Quotes of the day

posted at 10:43 pm on October 25, 2012 by Allahpundit

Obama’s Chicago-based brain trust had intended to highlight four years of “solid, steady progress” in the final days of the race, several Democrats told POLITICO, with a healthy dose of hammering Romney — a strategy that had given Obama a lead going into that fateful first debate.

Instead, the pressure is now on Obama to prove himself — and oh so late in the game. That led his campaign on Tuesday to release a detailed, bullet-point plan for his second term — a formal agenda his team had long resisted despite appeals from the likes of Bill Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and James Carville, and an army of basic-cable liberals, who said the president needed to spend less time cutting down Romney and more time elevating himself…

“Maybe it’s not too late, but wouldn’t it have been cool to have a great document put out the day after the convention when everyone was riding really high, instead of now?” asked polling analyst Erica Seifert, who wrote several memos with Carville and Greenberg urging Obama to define his second-term agenda more clearly.

***

It’s almost certain that President Obama released his agenda, titled “The New Economic Patriotism,” the night before a Donald Trump blockbuster announcement designed to derail Obama’s reelection. He had to have been hoping dearly the Trump stink-bomb would take all the oxygen away from any second-day stories about the “plan for jobs and middle-class security” the campaign published. It’s not just that the plan is the first voters have heard of any Obama has for his second term — two weeks before Election Day — but that the brochure is about as cheesy a cheap shot as they come.

Unfortunately for Obama, Trump’s pathetic gambit failed to trump the headline that Obama is trying to pass off recycled retreads as new plans and that he was forced to do so after losing the first presidential debate to Mitt Romney, plunging in the polls and sending Democrats into a state of nauseated panic. How, they asked the campaign, could the president possibly win a second term in such a tight race without having outlined an agenda for the next four years? And so an eleventh-hour glossy appeared to answer the charge that Obama had nothing in mind for 2013-2017, with pretty pictures and pabulum to prove it. Brace yourself, the plans include a tax plan that cuts the deficit and creates jobs, energy made in America, a reminder of all that is good about ObamaCare, a pledge to stop Medicare or Social Security from being privatized, reviving manufacturing, investing in education and growing small businesses.

***

Why would the president wait until 14 days before the election, after the conventions and the debates, to release his plan? And then print 3.5 million copies of it, making the plan a publishing phenomenon to rival “Dreams from My Father”?

It’s the panicked realization that his campaign’s attempted destruction of Mitt Romney hasn’t worked and isn’t enough to win. The NBC/Wall Street Journal poll this week found that 62 percent of people want major changes in a prospective Obama second term. Four percent — that’s almost down to Obama administration officials and immediate family — want more of the same.

So the president needed someone to get on QuarkXPress to paste together “a new plan” and then run down to FedEx Kinko’s — pronto. But he couldn’t hit print during debate season, lest he give his opponent another target. Surely Romney would have loved to cite the risible document as Exhibit A for Obama’s status-quo presidency.

***

Mr. Obama likes to say he inherited “the most severe economic emergency we’ve had since the Great Depression,” but then he claims that it didn’t matter that he staged a two-year fight to remake one-sixth of the economy and threatened to remake another four-sixths.

If recessions following financial crises really are worse than normal, as the President also told the Iowa editors, then why didn’t he take special care to postpone legislation that would add new costs to business, undermine confidence and thus weaken the recovery?

Mr. Obama didn’t really answer the Register’s question, so we will. He didn’t focus on the economy because he didn’t and still doesn’t understand how the private economy works. He doesn’t understand that incentives matter, or how government policies and regulation can sabotage growth. He really believes that government is the engine of economic prosperity.

***

Why was the first debate so toxic for the president? Because the one thing he couldn’t do if he was going to win the election is let all the pent-up resentment toward him erupt. Americans had gotten used to him as The President. Whatever his policy choices, whatever general direction he seemed to put in place he was The President, a man who had gotten there through natural gifts and what all politicians need, good fortune.

What he couldn’t do was present himself, when everyone was looking, as smaller than you thought. Petulant, put upon, above it all, full of himself. He couldn’t afford to make himself look less impressive than the challenger in terms of command, grasp of facts, size…

But maybe these questions are all off. Maybe what happened isn’t a mystery at all.

That, anyway, is the view expressed this week by a member of the U.S. Senate who served there with Mr Obama and has met with him in the White House. People back home, he said, sometimes wonder what happened with the president in the debate. The senator said, I paraphrase: I sort of have to tell them that it wasn’t a miscalculation or a weird moment. I tell them: I know him, and that was him. That guy on the stage, that’s the real Obama.

***

Click the image to watch.

***

“President Obama really hasn’t given us a vision for a second-term agenda. Just a couple of days ago he came up with a slick new brochure, you know, with less than two weeks left, to say, ‘Oh, I do actually have an agenda,’ ” Ryan said.

“It is a slick—well, comic book—that was his word,” the Wisconsin congressman repeated after a man in the crowd shouted out the suggestion. “To me, a slick repackaging of more of the same. And look at what it has gotten us.”

***

***


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 2 3

I don’t believe that they would ask any progressive groups what the content of their prayers were.

crosspatch on May 17, 2013 at 11:38 PM

Because everyone already knows.

Praise and save Obama and punish the evil right wingers, amen.”

profitsbeard on May 18, 2013 at 3:43 AM

This is a disgusting and diabolical use of a government agency for nefarious ends. Honest Americans in both parties should be appalled and scared by such abuse.

Random targeting of groups due to their political beliefs is more the product of thought police than a republican democracy. Whoever is involved used the auspices of government, a government we own and finance, to despotically and illegally destroy her citizens. That is not only “chilling” but destructive to the very freedoms upon which our country operates.

There is no question this was carried out by Democratic Party operatives and is therefore political in premise. Tax exempt groups applying at the same time received no similar scrutiny and in fact moved swiftly through the process. So the only question I have is who knew what and when? What were their motives?

The President has stated he found out about this last week. Yet last year, before the election this was fairly common knowledge. In fact senior officials in his administration, including Neil Wolin, were directly briefed. Again, who knew what and when? Why was this not disclosed by those who knew- especially given the criminal nature of this activity, which apparently then continued through the election? Did this not rise to something of importance to Mr. Obama either as President or a candidate? Surely such as scandal would be notable in some regard.

This entire sordid mess stinks and not simply as a matter of politics. It undercuts the very premise of our democracy by destroying a voters right to participate in free and fair elections. It adds an element of fear to freely voicing one’s political choices. That’s not just chilling, it has no place in our country and should be punished in the most punitive way to send a signal of zero tolerance for such criminal behavior.

Thus far, President Pedestrian is still sitting on the sidelines muttering how he “looked away” when the parade passed and wants to know what he missed. One begins to wonder who running our country.

Marcus Traianus on May 18, 2013 at 9:27 AM

Apparently a secret can be kept in DC, especially if it involves keeping your highly paid no show job. No one with a govt job ever gets fired, they get promoted.

Kissmygrits on May 18, 2013 at 9:40 AM

Wait, so the IRS discovered these wrongdoings, independently put a stop to them and briefed the Treasury department, AND authorized an IG investigation which then they leaked to the public. But we’re mad because they chose not to make it a campaign issues considering it has nothing to do with Obama’s governance? *yawn*

libfreeordie on May 18, 2013 at 10:14 AM

Why? Do you have to be that stupid to ask that?

watertown on May 18, 2013 at 11:14 AM

re:
verbaluce . . ad nauseum . .
He who argues with a fool (tool?) is an even greater fool.

barton on May 17, 2013 at 6:34 PM

As I recall, Solomon had that figured out almost 3,000 years ago. LOL

yesiamapirate on May 18, 2013 at 11:28 AM

libfreeordie on May 18, 2013 at 10:14 AM

Ann Barnhardt has a couple of good pieces up about you people.

tom daschle concerned on May 18, 2013 at 11:59 AM

Three: It’s just what it looks like. The IRS’s higher-ups were all in the tank for another term of Hopenchange. There’s circumstantial evidence to believe that’s true, but if you’re feeling slightly more charitable, you might conclude that it wasn’t Obama himself that they were invested in so much as their own careers. If they blew the whistle on what was happening and O ended up winning the election anyway, then they’re in deep trouble for having tried, but failed, to derail their boss’s chance at history. Not a happy place to be if you’re a time-serving tax apparatchik. So they kept quiet to stay on Obama’s good side.

I go with option Three, above.

Lourdes on May 18, 2013 at 12:02 PM

The goal was to cripple the fund raising of these groups for the 2012 election — and they succeeded.

TarheelBen on May 17, 2013 at 1:59 PM

Also correct, almost certainly, as goal.

Anyone who thinks Axelrod, Obama, Jarrett, Holder, Hillary, etc. are nice people is out of their mind.

Lourdes on May 18, 2013 at 12:04 PM

“I was not told of this problem at any time before the election … Even if I was told of it, it was an on-going investigation that I couldn’t comment on … When actual evidence was developed that this problem existed, and that laws, regulations, and rules were violated, we couldn’t comment until hearing both sides … Who you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?”

Another Drew on May 18, 2013 at 12:11 PM

With the acquisition of power, Obama was able to substitute the IRS, and other government agencies, for the thugs at ACORN who enabled his 2008 election.

Another Drew on May 18, 2013 at 12:13 PM

The question is – “who benefits”?

The answer is – Obama personally (his re-election), the Democrats and their big govt. liberal agenda.

It is laughable to think this was being done without their knowledge. It’s like thinking all the traffic lights you’ve come to recently are now magically changing “green” just as you arrive by sheer luck. The fix was in. And even if you didn’t order it, it gets NOTICED.

Saltyron on May 18, 2013 at 12:44 PM

From the NY Times article:

In that context, he said, the screening of Tea Party groups for special scrutiny was not the scandal itself but “just the latest example of a culture of cover-ups — and political intimidation — in this administration.”

Here the NY Times is trying to limit the damage to the Obama Administration but these are career bureaucrats that have been working there long before Obama was elected in many cases. This is a culture of coverups and political intimidation that penetrates the entire “progressive” wing of the Democratic Party. The NY Times here is trying to limit the scope and blame only Obama. But we see the same sort of coverup and dishonesty in the New York state government and the government in New York City.

This is a systemic problem with the entire Democratic Party and it needs to be portrayed in that way.

crosspatch on May 18, 2013 at 1:39 PM

Why did the IRS keep the scandal quiet until after the election?

Simple answer; it probably would have made the difference in our last election.

The idea of reforming the tax code is nothing new, with 2012 Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney among the most recent to try by proposing a more across-the-board or “flatter” tax rate with fewer deductions and loopholes.

Romney was riding high in popularity on this issue and loathing for the IRS is fairly ubiquitous across the political spectrum. So combined with the first debate, could Obama’s second campaign withstood a wide-ranging scandal which got extensive coverage on an important economic issue? Or is the real scandal in covering up the fact they knew and were deeply involved in this issue? That’s hard to say and speculative. But it sure became a non-factor with no impact- which was ultimately the Obama Campaign’s intent.

As to the cover up, I suspect we are about to find more people close to the president who had very intimate knowledge of what was going on. Anyone heard from Jim Messina lately?

Marcus Traianus on May 18, 2013 at 2:49 PM

And let us not forget the leaking that the IRS did to ProPublica… funded in part by Soros… it isn’t just the rectal exam level of information, down to prayers conducted by organizations… but the ‘inadvertant release’ of such information to political groups.

Also the IRS getting its hands on your healthcare info. Isn’t that sweet? Can’t yo just wait until THAT INFORMATION gets leaked by the IRS? Because the same lady who headed up the political rectal exam unit is now heading up the Obamacare enforcement unit.

ajacksonian on May 18, 2013 at 3:54 PM

The clinton’s used the IRS as a weapon when they were in the White House and I imagine many more did the same thing with the FBI when J. Edgar Hoover was at the helm. After his death they found he had files on tons of people.

mixplix on May 18, 2013 at 5:17 PM

Asking a question like that equates to the intelligence of a snail.

mixplix on May 18, 2013 at 6:26 PM

Very simple. These guys are smart. Once the election is safely stolen, as 2012 was stolen by the Democrats, it does not matter if Obama’s henchmen (and in this case, henchwoman) broke the law. Since their side has control of the Government, no one will be prosecuted and the regime remains in power and the election remains stolen.

The IRS was instrumental in stealing the election and the election will stay stolen no matter what happens. That is all that these totalitarianists care about.

Rogervzv on May 19, 2013 at 11:01 AM

I’m really not surprised, it’s time to leave this place.
Not sure where to go, but it’s time.

mmcnamer1 on May 19, 2013 at 11:19 AM

I go with the option that most public employees vote Democrat. As an observation. Dems are risk averse – not all, but definitely the majority – “Let someone else tell me what to do; when I’m in power, I’ll tell others what to do.” They think alike – just as most secure university positions are held by Dems, so are most government positions. Rs are in the minority. (Guess we’re too busy creating real jobs, working two jobs to stay off the gov’t welfare, coaching, heaving forbid – going to church or a gun range, etc.”

Stolen election or not, this crew will stay in power – no one will impeach a minority president or a woman.

MN J on May 19, 2013 at 11:23 AM

Now the IRS is like the labor unions.
Basically they are political organizations that force you to donate to them.

esnap on May 19, 2013 at 1:10 PM

Why did the IRS keep the scandal quiet until after the election?

SERIOUSLY? You are THAT stupid that you have to ask?!

easyt65 on May 20, 2013 at 9:16 AM

Why did the IRS keep the scandal quiet until after the election?

Every time the main page of Hot Air loads, I see this question, and think, “That must be a rhetorical question!”

There Goes the Neighborhood on May 20, 2013 at 10:10 AM

Why did the IRS keep the scandal quiet until after the election?

Every time the main page of Hot Air loads, I see this question, and think, “That must be a rhetorical question!”

There Goes the Neighborhood on May 20, 2013 at 10:10 AM

Then again, you have Exhibit A for why you sometimes need to ask rhetorical questions…..

Wait, so the IRS discovered these wrongdoings, independently put a stop to them and briefed the Treasury department, AND authorized an IG investigation which then they leaked to the public. But we’re mad because they chose not to make it a campaign issues considering it has nothing to do with Obama’s governance? *yawn*

libfreeordie on May 18, 2013 at 10:14 AM

There Goes the Neighborhood on May 20, 2013 at 10:14 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3