatives brave the gauntlet of the MSM interview.
Condi Rice on Laurence O'Donnell. Jonah Goldberg on Piers Morgan. Ari Fleischer on Chris Matthews. Andrew Breitbart on Bill Maher. I watched these interviews, and plenty others, and compared them to whenever a liberal host like those above bring on liberal guests.
Watch any of the interviews between Keith Olbermann and Janeane Garofalo. There are several. Note that he lets her have complete freedom to speak her mind for as long as she needs to make her point. The interviews above? You can barely hear what the guest is saying, because the host won't shut up.
They talk over the guest, they interrupt them, they cut mic's. Now, say what you want about Bill O'Reilly (who I've never really liked) but most of the time when a liberal is invited on a FOX News program, they can actually get a word in edgewise. Off the top of my head, the Jon Stewart interview with Chris Wallace that I've already discussed springs to mind. I mean, yeah, I didn't like what he said, but I do like that he was allowed to say it.
When you think about it, that made Wallace look like the bigger (and smarter) man. Let Stewart blab, let him expose his ignorance, let him show just how little he actually knows when he's not in his echo chamber, and then, when he's said his piece, eviscerate him.
That's not how liberals work, though, and in the above interview examples, I think one of the reasons why is clear to me, even if it's not clear to those who do it; they're worried that the guest may say something they can't refute. They're worried about looking stupid. And they're right to worry. Ann Coulter vs. Whoopi Goldberg? Bitch, please.
However, it has to stop. One of the reasons type-1 liberals remain liberal is that whenever they're in a situation where they're watching a conservative, they come away thinking conservatives must be stupid and mean. Any time they watch a conservative, they're always fighting to be heard over the host, so they look hostile.
But conservatives can't just stop going on these shows. It would look cowardly. Since liberals have set the narrative, they can always just say "conservatives won't come on these shows because they will only go where they're made to feel comfortable and no one asks them hard questions." I mean, that sentence is entirely true of liberals (which is why Barack Obama has instructed his staff not to talk to FOX News, and why, after some pressure, he agreed to all of ONE interview in four years). But projection is one of the ways liberals deflect criticism, and as of yet, that won't work for conservatives because we have lost control of the narrative (some would say we conceded the narrative). So what can we do? Continue to go on these shows to be brow-beaten by the host and made to look bad?
No. We can start by saying that we will not agree to go on any show until the following conditions are met:
1) The interview must be live. Never submit to a pre-taped interview or you WILL find yourself edited to look less smart. Any point where you stumped the host will not make it to air. Similarly, never submit to a magazine or newspaper interview.
2) Prior to air, the host or producers must be completely honest about the tone and line of questioning in the interview. We could be prissy like liberals and demand to see the questions beforehand, but since we already know what we believe and why, we don't have to prepare answers. However, since liberals are always fully prepped by the host, conservatives must be as well.
3) When the host asks us a question, he must wait at least three minutes for us to answer, and is not allowed to cut us off mid-sentence. If he does interrupt after you've said a complete sentence (after the three minutes), the three minutes start again. I say three minutes only because I know a TV show has a limited time slot and you're usually not the only guest. However, I think that if the whole show is one long interview with you, that three minutes should expand to six.
Then, during the interview, if the host breaks the third condition, the guest must say "Okay, you just broke the condition to let me actually articulate my position, and everyone watching saw it. Strike one. You don't get a second strike." Then hold to that. If he breaks it again, he's out. Get up and walk out. But first, tell the host "If you ask me to come back on this show, I will, but only if next time you actually agree to let me get a word in edgewise. This time, however, you blew it, and this interview is over."
You may be thinking this will make us look more hostile. The first couple of times, maybe so. But when it becomes obvious that this is happening with EVERY interview show on CNN or MSNBC (or morning talk) and ONLY with conservatives, soon people will be able to see that conservatives are always entering a trap when they go on these shows, but they're no longer allowing the trap to be sprung.
EDIT: Someone's been reading my blog. Go Congressman Ryan!
Condi Rice on Laurence O'Donnell. Jonah Goldberg on Piers Morgan. Ari Fleischer on Chris Matthews. Andrew Breitbart on Bill Maher. I watched these interviews, and plenty others, and compared them to whenever a liberal host like those above bring on liberal guests.
Watch any of the interviews between Keith Olbermann and Janeane Garofalo. There are several. Note that he lets her have complete freedom to speak her mind for as long as she needs to make her point. The interviews above? You can barely hear what the guest is saying, because the host won't shut up.
They talk over the guest, they interrupt them, they cut mic's. Now, say what you want about Bill O'Reilly (who I've never really liked) but most of the time when a liberal is invited on a FOX News program, they can actually get a word in edgewise. Off the top of my head, the Jon Stewart interview with Chris Wallace that I've already discussed springs to mind. I mean, yeah, I didn't like what he said, but I do like that he was allowed to say it.
When you think about it, that made Wallace look like the bigger (and smarter) man. Let Stewart blab, let him expose his ignorance, let him show just how little he actually knows when he's not in his echo chamber, and then, when he's said his piece, eviscerate him.
That's not how liberals work, though, and in the above interview examples, I think one of the reasons why is clear to me, even if it's not clear to those who do it; they're worried that the guest may say something they can't refute. They're worried about looking stupid. And they're right to worry. Ann Coulter vs. Whoopi Goldberg? Bitch, please.
However, it has to stop. One of the reasons type-1 liberals remain liberal is that whenever they're in a situation where they're watching a conservative, they come away thinking conservatives must be stupid and mean. Any time they watch a conservative, they're always fighting to be heard over the host, so they look hostile.
But conservatives can't just stop going on these shows. It would look cowardly. Since liberals have set the narrative, they can always just say "conservatives won't come on these shows because they will only go where they're made to feel comfortable and no one asks them hard questions." I mean, that sentence is entirely true of liberals (which is why Barack Obama has instructed his staff not to talk to FOX News, and why, after some pressure, he agreed to all of ONE interview in four years). But projection is one of the ways liberals deflect criticism, and as of yet, that won't work for conservatives because we have lost control of the narrative (some would say we conceded the narrative). So what can we do? Continue to go on these shows to be brow-beaten by the host and made to look bad?
No. We can start by saying that we will not agree to go on any show until the following conditions are met:
1) The interview must be live. Never submit to a pre-taped interview or you WILL find yourself edited to look less smart. Any point where you stumped the host will not make it to air. Similarly, never submit to a magazine or newspaper interview.
2) Prior to air, the host or producers must be completely honest about the tone and line of questioning in the interview. We could be prissy like liberals and demand to see the questions beforehand, but since we already know what we believe and why, we don't have to prepare answers. However, since liberals are always fully prepped by the host, conservatives must be as well.
3) When the host asks us a question, he must wait at least three minutes for us to answer, and is not allowed to cut us off mid-sentence. If he does interrupt after you've said a complete sentence (after the three minutes), the three minutes start again. I say three minutes only because I know a TV show has a limited time slot and you're usually not the only guest. However, I think that if the whole show is one long interview with you, that three minutes should expand to six.
Then, during the interview, if the host breaks the third condition, the guest must say "Okay, you just broke the condition to let me actually articulate my position, and everyone watching saw it. Strike one. You don't get a second strike." Then hold to that. If he breaks it again, he's out. Get up and walk out. But first, tell the host "If you ask me to come back on this show, I will, but only if next time you actually agree to let me get a word in edgewise. This time, however, you blew it, and this interview is over."
You may be thinking this will make us look more hostile. The first couple of times, maybe so. But when it becomes obvious that this is happening with EVERY interview show on CNN or MSNBC (or morning talk) and ONLY with conservatives, soon people will be able to see that conservatives are always entering a trap when they go on these shows, but they're no longer allowing the trap to be sprung.
EDIT: Someone's been reading my blog. Go Congressman Ryan!
Thursday, September 6, 2012
Democrats Hope We Have Veeeery Short Memories...
Wow.
We all knew that Obama can't run on his record. That's why, so far, his main message is "Vote for me because Mitt Romney put his dog on the roof of his car in the 80's" or "Vote for me because Romney is rich" or "Vote for me because Romney gave a woman cancer, Ryan wants to push your grandmother off a cliff and they both perform weird rites in their basements at night involving midgets with cloven hooves and sacrificing thirteen year old girls. Prove it isn't true!"
But now we have Bill Clinton saying on a national stage the same shit that Obama's supporters have been spewing in political forums for the past year; Obama is not a failure because no one could possibly have led an economic turnaround from the disaster we had in 2008 in just four years.
Umm...what?
Like I said, I've heard this tripe before. In every public forum, be it youtube, facebook, twitter, you name it, Obama supporters whine about how we just don't understand; Obama's not a failure. Obama is the only thing that kept the whole situation from getting a lot worse than it did. Do we rubes really think McCain could have handled this situation any better? Do we really think Romney has better ideas that will actually work? It's just the same-old same-old that got us into this mess in the first place! Obama's "really trying". He "really cares". If it weren't for him, "everything would be much worse." And "nobody could have turned all this around in that short a time."
Okay. A few things.
First, does anyone really believe that no president in US history has EVER had to face an economic situation as bleak as the one Obama "inherited"? Was the economy, the jobs situation, etc., really so weak in 2008 that it was possible to say that no president has ever faced a situation that horrible? The answer, of course, is no. Ronald Reagan got elected in a landslide because of Carter's mismanagement of, well, let's be honest, everything, but the economy in large part. Whether you love or hate Reagan, you cannot deny that America became a prosperous place under him, and before that fully happened, Reagan didn't sit around blaming Jimmy Carter.
Second, yes, the economy and jobs situation was bad in 2008. We had 7.2 percent unemployment. Our debt was over 4 trillion, prices were rising and trade was down (of course, I could point out that most of this wasn't true until the Democrats took control of 2/3rds of the government in 2006, but that's beside the point). That was 2008. Now our unemployment is well over 8%, and that's just the "official" report which doesn't even factor in those who have stopped looking for employment. Our debt is now over 16 trillion and rising all the time. America has gone from having "a weak economy" to losing its AAA rating for the first time since 1917. In other words, Obama not only failed to make things better, but contrary to the supporter's line, he did NOT keep things from getting worse.
Third, ever since being elected, Obama, his cabinet, his staff, the news media and his other supporters have been whining about the "mess" that Obama "inherited." He "inherited" nothing. This implies that the job of fixing the "mess" was thrust upon him, and caught him unawares. He knew, and acknowledged that there was a mess that needed cleaning many times during his campaign. He campaigned as though he was the man with the plan to take care of it. He kept talking about how badly George W. Bush screwed things up and how only he and his plan could possibly fix it. "Yes we can!" he shouted at adoring crowds. "We are the ones we've been waiting for!" "Hope!" "Change!" People voted for Barack Obama because he was supposed to be the one, the ONLY one, who could turn this around and make America into a land of chocolate rivers and rainbow gardens. He was NOT elected because "no one" could possibly fix this in just four years, but at least he could keep it from getting worse. Had he run on that idea, he not only would have lost the presidency, he would have lost the nomination, and 2008 would have been McCain vs. Hilary Clinton (which means, instead of the US mysteriously becoming the most racist country in the world just after electing a black president, it would have become the most sexist country just after electing a woman president). This argument that "no one" could have fixed the situation in four years is a complete fallacy. Four years is all a sitting president is guaranteed. Obama knew this going in. He even said that if he can't turn the economy around in three years, "we're going to have a one term proposition." Those are the words of a man who believed he could do it, not a man who just wants to keep things from getting worse (which, as I said, he didn't even do).
Next we have to address the constant poo-pooing of any plan Romney or Ryan may have. Democrats don't want to discuss what the plans of the Republican nominee and his running mate actually are; they just want to smear and name-call. They talk about a woman getting cancer who didn't have any coverage because "Romney!" when a brief investigation reveals Romney had nothing to do with her fate. They want to call Ryan's budget "draconian", and accuse him of wanting to gut medicare (pushing an old lady off a cliff) without ever actually discussing his budget or his economic plans. If they did, they'd lose, and they know it, especially since it was OBAMA who has gutted medicare already (cutting more than 700 billion from it to pay for Obamacare).
And fifth, "Obama's really trying" and "really cares" only work as campaign slogans. It doesn't work for a sitting president that's had four years of almost unencumbered time to implement whatever plan he had. Seriously, the next time you're up for a job review, and you've done a bad job, try using "But I'm really trying" and "I really care" as a defense.
Obama and the Democrats apparently hope we have very short memories. They hope we don't remember all the promises they made back in 2008, when all they had to do was get elected. Now that they're fighting to stay in power, and haven't kept a single campaign promise, all they can do is shout "racists!" "George Bush!" "Rich people!" "First gay president!" "Do-nothing congress!" Etc.
They also hope we don't see that under Obama, spending rates doubled, and tripled, and that Obama has spent more in his first three years than Bush did in eight. They hope we don't see that in all that spending, we have nothing to show for it. Unemployment is still high, our economy is still in the toilet, and all Obama can say is "we need to spend more", "I didn't tell a good enough story", "The private sector is doing fine", "If you've got a business, you didn't build that" and other such happy homilies that reflect "hope" and "change" and the "yes we can" spirit.
Jonah Goldberg sums up perfectly why we shouldn't accept his "the situation was worse than we thought" excuse. "They say in their defense that’s because the downturn was so much worse than anyone realized," writes Goldberg. "OK, but that just demonstrates the folly of their confidence in the first place. If I jump off a building because I am sure I can fly (“I wrote a study that proves it!”), it’s of little solace, and even less of an excuse, if I sputter out my last words from the bloodied pavement, “The pull of gravity was so much worse than I realized.”"
Let's face it, if Obama was a white Republican (or, even a black Republican since democrats think race is sharply defined by one's politics, therefore Bill Maher is more black than JC Watts), but nothing else was different, the press would be raking him over the coals. Not only would they say that he's unworthy of re-election, but they would have insisted that he be impeached facing criminal charges (Fast & Furious, the Cordray appointment, etc.). But because he's a Democrat, he can hide behind his paper shield of "all my critics are racists" and the Left and the press will let him get away with almost anything. I'm convinced he could pull out a gun during the presidential debates and shoot Romney dead, and the press would spin it as self-defense.
Obama has had four years to convince us that he's up to the job. He has been, for good or ill, the CEO of America. Congress is the Board of Directors. Obama apparently thinks we're the employees, but we're not. We're the customers and shareholders; those most important to any company. His job was to manage the company and make it profitable and sustainable, and to do so to our satisfaction. He did neither. And when pressed on his poor performance, he offered up blame-shifting and excuses. If any other CEO did that, it would be time to replace him. And it's time to replace Obama.
We don't have short memories. We remember what Obama said he would do. And he failed.
We all knew that Obama can't run on his record. That's why, so far, his main message is "Vote for me because Mitt Romney put his dog on the roof of his car in the 80's" or "Vote for me because Romney is rich" or "Vote for me because Romney gave a woman cancer, Ryan wants to push your grandmother off a cliff and they both perform weird rites in their basements at night involving midgets with cloven hooves and sacrificing thirteen year old girls. Prove it isn't true!"
But now we have Bill Clinton saying on a national stage the same shit that Obama's supporters have been spewing in political forums for the past year; Obama is not a failure because no one could possibly have led an economic turnaround from the disaster we had in 2008 in just four years.
Umm...what?
Like I said, I've heard this tripe before. In every public forum, be it youtube, facebook, twitter, you name it, Obama supporters whine about how we just don't understand; Obama's not a failure. Obama is the only thing that kept the whole situation from getting a lot worse than it did. Do we rubes really think McCain could have handled this situation any better? Do we really think Romney has better ideas that will actually work? It's just the same-old same-old that got us into this mess in the first place! Obama's "really trying". He "really cares". If it weren't for him, "everything would be much worse." And "nobody could have turned all this around in that short a time."
Okay. A few things.
First, does anyone really believe that no president in US history has EVER had to face an economic situation as bleak as the one Obama "inherited"? Was the economy, the jobs situation, etc., really so weak in 2008 that it was possible to say that no president has ever faced a situation that horrible? The answer, of course, is no. Ronald Reagan got elected in a landslide because of Carter's mismanagement of, well, let's be honest, everything, but the economy in large part. Whether you love or hate Reagan, you cannot deny that America became a prosperous place under him, and before that fully happened, Reagan didn't sit around blaming Jimmy Carter.
Second, yes, the economy and jobs situation was bad in 2008. We had 7.2 percent unemployment. Our debt was over 4 trillion, prices were rising and trade was down (of course, I could point out that most of this wasn't true until the Democrats took control of 2/3rds of the government in 2006, but that's beside the point). That was 2008. Now our unemployment is well over 8%, and that's just the "official" report which doesn't even factor in those who have stopped looking for employment. Our debt is now over 16 trillion and rising all the time. America has gone from having "a weak economy" to losing its AAA rating for the first time since 1917. In other words, Obama not only failed to make things better, but contrary to the supporter's line, he did NOT keep things from getting worse.
Third, ever since being elected, Obama, his cabinet, his staff, the news media and his other supporters have been whining about the "mess" that Obama "inherited." He "inherited" nothing. This implies that the job of fixing the "mess" was thrust upon him, and caught him unawares. He knew, and acknowledged that there was a mess that needed cleaning many times during his campaign. He campaigned as though he was the man with the plan to take care of it. He kept talking about how badly George W. Bush screwed things up and how only he and his plan could possibly fix it. "Yes we can!" he shouted at adoring crowds. "We are the ones we've been waiting for!" "Hope!" "Change!" People voted for Barack Obama because he was supposed to be the one, the ONLY one, who could turn this around and make America into a land of chocolate rivers and rainbow gardens. He was NOT elected because "no one" could possibly fix this in just four years, but at least he could keep it from getting worse. Had he run on that idea, he not only would have lost the presidency, he would have lost the nomination, and 2008 would have been McCain vs. Hilary Clinton (which means, instead of the US mysteriously becoming the most racist country in the world just after electing a black president, it would have become the most sexist country just after electing a woman president). This argument that "no one" could have fixed the situation in four years is a complete fallacy. Four years is all a sitting president is guaranteed. Obama knew this going in. He even said that if he can't turn the economy around in three years, "we're going to have a one term proposition." Those are the words of a man who believed he could do it, not a man who just wants to keep things from getting worse (which, as I said, he didn't even do).
Next we have to address the constant poo-pooing of any plan Romney or Ryan may have. Democrats don't want to discuss what the plans of the Republican nominee and his running mate actually are; they just want to smear and name-call. They talk about a woman getting cancer who didn't have any coverage because "Romney!" when a brief investigation reveals Romney had nothing to do with her fate. They want to call Ryan's budget "draconian", and accuse him of wanting to gut medicare (pushing an old lady off a cliff) without ever actually discussing his budget or his economic plans. If they did, they'd lose, and they know it, especially since it was OBAMA who has gutted medicare already (cutting more than 700 billion from it to pay for Obamacare).
And fifth, "Obama's really trying" and "really cares" only work as campaign slogans. It doesn't work for a sitting president that's had four years of almost unencumbered time to implement whatever plan he had. Seriously, the next time you're up for a job review, and you've done a bad job, try using "But I'm really trying" and "I really care" as a defense.
Obama and the Democrats apparently hope we have very short memories. They hope we don't remember all the promises they made back in 2008, when all they had to do was get elected. Now that they're fighting to stay in power, and haven't kept a single campaign promise, all they can do is shout "racists!" "George Bush!" "Rich people!" "First gay president!" "Do-nothing congress!" Etc.
They also hope we don't see that under Obama, spending rates doubled, and tripled, and that Obama has spent more in his first three years than Bush did in eight. They hope we don't see that in all that spending, we have nothing to show for it. Unemployment is still high, our economy is still in the toilet, and all Obama can say is "we need to spend more", "I didn't tell a good enough story", "The private sector is doing fine", "If you've got a business, you didn't build that" and other such happy homilies that reflect "hope" and "change" and the "yes we can" spirit.
Jonah Goldberg sums up perfectly why we shouldn't accept his "the situation was worse than we thought" excuse. "They say in their defense that’s because the downturn was so much worse than anyone realized," writes Goldberg. "OK, but that just demonstrates the folly of their confidence in the first place. If I jump off a building because I am sure I can fly (“I wrote a study that proves it!”), it’s of little solace, and even less of an excuse, if I sputter out my last words from the bloodied pavement, “The pull of gravity was so much worse than I realized.”"
Let's face it, if Obama was a white Republican (or, even a black Republican since democrats think race is sharply defined by one's politics, therefore Bill Maher is more black than JC Watts), but nothing else was different, the press would be raking him over the coals. Not only would they say that he's unworthy of re-election, but they would have insisted that he be impeached facing criminal charges (Fast & Furious, the Cordray appointment, etc.). But because he's a Democrat, he can hide behind his paper shield of "all my critics are racists" and the Left and the press will let him get away with almost anything. I'm convinced he could pull out a gun during the presidential debates and shoot Romney dead, and the press would spin it as self-defense.
Obama has had four years to convince us that he's up to the job. He has been, for good or ill, the CEO of America. Congress is the Board of Directors. Obama apparently thinks we're the employees, but we're not. We're the customers and shareholders; those most important to any company. His job was to manage the company and make it profitable and sustainable, and to do so to our satisfaction. He did neither. And when pressed on his poor performance, he offered up blame-shifting and excuses. If any other CEO did that, it would be time to replace him. And it's time to replace Obama.
We don't have short memories. We remember what Obama said he would do. And he failed.
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Obama: "I'm Unsuccessful. Vote for Me."
Conservative republicans have been categorizing Obama as the anti-success president. He doesn't like people who are successful. And that's what this campaign has turned into; a contest between a man who is indisputably successful vs. a man who really can only call his political career a "success", and only a marginal one at that.
Obama has never held a real job. As far as we know, he's never flipped burgers or pumped gas, let alone had a genuine career in the private sector. We know that as a child he was educated in Muslim schools in foreign countries, and even in his late teens was not expected to work as his community provided for him. We know that he didn't hold real jobs in college. He did, however, work as editor of the Harvard Law Review, despite never actually submitting any copy himself. We know that he got into schools he was unqualified for, but we don't know how. Since a bio of himself, written by himself and submitted to a publisher in the late 80's stated he was born in Kenya, it's entirely logical to assume that he applied to Occidental, Columbia and Harvard Law School as a foreign student.
NOTE: I am NOT saying I think Obama was born in Kenya, or anywhere other than Hawaii. I am saying, however, that in the past Obama has decided it suited his purpose better to claim that he was born in Kenya. This cannot be denied, not even by explaining the publisher's bio as a typo (they claim they meant to say he was "raised in Kenya") because OBAMA WROTE IT HIMSELF.
We also know that Obama was apparently a "senior lecturer" (his official title) at the University of Chicago, although he refers to himself frequently as a constitutional law "professor". The actual title of "professor" was never bestowed upon him, and Obama does not have a teaching degree. Also, apparently his course load was light, "lecturing" only three times a year from 1996 to 2004, when he was elected to the US Senate. Also during that time (starting in 1997), he served as an Illinois State Senator. Prior to that he held a nebulous "position" as a "community organizer". What exactly that means is unclear, as Obama himself won't really define it, but we know that mostly it involved political activism. So, in other words, most, if not all, of Obama's jobs before becoming a senator were political in nature, and most of them he most likely held because he sold himself as a foreigner, and was therefore afforded special privilege.
For that matter, Obama's entire adult life has been an exercise in mediocrity. Nothing he did, or is doing now, has ever really gotten anything done, except promoting Obama himself. Can anyone point to a lawyer who credits "Professor Obama" as an inspiration? Can anyone name anything he did while editor of the Harvard Law Review that was noteworthy? His record in the Illinois Senate and the US Senate is entirely unremarkable, with not a single accomplishment to his name. Eight years in Illinois and three years in the US Senate and not a single accomplishment? No signature legislation, no deciding votes, no leadership skills shown. He's never even held the type of office that requires him to interact with the American people on any kind of regular basis.
His record is thinner than a greeting card. Obama is a prime example of a man who, due to knowing the right people and presenting himself falsely, has been moved up in the world despite having absolutely no successes to claim. No wonder Obama seems to despise those who are successful due to the sweat of their own brow. No wonder he seems to think that business owners can't claim to have built their businesses. No wonder he thinks privatization is wrong and that the government should own everything. It is entirely reasonable, from his standpoint. He is the exact opposite of a self-made man, other than making up a false self (but even there, this was likely a product of the kind of thinking his communist buddies were up to).
Obama has never really worked, but has instead taken on job after job where he can promote himself and parrot leftist talking points. In his chosen fields he has no career highlights whatsoever. Every piece of legislation he has ever put his name on was drafted by someone else, and is just a new form of legislation that was introduced by someone else earlier. He can't even give a speech without a teleprompter. He is, more or less, a made-up human being who can only be described as "successful" due to coasting into the White House by use of the race card and other dishonest techniques. Success is antithetical to his vision, which only requires that the right people (himself and those who handle him) are in power and the rest will have his version of "success" (that is, government dole for everyone) handed out to them as he sees fit.
And no wonder that he can so easily demonize Mitt Romney for being successful. When I was a boy, a man like Mitt Romney running against a man like Barack Obama would have been no contest; the successful man can make America successful, and back then this was considered good.
Now Obama can basically build his campaign around the idea of "he's rich, so don't vote for him." Of course, Romney is rich because he built successful businesses, and so Obama has no recourse but to try and attack that.
We used to aspire to be like those successful people. But this is the age of Obama, where mediocrity is a worthwhile goal, and failure is proof of good leadership. All one has to do is look around America to see what Obama's idea of "success" is.
Obama has never held a real job. As far as we know, he's never flipped burgers or pumped gas, let alone had a genuine career in the private sector. We know that as a child he was educated in Muslim schools in foreign countries, and even in his late teens was not expected to work as his community provided for him. We know that he didn't hold real jobs in college. He did, however, work as editor of the Harvard Law Review, despite never actually submitting any copy himself. We know that he got into schools he was unqualified for, but we don't know how. Since a bio of himself, written by himself and submitted to a publisher in the late 80's stated he was born in Kenya, it's entirely logical to assume that he applied to Occidental, Columbia and Harvard Law School as a foreign student.
NOTE: I am NOT saying I think Obama was born in Kenya, or anywhere other than Hawaii. I am saying, however, that in the past Obama has decided it suited his purpose better to claim that he was born in Kenya. This cannot be denied, not even by explaining the publisher's bio as a typo (they claim they meant to say he was "raised in Kenya") because OBAMA WROTE IT HIMSELF.
We also know that Obama was apparently a "senior lecturer" (his official title) at the University of Chicago, although he refers to himself frequently as a constitutional law "professor". The actual title of "professor" was never bestowed upon him, and Obama does not have a teaching degree. Also, apparently his course load was light, "lecturing" only three times a year from 1996 to 2004, when he was elected to the US Senate. Also during that time (starting in 1997), he served as an Illinois State Senator. Prior to that he held a nebulous "position" as a "community organizer". What exactly that means is unclear, as Obama himself won't really define it, but we know that mostly it involved political activism. So, in other words, most, if not all, of Obama's jobs before becoming a senator were political in nature, and most of them he most likely held because he sold himself as a foreigner, and was therefore afforded special privilege.
For that matter, Obama's entire adult life has been an exercise in mediocrity. Nothing he did, or is doing now, has ever really gotten anything done, except promoting Obama himself. Can anyone point to a lawyer who credits "Professor Obama" as an inspiration? Can anyone name anything he did while editor of the Harvard Law Review that was noteworthy? His record in the Illinois Senate and the US Senate is entirely unremarkable, with not a single accomplishment to his name. Eight years in Illinois and three years in the US Senate and not a single accomplishment? No signature legislation, no deciding votes, no leadership skills shown. He's never even held the type of office that requires him to interact with the American people on any kind of regular basis.
His record is thinner than a greeting card. Obama is a prime example of a man who, due to knowing the right people and presenting himself falsely, has been moved up in the world despite having absolutely no successes to claim. No wonder Obama seems to despise those who are successful due to the sweat of their own brow. No wonder he seems to think that business owners can't claim to have built their businesses. No wonder he thinks privatization is wrong and that the government should own everything. It is entirely reasonable, from his standpoint. He is the exact opposite of a self-made man, other than making up a false self (but even there, this was likely a product of the kind of thinking his communist buddies were up to).
Obama has never really worked, but has instead taken on job after job where he can promote himself and parrot leftist talking points. In his chosen fields he has no career highlights whatsoever. Every piece of legislation he has ever put his name on was drafted by someone else, and is just a new form of legislation that was introduced by someone else earlier. He can't even give a speech without a teleprompter. He is, more or less, a made-up human being who can only be described as "successful" due to coasting into the White House by use of the race card and other dishonest techniques. Success is antithetical to his vision, which only requires that the right people (himself and those who handle him) are in power and the rest will have his version of "success" (that is, government dole for everyone) handed out to them as he sees fit.
And no wonder that he can so easily demonize Mitt Romney for being successful. When I was a boy, a man like Mitt Romney running against a man like Barack Obama would have been no contest; the successful man can make America successful, and back then this was considered good.
Now Obama can basically build his campaign around the idea of "he's rich, so don't vote for him." Of course, Romney is rich because he built successful businesses, and so Obama has no recourse but to try and attack that.
We used to aspire to be like those successful people. But this is the age of Obama, where mediocrity is a worthwhile goal, and failure is proof of good leadership. All one has to do is look around America to see what Obama's idea of "success" is.
Friday, July 20, 2012
A Change of Pace: A Personal, Non-Political Post
So, if there are regular readers of this blog, you may have noticed some lack of regular posting, or as regular as I used to. This is because my personal life has become far more active than normal, as I have met the woman I have been waiting for my entire life.
This comes on the heals of a relationship that could not have been more wrong, and also almost immediately after me saying to myself that I would remain single for a while. I didn't count on meeting "the one" this soon, nor was it planned, but when it's right, it's right.
So, in the spirit of that, I've been thinking lately about ways I knew this was right, as compared to other relationships I've been in, including my ex-wife. And I decided to share with you all my thoughts on the matter.
And here they are; a few ways to tell if the relationship is wrong for you, or if you've met the right one.
The Wrong One: When you're not together, or in contact, you barely think about her, or relish the break from her.
The Right One: Every minute spent without her is a minute she's SOMEWHERE in your mind, and you can't wait for the next time you see her.
The Wrong One: When she leaves your house, you relax again because now everything can go back to normal.
The Right One: When she leaves your house, it feels like it won't be normal again until she's back.
The Wrong One: You both feel there are aspects of yourself you can't admit to the other, so you both compromise who you are for the other person.
The Right One: You can both be completely natural around each other with no repercussions.
The Wrong One: You tabulate all the favors you do each other, all the times the other pays, gifts you buy each other, etc., and carefully weigh them against how much the other is doing the same. You feel cheated if the balance ever tips in the other's favor (and feel it's entirely fair if it tips in yours).
The Right One: You do favors for each other or surprise each other with gifts because you enjoy seeing the happy look on their face, and neither of you worries about who's paying because you think of your money as each other's.
The Wrong One: Her dream man is some unattainable actor or singer with nice abs.
The Right One: Her dream man is you.
The Wrong One: You often stop to recall what your life was like before you met her.
The Right One: You can't imagine life without her.
The Wrong One: Thinks it's demeaning to be thought of as "yours", because "what am I, your chattel?"
The Right One: Joyfully calls herself yours, and calls you hers.
The Wrong One: When one of you has to move far away, due to work or another extenuating circumstance, they either expect the other to move with them without considering their needs, or they end the relationship.
The Right One: Neither of you could stand the thought of living apart for too long, and would gladly sacrifice something else to be near the other.
The Wrong One: Expects frequent ceremonial gifts or actions from you, and gets angry if there aren't enough of them.
The Right One: Appreciates every gift or action, but mostly just wants the gift only you can give her; yourself.
The Wrong One: Dismisses your hobbies and interests as irrelevant because she doesn't share them, but either fully expects you to appreciate hers, or blatantly doesn't care what you think of them.
The Right One: Your individual hobbies may be different, but you also share quite a few and the differences compliment each other's. You may even find some of the other's hobbies or interests becoming yours after a bit.
The Wrong One: The two of you may talk about marriage, but both of you have back-up escape plans in case things go wrong.
The Right One: You both understand what "forever" means, and talk of marriage comes up because you'd gladly give each other "forever."
This comes on the heals of a relationship that could not have been more wrong, and also almost immediately after me saying to myself that I would remain single for a while. I didn't count on meeting "the one" this soon, nor was it planned, but when it's right, it's right.
So, in the spirit of that, I've been thinking lately about ways I knew this was right, as compared to other relationships I've been in, including my ex-wife. And I decided to share with you all my thoughts on the matter.
And here they are; a few ways to tell if the relationship is wrong for you, or if you've met the right one.
The Wrong One: When you're not together, or in contact, you barely think about her, or relish the break from her.
The Right One: Every minute spent without her is a minute she's SOMEWHERE in your mind, and you can't wait for the next time you see her.
The Wrong One: When she leaves your house, you relax again because now everything can go back to normal.
The Right One: When she leaves your house, it feels like it won't be normal again until she's back.
The Wrong One: You both feel there are aspects of yourself you can't admit to the other, so you both compromise who you are for the other person.
The Right One: You can both be completely natural around each other with no repercussions.
The Wrong One: You tabulate all the favors you do each other, all the times the other pays, gifts you buy each other, etc., and carefully weigh them against how much the other is doing the same. You feel cheated if the balance ever tips in the other's favor (and feel it's entirely fair if it tips in yours).
The Right One: You do favors for each other or surprise each other with gifts because you enjoy seeing the happy look on their face, and neither of you worries about who's paying because you think of your money as each other's.
The Wrong One: Her dream man is some unattainable actor or singer with nice abs.
The Right One: Her dream man is you.
The Wrong One: You often stop to recall what your life was like before you met her.
The Right One: You can't imagine life without her.
The Wrong One: Thinks it's demeaning to be thought of as "yours", because "what am I, your chattel?"
The Right One: Joyfully calls herself yours, and calls you hers.
The Wrong One: When one of you has to move far away, due to work or another extenuating circumstance, they either expect the other to move with them without considering their needs, or they end the relationship.
The Right One: Neither of you could stand the thought of living apart for too long, and would gladly sacrifice something else to be near the other.
The Wrong One: Expects frequent ceremonial gifts or actions from you, and gets angry if there aren't enough of them.
The Right One: Appreciates every gift or action, but mostly just wants the gift only you can give her; yourself.
The Wrong One: Dismisses your hobbies and interests as irrelevant because she doesn't share them, but either fully expects you to appreciate hers, or blatantly doesn't care what you think of them.
The Right One: Your individual hobbies may be different, but you also share quite a few and the differences compliment each other's. You may even find some of the other's hobbies or interests becoming yours after a bit.
The Wrong One: The two of you may talk about marriage, but both of you have back-up escape plans in case things go wrong.
The Right One: You both understand what "forever" means, and talk of marriage comes up because you'd gladly give each other "forever."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)