Obama stresses the importance of reading to sixth grade students by reading an entire speech from teleprompters.
22
Jan
Fresh on the surprise pounding Obama’s candidate took in Massachusetts, Obama unleashed his fury on banks, again. Apparently the message wasn’t received. I thought it was funny when Robert Gibbs blamed Coakley’s loss on George W. Bush. Now it just seems pathetic. Here’s a clue, it’s a simple one, but apparently not one Obama and his peeps can figure out:
Stop worrying about the people that ARE working and focus like a laser beam on the people that are NOT working.
Now, it’s safe to say not too many Massachusetts bankers supported Coakley. If they didn’t before Obama stumped for her, I’ll bet it was a lock after he did. However, from last fall forward, they would never have voted for Obama or his designee, anyway. But, there’s just not that many “too big to fail” employees receiving huge bonuses in Massachusetts. It’s the little guy who’s unemployed right now that’s desperately craving some attention. If Obama had spent as much time talking about them as he did Scott Brown’s truck, he might have helped Coakley more. Now that she’s toast, he’s right back on his personal vendetta against capitalist America. The unemployed peeps see and know how much attacking millionaire bonuses will help them. That’s not getting a single vote anywhere. The big picture as I see it is Obama will try every trick he knows, but one. Lowering taxes is not an option. It is, however, the only wiggle room there is to make an immediate impact on employment. Grants and loans take months to work their way into the economy. Lowering taxes immediately frees up capital that can be used to employing people. Rather than go with what history has shown has worked in the past, he’s attacking banks. Again.
Since the election, unemployment suddenly lurched up unexpectedly, and the Dow, NASDAQ, and almost all indices have dropped substantially. It’s starting to look REAL ugly. If Obama keeps attacking windmills, November could be a bloodbath.
I’m seeing a lot of stuff about how people are now expecting a lot of Republicans to follow in the footsteps of Scott Brown. Seems like a rather simple plan to me:
- Pose naked for Cosmo.
- Smile a lot, sincerely.
- Crank out a couple of smoking hot daughters.
- Smile a lot, sincerely.
- Have at least one of them do a very popular reality show.
- Smile a lot, sincerely.
- Wear designer suits, perfect hair, and drive a truck.
- Smile a lot, sincerely.
- Be the absolute polar opposite of a life-long incumbent who recently died.
- Smile a lot, sincerely.
- Make sure and get a completely clueless opponent. Preferably one who is clueless about some local legend.
- Smile a lot, sincerely.
- Get the incumbent President of the United States to stump for your opponent. People like past presidents. It’s just the incumbents that are campaign killers.
- Smile a lot, sincerely.
- Keep an eye on the news. Support issues where polling has shown increased support, and keep quiet on those where the polling is going down. ( That’s called trending. People who join with you on the way up tend to stick with you. Those on the way down jump like rats on the Titanic. )
- Smile a lot, sincerely.
If you can pull all that off, you’ll win every single time. If you just pull off #16 you’ll have a fighting chance anywhere. I have believed my entire life that X percent of all votes are for the most attractive and confident looking candidate. That’s not a gender thing. Hillary, McCain, and Obama all smiled a lot. Hillary looked forced, McCain looked pained, Obama looked like he really was enjoying the whoopin he was dishing out. In Massachusetts, Coakley looked like she was not enjoying the race. People just don’t get excited about someone that is not excited. Brown looked like he was having a blast being the underdog.
Now, a lot of Republican pundits are saying it’s all about health care, the economy, Obama’s crazed liberal socialist policies, and whatnot that a Republican candidate can not control. What they can control is their own image. Just keep on smiling. Issues will change, attitudes will change, the economy will change. What will never change is people supporting an exciting candidate. Stick to the core philosophies of the Republican Party ( anyone remember those? ), and be something the voters want to look at for the next two, four, or six years. Or longer.
21
Jan
Pat Robertson blamed the Haiti earthquake on their pact with the devil. That seemed kinda crazy to me.
Danny Glover one-upped Robertson by claiming it’s because we didn’t do enough at the COP15 meetings. You know, mother nature’s pissed and she’s not going to take it any more. That seemed kinda crazy to me as well.
But, they were just the warm-ups for the king of crazy, Mr. Hugo Chavez. Now, without being able to cite the source, since it’s Spanish, I’ll have to paraphrase. It goes something like this:
The US has an “earthquake weapon”. It’s like a super-duper sonic weapon. It also affects weather, causing droughts and stuff. This is apparently being developed by the HAARP program. Having laid the Haiti military to waste, the US has moved our military in to occupy Haiti. Previous warm-ups were the earthquake in China that killed 90,000 people in 2008, and of course, the earthquake everyone remembers most, the one in Eureka, California. This test-run invasion of Haiti is the preparation of the invasion of Iran to topple the Islamic regime. The evidence of course, is the 3,000 US marines in Haiti now. They are of course, under cover. They’re not there to help the Haitians, they are occupying Haiti.
Got all that?
Famine, drought, earthquakes, floods, you name it, the US did it.
Venezuela, your leader is absolutely certifiably crazier than a fruitcake. You all really need to do something before he gets you all hurt. I mean, if we can send earthquakes to Haiti, China, Iran, and even California, sending one to Venezuela would be a snap dontcha think? Shut the guy up before we have to shake you all up real bad.
19
Jan
Am thinking it’s kinda odd that the recent Tea Party movement became real in Boston tonight.
Am also thinking Robert Gibbs sums up exactly why Coakley lost, and why more Dems will lose if something doesn’t change quick:
Not sure how going back before 2008 is not talking about “any previous administration”. But, the pattern’s exactly the same. If something bad happens, blame it on Bush. People are getting tired of them blaming everything on Bush, so just blame it on some vague reference to what would have to be Bush. But, whatever you do, do NOT accept responsibility for any actions. As long as The White House keeps denying responsibility for current actions, they’re acting like they’re not in charge. To compound that image problem, they blame their failure to get anything done on a party that has no ability to intervene. Again, that just sends a signal they’re not in charge. Obama has totally abdicated the mandate he was given. Once it’s gone, I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone get it back.
Now, as crazy as it might seem, if Obama had come right out and said he cost Coakley the race, he would have taken responsibility for something he may or many not have actually affected. He would have assumed control. This race is over. Obama’s taken a flesh wound. It’ll either get infected or he’ll treat it. He’ll either take control of the wound, or let it control his fate. It’s really that simple.
Quite frankly, I don’t think Pelosi, Reid, or any of his circle can do that. They got where they are by blaming everything on someone else, that’s all they know. When you get to where you are based on the actions of someone else, I’m sure it’s a bit unnerving when you are that someone else you blamed everything on.
Robert, Barack, the “anger” then expected the “change” that they were sold. Until that promise is realized, that anger’s not going away, and probably will get much worse. Excuses are not the change they were sold.
A lot of people are speculating why Martha Coakley is having so much trouble winning in Massachusetts. A Democrat, woman, and running against a Kennedy. Doesn’t get any easier than that huh? Well, maybe it’s an image problem. This is Martha Coakley:
And this is the Republican:
Remember, we ARE talking about Massachusetts.
16
Jan
Transparency is a word that wasn’t used a whole lot up until a couple of years ago. Convinced Bush and his cronies were making all the important decisions behind closed doors, Obama started preaching about the need for transparency. A lot of people took it to mean that if elected, Obama would open his doors to anyone so that they could see how honest and forthright he truly was. Very quickly Obama assured people that’s not what he had in mind. The culmination of that was Joe Biden having a meeting on transparency. That meeting of course, was closed to the media. People immediately started saying things to the effect of “WTF”. How can you possibly have a closed door meeting on transparency. It’s simple. Let’s go back to what Obama actually said about transparency:
I do not believe that government should stand in the way of innovation, or turn back the clock to an older era of regulation. But I do believe that government has a role to play in advancing our common prosperity: by providing stable macroeconomic and financial conditions for sustained growth; by demanding transparency; and by ensuring fair competition in the marketplace.
No guarantees he would be transparent there.
We must investigate rating agencies and potential conflicts of interest with the people they are rating. And transparency requirements must demand full disclosure by financial institutions to shareholders and counterparties.
No guarantees he would be transparent there.
I fought in the Senate for the most extensive ethics reform since Watergate. I have refused contributions from federal lobbyists and PACs. And I have laid out far-reaching plans that I intend to sign into law as President to bring transparency to government, and to end the revolving door between industries and the federal agencies that oversee them.
He doesn’t say WHICH government he expects to be transparent now does he?
In the more than two centuries since then, we have struggled to balance the same forces that confronted Hamilton and Jefferson – self-interest and community; markets and democracy; the concentration of wealth and power, and the necessity of transparency and opportunity for each and every citizen.
He clearly states that he expects YOU to be transparent as a citizen. However, as Clinton clearly demonstrated, Presidents are not citizens.
So, there you have it. Obama said he expected business to be transparent, citizens to be transparent, some agencies to be transparent, and some government to be transparent. He never stated HE would be transparent, Joe Biden, Harry Reid, or Nancy Pelosi wouldn’t be either. So, having closed door meetings to discuss transparency makes all the sense in the world. If anyone infers otherwise, Obama supporters will think of clever insults to taunt you.
When Obama won in 2008, he brought a lot of Democrats in with him. That was just the icing for what had been a slow erosion of the Republican pinnacle of the early 21st century. Republicans have rarely wielded a whole lot of power in the Senate and Congress, so being outnumbered probably meant a lot more to Democrats than it did Republicans. So much so, a lot of them proclaimed the Republican party was no longer a force to be dealt with. They were just a handful of trouble makers who did nothing but oppose what was good for themselves, and everyone else.
Then a funny thing happened on the way to the very next election. One of those Democrats swept in with the Obama craze of 2009 switched parties. Then another rather unforeseen and totally unexpected thing happened, the Rothenberg Political Report moved the Massachusetts Senate election to toss-up. This is the state that gave us all the Kennedys. Now, before anyone gets all tore up, Republicans have won in Massachusetts occasionally. They did give us Mitt Romney. He was their governor from 2003-2007. So, it can happen. It just doesn’t happen that often in the Senate. It just hadn’t happened since 1979. And with the most excellent shining examples of the best Massachusetts had to offer in Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, who could blame them for not voting for anyone else? Finally being forced to choose someone other than Ted Kennedy for the first time since 1962, Martha Coakley assumed the throne of the Democrat designee to the Senate. Assuming nothing less than a major landslide, she coasted. But, the problem is, she’s not impressing people much. One poll very recently came up with these numbers:
| ALL | DEM | REP | IND | |
| Martha Coakley | 49% | 82% | 7% | 36% |
| Scott Brown | 41% | 12% | 85% | 49% |
| Joseph Kennedy | 5% | 1% | 2% | 11% |
| Undecided | 5% | 5% | 6% | 4% |
Now, this wouldn’t mean much to me, since I’m not really a polls kind of guy, but it came from the Blue Mass Group. Blue Mass, as in Democrat. Other polls have the race even tighter, but this is a Democrat sponsored poll. The assumption being of course that it’s about as optimistic as it can get. That being said, a Democrat female, running on the heels of the wildly popular Democrat African-American male for president, for the seat occupied formerly by a beloved Democrat for forty years, should be a complete blow-out. This shouldn’t even be discussed four days before the election. But it is. It is primarily because Coakley is getting creamed by the independent voters. That’s the swing vote folks. That’s what killed Kerry and Gore, and swept Obama into office. 2 in 5 Democrats aren’t even in her camp solidly. Unless she wins big Tuesday, a LOT of people are going to be questioning the policies of Obama. The Tea Party peeps will no longer be considered the radical fringe Republican troublemakers. They’ll represent the swing vote that will scare the begeebers out of the national candidates.
As unlikely as I thought it would be one week ago, I’ll be watching the Massachusetts returns Tuesday.
With an assist from Glenn Beck:
That is all I have to say about that.
The American Medical Association has weighed in on Obama’s new healthcare package. The Allergists were in favor of scratching it, but the Dermatologists advised not to make any rash moves. The Gastroenterologists had sort of a gut feeling about it, but the Neurologists thought the Administration had a lot of nerve.
Meanwhile, Obstetricians felt certain everyone was laboring under a misconception, while the Ophthalmologists considered the idea shortsighted.
Pathologists yelled, “Over my dead body!”, while the Pediatricians said, “Oh, grow up!”
The Psychiatrists thought the whole idea was madness, while the Radiologists could see right through it. Surgeons decided to wash their hands of the whole thing and the Internists claimed it would indeed be a bitter pill to swallow.
The Plastic Surgeons opined that this proposal would “put a whole new face on the matter.”
The Podiatrists thought it was a step forward, but the Urologists were pissed off at the whole idea. Anesthesiologists thought the whole idea was a gas, and those softy Cardiologists didn’t have the heart to say no.
In the end, the Proctologists won out, leaving the entire decision up to the assholes in Washington.
