Quotes of the day

posted at 9:11 pm on October 5, 2012 by Allahpundit

Seeing our president hanging out at podiums in Charlotte and now Denver, his famous competitiveness nowhere to be seen, has left me with a question I wish I didn’t have: Does Barack Obama really want to be president?

His campaign team wants it, yes, and his party, and his wife. But if meeting donors and lawmakers is such a drag, and campaigning such a chore, maybe he’d rather be home in Chicago, spending time with his family and small circle of close friends. At work, only his students would press him for answers. And at parties, he could indulge his kindhearted inclination to seek out the oldest person in the room and settle in to hear his stories…

Only, in love, in work, and in politics, desire is at least as important as affinity; you actually have to want it, and show that that’s the case.

***

Physically, he looked shamefaced, even guilty. Whenever Romney made some point, he would drop his head, purse his lips, and nod, like a prisoner in the dock admitting to some shabby crime…

Instead, Obama signaled that he wants out. His diehard supporters are already trying to wave away this weirdly awful, unengaged performance as just his latest turn of Zen mastery, but that dog won’t hunt. They should steel themselves for more shocking displays of indifference over the next month on the part of this strangely diffident individual. It’s quite possible that he means what he says, and he really can’t wait to become an ex-president.

For all of his fumblings, Mitt Romney by contrast very much wants to be president, and if Barack Obama has decided to open the door to the White House, Romney will stroll on through.

***

Watching the president grimace his way through the restrained back-and-forth reminded me of a conversation I recently had with a friend in Democratic politics, who posited that Mr. Obama simply doesn’t love being president. Not that he doesn’t want the job or believe he should have it, or that its challenges don’t give him plenty of cause for stress or solemnity — just that he doesn’t appear to actually enjoy the daily business of running the country.

Mostly, what Mr. Obama seems to get no joy from, and what debates really demand of you, is the opportunity to persuade people that you’re right, by making complex arguments sound simple and self-evident. This is why Bill Clinton’s convention speech stood out as it did — because it reminded everyone of how powerful an enthusiastic presidential explanation can be…

Mr. Obama’s goal, it seems, was to indicate his continued willingness to serve in a job he believes he can do better than the other guy, but that doesn’t really seem to energize or enliven him. That’s a problem, and not only for the duration of the campaign.

***

I said it after the convention speech and I’ll say it again: If there’s something that seems shut down in our once ebulliently optimistic president, it most likely has to do with the wars. Obama is a naturally empathic individual, whose diverse, mobile, international background made him unusually able when it came to assessing new social situations and reading more than people say. Some observers have speculated that Obama needs a crowd, energy he can draw from. But he had that aplenty in Charlotte, and it barely helped. I suspect a more prosaic explanation: A person of his temperament cannot maintain the same open demeanor when he’s dealing with war and death all the time. As, we must recall, Obama has been for years now. If Obama seems shut down, perhaps it is because he has to be to be who he is and do the job he needs to do day in and day out. If his heart didn’t seem in it last night, I wonder if it’s not in part because the last thing he needs to consider in his work on a day-to-day basis is his heart. It’s a long way from being a community organizer, civil-rights lawyer and anti-war state senator to running a drone war that kills innocent civilians, ordering the death of militants, overseeing a policy that’s led to an increase in American casualties in Afghanistan, and delivering funereal remarks at a ceremony honoring the returning remains of a slain American diplomat.

It’s the only explanation I can come up with for why there is so much self-abnegation in Obama’s campaigning.

***

The Obama who delivered a shockingly lackluster convention speech last month is the same man who walked into that Denver stadium in 2008 to rapturous approval. The man who lost the debate Wednesday night is the same man who never managed to make Obamacare popular after more than 50 speeches and pronouncements on it in his first year.

The key difference now is that the hunger for Obama has been replaced with the indigestion that follows after four unimpressive years in office. In sales, they say you sell the sizzle, not the steak. In 2008, the man was all sizzle, and the ravenous throng was sold. Now he must sell the steak itself, and it’s full of gristle, fat, and bone.

***

Left unmentioned was the fact that the liberals were criticizing Obama for the very aspects of his personality they so often celebrate. After the killing of Osama bin Laden in 2011 Matthews praised this “cold-blooded” president, whom he now excoriates for aloofness and apathy. Sullivan famously argued that Obama’s high-mindedness would take the country beyond the cultural fights of the Baby Boom generation, but when Obama took a high-minded approach in his closing statement Wednesday night, and floated above the debate at 30,000 feet, Sullivan called it “f—ing sad, confused, and lame.” For years liberals have praised Obama’s intellect, fluency, demeanor, and dignity—qualities they now worry might be too “professorial” for the debate-watching public.

Did the scales just fall from their eyes? Had they really not considered the possibility that Obama might not be as formidable, or as “likable,” as they had thought? Or had they been so blinded by their preconceived notions about the man, so devoted to the idea that his opponents are nothing more than fundamentalist servants of Moloch, that they could not imagine what would happen when he encountered, face-to-face, a clever, smart, cogent, and determined opponent?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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: 1 6 7 8

Brian Kilmeade played on Fox and Friends an interview he did with Bob Woodward. Woodward said the Obama’s head seemed to be somewhere else and wondered if something is going on his personal life or perhaps Obama has received some big information in foreign affairs that is preoccupying him. It made me wondered too. He did not seem present. His mind was elsewhere.

terryannonline on October 6, 2012 at 1:46 AM

You know, if it really is some foreign policy thing unless it is that the pieces are all being tacked to the pResident’s failures in places like Libya the White House could look to give Romney that same distracted look by just providing him with the briefings that have been standard for the last couple of elections./

Eh, Obama had the same look every student who blew of preparing for a speech because he is certain he can wing it has when suddenly he realizes that reality isn’t cooperating at all.

Betenoire on October 6, 2012 at 7:59 AM

Actually, they started briefing Romney a couple of weeks ago.

karenhasfreedom on October 6, 2012 at 8:08 AM

Here’s a quote from the article you copied in your post kingsjester.

The Household Survey showed a gain of 873,000 people employed in September – resulting in the surprise drop in the unemployment rate – while the Establishment Survey only showed a rise of 114,000

I am no more inclined to accept the Household Survey than I was to accept Susan Rice’s explanation for the Benghazi Consulate attack. I think the same M.O. is at work.

I don’t have time to research it today but it would be interesting to compare the Household Survey with the Establishment Survey in previous months to see if there was ever a discrepancy approaching this LIE.

Basilsbest on October 6, 2012 at 8:12 AM

Brian Kilmeade played on Fox and Friends an interview he did with Bob Woodward. Woodward said the Obama’s head seemed to be somewhere else and wondered if something is going on his personal life or perhaps Obama has received some big information in foreign affairs that is preoccupying him. It made me wondered too. He did not seem present. His mind was elsewhere.

terryannonline on October 6, 2012 at 1:46 AM

A buddy of mine and I agreed that he performed as though he’d just gotten bad news about a close relative. Or Maybe Michelle threatened to divorce him because he spent their anniversary in debate prep.

urban elitist on October 6, 2012 at 8:14 AM

gh on October 6, 2012 at 7:52 AM

The entire country and Internet were buzzing about this yesterday. To those who are out of work, or under-employed, and don’t know how they are going to pay their bills from month-to-month, or provide for their family, the Unemployment Rate is not a distraction. it is a reality.

A drop in the Unemployment Rate, one month away from the most important election in our lifetime is not a “distraction”. It is Chicago Politics…at it’s finest.

Now is not the time for squishiness, nor political niceties. This is a war for the future of the greatest nation on Earth.

kingsjester on October 6, 2012 at 8:15 AM

Brian Kilmeade played on Fox and Friends an interview he did with Bob Woodward. Woodward said the Obama’s head seemed to be somewhere else and wondered if something is going on his personal life or perhaps Obama has received some big information in foreign affairs that is preoccupying him. It made me wondered too. He did not seem present. His mind was elsewhere.

terryannonline on October 6, 2012 at 1:46 AM

A buddy of mine and I agreed that he performed as though he’d just gotten bad news about a close relative. Or Maybe Michelle threatened to divorce him because he spent their anniversary in debate prep.

urban elitist on October 6, 2012 at 8:14 AM

Yeah the bad news about the close relative is true. Axelfraud told him in debate prep he was going to have to pull the ole my-typical-white-grandma-worked-in-a-bank-glass-ceiling-war-on-women-died-before-my-election card if necessary. And it was. And it was shameful but that’s all he’s got.

Brat on October 6, 2012 at 8:36 AM

A buddy of mine and I agreed that he performed as though he’d just gotten bad news about a close relative. Or Maybe Michelle threatened to divorce him because he spent their anniversary in debate prep.urban elitist on October 6, 2012 at 8:14 AM

The bad news was that he had to debate against a man who had total command of the financial facts; a man who graduated Valedictorian from BYU, a man with a 3.97 GPA in combined MBA/JD from Harvard; a man who is a self made multi-millionaire; a man who is a highly skilled and accomplished executive in business and government; a man who doesn’t just talk about compassion but lives it- a man who has given more than 50 million dollars to charity; a man who is a brilliant turn around artist; a man who, unlike him, has a terrific work ethic.

Basilsbest on October 6, 2012 at 8:37 AM

perhaps Obama has received some big information in foreign affairs that is preoccupying him.

Too much to hope that maybe the “big information” is something that will put him squarely in the hot seat of duplicity in the assassinations of Americans or his consummate dereliction of duty for the past four year that will forever tarnish his legacy.

Yes, please let it be.

tru2tx on October 6, 2012 at 8:37 AM

Obama wants desperately to be an ex-President, but not until he completes his most important task – being granted a second term in office.

Finbar on October 6, 2012 at 8:43 AM

The bad news was that he had to debate against a man who had total command of the financial facts; a man who graduated Valedictorian from BYU, a man with a 3.97 GPA in combined MBA/JD from Harvard; a man who is a self made multi-millionaire; a man who is a highly skilled and accomplished executive in business and government; a man who doesn’t just talk about compassion but lives it- a man who has given more than 50 million dollars to charity; a man who is a brilliant turn around artist; a man who, unlike him, has a terrific work ethic.

Basilsbest on October 6, 2012 at 8:37 AM

Worth repeating. That’s very well said, Basilbeast.

Naturally Curly on October 6, 2012 at 8:44 AM

The bad news was that he had to debate against a man who had total command of the financial facts; a man who graduated Valedictorian from BYU, a man with a 3.97 GPA in combined MBA/JD from Harvard; a man who is a self made multi-millionaire; a man who is a highly skilled and accomplished executive in business and government; a man who doesn’t just talk about compassion but lives it- a man who has given more than 50 million dollars to charity; a man who is a brilliant turn around artist; a man who, unlike him, has a terrific work ethic.

Basilsbest on October 6, 2012 at 8:37 AM

I’m sorry, I thought he was debating Mitt Romney — the privileged schmuck who had the good life handed to him and thinks he’s entitled to the White House despite his evident contempt for all those not of his social class.

urban elitist on October 6, 2012 at 8:46 AM

I’m sorry, I thought he was debating Mitt Romney — the privileged schmuck who had the good life handed to him and thinks he’s entitled to the White House despite his evident contempt for all those not of his social class.

urban elitist on October 6, 2012 at 8:46 AM

See, it’s hard to interact with reality if you insist on believing those kinds illusions.

Count to 10 on October 6, 2012 at 8:53 AM

his evident contempt for all those not of his social class.

urban elitist on October 6, 2012 at 8:46 AM

Maybe he has contempt for idiot like you, but then don’t you have the general reaction from everyone who comes into contact with you?

bayview on October 6, 2012 at 8:57 AM

urban elitist on October 6, 2012 at 8:46 AM

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Perfectly said, Basilsbest !!

pambi on October 6, 2012 at 8:59 AM

Or Maybe Michelle threatened to divorce him because he spent their anniversary in debate prep.

urban elitist on October 6, 2012 at 8:14 AM

I doubt that would be a negative, but seriously, if Moochele is that shallow to threaten to divorce over something so petty, well it’s just more evidence of how self-centered they both are.

Stooopid.

tru2tx on October 6, 2012 at 9:04 AM

the privileged schmuck who had the good life handed to him and thinks he’s entitled to the White House despite his evident contempt for all those not of his social class.

urban elitist on October 6, 2012 at 8:46 AM

I don’t believe you actually believe Romney has contempt for people with less money. You’re making yourself sound awfully silly by even suggesting such a thing. You definitely don’t sound as honest or intelligent as the other frequent Obama-supporting commenter on here, libfreeordie.

Also, what is it with liberals and their hatred of successful people? Why should Romney be dumped on because he comes from a wonderful, loving, generous family? I mean, seriously, grow up. Are you jealous or something? Do you not think Barack Obama enjoyed a very easy, comfortable youth in Hawaii? Of course he did! Should be be faulted for that?

The personal attacks on Romney are backfiring big time. You people want to caricature Romney as something you know he isn’t, since you believe the voters are stupid enough to fall for it. Well, maybe some will fall for it, or fall for it temporarily, but with even more unfiltered exposure to Romney (similar to what they got in the debate), the more they will see how baseless, laughable and disgusting the Democrats’ attempts to assassinate Romney’s character really are.

bluegill on October 6, 2012 at 9:06 AM

See, it’s hard to interact with reality if you insist on believing those kinds illusions.

Count to 10 on October 6, 2012 at 8:53 AM

Romney was certainly a successful businessman, but let’s get over this “self-made” stuff. He was born wealthy,prepped at Detroit’s most exclusive school at a time when just graduating from such an institution guaranteed admission to an Ivy (see also Bush, G.W. and Gore, A.), avoided Vietnam by way of Paris, and lived off the stock his millionaire/governor father gave him. He made the most of his advantages, but he was given pretty much every advantage one could hope for.

And his “47 percent” line speaks for itself.

urban elitist on October 6, 2012 at 9:10 AM

I’m sorry, I thought he was debating Mitt Romney — the privileged schmuck who had the good life handed to him and thinks he’s entitled to the White House despite his evident contempt for all those not of his social class.

urban elitist on October 6, 2012 at 8:46 AM

This is an adult conversation. Kiddie hour is down at Sesame Street.

1nolibgal on October 6, 2012 at 9:13 AM

A buddy of mine and I agreed that he performed as though he’d just gotten bad news about a close relative. Or Maybe Michelle threatened to divorce him because he spent their anniversary in debate prep.

Fundamentally destroying a country is hard work.
He might be buckling under the stress of doing that- after all, he’s only human.
Or he might just be a dick.
Tough call.

justltl on October 6, 2012 at 9:14 AM

urban elitist on October 6, 2012 at 9:10 AM

Admit you were fooled by President Chance the Gardener.

Thomas Franklin: It’s that gardener.
Johanna, girl with Franklin: Yes, Chauncey Gardiner.
Thomas Franklin: No, he’s a real gardener.
Johanna, girl with Franklin: He does talk like one. I think he’s brilliant.

Fallon on October 6, 2012 at 9:17 AM

urban elitist on October 6, 2012 at 9:10 AM

Romney and Obama made the most of the advantages they were given. What’s the problem?

2L8 on October 6, 2012 at 9:18 AM

I don’t believe you actually believe Romney has contempt for people with less money. You’re making yourself sound awfully silly by even suggesting such a thing. You definitely don’t sound as honest or intelligent as the other frequent Obama-supporting commenter on here, libfreeordie.

The people who he thinks are useless moochers? Maybe he doesn’t hold them in contempt, maybe it’s just that he doesn’t have the vaguest idea what their lives are like, and so he sounds clueless when he tries to care about them.

Also, what is it with liberals and their hatred of successful people? Why should Romney be dumped on because he comes from a wonderful, loving, generous family? I mean, seriously, grow up. Are you jealous or something? Do you not think Barack Obama enjoyed a very easy, comfortable youth in Hawaii? Of course he did! Should be be faulted for that?

This is simply a repetition of some odd meme that you read on a conservative blog. Liberals like successful people as much as anyone. Indeed, many liberals are successful themselves. The difference, of course, is some people recognize that they have benefited from the privilege they were born into and look out for those who were born in less privileged circumstances. Or, they don’t pretend that what is good for them (tax loopholes for carried interest, for example) are good for the country.

The personal attacks on Romney are backfiring big time. You people want to caricature Romney as something you know he isn’t, since you believe the voters are stupid enough to fall for it. Well, maybe some will fall for it, or fall for it temporarily, but with even more unfiltered exposure to Romney (similar to what they got in the debate), the more they will see how baseless, laughable and disgusting the Democrats’ attempts to assassinate Romney’s character really are.

bluegill on October 6, 2012 at 9:06 AM

Romney is someone who wants to bring Bain economics to the White House: cut wages and benefits, offshore jobs, and give the executives bonuses. he doesn’t even pretend otherwise, why should you? I’m sure he has the finest character. Unfortunately, he’s clueless about what this nation needs.

urban elitist on October 6, 2012 at 9:19 AM

Town simp sure is testy this morning.

Romney turned his blessings of youth into more successes.

Zero turned his endless set-asides of youth and 2008 media free ride into one failure after another thus must blame Romney’s work ethic and benefits therefrom for Zero’s perpetual laziness and need to blame someone, anyone else for the Affirmative-action failure Barky has incontrovertibly proven himself to be.

viking01 on October 6, 2012 at 9:23 AM

It killed him not to be able to spout anti-American, racially-based hatred, anti-Capitalist, and Marxist platitudes all without being challenged.

The first step is to get Dear Leader out of the White House.

The second step is to hang President Romney and the GOP by their political balls if they keep messing around and want to maintain the power the Feds have attained un-Constitutionally.

If Romney gets elected, we CANNOT go on defending even the truly Conservative GOPers if they continue to stonewall us while they shrug their shoulders and give us this, “Well, we tried…sorry!” attitude.

Dr. ZhivBlago on October 6, 2012 at 9:24 AM

The entire country and Internet were buzzing about this yesterday. To those who are out of work, or under-employed, and don’t know how they are going to pay their bills from month-to-month, or provide for their family, the Unemployment Rate is not a distraction. it is a reality.
kingsjester on October 6, 2012 at 8:15 AM

The distraction is the fake 7.8 figure. NOONE CARES.

Reality is that Romney has finally got some traction being able to speak directly to 70 MILLION PEOPLE.

All that matters is that Obama is kicked out november 6th. I personally think Palin would have made a great president and I had serious doubts about Romney’s ability to come out strong but having read about his debate preparation and seen how he defeated the GOP field I had no doubt about his seriousness.

The next critical even is the 3rd debate. Foreign policy is even more of a disaster than Fiscal and Romney needs another, equally strong performance. Obama will have his lies better prepared but I have no doubt that Romney will have answers. The key will be Romney’s ability to deal with the moderator.

For the second debate Romney needs to be a little more laid-back. He should try for a small solid victory but the townhall format is open to plants and the MSM is going to spin it as a huge Obama comeback. Even if Obama is as horrible as he was in the first debate (which he will not be).

Our strategy should be to try to build the audience for the 3rd debate. It should be possible to get 100M viewers. The rest is up to Mitt.

gh on October 6, 2012 at 9:28 AM

Dr. ZhivBlago on October 6, 2012 at 9:24 AM

Reason #1 for getting those ballsy ones elected, down ticket !!!

pambi on October 6, 2012 at 9:28 AM

Powerful new ad …

pambi on October 6, 2012 at 9:33 AM

gh on October 6, 2012 at 9:28 AM

You don’t understand. “Laid-back” worked well for John McCain, didn’t it?/

kingsjester on October 6, 2012 at 9:39 AM

urban elitist on October 6, 2012 at 9:19 AM

I thought I had read that you are voting for Gov. Romney? Sounds like you will have to be on antidepressants no matter who wins. Even if it were true that Gov. Romney has disdain for those less fortunate, which I don’t believe, at least he believes that for most of those, there is better life to be had. Democrats in general, and Obama specifically wants them to stay on the edge, always dependent. Think about it, do you ever want the world to see you dancing in the street over an Obamaphone?

Cindy Munford on October 6, 2012 at 9:40 AM

I’m sorry, I thought he was debating Mitt Romney — the privileged schmuck who had the good life handed to him and thinks he’s entitled to the White House despite his evident contempt for all those not of his social class.

urban elitist on October 6, 2012 at 8:46 AM

You should have stopped there.

VegasRick on October 6, 2012 at 9:49 AM

gh on October 6, 2012 at 9:28 AM

Based on the history of Obama answering questions, Gov. Romney may never get to talk. But it would be cool to see the moderator trying to shut Obama up.

Cindy Munford on October 6, 2012 at 9:49 AM

You don’t understand. “Laid-back” worked well for John McCain, didn’t it?/

kingsjester on October 6, 2012 at 9:39 AM

I said “a little more”. This is strategy. There is no way in h*ll that Obama will “lose” the second debate. The strategy is to get him and his enablers relaxed and then to completely destroy them.

If I were Mitt, on the third debate, I would come out onto the stage looking decidedly nervous. I would drop something, do the hankie thing. Be as nice as I possibly can with the first answer. On the second, I’d be mildly questioning and then on 3 or 4 (or on the first opportunity — I trust the MSM are not going to start with Obama’s weakest point) come down like a hammer and not let up. Mitt can do this and come across as a nice guy at the same time.

gh on October 6, 2012 at 9:54 AM

Based on the history of Obama answering questions, Gov. Romney may never get to talk. But it would be cool to see the moderator trying to shut Obama up.

Cindy Munford on October 6, 2012 at 9:49 AM

Did you watch the first debate ?

I did not but I read the entire thread in real-time. Mitt seems to have learned from Newt how to deal with the opposition. The moderator will not be trying to shut Obama up. That’s part of Mitt’s job.

gh on October 6, 2012 at 9:56 AM

I thought I had read that you are voting for Gov. Romney? Sounds like you will have to be on antidepressants no matter who wins. Even if it were true that Gov. Romney has disdain for those less fortunate, which I don’t believe, at least he believes that for most of those, there is better life to be had.

Romney may believe that there is a better life to be had for the less fortunate, but his economic plan is the same old trickle-down strategy that has seen the middle class and poor lose ground for thirty years.

Democrats in general, and Obama specifically wants them to stay on the edge, always dependent.

It’s hard to take seriously anyone who repeats this mindless drivel.

Think about it, do you ever want the world to see you dancing in the street over an Obamaphone?

Cindy Munford on October 6, 2012 at 9:40 AM

whose promotion in conservative circles is frankly racist, is factually incorrect. If the women did get a free phone, it was through a program that long predated Obama.

urban elitist on October 6, 2012 at 9:58 AM

urban elitist on October 6, 2012 at 9:58 AM

The woman was an SEIU plant. The long-established program was for land-lines. Obama added cell phones in 2009 … he thinks ahead when it comes to GOTV.

gh on October 6, 2012 at 10:00 AM

gh on October 6, 2012 at 9:56 AM

I did watch it. I thought Mr. Lehrer did a good job and the fact that Obama spoke a touch longer actually worked to his disadvantage. I was just joking about Obama and the town hall format. I assume citizens will be asking the questions and I bet they get rowdy if The Won is told that his time is up. I assume the packed house ill not be wearing matching tshirts.

Cindy Munford on October 6, 2012 at 10:00 AM

I assume the packed house ill not be wearing matching tshirts.

Cindy Munford on October 6, 2012 at 10:00 AM

I’m not so sure. Perhaps matching underwear.

gh on October 6, 2012 at 10:01 AM

urban elitist on October 6, 2012 at 9:58 AM

Well, it sounds like you aren’t going to be happy no matter how the election turns out. I will be thrilled when Obama is gone and I hope it is this election. Your are right, he does think ahead when it comes to GOTV, but requiring the phone number and email address of every rally attendee is very very creepy.

Cindy Munford on October 6, 2012 at 10:05 AM

gh on October 6, 2012 at 10:01 AM

Oh dear, I hope they don’t feel compelled to show their support.

Cindy Munford on October 6, 2012 at 10:06 AM

The woman was an SEIU plant. The long-established program was for land-lines. Obama added cell phones in 2009 … he thinks ahead when it comes to GOTV.

gh on October 6, 2012 at 10:00 AM

Cell phones were added in 2008 by Bush.

Not sure how you got that she was an SEIU plant, she’s not wearing purple.

urban elitist on October 6, 2012 at 10:06 AM

I suspect a more prosaic explanation: A person of his temperament cannot maintain the same open demeanor when he’s dealing with war and death all the time.

Oh, that explains it, he wants out before the death panels in Ocare kick in. Bob Woodward was on BOR and stuck to that same idea. I think he’s really reaching for a big straw. Here’s a shoutout to all you empty chair big donors, SUCKAS!

Kissmygrits on October 6, 2012 at 10:07 AM

Well, it sounds like you aren’t going to be happy no matter how the election turns out. I will be thrilled when Obama is gone and I hope it is this election. Your are right, he does think ahead when it comes to GOTV, but requiring the phone number and email address of every rally attendee is very very creepy.

Cindy Munford on October 6, 2012 at 10:05 AM

Actually, I’ll be pretty happy on a number of levels if Obama wins.

Getting contact information for rally attendees is pretty standard — they want to follow up and ask for volunteers — translating the rally into a stronger ground game. Lists are the most valuable thing a field organization can get.

urban elitist on October 6, 2012 at 10:10 AM

urban elitist on October 6, 2012 at 10:10 AM

Professor Althouse didn’t like it. So now you will be happy with Obama winning again, just because he’s done such a bang up job or to annoy conservatives? I bet I know!!!!

Cindy Munford on October 6, 2012 at 10:13 AM

Not sure how you got that she was an SEIU plant, she’s not wearing purple.

urban elitist on October 6, 2012 at 10:06 AM

It was reported on hot-air.

Cell phones were added in 2008 by Bush.

http://www.fcc.gov/lifeline

Oddly the 2008 history page is missing. Both 2007 and 2009 are there.

And they are not being called “Dubya Phones” are they ?

gh on October 6, 2012 at 10:14 AM

Romney may believe that there is a better life to be had for the less fortunate, but his economic plan is the same old trickle-down strategy that has seen the middle class and poor lose ground for thirty years.

urban elitist on October 6, 2012 at 9:58 AM

.
As opposed to the 1920s, and ’80s when Socialist government intervention brought about incredible economic “booms”.
The mid to late ’30s were much better, thanks totally to FDR’s New Deal.

listens2glenn on October 6, 2012 at 10:14 AM

I think the above grouping for QOTD is far to optimistic considering that it was just one debate performance. He can just phone it in and most of his supporters don’t care. Obviously. The press is just writing this stuff to cover their azzes.

Cindy Munford on October 6, 2012 at 10:16 AM

It was reported on hot-air.

Protesters, not plants — less insidious in my mind (to me, a plant is someone who surreptitiously infiltrates an event to cause trouble, not someone standing outside with a sign identifying themselves) At least the SEIU is putting money in their members’ pockets.

Cell phones were added in 2008 by Bush.

http://www.fcc.gov/lifeline

Oddly the 2008 history page is missing. Both 2007 and 2009 are there.

And they are not being called “Dubya Phones” are they ?

gh on October 6, 2012 at 10:14 AM

On the other hand, there is no mention of the cell phones being added into the mix during the Obama era.

In fact, on the page to which you linked, there’s a nice little blurb about efforts to limit the number of subsidized phones.

urban elitist on October 6, 2012 at 10:30 AM

GW Bush also lost his first debate in the mid terms.

Steveangell on October 6, 2012 at 1:34 AM

MOBY suffering from “altitude poisoning.”

Resist We Much on October 6, 2012 at 10:34 AM

Oh dear, I hope they don’t feel compelled to show their support.

Cindy Munford on October 6, 2012 at 10:06 AM

M’lady is ON, today ! LOL.

pambi on October 6, 2012 at 10:37 AM

As opposed to the 1920s, and ’80s when Socialist government intervention brought about incredible economic “booms”.
The mid to late ’30s were much better, thanks totally to FDR’s New Deal.

listens2glenn on October 6, 2012 at 10:14 AM

In both the 20s and the 80s, the “boom” was limited to the upper economic classes. Income inequality in the 20s was the highest ever until the pre-crash Bush era, and middle income workers lost ground during the “Go-go 80s”.

GDP almost doubled between 1933 and 1940 and, with the exception of the ’37 recession brought on by an austerity budget — grew at at roughly double digit annual rates.

This probably explains Roosevelt’s first two landslide re-election victories.

urban elitist on October 6, 2012 at 10:39 AM

Fantastic UPLIFTING new ad by American Future Fund. Pass it on!

Naturally Curly on October 6, 2012 at 10:00 AM

Wow. Thanks for the link.

Basilsbest on October 6, 2012 at 10:39 AM

GW Bush also lost his first debate in the mid terms.

Steveangell on October 6, 2012 at 1:34 AM

MOBY suffering from “altitude poisoning.”

Resist We Much on October 6, 2012 at 10:34 AM

And Reagan lost his first debate against Mondale — closing with what appeared to be a bit of senile rambling, among other things.

For whatever it’s worth.

urban elitist on October 6, 2012 at 10:49 AM

I missed you. if you know the forest-I wont loose my piggy.

bazil9 on October 6, 2012 at 1:44 AM

I know the good forest you speak of—-I just don’t like that Japanese forest. Bad things happen there. :)

arnold ziffel on October 6, 2012 at 1:56 AM

arnold, sorry to have missed you, my first night back. There is something in the forest my favorite little piggy will enjoy me thinks. ; ) No, I’m not just trying to fatten you up for Ms. Lamar. Lol!

Bmore on October 6, 2012 at 10:49 AM

urban elitist on October 6, 2012 at 10:30 AM

Obama mandated or not, plant or not, what was the take away of that woman’s performance? I would love to have been a fly on the wall during that tactical meeting to see the debate on whether the video would get more voters so they could have a free Obamaphone or lose voters who resent paying for them.

Cindy Munford on October 6, 2012 at 10:51 AM

urban elitist on October 6, 2012 at 10:49 AM

OK, genius, please give me the date when Bush debated ANYONE during the midterms? Even a presidential debate in which he won during “the midterms” will suffice.

They are called “MIDTERMS” for a reason, i.e., THERE IS NO PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION; hence, there are no presidential debates.

Resist We Much on October 6, 2012 at 11:00 AM

My second take.

kingsjester on October 6, 2012 at 11:02 AM

OK, genius, please give me the date when Bush debated ANYONE during the midterms? Even a presidential debate in which he won during “the midterms” will suffice.

They are called “MIDTERMS” for a reason, i.e., THERE IS NO PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION; hence, there are no presidential debates.

Resist We Much on October 6, 2012 at 11:00 AM

Calm down, boy. That wasn’t my term, that was Steveangell’s, so there’s no point in all-capping at me me. And second, though the gentleman in question used the wrong terminology, I feel sure we all knew what he was getting at.

Obama mandated or not, plant or not, what was the take away of that woman’s performance? I would love to have been a fly on the wall during that tactical meeting to see the debate on whether the video would get more voters so they could have a free Obamaphone or lose voters who resent paying for them.

Cindy Munford on October 6, 2012 at 10:51 AM

The idea that the Obama team would debate the benefits of a video being circulated on conservative websites for the express purpose of “proving” that Obama was buying votes with free stuff for shiftless black people is frankly ludicrous.

urban elitist on October 6, 2012 at 11:18 AM

Presidentin’ is hard work.

davidk on October 5, 2012 at 9:31 PM

And so, it would appear, is avoiding it.

Barnestormer on October 6, 2012 at 11:29 AM

urban elitist on October 6, 2012 at 11:18 AM

Maybe but we sure do have a lot of ludicrous people getting a ludicrous amount of taxpayer money for ludicrous reasons. I am sure that the Obama administration had nothing to do with that lovely woman so obviously excited about her Obamaphone but she seemed to think it was the greatest thing since sliced bread. The Obama campaign didn’t take long to both blame Bush and distance itself from this woman.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-gop/2937847/posts

Cindy Munford on October 6, 2012 at 11:34 AM

Let Down: The Undoing of Storybook Man

http://predicthistunpredictpast.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-undoing-of-storybook-man.html

M2RB: Radiohead

Resist We Much on October 6, 2012 at 11:38 AM

The idea that the Obama team would debate the benefits of a video being circulated on conservative websites for the express purpose of “proving” that Obama was buying votes with free stuff for shiftless black people is frankly ludicrous.
urban elitist on October 6, 2012 at 11:18 AM

True Dat. But it’s sure money they wouldn’t be debating whether it would be better to come up with something to help the American people or something to help THEM hold on to power for another four years.

Cleombrotus on October 6, 2012 at 11:38 AM

Calm down, boy. That wasn’t my term, that was Steveangell’s, so there’s no point in all-capping at me me. And second, though the gentleman in question used the wrong terminology, I feel sure we all knew what he was getting at.

urban elitist on October 6, 2012 at 11:18 AM

Um, I have never been a boy nor would I ever want to be. Keep your pen1s envy to yourself.

You can “feel sure” all you want about Stevie, but we know the guy. He is as dumb as they get. He won’t vote for Romney because he wants Obama reelected so that he can be impeached. So there. Defend him at your own risk.

Resist We Much on October 6, 2012 at 11:43 AM

… Or Maybe Michelle threatened to divorce him because he spent their anniversary in debate prep.

urban elitist on October 6, 2012 at 8:14 AM

No, Moochie threatened to divorce him if he loses the election.

With that happy thought in mind BO took a dive in the debate.

climbnjump on October 6, 2012 at 11:57 AM

Um, I have never been a boy nor would I ever want to be. Keep your pen1s envy to yourself.

You can “feel sure” all you want about Stevie, but we know the guy. He is as dumb as they get. He won’t vote for Romney because he wants Obama reelected so that he can be impeached. So there. Defend him at your own risk.

Resist We Much on October 6, 2012 at 11:43 AM

My apologies, ma’am.

And I will heed your advice regarding Steve.

Maybe but we sure do have a lot of ludicrous people getting a ludicrous amount of taxpayer money for ludicrous reasons. I am sure that the Obama administration had nothing to do with that lovely woman so obviously excited about her Obamaphone but she seemed to think it was the greatest thing since sliced bread. The Obama campaign didn’t take long to both blame Bush and distance itself from this woman.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-gop/2937847/posts

Cindy Munford on October 6, 2012 at 11:34 AM

I think “blaming” Bush might be the wrong way to put it, but no doubt they distanced themselves from her as fast as they could. She is an idiot who should be slapped and plays to a damaging stereotype that Drudge et al are happy to promote.

urban elitist on October 6, 2012 at 12:02 PM

I think “blaming” Bush might be the wrong way to put it, but no doubt they distanced themselves from her as fast as they could. She is an idiot who should be slapped and plays to a damaging stereotype that Drudge et al are happy to promote.
urban elitist on October 6, 2012 at 12:02 PM

Sorry but I must have missed the “distancing”. The fact of the matter is the Obama administration and the DNC have NEVER done ANYTHING to disavow such people of these notions.

And they sure as hell didn’t get them from the RNC or any of it’s affiliates.

Cleombrotus on October 6, 2012 at 12:08 PM

urban elitist on October 6, 2012 at 12:02 PM

Not to worry, both sides have enthusiasts who are less than helpful. I actually have no problem with the phones, they have probably been a life saver more than once for those meant to have them. I think what I miss are the days long gone where people wouldn’t even think of taking advantage of bureaucracies to get things they don’t qualify for and could pay for themselves. I’m kind of Pollyanna like that.

Cindy Munford on October 6, 2012 at 12:14 PM

o/t

Police Union Warns ‘War-Like’ Detroit Unsafe For Visitors…

Hands Out Flyers: ‘ENTER AT YOUR OWN RISK’…

http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2012/10/06/enter-at-your-own-risk-police-union-says-war-like-detroit-is-unsafe-for-visitors/

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Which reminds me:

Survivor: Detroit

http://predicthistunpredictpast.blogspot.com/2012/10/survivor-detroit.html

M2RB: Gloria Gaynor

Resist We Much on October 6, 2012 at 12:21 PM

Also, what is it with liberals and their hatred of successful people? Why should Romney be dumped on because he comes from a wonderful, loving, generous family? I mean, seriously, grow up. Are you jealous or something?

bluegill on October 6, 2012 at 9:06 AM

Jealous, why no, wait until urban elitist tells you of his mansion in Georgetown lol :), where he awaits the revolutionaries with pitchforks like marie antoinette in Versailles :)… The man (could be a woman too) is a tool. …the only thing he hasn’t confessed of on his forum is his belief in the maya predictions and the reptilians agenda (that share their DNA with Romney and the Bilderbergers)…

jimver on October 6, 2012 at 2:47 PM

i never thought barry was brilliant- he’s given no indication of it at any rate. i never thought he was a great speaker. seriously- malcolm x was a great speaker and one need not have agreed with him to see this. because so much was purposely hidden about barry he is the slate a bunch of low knowledge high emotion voters poured all their limited hopes and aspirations into( seriously- all you want from life is a free cell phone and subsidized birth control? are you a hobo or one of those children raised by wolves in a forest cave?). he was everything because he was nothing. democrats allowed it and they codependent media enabled it.

while i don’t see proof barry is a genius, he’s also not an idiot. after obamacare passed its been downhill. he’s one miserable disengaged guy after discovering how hard it is in a democracy to get everything you want. he doesn’t want to make the hard decisions. he doesn’t want to be an elected leader-he wants to be Dear Leader. the guy has seemed miserable for a long time. this isn’t what he expected. it’s not what he wanted. it has had to dawn on him that he’s being used and manipulated to the purposes of others. NPD don’t play that.

i think barry wants out. NPD individuals usually never attain this much power and admiration on their own-. they’re too dysfunctional for that. but they are not idiots- and are often quite resourceful and insightful about how to use and effect those around them. it has had to dawn on barry that he’s in the middle of a crap pile even his media love trolls cannot completely obscure and protect him from. that’s an amount of FAIL no NPD individual could withstand- and to be voted out. ouch. better if it looked like he wasn’t trying. barry is looking for the escape hatch.

the october surprise- runaway democrat presidential candidate.

mittens on October 6, 2012 at 5:09 PM

mittens on October 6, 2012 at 5:09 PM

The NPD is obvious. What is also fairly obvious is that he’s an “avatar for the zeitgeist”, as a friend of mine puts it. What I’ve had difficulty with is reconciling the two positions. You seem to have nailed it.

gh on October 6, 2012 at 5:26 PM

Comment pages: 1 6 7 8