We must reelect President Obama; a chance for a do-over. His OTJ is now complete.

4est_4est_Gump

Run Forrest! RUN!
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Posts
89,007
A Presidency Squandered
Victor Davis Hanson, NRO
October 16, 2012

The Obama narrative is that he inherited the worst mess in memory and has been stymied ever since by a partisan Congress — while everything from new ATM technology to the Japanese tsunami conspired against him. But how true are those claims?

Barack Obama entered office with an approval rating of over 70 percent. John McCain’s campaign had been anemic and almost at times seemed as if it was designed to lose nobly to the nation’s first African-American presidential nominee.

One-percenter magnates welcomed Obama. If Steve Wynn, Donald Trump, and Mort Zuckerman now blast Obama, just four years ago they seemed to have found him a relief from George W. Bush. Christopher Buckley and the late Christopher Hitchens openly endorsed him. Republicans like Colin Powell, Scott McClellan, and Doug Kmiec all went public with their support. One got the impression from what David Frum, David Brooks, and Peggy Noonan wrote that with a wink and a nod they had welcomed his election. Never has a president entered office with so much goodwill from so many diverse quarters.

Rarely does a president enter office with a majority in both the House and the Senate. Not only did Obama do so, but his soaring ratings put enormous pressure on the Republican minorities to join the Democratic majorities. Liberals were talking about a new era of Democratic political dominance.

No prior president had such a supportive media. Sometime in mid-2008, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, Time, Newsweek, CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, PBS, NPR, AP, Reuters, and hundreds of other mainstream voices had decided that Barack Obama was not just a liberal Democrat whom they would tilt toward, but a messianic figure for whom they gladly sacrificed the last ounce of disinterested coverage.

The financial collapse was four months in the past when Barack Obama took the oath of office, and its immediate aftershocks had been addressed with the October 3, 2008, TARP stabilization protocols. Obama’s chorus simply blamed the entire panic on George Bush; and the idea that government guarantees from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae — which the Democrats had backed — had ensured huge loans for the unqualified to buy homes at inflated prices was mostly ignored. The recession was finishing its second year and would end five months into the Obama administration, in June 2009. The stock market had mostly stopped falling before Obama took office. In other words, Obama entered office with all the blame for the bad economy going to his predecessor and with the end of the deep recession in sight.

The president’s own racial heritage was said to be emblematic of the new racial healing. Indeed, it was promised that race itself would become incidental rather than essential to the nation’s persona. Advisers and Cabinet officers like Valerie Jarrett, Eric Holder, Hilda Solis, Ken Salazar, Van Jones, Steven Chu, and Hillary Clinton were said to “look like America” far more than the old white guys of the past.

Abroad, the unpopular war in Iraq was quiet after the successful surge, and agreements were already concluded about the withdrawal of U.S. forces; in Joe Biden’s words, the war in Iraq had the potential to be “one of the great achievements of the administration.” Everyone had forgotten that Obama himself had urged a unilateral withdrawal as early as March 2008. Afghanistan was still the “good” war but the one where, as Representative Steny Hoyer put it, “We took our eye off the ball”; during the campaign Obama and other Democrats promised to win it.

Most Americans believed Obama when he made the argument that our current problems abroad had mostly started with George Bush and would end when he left. Iran and Syria were said to be hostile only because they had been gratuitously alienated by Bush. Ditto Putin’s Russia. Our battles with the U.N. were said to be over, as multilateralism was trumpeted as the new cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy — a loud boast sure to win even more goodwill both from allies and from neutrals that had been turned off by the twangy Texan Bush. Just as Obama had wowed thousands at Berlin’s Victory Column, so he would win over the world, as his first interview with Al-Arabiya presaged. Obama was shortly to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize on the theory of what he represented rather than the facts of what he had done.

Many claimed that Obama was the “true conservative,” as he blasted Bush as unpatriotic for piling up $4 trillion in debt and promised to cut the annual deficit in half by the end of his first term. We heard all sorts of bring-us-together rhetoric: a new bipartisanship, a new civility, a new transparency, a new campaign ethos, a new everything — coupled with lots of “no mores”: no more earmarks, no more revolving doors, no more former lobbyists in government, no more serial fundraisers on the government dime.

Obama had the luxury of enjoying the security benefits that had accrued from George Bush’s controversial protocols like Guantanamo, renditions, military tribunals, preventive detention, intercepts, wiretaps, and drone hits, while not having his own signature upon them. The result was surreal, as Obama embraced or expanded all of what he had earlier blasted as unconstitutional or superfluous — to the sudden quiet of a once-raucous civil-libertarian Left. Somehow Obama managed to blame Bush for providing him with the vital measures that he damned even as he utilized them.

Even stranger was a revolution in oil and gas exploration that seemed to coincide with the Obama inauguration. Obama had the best of both worlds: He took office when gas was below $2 a gallon — saving the nation billions of dollars — and when the novel techniques of fracking and horizontal drilling had just tripled known U.S. reserves and promised to offer a godsend of new energy on federal lands.

In other words, the future seemed to be all Barack Obama’s. Bill Clinton’s second term offered an easy blueprint of what bipartisan centrism might achieve. Balance the budget and create jobs, and the nation will forgive anything, from lying under oath to romancing an intern in the Oval Office.

And what happened?

Barack Obama chose to ram down the nation’s throat a polarizing, statist agenda, energized by the sort of hardball politics he had learned in Chicago. Rather than bring the races, classes, and genders together, he gave us an us-versus-them crusade against the “1 percenters” and the job creators who had not “paid their fair share,” accusations of a Republican “war on women,” and the worst racial polarization in modern memory. Statesmanship degenerated into chronic blame-gaming and “Bush did it,” as he piled up over $5 trillion in new debt. Financial sobriety was abandoned in favor of creating new entitlement constituencies, and job creation was deemed far less important than nationalizing the health-care system.

And so here we are, three weeks before the election, with a squandered presidency and a president desperately seeking reelection not by defending his record, but by demonizing his predecessor, his opponent — and half of the country.

What, then, was Obama’s first term?

Jimmy Carter’s ends justifying Richard Nixon’s means.
 
I am starting to believe Romney has a chance.

If he wins, I have to leave the GB. A bet-is-a-bet.

Most don't care, but I'll miss it.
 
Who's gonna care if you welsh?


It's not like they're gonna shoot you.


Besides, if they win, they'll be disarmed anyway.
 
Who's gonna care if you welsh?


It's not like they're gonna shoot you.


Besides, if they win, they'll be disarmed anyway.

I have a suspicion that if Romney wins, U_D is gonna be more Welsh than Blue Mountain...


;) ;)

We're all Camarthen now!
 
If Romney wins I do believe King will blow his head off with a hand gun he'll have to borrow from a stranger. All his friends are gun control liberals.
 
OH!


I get it. I pay little attention to KO. Now I understand why you did not say, "blow his brains out..."


:D ;) ;)
 
That's Tee Hee™ to you Missy!



Turner won't get over it.

Ceterum autem censeo Camarthen delendam esse!
 
To Hell with the Law; Re-Election Is More Important
W.A. Beatty, PhD
October 16, 2012

This is clearly a case of Obama placing himself above the law, then sending us taxpayers the bill.

Congress passed, in 2011, the Budget Control Act (BCA), which established the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (better known as the Super Committee), whose mission was to reduce the deficit. As an incentive to the committee, a "sequestration" process, or automatic funding cuts, will take effect in January 2013 if the committee fails to reach agreement. The committee did not reach agreement, so "sequestration" funding cuts will begin in January. The Defense Department is scheduled to have its budget reduced by 7.5 percent, or about $1 trillion, causing layoffs and plant closings.

So what? We've known about these coming cuts since the Super Committee failed back in November 2011.

"Sequestration" has now become a major problem. According to a memorandum from acting Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Jeffrey Zients, "the budget sequestration clause in the law 'was never meant to be implemented'."

Have you ever heard of the Workers Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act? It was passed in 1988 but vetoed by Ronald Reagan -- but then the veto was overridden by the Democrat-controlled Congress. The act requires that companies expecting mass layoffs or plant closings inform their employees 60 days in advance of the layoffs or closings. The WARN act provides for the collection of back pay, attorney fees, and punitive damages of up to $500 per day.

Guess what "sequestrations" will do. And guess what act it will invoke. And guess whose presidential campaign will be hurt by all the layoff and plant closing notifications 60 days before layoffs occur. Hint: it's not Mitt Romney! Guess when the notifications are supposed to go out. November first, five days before the election.

What is President Barack Hussein "kill list" Obama doing about WARN? He has asked defense contract employers to ignore WARN -- that is, to break the law. Obama has asked defense contractors not to send out layoff notices to their employees in anticipation of "sequestration." This memorandum, dated September 28, 2012, explains Obama's position. The last sentence in the opening paragraph states, "... DOL explained that giving notice in these circumstances would waste States' resources in undertaking employment assistance activities where none are needed and create unnecessary anxiety and uncertainty for workers." So Obama is trying to cast his advocacy of law-breaking as "saving resources" and "preventing anxiety." Ain't he swell? The second paragraph of the memorandum also provides some very interesting reading.

This is the first time in history that the White House has asked companies (of any type) not to file layoff or plant closing notices as required by WARN.

Without even bothering to ask Congress for approval, Obama has committed to pay defense contractors' penalties and court costs from the Pentagon budget. Costs could be as high as $500 million. Let's see...first Defense gets hit with "sequestration," then Obama commits to pay fines and penalties if defense contractors don't follow the law. Obama has placed the Pentagon and defense contractors in a catch 22, "creating additional economic uncertainty. They can break the law and keep the White House happy, or follow the law and annoy their major customer."

Obama also will make Congress complicit in his law-breaking. He did not even have the courtesy to ask them how they felt about his lawlessness. But Obama may not have the authority to offer to pay the penalties. And even if he does, a new administration could simply refuse to pay them. So what this situation boils down to is that penalty payments will be made if Obama is somehow re-elected. Further, some senators, such as John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsay Graham (R-SC), say that they will not allow government funds to be spent on penalties.

The House of Representatives has passed a bill that would avoid "sequestration." But Obama has chosen to ignore it and, most significantly, has not offered an alternative. I therefore must assume that he thinks his lawlessness will save his re-election chances.

So, the old saying that Shakespeare used in Hamlet, "Hoist With His Own Petard," is, ironically, quite appropriate here.
The American Thinker
 
and if Obama is reelected he can spend the next 4 years on the guy who was in office for the last 4 years
 
This is true; he will be able to blame the unprecedented mess left by his predecessor...


"We didn't know how bad it was when I was sworn in for my second term!"
 
Good news for Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney: despite President Barack Obama’s somnambulant performance at the first presidential debate, the American public still expects him to win the second debate. According to the latest Pew Research Center poll, 41 percent of Americans think Obama will do better, compared with 37 percent for Romney. That is a large shift in Romney’s direction – before the first debate, Pew found that people expected Obama to win, 51 percent to 29 percent. Independents think Romney will do better than Obama; Democrats seem far less sure that Obama will beat Romney.

The expectations game is key prior to this second debate. If the American public expected Romney to win, he’d have no room for growth after this debate. But while independents think Obama will lose, they only think he’ll lose by a 41-32 margin. That means that there’s significant upside for Romney here. For Obama, by contrast, the expectations remain high – he’ll have to show strong to win this debate.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/15/Obama-expected-win-debate

The press will proclaim him the winner, no matter what, they have too much vested in him, but will the people, with such high expectation of a comeback, if it is a push?

;) ;)
 
That mirrors that first poll I took.


Romney had zero positive votes on the expected outcome; the election was to have ended...

Thank Allah, Barack Hussein Obama gets a do-over tonight!
 
4es卍_4es卍_gump;42251492 said:
To Hell with the Law; Re-Election Is More Important
W.A. Beatty, PhD
October 16, 2012


The American Thinker

How many times are you gonna spam that article today, Chief?
 
Back
Top