Obama: We don’t want Romney’s “inside job”
posted at 2:01 pm on September 21, 2012 by Erika Johnsen
After President Obama’s rather awkward rhetorical glitch during his interview with Univision — during which he essentially admitted that, in fact, no we can’t — I think we were all left feeling a little curious about exactly what it was everybody voted for in 2008.
President Obama and the Democrats of course had to scramble to offset Mitt Romney‘s “Okay, we’ll give you a chance to change Washington from the outside — in November” response (heh, I thought it pretty was funny), and in a way, I kind of understand what they’re getting at. From the Democrats:

And President Obama at a campaign rally today, via Politico:
Obama took aim at those comments at a campaign rally in Northern Virginia — a return to an old ‘outsider’ campaign theme that he used with great success in 2008.
“For some reason, my opponent got really excited,” Obama said. “He rewrote his speech, proudly declared ‘I’ll get the job done from the inside.’”
“What kind of inside job is he talking about?” Obama said. “We don’t want an inside job in Washington. We want change in Washington.”
Here’s the thing: At the end of the day, Washington is a reflection of us. Americans are the ones who pick, vote for, and send their candidates to D.C. to lead the country, and President Obama was swept into Washington in a tidal wave of “change”-inspired enthusiasm. But, here’s the thing: Americans got a nice taste of your idea of “change” during your first two years in office, and decided that they didn’t like it. Hence the Republican-”shellacking” that sent more conservatives into Congress to thwart President Obama’s agenda. So, in a way, he’s right. He really can’t get away with his brand of “change” for Washington if we don’t want him to (thank you, Founding Fathers!), so I really hope that he doesn’t sincerely think that all of the “Republican obstruction” he’s facing is some kind of cosmic accident.
Related Posts:
Breaking on Hot Air


Bobby Jindal: Paternalistic, big-government liberalism is the biggest loser here

Super Nannies: EU bans olive oils, Germany ponders Autobahn speed limit






Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
As I just posted HotairLib has their whole head up their six o clock.
hamradio on May 24, 2013 at 2:43 PM
Who wrote the speech? Or are you just praising the messenger?
mixplix on May 24, 2013 at 2:57 PM
Connect the dots: journolist meeting by invitation only at the White House on, what Tuesday?, “big”speech by Obama on Thursday, lame stream media fawning over speech on Friday. Who would have seen that coming, huh?
parke on May 24, 2013 at 2:58 PM
They need the “war on terror” in order to further erode our Constitutional freedoms and to deflect criticism from the administration’s and Federal government’s ongoing corruption.
They are just trying to massage it so that they don’t offend the Muslims, international Libtards and their own sensibilities anymore than necessary.
A few Muslim terrorists here and there are quite expendable to this Administration despite their sympathies for them. These drone attacks also do much deflect any potential criticism that the Administration is weak in dealing with such matters.
Dr. ZhivBlago on May 24, 2013 at 2:59 PM
MSNBC is nothing but a left wing propaganda machine serving their master, Obama.
rplat on May 24, 2013 at 3:07 PM
I believe that he was officially nominated 10 days after he was sworn in. Wow! The WON really worked long hours that week and a half to earn that POS medal. During those ten days he ordered NO DRONE STRIKES to keep his peaceful record clean.
fred5678 on May 24, 2013 at 3:22 PM
Obama: Don’t worry about that Ben Ghazi guy. I killed Bin Laden, and Bush didn’t!
And Obummer still wants to close Gitmo? Good luck with that–not even Upchuck Schumer was willing to hold trials in New York!
Steve Z on May 24, 2013 at 3:24 PM
They just changed the definition of terrorist. They used to be jihadis from the Middle East–now they’re Minutemen in Arizona and Tea Partiers in Ohio.
Steve Z on May 24, 2013 at 3:29 PM
Erika, sometimes your writing shows signs of rivaling even the Master of Snark himself, Allahpundit. Good work!
KS Rex on May 24, 2013 at 3:45 PM
I love how crazy Al invoked the Nobel Peace Prize in praise of a speech that spoke about dropping bombs on people’s head. Maybe it was the “fewer” bombs than before that raised this to historic levels.
Do they even know or care that they are morons.
marnes on May 24, 2013 at 3:46 PM
His speech made less sense than Bluto’s Animal House Speech and was far less entertaining. Nothing less than base rallying time. Never thought I would say this, but Code Pink was the best part.
DDay on May 24, 2013 at 4:01 PM
Sperling posted this at the Examiner on May 23 about this “historic speech of Obysmal’s:
You see, we are just not working hard enough to “work with the Muslim American community” who are a “fundamental part of the American family.” Watch out, too, because Obysmal is again trying to limit the impact of the Internet.
onlineanalyst on May 24, 2013 at 4:22 PM
That Chris Hayes is a bit of a twink, isn’t he?
onlineanalyst on May 24, 2013 at 4:25 PM
Obama apparently gave two speeches yesterday and I watched the other one.
myiq2xu on May 24, 2013 at 5:03 PM
Nah. I’d detest the little pissant s.o.b. if he was white…or Asian…or any one of the myriad of made-up racial divisions.
Solaratov on May 24, 2013 at 11:00 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2