Posts Tagged ‘Boehner’

On The Eric Cantor Loss: Good Thing Or Bad Thing? I Say, ‘Meh!’

June 11, 2014

Liberals – who operate under the prism that conservatism is evil and that “more conservative” is by definition a bad thing that must surely result in disastrous consequences, are frothing at the mouth over the Brat/Tea Party victory over “establishment Republican” Eric Cantor.

I merely point out that when a Stalinist communist psycho like Debbie Blabbermouth Schultz claims that some kind of right-wing kooks have taken over the opposing party, just look in the damn mirror, nutjob.  I mean, seriously.  This whackjob is further to the left than “the Scream” Howard Dean.  And so by Democrat Party standards, given Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, I can only view it as a GOOD THING when the radical fringe captures your party.

Given the fact that if I woke up on the other side of eternity and saw those three, I would know that I was in hell even before I felt the burning of the hellfire, I don’t take my pointers from these or from any of the many leftist mouthpieces who talk and write for them.

I don’t have a lot of time here – I’m already running late – but it just popped into my head to say my little piece about Eric Cantor’s defeat and what it means for the GOP.

My view is that it likely won’t mean much.

For one thing, given the conservative makeup of Cantor’s district (which is largely why he lost), there is a very high likelihood that the GOP will retain this seat.  So I don’t think it will be a loss in that department.

For another, I don’t mind when a more conservative candidate wins a seat as long as that “more conservative candidate” is capable of winning the seat at issue as a principle.

That said, I for one liked Eric Cantor.  I thought he did a good job.  Maybe I would have voted for Brat had I lived in the district, maybe not.  But I never thought that Eric Cantor was “the problem” with the Republican Party.

I watched Hannity last night on Fox and he was just thrilled about this great victory.  I’ve heard some GOP insiders who are weeping and wailing and throwing ashes over their sackclothed bodies.  I just don’t think it’s that big of a deal either way.  To a great extent, Cantor made a political mistake and took his district for granted as he overfocused on “national party” stuff.  And somebody came in and pulled the rug out from under his feet in a relatively small district.

Lindsey Graham easily won and you just can’t read “national implications” in the Cantor defeat.

Was Cantor to blame for any strategic failure of the GOP?

On my view, it comes down to this: you simply cannot be more conservative than your electorate and you can’t be more conservative than your party’s constituency as a LEADER.

Which is to say that if a Boehner or a Cantor try to run out in front with a conservative attack, they won’t get very far unless a majority of their party is solidly behind them.

To wit: Cantor is resigning as majority leader, and someone else will step in (likely Kevin McCarthy).  And be in the same boat as Cantor was.  And likely therefore make mostly the same decisions.

It will largely be a wash, on my view of things, neither all that good nor all that bad.

Democrats are screaming that Cantor’s defeat kills any chance of “the Republicans reaching out” on a comprehensive immigration deal.  I say just look at what Obama has done to our borders and tell me that’s a bad thing.  In Obama we have a pathologically dishonest fascist who doesn’t bother to follow the law or even consult with – let alone be influenced – by even his own party, let alone by the opposition.  There was never a chance of any deal with such a wicked man.

I DO believe that the Republican Party has to be more of a passionate voice of opposition to the Democrat Party (i.e. the Obama) agenda.  And that MEANS being more conservative.  It also means having a vision, like Ronald Reagan had a vision, and being able to articulate that vision, the way Reagan was able to articulate his vision for America.

If Brat’s victory helps a little bit to move the GOP toward that, then it will be a good thing.

But I’m not holding my breath while I wait.

Like I said, I liked Cantor and I hope he has a future in the Republican Party.  It’s not like he’s dead or anything.

 

Advertisements

Obama Won’t Negotiate With GOP. So WHY Is He Negotiating With Terrorist State Iran (Declared Terrorist Since 1984)???

September 25, 2013

Barack Obama is a slandering liar who has told many lies in dishonoring his way to the White House, but here was the most cynical one of them all (as recorded in the New York Times):

WASHINGTON — At the core of Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign is a promise that he can transcend the starkly red-and-blue politics of the last 15 years, end the partisan and ideological wars and build a new governing majority.

To achieve the change the country wants, he says, “we need a leader who can finally move beyond the divisive politics of Washington and bring Democrats, independents and Republicans together to get things done.”

But this promise leads, inevitably, to a question: Can such a majority be built and led by Mr. Obama, whose voting record was, by one ranking, the most liberal in the Senate last year?

Which is pretty much these days another way of saying that EVERY SINGLE TIME Barack Obama opens his slandering mouth to demonize Republicans, he proves what a depraved, demon-possessed cynical liar from hell he is all over again.

You don’t make that promise that the New York Times recorded as “the core of Obama’s presidency” and demonize your opposition the way Obama constantly does if you are not a truly evil man.

Barack Obama is without question the most wicked, most dishonest, most divisive American politician who has ever lived.

Now, I am deeply opposed to Obama’s decision to exalt Iran with negotiations that the Islamic regime will use merely to continue to play us for the fools that we are while they race toward nuclear capability and the ballistic missile system they need to deliver that capability.  But with fairness we could say that Obama promised that he would talk to enemies and he’s merely fulfilling his promise.  On his view, you should talk with your enemies and try to reach some kind of agreement with them.  Even when they are psychotic and frankly murderous nutjobs as the Iranians have proven they are for the last thirty-plus years.  All we are saying is give peace a chance.  All that crap.

But here’s the thing that blows that thesis up and sinks the ship right down to the muck at the bottom: HE WON’T NEGOTIATE OR COMPROMISE IN ANY WAY WITH PEOPLE WHO HAVE NOT BEEN OFFICIALLY DESIGNATED AS ‘TERRORISTS’ FOR THIRTY DAMN YEARS.  The man who promised that at the very CORE of his presidency would be a transcending of politics has been instead the worse political demagogue this nation has ever seen, bar none, and he calls up House Speaker John Boehner just to tell him that he will NOT negotiate with Republicans (see also here).  And then he lies like the demonic liar that he is to justify refusing to negotiate like a grown-up (see also here).

You need to understand: the very same man who has publicly declared that he himself will absolutely NOT negotiate and will fight to the last starving American citizen over issues like the debt ceiling is asserting that the OTHER side must utterly and absolutely cave in to HIS position or THEY are completely responsible for the ensuing chaos and suffering.

I suppose if the Republicans used poison gas to murder thousands of Americans, THEN Obama would compromise and negotiate with them the way he did with Syria?  I mean, he’ll go back on his word on his red line with “a thug and a murder,” but he won’t budge an inch for the party that represents half of all the American people???  Do you understand how truly and completely insane that is???

If you’re a Kool-Aid-drinking liberal who wants to assert that the GOP is worse than the ayatollahs, fine: all you have to do is show me the Republican Party’s plans to build themselves nuclear weapons.  All you have to do is show me all those times the Republicans in the House used nerve gas.  All you have to do is show me that the Republican Party has actively participated in the murder of American servicemen.  The way Iran has been documented to have done (see also here).

Otherwise, just shut the hell up, you toxic, rabid creature.  Because you only serve as one more PROOF that everything Obama said AS I QUOTED IN THE NEW YORK TIMES was nothing more than a demonic lie from hell.  You people never wanted to “transcend” anything; your messiah is about nothing more than WINNING his partisan and ideological war campaign of hate, and you would “fundamentally transform” this nation into a likeness of Stalingrad during WW2 in order to WIN that partisan and ideological war.

At this point, Barack Obama is as much as openly saying that he believes that a good half of the American people who agree with the Republican Party are not only terrorists, but are in fact worse terrorists than the mullahs in Iran and the thugs in Syria.  And that is sick beyond evil.

Is your view, Democrat, that the Republicans would be good negotiating partners with whom you could compromise and reach consensus with if the GOP just gassed a few hundred thousand people to death???  Maybe if the Republicans started a nuclear war of Armageddon they’d finally be worthy of your negotiating???  Have you and your party become that morally toxic???  Because it appears that you have.  It appears that you are saying, “Yes!  Negotiate with mass-murdering psychopath Islamic jihadists!  But DON’T YOU DARE negotiate with those Republicans because they don’t like sodomy marriage and baby-murdering abortions!!!”

Barack Obama is a liar without shame, without integrity, without honor and without conscience.  He is also the worst hypocrite I have ever seen in my life.  He is leading America to ruin day-by-day, month-by-month and year-by-year.  His core promises were ALL a pack of lies.

If he’s going to be the first president since Jimmy Carter in 1979 to directly negotiate with Iran, the least he could do is bring a little of that love for his terrorist ayatollah pals back home and negotiate with Republicans so we can finally get something done.

Devastating NY Times Story Reveals Obama As An Arrogant And Divisive Blowhard Who Overestimates His Abilities And Stupidly Competes In Useless Trivialities

September 10, 2012

Update, 9/11/12: I’ve written about Obama’s divisiveness – in wild contrast to his hypocritical and cynical promises to “transcend the starkly red-and-blue politics of the last 15 years, end the partisan and ideological wars and build a new governing majority” – and on this day when we celebrate the unity of the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attack, it seems fitting to examine why any hope of unity went out the door with Obama’s presidency.

Two weeks – just TWO WEEKS – after Obama took office, Republicans (according to Bob Woodward’s new book) came ready to work with him.  The problem was that Obama wasn’t ready to work with THEM.  When Eric Cantor provided some excellent suggestions to the massive stimulus that Obama demanded, Obama shut him down by saying, “Elections have consequences and Eric, I won.”  Obama flat-out told Republicans he didn’t want to hear any of their ideas and that they weren’t going to be allowed to contribute.

Obama gave a speech just three weeks after taking office in  which he said:

“Don’t come to the table with the same tired arguments and worn ideas that helped to create this crisis,” he admonished in a speech.

Eric Cantor was simply amazed.  Obama had falsely won election on a promise of true hope and change for rising above partisan intransigence.  And he was being more partisan and more bullheaded than anybody.  Cantor reflected that Obama had EVERYTHING when he took office.  He had the love of the American people.  He had total Democrat control over the House for two full years.  He had filibuster-proof supermajority in the Senate for those two years.  He had an opposition party that was shocked and awed and disoriented and dismayed at the loss they had just taken.  Obama had all of that going for him.  And, in Cantor’s words, in Obama’s very first act as president, “he had unified and energized the losers.”

Obama told a lot of what we now know are documented lies to become president.  He promised he’d cut the deficit in half during his first four years, when instead he has TRIPLED IT.  He mocked George Bush as “irresponsible” and literally denounced Bush’s patriotism for adding $4 trillion to the debt in eight years; Obama will have added $6 trillion in his first four years when this term ends.  He voted against Bush’s debt ceiling increase on hyper-partisan grounds only to viciously denounce Republicans for voting the same way and on the same grounds that HE did when he was a Senator.  There are many similar examples.  But for all the lies he told, his most unforgivable lie was promising the American people that he would rise above political differences and heal the national divide when we now know that he not only never had any intention of doing so, but was in fact pathologically incapable of even trying.

I responded to a liberal who blamed the Obama failures on “Republican obstructionism.”  I provided just a few MAJOR examples of the Democrat obstructionism that Bush faced from Democrats who had even MORE control over the political process than the Republicans have had since 2010.  It is hypocritical to the extreme for those who never blamed DEMOCRAT OBSTRUCTIONISM to now blame Republicans for the very sort of obstructionism that they were cheering when Bush was president.  [End update]

Hey, with a few more stories like this, I might almost take the New York Times out of the bird cage and read it:

Rich Karlgaard, Forbes Staff
9/03/2012 @ 12:34PM |242,209 views
New York Times Proves Clint Eastwood Correct — Obama Is Lousy CEO

A Sunday New York Times front page story — New York Times! — might have killed President Obama’s re-election hopes.

The story is called “The Competitor in Chief — Obama Plays To Win, In Politics and Everything Else.” It is devastating.

With such a title, and from such a friendly organ, at first I thought Jodi Kantor’s piece would be a collection of Obama’s greatest political wins: His rapid rise in Illinois, his win over Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Democratic primaries, the passage of health care, and so on.

But the NYT piece is not about any of that. Rather, it is a deep look into the two outstanding flaws in Obama’s executive leadership:

1. How he vastly overrates his capabilities:

But even those loyal to Mr. Obama say that his quest for excellence can bleed into cockiness and that he tends to overestimate his capabilities. The cloistered nature of the White House amplifies those tendencies, said Matthew Dowd, a former adviser to President George W. Bush, adding that the same thing happened to his former boss. “There’s a reinforcing quality,” he said, a tendency for presidents to think, I’m the best at this.

2. How he spends extraordinary amounts of time and energy to compete in — trivialities.

For someone dealing with the world’s weightiest matters, Mr. Obama spends surprising energy perfecting even less consequential pursuits. He has played golf 104 times since becoming president, according to Mark Knoller of CBS News, who monitors his outings, and he asks superior players for tips that have helped lower his scores. He decompresses with card games on Air Force One, but players who do not concentrate risk a reprimand (“You’re not playing, you’re just gambling,” he once told Arun Chaudhary, his former videographer).

His idea of birthday relaxation is competing in an Olympic-style athletic tournament with friends, keeping close score. The 2009 version ended with a bowling event. Guess who won, despite his history of embarrassingly low scores? The president, it turned out, had been practicing in the White House alley.

Kantor’s piece is full of examples of Obama’s odd need to dominate his peers in everything from bowling, cards, golf, basketball, and golf (104 times in his presidency). Bear in mind, Obama doesn’t just robustly compete. The leader of the free world spends many hours practicing these trivial pursuits behind the scenes. Combine this weirdly wasted time with a consistent overestimation of his capabilities, and the result is, according to NYT’s Kantor:

He may not always be as good at everything as he thinks, including politics. While Mr. Obama has given himself high grades for his tenure in the White House — including a “solid B-plus” for his first year — many voters don’t agree, citing everything from his handling of the economy to his unfulfilled pledge that he would be able to unite Washington to his claim that he would achieve Israeli-Palestinian peace.

Those were not the only times Mr. Obama may have overestimated himself: he has also had a habit of warning new hires that he would be able to do their jobs better than they could.

“I think that I’m a better speechwriter than my speechwriters,” Mr. Obama told Patrick Gaspard, his political director, at the start of the 2008 campaign, according to The New Yorker. “I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I’ll tell you right now that I’m going to think I’m a better political director than my political director.”

Though he never ran a large organization before becoming president, he initially dismissed internal concerns about management and ended up with a factionalized White House and a fuzzier decision-making process than many top aides wanted.

Kantor’s portrait of Obama is stunning. It paints a picture of a CEO who is unfocused and lost.

Imagine, for a minute, that you are on the board of directors of a company. You have a CEO who is not meeting his numbers and who is suffering a declining popularity with his customers. You want to help this CEO recover, but then you learn he doesn’t want your help. He is smarter than you and eager to tell you this. Confidence or misplaced arrogance? You’re not sure at first. If the company was performing well, you’d ignore it. But the company is performing poorly, so you can’t.

With some digging, you learn, to your horror, that the troubled CEO spends a lot of time on — what the hell? — bowling? Golf? Three point shots? While the company is going south?

What do you do? You fire that CEO. Clint Eastwood was right. You let the guy go.

So Obama is an arrogant blowhard who fails or refuses to understand his own limitations and has surrounded himself with fawning yes men and women who will agree with whatever they think he wants them to agree with.  And Obama also has a pathological need to win even at the smallest and most trivial things.

That’s just not the kind of guy you want leading your country.

That attitude is responsible for why America’s credit got downgraded and we couldn’t make a big deal when we really needed one:

Bob Woodward Book: Debt Deal Collapse Led to ‘Pure Fury’ From President Obama
By RICK KLEIN
Sept. 05 2012

An explosive mix of dysfunction, miscommunication, and misunderstandings inside and outside the White House led to the collapse of a historic spending and debt deal that President Obama and House Speaker John Boehnerwere on the verge of reaching last summer, according to revelations in author Bob Woodward’s latest book.

The book, “The Price of Politics,” on sale Sept. 11, 2012, shows how close the president and the House speaker were to defying Washington odds and establishing a spending framework that included both new revenues and major changes to long-sacred entitlement programs. “The Price of Politics” examines the struggles between Obama and the Congress for the three and a half years, between 2009 and the summer of 2012. It offers exclusive behind the scenes access to what the President and the Republicans did, or rather failed to do.

But at one critical juncture, with an agreement tantalizingly close, Obama pressed Boehner for additional taxes as part of a final deal — a miscalculation, in retrospect, given how far the House speaker felt he’d already gone.

The president called three times to speak with Boehner about his latest offer, according to Woodward. But the speaker didn’t return the president’s phone call for most of an agonizing day, in what Woodward calls a “monumental communications lapse” between two of the most powerful men in the country.

When Boehner finally did call back, he jettisoned the entire deal. Obama lost his famous cool, according to Woodward, with a “flash of pure fury” coming from the president; one staffer in the room said Obama gripped the phone so tightly he thought he would break it.

“He was spewing coals,” Boehner told Woodward, in what is described as a borderline “presidential tirade.”

“He was pissed…. He wasn’t going to get a damn dime more out of me. He knew how far out on a limb I was. But he was hot. It was clear to me that coming to an agreement with him was not going to happen, and that I had to go to Plan B.”

Accounts of the final proposal that led to the deal’s collapse continue to differ sharply. The president says he was merely raising the possibility of putting more revenue into the package, while Boehner maintains that the president needed $400 billion more, despite an earlier agreement of no more than $800 billion in total revenue, derived through tax reform.

Obama and his aides argue that the House speaker backed away from a deal because he couldn’t stand the political heat inside his own party – or even, perhaps, get the votes to pass the compromise. They say he took the president’s proposal for more revenue as an excuse to pull out of talks altogether.

“I was pretty angry,” the president told Woodward about the breakdown in negotiations. “There’s no doubt I thought it was profoundly irresponsible, at that stage, not to call me back immediately and let me know what was going on.”

The failure of Obama to connect with Boehner was vaguely reminiscent of another phone call late in the evening of Election Day 2010, after it became clear that the Republicans would take control of the House, making Boehner Speaker of the House.

Nobody in the Obama orbit could even find the soon-to-be-speaker’s phone number, Woodward reports. A Democratic Party aide finally secured it through a friend so the president could offer congratulations.

While questions persist about whether any grand bargain reached by the principals could have actually passed in the Tea Party-dominated Congress, Woodward issues a harsh judgment on White House and congressional leaders for failing to act boldly at a moment of crisis. Particular blame falls on the president.

“It was increasingly clear that no one was running Washington. That was trouble for everyone, but especially for Obama,” Woodward writes.

That was what John Boehner was saying all along.  He and Obama had a deal.  All Obama had to do was agree to the deal he’d already made.  But to Obama it wasn’t just two men trying to do what was best for America; it was a competition.  And Obama wanted to win.  So he tried to force one more concession out of Boeher.  And Obama blew up the deal and America lost.

Here’s a little more to reveal this ugly, narcissistic side to Obama:

WASHINGTON — Lawmakers and the White House had what nearly every party is describing as a “tough” and “testy” meeting on the debt ceiling Wednesday afternoon, culminating in a stormy exchange between President Barack Obama and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.).

It was the fifth straight day of talks, but the first in which attendees, speaking on background, were willing to admit that steps were taken backwards. According to multiple sources, disagreements surfaced early, in the middle and at the end of the nearly two-hour talks. At issue was Cantor’s repeated push to do a short-term resolution and Obama’s insistence that he would not accept one.

“Eric, don’t call my bluff. I’m going to the American people on this,” the president said, according to both Cantor and another attendee. “This process is confirming what the American people think is the worst about Washington: that everyone is more interested in posturing, political positioning, and protecting their base, than in resolving real problems.”

Cantor, speaking to reporters after the meeting, said that the president “abruptly” walked off after offering his scolding.

[…]

“I have reached the point where I say enough,” Obama concluded, according to Reuters. “Would Ronald Reagan be sitting here? I’ve reached my limit. This may bring my presidency down, but I will not yield on this.”

And it should have brought Obama’s presidency down.  That short term deal Cantor wanted would have saved America’s triple A credit rating.

So, a few things on all this.  First of all, there isn’t a conservative on the planet who needs or wants a damn scolding from Obama.  You don’t scold people you’re negotiating with if you actually want to get anwhere with them.  Second, history has already proven Obama definitely ISN’T Ronald Reagan.  Ronald Reagan is the greatest president in the history of America, according to the American people; while Barack Obama is an arrogant chump who thinks he’s about 50,000 times greater than he is.  And third, the fact that Obama by his own description was willing to bring his entire presidency down just to not budge to prove some point or win some contest pretty much confirms all of what is written above.

Barack Obama is a narcissist according to a psychologist who is an expert on the field of narcissism.  He simply has no business whatsoever being president.  As Clint Eastwood said, it’s time to let him go.

One of the reasons I got into blogging was to preserve a record as to just what a total CHUMP Obama is.  So, knowing that the New York Times is great at purging stories that don’t favor liberals, I’d better grab it while it’s still around to be grabbed.  Here’s the NY Times piece.  Let me repeat that; here’s a piece from the New York Times:

September 2, 2012
The Competitor in Chief
By JODI KANTOR

As Election Day approaches, President Obamais sharing a few important things about himself. He has mentioned more than once in recent weeks that he cooks “a really mean chili.” He has impressive musical pitch, he told an Iowa audience. He is “a surprisingly good pool player,” he informed an interviewer — not to mention (though he does) a doodler of unusual skill.

All in all, he joked at a recent New York fund-raiser with several famous basketball players in attendance, “it is very rare that I come to an event where I’m like the fifth or sixth most interesting person.”

Four years ago, Barack Obama seemed as if he might be a deliberate professor of a leader, maybe with a touch of Hawaiian mellowness. He has also turned out to be a voraciously competitive perfectionist. Aides and friends say so in interviews, but Mr. Obama’s own words of praise and derision say it best: he is a perpetually aspiring overachiever, often grading himself and others with report-card terms like “outstanding” or “remedial course” (as in: Republicans need one).

As he faces off with Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential nominee, Mr. Obama’s will to win — and fear of losing — is in overdrive. He is cramming for debates against an opponent he has called “ineffective,” raising money at a frantic pace to narrow the gap with Mr. Romney and embracing the do-anything-it-takes tactics of an increasingly contentious campaign.

Even by the standards of the political world, Mr. Obama’s obsession with virtuosity and proving himself the best are remarkable, those close to him say. (Critics call it arrogance.) More than a tic, friends and aides say, it is a core part of his worldview, formed as an outsider child who grew up to defy others’ views of the limits of his abilities. When he speaks to students, he almost always emphasizes living up to their potential.

“He has a general philosophy that whatever he does, he’s going to do the very best he can do,” Marty Nesbitt, a close friend, said in an interview.

Mr. Obama’s aides point to the seriousness he brings to the tasks of the presidency — how he virtually never shows up for a meeting unprepared, say, or how he quickly synthesizes complicated material. When Mr. Obama was derided as an insufferable overachiever in an early political race, some of his friends were infuriated; to them, he was revising negative preconceptions of what a black man could achieve.

But even those loyal to Mr. Obama say that his quest for excellence can bleed into cockiness and that he tends to overestimate his capabilities. The cloistered nature of the White House amplifies those tendencies, said Matthew Dowd, a former adviser to President George W. Bush, adding that the same thing happened to his former boss. “There’s a reinforcing quality,” he said, a tendency for presidents to think, I’m the best at this.

And though Mr. Obama craves high grades from the electorate and from history, he is in a virtual dead heat with Mr. Romney in national polls, the political equivalent of school progress reports.

For someone dealing with the world’s weightiest matters, Mr. Obama spends surprising energy perfecting even less consequential pursuits. He has played golf 104 times since becoming president, according to Mark Knoller of CBS News, who monitors his outings, and he asks superior players for tips that have helped lower his scores. He decompresses with card games on Air Force One, but players who do not concentrate risk a reprimand (“You’re not playing, you’re just gambling,” he once told Arun Chaudhary, his former videographer).

His idea of birthday relaxation is competing in an Olympic-style athletic tournament with friends, keeping close score. The 2009 version ended with a bowling event. Guess who won, despite his history of embarrassingly low scores? The president, it turned out, had been practicing in the White House alley.

When he reads a book to children at the annual White House Easter Egg Roll, Mr. Obama seems incapable of just flipping open a volume and reading. In 2010, he began by announcing that he would perform “the best rendition ever” of “Green Eggs and Ham,” ripping into his Sam-I-Ams with unusual conviction. Two years later at the same event, he read “Where the Wild Things Are” with even more animation, roooooaring his terrible roar and gnaaaaashing his terrible teeth. By the time he got to the wild rumpus, he was howling so loudly that Bo, the first dog, joined in.

“He’s shooting for a Tony,” Mr. Chaudhary joked. (He has already won a Grammy, in 2006, for his reading of his memoir, “Dreams From My Father” — not because he was a natural, said Brian Smith, the producer, but because he paused so many times to polish his performance.)

Asked if there was anything at which the president allowed himself to just flat-out fail, Mr. Nesbitt gave a long pause. “If he picks up something new, at first he’s not good, but he’ll work until he gets better,” he said.

Mr. Obama’s fixation on prowess can get him into trouble. Not everyone wants to be graded by him, certainly not Republicans. Mr. Dowd, the former Bush adviser, said he admired Mr. Obama, but added, “Nobody likes to be in the room with someone who thinks they’re the smartest person in the room.”

Even some Democrats in Washington say they have been irritated by his tips on topics ranging from the best way to shake hands on the trail (really look voters in the eye, he has instructed) to writing well (“You have to think three or four sentences ahead,” he told one reluctant pupil).

For another, he may notalways be as good at everything as he thinks, including politics. While Mr. Obama has given himself high grades for his tenure in the White House — including a “solid B-plus” for his first year — many voters don’t agree, citing everything from his handling of the economy to his unfulfilled pledge that he would be able to unite Washington to his claim that he would achieve Israeli-Palestinian peace.

Those were not the only times Mr. Obama may have overestimated himself: he has also had a habit of warning new hires that he would be able to do their jobs better than they could.

“I think that I’m a better speechwriter than my speechwriters,” Mr. Obama told Patrick Gaspard, his political director, at the start of the 2008 campaign, according to The New Yorker. “I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I’ll tell you right now that I’m going to think I’m a better political director than my political director.”

Though he never ran a large organization before becoming president, he initially dismissed internal concerns about management and ended up with a factionalized White House and a fuzzier decision-making process than many top aides wanted.

Now Mr. Obama is in the climactic contest of his career, about to receive the ultimate judgment on his performance from the American people. It is a moment, aides say, he has been craving: during some of the darker days of his tenure, he told them that he wanted the country to evaluate him not in isolation, but in contrast to the Republican alternative. The tough, often successful attacks from the right have hardened and fueled him, aides say, driving him to prove that “we’re right and we’re better,” as one ally put it.

In 2008, he said he wanted to change the nature of politics and keep governing separate from campaigning; since then, he has overhauled his White House to prepare for the re-election bid and has run tit-for-tat negative ads, some of which, like some run by his opponent, have been criticized by media truth squads for inaccuracies.

He offers his share of verbal jabs at his rival, too.

As far back as 2008, Mr. Obama’s assessment of Mr. Romney was scathing. On the day Mr. Romney dropped out of that presidential race, Mr. Obama told reporters that the former governor was a weak candidate who made “poorly thought out” comments (the compulsive grader again). He savored Mr. Romney’s stumbles in the Republican primaries this time around, an adviser said, professing wonder that it took him so long to lock up the nomination.

This February, in an otherwise placid meeting with Democratic governors — routine policy questions, routine presidential replies — Gov. Brian Schweitzer of Montana asked Mr. Obama if he had what it took to win the 2012 race.

For a moment Mr. Obama looked annoyed, a White House aide said, as if he thought Mr. Schweitzer was underestimating him. Then he came alive. “Holy mackerel, he lit up,” Mr. Schweitzer said in an interview. “It was like a light switch coming on.”

No matter what moves Mr. Romney made, the president said, he and his team were going to cut him off and block him at every turn. “We’re the Miami Heat, and he’s Jeremy Lin,” Mr. Obama said, according to the aide.

Since then, Mr. Obama has been working at a furious pace, headlining three times as many fund-raisers as George W. Bush did during his 2004 re-election campaign, according to Mr. Knoller.

When local campaign staff members ask him what they need to do better, he talks about himself instead. “I need to be working harder,” he recently told one state-level aide.

He recently began preparing for the presidential debates, reading up on Mr. Romney and his positions. One danger is that he could sound grudging or smug by indulging in his habit of scoring others (as in, “You’re likable enough, Hillary,” one of his worst debate moments from 2008). As he slashes into Mr. Romney’s arguments, he sometimes cannot help letting crowds know what he thinks of his rival’s political skills.

“When a woman right here in Iowa shared the story of her financial struggles, he gave her an answer out of an economics textbook,” he said about Mr. Romney in May, his tone incredulous.

Though Mr. Obama quizzes his team on all aspects of the campaign, he is concentrating most on the rhetorical challenge of making a case for a second term. He has worked on making his stump speech tighter, less defensive and more forward-looking in recent months, and he is still testing and discarding lines. “That’s the meat of the campaign, that’s where his focus lies,” said David Axelrod, his chief strategist.

Not only do the White House, the Supreme Court and a budgetary crisis hang in the balance, but so does a national judgment on whether Mr. Obama’s agenda was a good idea in the first place. So perhaps it is not surprising that he cites not just his record, but also every other accomplishment he can think of.

Then again, he is just as competitive in private, when there is little or nothing at stake. At one of his farewell meetings for White House interns, Mr. Obama dispensed some life advice.

“When you all have kids, it’s important to let them win,” he said with a smile. “Until they’re a year old. Then start winning.”

Kitty Bennett contributed research.

If America really wants to “start winning,” it will rid its national ass of Obama.

Anthony Weiner A Too-Typical Liberal Bureaucrat: A Pervert With No Marketable Skills Whatsoever

June 21, 2011

One of the reasons it took twenty days for Rep. Anthony Weiner to resign when it didn’t take much more than twenty minutes for Speaker Boehner to demand Rep. Chris Lee’s resignation turned out to be the hold-up of some kind of job for him.

Here are the facts:

Want to know a primary reason that thus far Weiner is refusing to quit  despite the calls for him to do so from House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, DNC  Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, NY Rep. Steve Israel, chairman of the House  Democrats’ campaign committee and others?  A big reason is he simply cannot  afford to. His world has been turned upside down overnight, and the nation’s  politicians are incensed by it – but it really comes down to the fact that his finances  don’t lend many options right now.

As The NY Post reported “Weiner doesn’t have a business or even a law degree  to fall back on. He made $156,117 in 2010, and owes between $10,000 and $15,000  on his American Express card according to his most recent financial-disclosure  forms.” Anthony Weiner, the man, has never had another job since starting in  politics at the age of 21 in 1985. The future career possibilities for the 46  year old “object” Anthony Weiner aren’t too bright these days.

We are talking about a man who has never held a private sector job in his entire life.

Michelle Malkin has more to say about this:

Last year, the now-jobless Weiner joked on former roommate Jon Stewart’s cable comedy show that he didn’t “have a lot of marketable skills.” It’s one of Weiner’s rare truthful utterances over the past year.  A protégé of fossilized New York Sen. Charles Schumer, Weiner has spent the last 20 years in politics – straight out of college to the present. Through seven consecutive congressional terms, he has stridently advocated job-killing policies in the name of the working class. About which this ruling-class elitist knows nothing.

But it turns out Weiner DOES have one highly marketable skill: he is a rarefied pervert.  And in a degenerate world of pornography (a gift of liberals and liberal judges who said they couldn’t tell the difference between “art” and “porn” no matter how much of it they watched), being the level of sexual pervert that Weiner clearly is DOES have value:

Anthony Weiner Gets Offer From Larry Flynt to Work For His Hustler Empire in Beverly Hills

So I’m sure Weiner will be fine doing what he loves for fellow Democrat Larry Flynt.  Together they can continue to work for “liberal values.”  Such as LYING.

But here’s the thing.

Anthony Weiner was one of THE leading voices of the Democrat Party and THE voice for liberal values.  Bill O’Reilly demonstrated that the real loser in this Weinergate scandal is liberalism; they lost their star voice.  He debated with two liberals who couldn’t come up with anybody better than also-utterly-disgraced Rep. Charlie Rangel.  Even über über liberal Rachel Maddow says Weiner’s resignation will hurt the Democrat Party “probably for a generation.”

And who is this voice of liberalism?  An arrogant perverted punk who has spent his entire life on the taxpayer dole and who has absolutely no redeeming quality whatsoever in the world he demanded to have the power to regulate and then regulate some more.

I have pointed this out before: why on earth would any decent American want a Weiner running their lives???  Why would anyone but the worst fool imaginable want a guy like Anthony Weiner – who is not only a lying pervert but who literally is utterly USELESS in the real world – writing the laws that will control our economy and our lives???

Which just gets more to the point: if you vote for Democrats, you are a true fool indeed.

Michelle Malkin wrote a brilliant chapter in her book, Culture of Corruption.  It details how liberals make incredibly lucrative careeers moving from politics (either in elected office or as staffers) to crony capitalism (as lobbyists or in firms that want to schmooze politicians).  Michelle Obama is an example of this, as is Rahm Emanuel, as is Valerie Jarrett.  Crony capitalism is nothing more than fascism in waiting.  These people get rich gaming the system even as they corrupt and rot the system from within like leeches.

Obama Demoagogues Boehner While Mainstream Media Misrepresents Him

September 15, 2010

I’ve already written (and still more here) about increasing numbers of Democrats doing a tacit “credit Bush” move – as opposed to the mindless failure of responsibility inherent in the “blame Bush” garbage – by demanding that ALL of the Bush tax cuts be extended at least temporarily.

So you’ll have to forgive me for changing the emphasis of the following excellent article, even as I preserve its substance.

Yes, Democrats are increasingly starting to change their tune on the Bush tax cuts.  Previously, they were blaming Bush’s tax cuts for the economic collapse; now growing numbers of them are saying they should be extended.  But let’s not forget to examine the classless, tasteless, and clueless demagoguery that is daily spit out of the Obama White House.

From HotAir:

Rank and file Dems to Pelosi: extend all the Bush tax cuts
posted at 2:13 pm on September 13, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

After John Boehner reiterated his call to extend all of the Bush-era tax cuts expiring at the end of the year, the White House once again tried hammering him as an extremist looking to protect the rich at the expense of the middle class.  House Democrats will undercut that messaging with their own call to put off tax hikes for the next couple of years.  In a letter circulating on Capitol Hill and reviewed by Politico, Blue Dogs and other Democrats tell Nancy Pelosi that this is no time to raise taxes or to extend the uncertainty:

POLITICO has obtained a draft of a letter from rank-and-file lawmakers to Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer urging them not to let tax rates rise for Americans at the highest income levels.

“We believe in times of economic recovery it makes good sense to maintain things as they are in the short term, to provide families and businesses the certainty required to plan and make sound budget decisions,” the House members write in a letter that was being circulated for signatures on Friday and is expected to be delivered today or Tuesday.

Reps. Jim Matheson (Utah), Glenn Nye (Virginia), Melissa Bean (Ill.) and Gary Peters (Mich.) drafted the letter and are working to gather support, mostly from the moderate Blue Dog and New Democrat coalitions, for at least a temporary extension of the rates for top income earners as well as those in the lower brackets.

This comes at the same time that Boehner’s remarks have stirred controversy — although largely from the absence of context.  The media originally reported them as a retreat back to the White House petition.  Instead, Boehner said that he would vote to approve a bill that only extended the middle-class portion of the tax cuts if that was all that was offered.  Boehner scoffed at the notion that he was holding those tax-cuts extensions hostage, which a moment’s thought would prove correct.  Pelosi has a 77-seat majority in the House, and can pass anything Democrats want.

Clearly, some Democrats are now wondering if they want a class war right before the election.  That kind of strategy plays well in districts like Pelosi’s, but is falling flat in the rest of the country.  Democrats played that card in 2006 and 2008, and after four years of control in Congress, it’s no longer a trump card.  Democrats need to find a way to generate growth, and the only way to do that is to get people with capital to put it to work — which the coming tax hikes will prevent.

The Obama administration is doing its best to portray Boehner as an extremist.  Unfortunately for Obama, his own party shows that it’s the White House on the extreme, pushing tax hikes in the middle of an economic stall.  It also points to a bigger problem with the strategy, which is that punching down below one’s weight is never a good idea.  Instead of marginalizing Boehner, the White House is practically lending him the bully pulpit by putting Boehner at the same level as the President.  That helps the GOP, because most of the electorate understands that tax hikes will be disastrous for the economy — and Obama doesn’t exactly have a track record of success that gives him the benefit of the doubt.

So Chris Boehner is saying that, as a principled conservative who believes in the radical premises that Americans actually deserve to keep more of the money that they earned, he wants tax cuts for everyone.  But if he can’t get tax cuts for everyone, he’ll vote to give tax cuts to as many people as he possibly can.

Versus Obama (i.e., Obama Akbar!!!), whose position is that he will screw every single American and screw the entire economy unless his Marxist class warfare system prevails.  Because, dammit, he wants to have all the centralized commissar power to “spread that wealth around.”

And Obama calls Boehner the “extremist.”

Meanwhile, the mainstream media is deceitfully misrepresenting Boehner’s principled position into some kind of retreat.

But here’s what Boehner said:

Boehner told CBS’ “Face the Nation” that “If the only option I have is to vote for those at $250,000 and below, of course I’m going to do that.”

But, he said, “I’m going to do everything I can to fight to make sure that we extend the current tax rates for all Americans.”

And, he said, “I’ve been making the point now for months that we need to extend all the current rates for all Americans if we want to get our economy going again and we want to get jobs in America.”

I know, I know, what an “extremist.”  And, of course, Obama – who will blow up the entire country if he doesn’t get absolutely everything he wants – what a “moderate.”

And, of course, the media is clearly accurately representing Boehner’s view as a “retreat.”  Because, as any fool (and only fools, fwiw) knows, no conservative wants tax cuts for the middle class.  They just want tax cuts for the rich.  Because conservatives are evil and they hate the middle class.

When Mark Twain said, “A lie can get halfway around the world before the truth can even get it’s boots on,” he could have been talking about the American mainstream media.  Because that seems to be their standard operating procedure.  It is most certainly Barry Hussein’s.

I have written about the fact that tax cuts for “the rich” are the best way to increase both jobs and government revenues.  The arguments are on our side.  And in fact rather than being “extremist,” the position of favoring lower taxes for ALL Americans is the reasonable one we can take.  I hope you take time to read that.

The American people are now recognizing that Obama was fundamentally wrong about his stimulus; he was profoundly wrong about his ObamaCare; he was flagrantly wrong about his cap-and-trade system; he was terribly wrong with his green jobs nonsense; he was terrible wrong about immigration issues and the Ground Zero mosque; he endangered America by being completely wrong on Iran; and now he couldn’t be more wrong about his tax policy.

Where has this clown been right about anything?

Obama has said in his usual demagogic way, “If I said the sky was blue, they’d say no.”  The problem with Obama’s analogy is that if he said the sky was blue, it would probably be nighttime and the sky would actually be black.  Look at the sky at 2 AM and tell me it looks blue to you.  Obama began his presidency with a lie, PROMISING he wouldn’t run in 2008.  And not only has he never told the truth since, but he has proven that he is disastrously incompetent, as well.  The other problem with Obama is he’s not saying things like “the sky is blue” that everyone can reasonably agree to; he’s saying extremist, radical things that will implode this country.  If Obama would only pursue semi-reasonable policies, he’d get support from Republicans.

Let’s realize that Obama is a demagogue, a liar, an incompetent, and unfit to be president.  Let’s do an even better job ignoring him.  Let’s realize that if the mainstream media reports something, it is very likely at least mostly untrue.  Let’s realize that cutting taxes for everyone – especially the people who actually create jobs in this country – is far and away the best path to prosperity.  And let’s realize that we need conservative policies if we’re going to get out of this hole and move forward

First DemocRAT Jumps Off Sinking Ship

December 22, 2009

Parker Griffith ran for and was elected (in 2008) to office as a Blue Dog Democrat.  Which is to say as a moderate.

Unfortunately, nobody else in his party was a moderate.  And poor Rep.
Griffith – who is a medical doctor – got very frustrated trying to be a sane voice in a crazy party.

Dr. Griffith blamed Nancy Pelosi and the rest of his Stalinist party leadership for his party switch.  I blame it on his recognizing the handwriting on the wall.

In his own words, Dr. Griffith is

saying he can no longer align himself “with a party that continues to pursue legislation that is bad for our country, hurts our economy and drives us further and further into debt.”

“Unfortunately there are those in the Democratic Leadership that continue to push an agenda focused on massive new spending, tax increases, bailouts and a health care bill that is bad for our healthcare system,” Griffith said in a statement. “I have always considered myself to be an independent voice and I have tried to be that voice in Congress – but after watching this agenda firsthand I now believe that the differences in the two parties could not be more clear and that for me to be true to my core beliefs and values I must align myself with the Republican party and speak out clearly on these issues.”

“I want to make it perfectly clear that his bill is bad for our doctors, our patients and will have unintended consequences far beyond what we know today,” he said. “As a doctor and as a Republican, I plan to once again oppose this measure and hope that we can defeat this bill that is a major threat to our nation.”

I hope that Parker Griffith is the first of many moderate to conservative Democrats to abandon ship.  These Blue Dogs have got to realize that they are NOT going to be re-elected running as Democrats.  And they will be welcome to the Republican Party as long as they don’t embrace the “R.I.N.O.” philosophy.

From NPR, of all places:

Hours After Congressman Switches To GOP, Obama Talks Of ‘Major Disaster’ In Alabama

The big political news of the day is the party-switch by Alabama Rep. Parker Griffith. Elected to his first term in 2008 as a Democrat, today he announced he has become a Republican.

Meanwhile, a press release from the White House Office of the Press Secretary, which arrived only moments ago, reads as follows:

The President today declared a major disaster exists in the State of Alabama and ordered Federal aid to supplement State and local recovery efforts in the area struck by Tropical Storm Ida during the period of November 9-10, 2009.

There was more to the release, but let’s face it, we all know what Obama is talking about. Personally, I think he was overreacting.

But here’s some fun stuff about the Griffith switch — stuff I’m NOT making up.

Michael Steele, chairman of the Republican National Committee, was understandably thrilled with the news of Griffith joining the party:

I would like to sincerely welcome Congressman Parker Griffith to the Republican Party. On the eve of the Senate voting on President Obama’s and Harry Reid’s government-run health care experiment and in the wake of four House Democrats announcing their plans to retire, Dr. Griffith’s party switch sends a strong message to all Americans that there is no longer room in the Democrat Party for mainstream Americans. … Elected officials like Parker Griffith that faithfully represent their constituents and their own personal convictions even under the extreme political pressure are the kind of politicians Americans want and deserve.

John Boehner, the Republican leader in the House, was equally ebullient:

Parker Griffith is a dedicated public servant who has consistently put the best interests of his constituents first, and it is in that spirit that Republicans welcome him.

All year long, Alabamians have been well-served by Congressman Griffith’s support for conservative principles and his rejection of Washington Democrats’ wrong-headed, liberal policies. Whether it was the trillion-dollar ‘stimulus,’ the national energy tax, or a government takeover of health care, Congressman Griffith has consistently sided with Republicans and the American people to call for better solutions rooted in common sense. He has also stood up to Speaker Pelosi by joining efforts to advance ‘read the bill’ reform and to ensure that not a single taxpayer dollar is used to fund abortions.

Now, check out the ad the National Republican Congressional Committee ran against Griffith in 2008, when he faced GOP candidate Wayne Parker, who was strongly backed by the NRCC. Politics is politics, but this one is worth watching (courtesy the Daily Beast):

Meanwhile, President Obama is making the ultimate sacrifice: He says he’s not going to begin his Christmas vacation in Hawaii until the Senate passes the overhaul of health care. Here’s the president, earlier today:

My attitude is that if they’re making these sacrifices to provide health care to all Americans then the least I can do is to be around and provide them any encouragement and last-minute help where necessary.

I think the President sends a very strong signal. We should all delay our Christmas vacations in Hawaii until the Senate passes the bill.

Dr. Griffith will be the first Republican to serve the Democrat, Huntsville-based district in Alabama, according to Politico.

Which pretty much puts the kibosh on the Democrat spin that he was somehow actually a Republican all along.

We also find out that Dr. Griffith got a massive earful of anger when his historically Democrat district erupted in anger at his fellow Democrats’ socialist takeover of the health care system.

Politico also reports that:

Griffith’s party switch comes on the eve of a pivotal congressional health care vote and will send a jolt through a Democratic House Caucus that has already been unnerved by the recent retirements of a handful of members who, like Griffith, hail from districts that offer prime pickup opportunities for the GOP in 2010

Unlike Democrats, who have to literally pay out billions of dollars in bribes to get their people to vote for their very sick health bill, Republicans didn’t have to offer Parker Griffith anything.

Since 2008, there has been a 15 point swing from a country that favored Democrats by 7 points to a country that now favors Republicans by 8 points.