International Cat Speculators Since 2006

Posts tagged ‘Obama’

Quote of the Day – Obama Fail Edition

Jay Leno: President Obama held a press conference earlier today, and he said he still wants to close the Guantanamo Bay prison facility, but he doesn’t know how to do it. He should do what he always does: declare it a small business and tax it out of existence.It will be gone in a minute. 


Obama Wins

Well, Obama has won.

I do not think he deserved it, nor do I think the American people made an informed decision but I do respect that decision and hope he tries in his second term to meet the expectations he so grandly outlined and so utterly failed to even try to meet in his first.

That does not seem to be too much to ask.

Sadly for him he is probably going to be impeached in the not too distant future. If the reports about Benghazi are true, he is going to have much the same experience that Nixon had, with constant hounding, investigations and a choice between fighting for his job and resignation. But unlike Watergate, he must look families in the eye and explain why their loved ones are dead.

In many ways, he would have been better off just taking the one term. Certainly it’s going to be hard to watch him take his second oath of office knowing he broke his first so casually.

The Republicans have to have a long hard look at themselves. Twice they have nominated a “moderate” candidate and twice the Democrats have succeeded in convincing large parts of the electorate that that man is a radical. They have a lot of good people, but they need to reconnect with America if they hope to make headway at the presidential level. The good news is that they have won the house again (which is a win for the Tea Party) but failing to win the senate with so many Democratic seats up for grabs is a stinging loss.

The media also have significant problems. They are increasingly losing the trust of the public, and ostracizing themselves from major portions of the population. One of the most disturbing aspects of this campaign was the way that previously respected “fact checking” organisations made partisan calls. This is  sad, as these organisations’ integrity had previously made them valuable additions to the public discourse.

But again, I congratulate Barack Obama on his win. There are significant risks in the next few years. It is my most sincere hope that America has made the right choice this time but I have grave fears that they have not.

Obama’s aura is gone – and his presidency is almost over

The Daily Caller has a great article which sums up really nicely the end-to-end embarrassment that is Barack Obama’s presidency.

No one, not even the president’s most breathless, fervent supporters, could argue that Barack Obama was elected in 2008 on the strength of his resume. It wasn’t strong. Obama could boast a little about his academic achievements, but, without releasing his college records, he couldn’t say too much. His legislative career wasn’t impressive either. And he had never held an executive position. Never. This is a truth that cannot be overstated. The most powerful nation on Earth elected to its highest office a man who had never managed, directed or overseen anything anywhere — not a brigade, not a business, not a committee, not even a campaign for the Illinois state senate. In the autumn of 2008, the entirety of Barack Obama’s leadership experience consisted of running a local voter drive in 1992.

But he won.

Obama’s first real, contested election victory was the Democratic party primary race. The fact that such a rank amateur would be embarrassing were the other top two contenders a guy who spent $400 on haircuts while running a poverty campaign, and a woman who rode the coattails of her husband’s presidency into the senate.

But hey, he wrote two books about himself. He must be good, right?

For various reasons that revealed more about the country than the candidate, Obama was vaulted to the highest echelons of power on little more than a promise of change. He was an unknown, a blank slate onto which 53% of the nation projected their hopes. More than half of the electorate — millions of sensible, smart Americans, accomplished people with degrees and wealth and private property — participated in contemporaneous mythmaking about their candidate’s potential and greatness and potential greatness. With vague but soaring rhetoric, Barack Obama rode those myths to victory, and, in so doing, fulfilled and crystallized a strange aura of inevitability.

Obama delivers a set speech really, really well. But when it comes to off the cuff remarks, he is frequently mocked for his “uh’s” and “um’s”. Certainly he’s not as bad as Bush in that regard, but Bush got a lot of stick for his lack of ability, Obama has received a pass.


The very fact that he was elected president became the reason he should be president. It was somehow proof of his excellence and genius. Yes, he had the entire media apparatus at his back, singing his praises, but the electorate wasn’t stupid. The electorate was complicit in the mythmaking, stitching their best wishes over their candidate’s blemishes. Obama voters became invested in these myths — many still are — because they felt virtuous by voting for him.

When he won, they won. And he kept winning. Despite the dismal economy, the unemployment rate, despite unpopular legislation, foreign policy snafus, despite gaffes and open mike embarrassments, Obama was still winning, still leading in the polls. Despite everything, an Obama victory was still inevitable.

The media’s fawning over Obama in 2008 was one of their most disgraceful episodes. (For example, remember how his senate seat was being auctioned off by his mate the governor  Sure, but do you remember the media pointing out that the governor was his mate? No way.) One could put that down to hysteria and hype but for the fact that after 4 years, they were still refusing to do their job.

And then he lost.

Over the last four years, Obama’s faithful could and did blame third parties — the banks, the rich, Bush, Congress, Israel, the tea party, the Olympic committee, etc. — for nearly all of the president’s failures. They were fighting for themselves as much as they were fighting for Obama. But many gave up the fight on October 3.

Who won a debate is usually in the eye of the beholder, and the second two debates generally followed that pattern. But even if you give them as narrow victories to Obama (as most do) the first debate debacle simply did far, far too much damage.

And the fact it was entirely self-inflicted made it all the more devastating.

Now, America is being forced to wake up and slowly realise that the man they put so much trust in is simply not worthy of their highest office.

Obama Caught Out – this is huge (or should be)

By all rights, this should have a major impact on Obama’s re-election.

But that assumes the media are interested, and let’s face it, they are activly not interested in holding Obama to any sort of reasonable standard.

The racially charged and at times angry speech undermines Obama’s carefully-crafted image as a leader eager to build bridges between ethnic groups. For nearly 40 minutes, using an accent he almost never adopts in public, Obama describes a racist, zero-sum society, in which the white majority profits by exploiting black America. The mostly black audience shouts in agreement. The effect is closer to an Al Sharpton rally than a conventional campaign event.

I think a lot of people who hated George W Bush did so origionally because of his accent. Obama knows this full well, and hence makes sure he talks more properly. But in the video, he drops that.

Obama gave the speech in the middle of a hotly-contested presidential primary season, but his remarks escaped scrutiny. Reporters in the room seem to have missed or ignored his most controversial statements. The liberal blogger Andrew Sullivan linked to what he described as a “transcript” of the speech, which turned out not to be a transcript at all, but instead the prepared remarks provided by the campaign. In fact, Obama, who was not using a teleprompter, deviated from his script repeatedly and at length, ad libbing lines that he does not appear to have used before any other audience during his presidential run. A local newspaper posted a series of video clips of the speech, but left out key portions. No complete video of the Hampton speech was widely released.
The media knew about this, but ignored it. Not exactly suprising, given the media also covered up for Hillary after Bill Clinton had (another) affair while she was running for president.

Obama begins his address with “a special shout out” to Jeremiah Wright, the Chicago pastor who nearly derailed Obama’s campaign months later when his sermons attacking Israel and America and accusing the U.S. government of “inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color” became public. To the audience at Hampton, Obama describes Wright as, “my pastor, the guy who puts up with me, counsels me, listens to my wife complain about me. He’s a friend and a great leader. Not just in Chicago, but all across the country.”

By the time Obama appeared at Hampton, Jeremiah Wright had become a political problem. Wright told The New York Times earlier that year that he would no longer be speaking on the campaign’s behalf because his rhetoric was considered too militant. And yet later in the Hampton speech Obama explicitly defends Wright from unnamed critics, a group he describes as “they”: “They had stories about Trinity United Church of Christ, because we talked about black people in church: ‘Oh, that might be a separatist church,’” Obama said mockingly.

Wright was about the only thing the media investigated on Obama. But it’s clear now that not all the media were interested in fully reporting what was going on.

It’s a remarkable moment, and not just for its resemblance to Kayne West’s famous claim that “George Bush doesn’t care about black people,” but also because of its basic dishonesty. By January of 2007, six months before Obama’s Hampton speech, the federal government had sent at least $110 billion to areas damaged by Katrina. Compare this to the mere $20 billion that the Bush administration pledged to New York City after Sept. 11.

Moreover, the federal government did at times waive the Stafford Act during its reconstruction efforts. On May 25, 2007, just weeks before the speech, the Bush administration sent an additional $6.9 billion to Katrina-affected areas with no strings attached.

As a sitting United States Senator, Obama must have been aware of this. And yet he spent 36 minutes at the pulpit telling a mostly black audience that the U.S. government doesn’t like them because they’re black.

Politicans telling big fat lies to friendly audiences is not a new thing. The media deliberatly turning a blind eye… I’m guessing that happens a lot less – and almost never if you’re on the right.

But he was also playing to the ignorance of his audience. Most people were aware that the Bush administration was trucking obscene amounts of money into Katrina hit areas – small government conservatives were livid about it

In the prepared version distributed to reporters, Obama’s speech ends this way:
“America is going to survive. We won’t forget where we came from. We won’t forget what happened 19 months ago, 15 years ago, thousands of years ago.”

That’s not what he actually said. Before the audience at Hampton, Obama ends his speech this way:

“America will survive. Just like black folks will survive. We won’t forget where we came from. We won’t forget what happened 19 months ago, or 15 years ago, or 300 years ago.”

Three hundred years ago. It’s a reference the audience understood.

The Daily Caller (who is breaking the story) have also got a story on the media response. basically, many members of the media were already claiming there was nothing to it before the story was even published.

Which means that they’re not going to report it.

A few weeks ago, we had the respective party’s conventions. At one, a couple of racist idiots got kicked out for saying something racist. This generated thousands of news articles (though not one from Fox news as far as I can tell – which is something they should be ashamed of).  One Julia Rodriguez stated she would like to kill the opposing candidate (and that’s only one example). That little outburst (and watch the video – she really meant it) generated barely a blip on the radar. I searched Google News the day after it became news, and got a mere handful of mentions. I can’t even find if she was disciplined, I assume not.

(MSNBC and CNN news sites give no hits on a search for her name.)

Let’s see if this story get the same treatment.

US Politics Obama Vs. Obama

I think that to some extent you can do this with most candidates, but Obama seems especially prone to contradicting his earlier self.

In this case, he’s piously taking the high ground now. Clearly he’s hoping that no one call him on it.

Needless to say, the media won’t.

Quote of the Day – Obama Edition

I will be held accountable. I’ve got four years . . . If I don’t have this done in three years, then there is going to be a one term proposition.”


Also, this video is worth a look.

Dog Whistling and Racism in US Politics

The Daily Caller has a good piece on the American left’s obsession with finding racism everywhere.

Last night, Ann Romney sought to dispel the notion that somehow she and Mitt have had a “storybook marriage.” So she pointed out that their life together included struggles, such as her MS and breast cancer. And then she concluded: “What Mitt Romney and I have is a real marriage.”

It was a good point. No matter who you are or how much money you have, you can’t stay married to someone for any length of time without things getting real. It’s not all romance.

But although Romney’s line about “real marriage” was clearly delivered in this context, I noticed some Tweets suggesting that Romney’s reference to “real marriage” was actually code language used to attack gay marriage.



For their own good, though, this paranoia has to stop. Maybe I can help their mental sanity by explaining something?: The whole point a dog whistle is for your adversaries to not hear it.

It should go over their heads, and straight into the ears of your base (who nod approvingly.)

On the contrary, with these recent supposed examples, Democrats are the only ones who seem to hear them. Which means they’re not dog whistles at all.


Helping Obama’s brother

I’m inclined to discount this story somewhat (it just smells a bit too convenient), but there’s no denying that Obama has some curious priorities when it comes to whom he chooses to help.

A few days ago I received a call from a man I recently met named George.  He was a bit flustered, and soon informed me that his young son was sick with a chest condition.  He pleaded with me to send him $1,000 to cover the medical bills.  Since George was at the hospital I asked him to let me speak to a nurse, and she confirmed that George’s son was indeed ill.  So I agreed to send George the money through Western Union.  He was profusely grateful.  But before I hung up I asked George, “Why are you coming to me?”  He said, “I have no one else to ask.”  Then he said something that astounded me, “Dinesh, you are like a brother to me.”

Actually, George has a real life brother who just happens to be the president of the United States.  (George Obama is the youngest of eight children sired by Barack Obama Sr.)  George’s brother is a multimillionaire and the most powerful man in the world.  Moreover, George’s brother has framed his re-election campaign around the “fair share” theme that we owe obligations to those who are less fortunate.

Then things get curious.

A couple of years ago, George teamed up with a British journalist Damien Lewis and the two of them published George’s story in a book called “Homeland.” Yet according to Lewis, shortly before the book’s publication in America, the publisher Simon & Schuster decided to shred the entire print run, more than 20,000 copies.  Lewis tried unsuccessfully to get an explanation from Simon & Schuster but to no avail.  He now suspects that the White House convinced Simon & Schuster that George’s story might prove embarrassing to the president.

In 2010, George also applied for a visa to come to the United States and was refused.   While George confesses that in his younger years he was a delinquent, he has never been convicted of any crime.  Moreover, he has a very good reason to visit the United States: his mother Jael Otieno lives in Atlanta.  So why would the U. S. embassy in Nairobi refuse a tourist visa to the brother of the president who just wants to spend time with his mother?

Draw your own conclusions.

The Obama Campaign should be running a mile from this… but won’t

This is a bit scary. Not new, but scary that they’re actually prepared to put it in print.

The danger, according to Capehart, is that this narrative may remove the race card as a factor (emphasis mine):

By telling potential voters “It’s OK to make a change,” the RNC is acknowledging all that I mention above. It’s OK to like the guy personally but not vote for him again. This is not a popularity contest. It’s OK to vote against the black guy. You gave him a shot. He gave it his best shot. He failed. And the most effective message is: “It’s OK to make a change” — and not be thought of as a racist.

Throughout Obama’s presidency, I’ve received more than a few e-mails and tweets from folks complaining that they are branded racist if they disagree with anything the president says or does. And it doesn’t help matters that I have seen more than a few e-mails and tweets from ardent Obama supporters doing exactly that. I have also seen instances of this on television and in print.

That’s why the “It’s OK to make a change” ad is the most dangerous for Obama’s reelection efforts. It give those few, yet crucial, undecided voters the pass they might be looking for to vote against Obama.

Think about what Capehart is saying.

What keeps some voters in line for Obama – fear of falsely being accused of racism — may not work this time, and the removal of that fear is the most dangerous threat to Obama’s reelection.

That is why we are seeing an all-out attempt to portray Romney as racist, as evidenced by yesterday’s “Anglo-Saxon” feeding frenzy.

Basically, there’s an admission that false accusations of racism are (or should be) used as a way of convincing people to vote a certain way.

Utterly disgraceful. Like I say, the Obama campaign should be running a mile from this emotional blackmail tatic, but there’s no way they will, given that the Democrats have been using the “our opponents are all racists” line against the Tea Party movement and other critics for years.

It’s just a bit shocking to see such a blatant admission in print.

Obama finally delivers

Yes, it’s happened.

Obama has finally delivered on his promise of post-partisan politics, delivering a budget vote without a single dissent.


Tag Cloud