Archive for the ‘Election 2008’ Category

Obama living up to pre-election expectations?

Sunday, June 6th, 2010

Taking a trip back in time to see how perceived ideas about candidate Barack Obama have translated into the reality of President Barack Obama.

Back then many of us were concerned that his lack of experience in any kind of leadership role would lead to missteps large and small on a daily basis and an inability to respond to crises in an effective and timely manner.  Thinkin’ we were spot on on these points.

But some pointed to other skills Obama possessed that would serve him well in his role as president:

  1. Incredible communication skills
  2. Proven judgment
  3. Deals with people well
  4. Understands issues
  5. Brings people together

I think it is safe to say our president has not demonstrated a proficiency in any of these skills.

  1. He is as dependent on the teleprompter as we suspected
  2. He has prioritized a not-so-hidden agenda over critical issues facing the nation and has made wave-of-the-hand decisions with a so-it-is-written mentality on complex issues such as detainment of terrorists at Gitmo
  3. He has taken an extremely partisan approach to governing while treating those with dissenting views as imbeciles
  4. He seeks to understand issues that are not important to him on a very cursory level
  5. His efforts to bring people together have been limited to patching up differences he has contributed to (beer summit) and disingenuous attempts to reach across Party lines to  solicit ideas he has no intention of considering for a moment

How’s that compare to what we thought two years ago?  Pretty much spot on.  Even if we set aside ideological differences that cause us to look longingly to 2012, so far Obama has done little to inspire confidence in his ability to lead.  We have had disasters and crises that have been made worse by incompetence in this administration;  if we are hit with a a crises on the scale of 9/11…

What if North & South Korea go to war? What if we receive intelligence that Iran is prepared to launch a nuclear strike on Israel? What if the USA loses its triple-A rating and the economy collapses? What if China decides now is a good time to attack Taiwan? What if the unemployment rate spikes after the census workers’ time runs out? What if the current disaster in the Gulf turns into the last straw for a fragile economy?

What actions is this administration taking to prevent these crises, as well as many others lurking out there, and to prepare a response if any occur?

At this point it feels like they are prepared to litigate any and all crises into submission… that’s not leadership, that’s formal finger pointing after the fact.

Let’s hope that a change in congressional leadership in 2010 will provide  sufficient legislative leadership to compensate for executive leadership.

_____________________________________

From June 30, 2008,  Clark outlines Obama’s qualifications for prez:

Finally! Someone can tell me why I should vote for Obama. According to General Clark on Face the Nation:

“… what Barack Obama brings is incredible communication skills, proven judgment, you look at his meteoric rise in politics and you see a guy who deals with people well, who understands issues, who brings people together, and who has good judgment in moving forward.”

<snip>

“Barack is not, he is not running on the fact that he has made these national security pronouncements. He’s running on his other strengths. He’s running on strengths of character, on the strength of his communication skills, on the strengths of his judgment, and those are qualities that we seek in our national leadership.”

<snip>

“There’s not a learning period in this job. The next president’s gonna have to step right into the job, he’s gonna have to have the policies there…”

So… instead of experience or concrete solutions, Obama brings:

  • Incredible communication skills
  • Proven judgment
  • Deals with people well
  • Understands issues
  • Brings people together

Sounds like the qualifications for a Customer Services Rep (CSR).

That aside, assuming we really don’t mind him not having any experience or concrete solutions to problems (beyond taxing the wealthy and increasing the oil supply by taxing big oil (like any tax on oil companies wouldn’t be passed down to you and me, and how does that increase supply?)), assuming these really were the qualifications for president and not a CSR, does Obama have what it takes to be a CSR… err.. president:

  • Incredible communication skills
  • Proven judgment
    • Really? The depth of a person’s judgment can be inferred from the company he keeps. Which is why we tell our kids to not hang with drug addicts and delinquents (advice Obama apparently did not heed in his youth… a pattern of poor judgment that continues today)
  • Deals with people well
    • Was inclined to give him this one… then I remembered how he keeps dragging race into the campaign while accusing others of dragging it into the campaign. Accusing people of racism without any evidence does not indicate an ability to deal well with people in my view – check out this clip from CNN — by the way, CNN’s Cafferty (at 2:04 in the clip) all but accused Republicans of being racists and none of their analysts thought Obama’s statement was out of line

(unfortunately the video was taken down since the original post)

  • Understands issues
  • Brings people together
    • Can anyone give us an example of Obama bringing people together?

Watch the whole Clark thing here…

YouTube Preview Image

Add to Del.cio.us RSS Feed Add to Technorati Favorites Stumble It!

Share
 

Revisited: Sneak peek into dismantling the 1st Amendment under Obama

Monday, October 19th, 2009

Seeing this video of Anita Dunn and discussing it with the good folks over on our Facebook page reminded me of a post from October 2008:

From “Sneak peek into dismantling of 1st Amendment under Obama“:

It started with tight controls on the message. Anything that did not fit into the neat little package that was brand Obama was discredited, denied, distanced, destroyed.

When Obama or Biden said something that is clearly a negative for the brand, we were told that what we thought we heard, even though video evidence existed, wasn’t what we heard at all.

One by one, any association that could harm the brand was denied; when proof was given, it was spun; when spinning didn’t work, the messenger was destroyed, the association was abandoned, and the history was rewritten… what we saw wasn’t really what we saw.

As with any brand, building brand loyalty costs money or advertising. Brand Obama raised nearly a billion dollars to sell the brand directly to the public without challenge. When Obama did appear in “uncontrolled” environments, the vast majority of the appearances were with interviewers that could hardly contain themselves from humping his leg.

But controlling the message is a full time job, and sometimes the brand comes under some real scrutiny.

The lengths to which the campaign was willing to go to control the message started to become very clear when two local news programs were punished for asking questions deemed inappropriate. No more interviews for the remainder of the campaign and probably beyond.

Now, three major newspapers that have endorsed John McCain, the Washington Times, NY Post and Dallas Morning News, have been kicked off the Obama plane.

This is just the tip of the iceberg folks, trust me. The propaganda machine is evolving and is protecting the brand through any means possible, including a blatant attempt to influence a free press through a system of punishment and rewards.

On the plus side, good to see a member of team Obama confirm what we believed at the time.  On the down side… disappointing (and scary) to see that what we believed was true.

Add this to the attacks on Fox News and it is hard to believe the First Amendment is not under attack by team Obama.

Add to Del.cio.us RSS Feed Add to Technorati Favorites Stumble It!

Share
 

Bush approval higher than Obama? That’s gotta hurt…

Friday, August 14th, 2009

Think back to the summer of 2001 if you can.

George Bush, an “illegitimate president” had stolen the election from Al Gore just a few short months earlier, the start of his presidency (as well as the critical transition and transfer of knowledge from Bill Clinton) delayed, and the far left loons doing everything possible to try to tear Bush down.

Now think back to February of 2009.

Barack Obama swept into office as the chosen one; the man who would make everything right with the world; the man who transcended all issues of race, all divisions of religion and class; them man who would unite the world in a way not seen since the days of “We Are the World”.  The Bush transition team was exceedingly generous with time and information (they didn’t even steal the O’s from the White House keyboards).

Now take a look at this chart comparing the approval and disapproval numbers for Bush and Obama:

Ouch!  President Bush had better numbers 6 months in than President Obama…. that’s gotta hurt.

Guess we can stop making believe we should all just wake up and do what Obama and his cronies tell us to do because he is so wonderful.

Add to Del.cio.us RSS Feed Add to Technorati Favorites Stumble It!

Share
 

Headline: “Afghan War Likely to ‘Absorb’ Potential Savings From U.S. Withdrawal From Iraq”

Wednesday, August 12th, 2009

Interesting headline at FoxNews…  more from the article:

President Obama’s projected savings of $1.5 trillion over 10 years by scaling back the wars may be undermined by his request for $68 billion in military spending in Afghanistan next year, marking the first time more war funding will be spent in Afghanistan than in Iraq.

That proposal may ultimately cost more than what the Obama officials said could be paid for by withdrawing troops from Iraq.

Here at Thinkin’Bout Stuff, following the September 28 presidential debate, I said:

A couple of areas that I think should have been explored further: Obama indicated troops need to be redeployed from Iraq to Afghanistan and other countries that harbor Al Qaeda; then seconds later he says we can not improve health care because of the $10b/month it costs keeping troops in Iraq. If those troops are redeployed elsewhere in the world, how does Obama plan to redirect those funds to domestic programs like health care… sounded like double counting. This is not new.. I heard him say this same thing in the past and discussed it here at the time.

Looks like it was double counting… so much for $10b/month being redirected from Iraq to health care…

Add to Del.cio.us RSS Feed Add to Technorati Favorites Stumble It!

Share
 

Durbin: No cert, no seat… never! really?

Friday, January 9th, 2009

From AP:

U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin said Friday that Roland Burris should not be seated in the U.S. Senate because he has failed to get the secretary of state’s signature on his appointment to replace President-elect Barack Obama in the chamber.

“There has never in the history of the Senate been a waiver of the requirement that the secretary of state’s signature be part of the appointment process – never,” Durbin, the Senate’s second-ranking Democrat, told a news conference.

So… we are back to the excuse that Burris can not be seated because of a rule.  Interesting.

What would happen if the secretary of state for any state, say… Minnesota for example, refused to sign the certification for whatever reason.  Even though the people had elected Stuart Smalley to the senate, a Democrat in good standing, would Durbin and Reid still refuse to seat him without that signature?

Not likely to happen, especially since the current Minnesota secretary of state is a Dem, but up until 2007 the secretary was a Republican.  Since politics clearly has supplanted the law and our country as the most important thing to politicians (maybe it always was and I was more naive than I thought), what if a the secretary was a Republican and just refused to sign?  You can bet your life savings on this one folks, Durbin and Reid would absolutely welcome Al Franken with open arms and that little technicality of a signature on certification papers would not even be mentioned.

You would have to be a comlete idiot to believe any of this has to do witha signature on a piece of paper.  The only reason Durbin and Reid are not looking for an exit strategy to avoid any further embarrassment over this issue is because they really believe they have the power to block Burris from taking his rightful place in the senate… oh, and did we mention… he’s black…

Speaking of politics, I understand the party in power gets to set the agenda, but do they have the right to completely shut out the opposition?  If this was just about politics, fine.  But the senators and representatives who happen to be members of the minority party and not representing the minority party, and more than Reid and Pelosi are representing the majority party.

These people are representing us, they are representing the people of the states that elected them to represent the interests of those same people in those same states, and if the senators and representatives who just happen to not have a “D” next to their name have no say in anything, than there are folks who are not represented in this government.  And to take this line of thought to the extreme, if you are not represented, than perhaps you should be organizing a tea party…

Add to Del.cio.us RSS Feed Add to Technorati Favorites Stumble It!

Share
 

Happy New Year!

Monday, January 5th, 2009

Hope everyone had a peaceful, healthy and happy holiday season.

So… 15 days to go before the clouds part, the sun shines down upon us all, and we enter into a thousand years of peace.   Pity Barack Obama because the expectations are high and his only hope is to continue to talk down the economy and everything else so that when he fails he can blame it all on Bush.  Just today he said that the economy is bad and getting worse… not a word of hope or any indication that there is light at the other end of this darkest of tunnels.  No, it has to be as bad as it can possibly be BEFORE he takes office.  The hope comes later.

But at least he and Reid and Pelosi have absolute power to do what they believe is right; in the case of Reid and Pelosi, too bad they are already proving they are not up to the task of acting with integrity. Obama gets a pass for now because he’s not the president just yet, but he will need to prove that he really isn’t just another corrupt Chicago politician, he will need to prove that it’s merely a coincidence that he has so many corrupt friends.

So what are the Dems doing with this absolute power. Well, so far we have:

  • an indicted governor, Blogojevich, trying to sell Obama’s senate seat
  • another governor , Richardson, feeling compelled to withdraw from consideration for a cabinet position because of an ongoing investigation into questionable practices by his administration
  • Harry Reid denying accusations he tried to pressure Blogojevich to not appoint one of several African American candidates to the vacant senate seat because they would not be able to hold that seat in an election, including Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr.
  • Harry Reid insisting he has the power to block Blogojevich’s  nominee from being seated in the senate even though he clearly doesn’t (scary how a senator/lawyer doesn’t appear to understand his constitutional authority in this situation and did not check his facts before his little power play)
  • Pelosi totally abandoning any remaining pretense that she really plans to run the House in a way that will allow input from Republicans on anything (I guess it’s quite an inconvenience that any Republicans were elected and the folks they represent are truly irrelevant in this brave new world)…
    • Per the AP:  ” House Democrats unveiled internal rules Monday that would end Republican-imposed, six-year term limits on committee chairmen and make it harder for GOP lawmakers to offer alternative legislation. In changing how the House operates, Democrats sent a message that they will use the huge majority they won in November to overpower Republicans any time they wish.”  ”
      When Republicans won control of the House in 1994, they adopted rules to limit the terms of committee chairmen to three terms, or six years.

      That change followed four decades of Democratic rule, when committee chairmen ruled by seniority and built up unchallenged power to pass or block legislation. The powerful chairmen also built up a system of perks for themselves, including a special bank that allowed lawmakers to overdraw their accounts without penalty. That helped lead to the Democrats’ downfall in 1994.”

Nice.  And that’s all before January 20th…   welcome to a one party world folks.

Oh.. and I almost forgot the most embarrassing development of all:  Al Franken might actually “win” the senate seat from Minnesota.  Folks, it doesn’t get much more embarrassing than that.  Wonder how if Schumer and Reid would have declared the election over and pushed for the “loser” to move on without a lawsuit if the loser happened to be a Democrat…  no way.  But now that the rather questionable recount has been completed and Franken magically came up with enough votes to reverse the results from election day, no need to look any further, one of their own kind will be welcomed into the senate with open arms, no need to dig any further to ensure he really did win the election.

If he really did win fair and square… how embarrassing for the people of Minnesota… how embarrassing for our country.  What next? Micheal Moore for head of Homeland Security?

Add to Del.cio.us RSS Feed Add to Technorati Favorites Stumble It!

Share
 

Biggest challenge facing the Democrats?

Thursday, December 4th, 2008

No one left to blame for their screw ups.

Witness Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd, two of the primary offenders in this economic mess. 

AP - “He’s (Obama) going to have to be more assertive than he’s been,”…

… “At a time of great crisis with mortgage foreclosures and autos, he says we only have one president at a time,” Frank said. “I’m afraid that overstates the number of presidents we have. He’s got to remedy that situation.”

“The Obama team has to step up,” Sen. Christopher Dodd, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee and one of the lead negotiators, said Nov. 21 in Hartford, Conn. “In the minds of the people, this is the Obama administration. I don’t think we can wait until January 20.”

First, Obama is right; his job right now is to build his team so he can hit the ground running on day one, which is not until January 20.

Second, Obama is right; he is not the president yet.  Whether you like it or not, and frankly I don’t care, nor does the US Constitution, if you don’t like it… George Bush is still president.

If Obama is president in the minds of the people, the people are ignorant, which likely explains why Obama is president elect; and much of the blame goes to the left-wing propaganda machine we nostalgically call “the press”.  While trying to support this man they have anointed as the chosen one, they are doing him a terrible disservice: no one can live up to the expectations these people have… but Obama is not blameless, he let this happen and at times encouraged it out of arrogance and ego.

So, Dodd and Frank will gladly make statements about Bush being absent and Obama being the real president, who has not stepped up to the role as he should have, because it helps to deflect attention from their own failings; the attacks are spilling over to the guy on deck who is actually doing a pretty good job of prepping for his new role.

Barney Frank is a mean-spirited, sarcastic far left-wing hate monger who will never see the wisdom of a two party system except as a means of having someone to blame for anything that goes wrong:

“It is a grave mistake to assume that parties are irrelevant to this process,” he said. “My one difference with the president-elect, about whom I am very enthusiastic, is when he talks about being post-partisan.

“Having lived with this very right wing Republican group that runs the House most of the time, the notion of trying to deal with them as if we could be post-partisan gives me post-partisan depression,” Frank said.

 Very right wing Republican group that runs the House most of the time?

Click here for a chart of House control from 1965-2005, keeping in mind that 2006 to present Dems controlled the House.

The majority of the years, the Dems held the majority of the seats.  When Republicans held the majority, it was typically by slim margins, especially compared with the margins the Dems held; and those majorities were not dominated by the right wing of the Republican Party.  So Frank is either mistaken, (unlikely since he knows his stuff when it comes to control of the House), or lying to make sure it appears that Republicans are to blame for the current mess… and to point us to the obvious conclusion that the more Democrats in the House, the better off we will all be.  In one respect he is right, there are many, many good Democrats in congress; unfortunately the Democrat leadership is dominated by twits like Frank, Dodd, Pelosi, Rangel, Waxman, and Dingell.

Democrats like Frank, Dodd and Pelosi are masters of spin and utilization of the press to get their message out.  You may have noticed that, prior to the election, the “bailout” was going to be a success because of the wonderful leadership of Barack Obama and the Democrats in the House and the Senate; after the election, it’s Bush’s bailout leading us down a path of socialism; it’s Bush running up the deficit; it’s Bush this and Bush that and thank the powers of nature that Obama has come to save us… but why has he abandoned us, where is the mercy of “O”, why does he speak to the unclean and invite them to sit by his side, why dost he not cast them into the pit of fire… 

Sorry, got carried away there a bit.

Over the past couple of years, Pelosi and Reid behaved as if they were the co-presidents and George Bush was an unfortunate irritant whose main value was as a scapegoat.

Should be an interesting year coming up.  Will ”O” slap them down?  Will the Dems be forced to form a circular firing squad with no Republicans to shoot? Will everyone make nice? Or, will they do everything they can to blame the next 100 years on George Bush and run a campaign of change every 2 years even if they manage to grab 100% of the seats.

Any chance we are not stupid enough to fall for it, two years from now, when they try to convince us change equals more Democrats and a super majority in the senate…

Based upon the number of Obama supporters who believe the House and Senate are currently controlled by Republicans… it’s not looking good.

Add to Del.cio.us RSS Feed Add to Technorati Favorites Stumble It!

Share