Quotes of the day
posted at 9:23 pm on October 26, 2012 by Allahpundit
Four years after he was elected as a self-described ‘hopemonger’ promising a new post-partisan era, President Barack Obama is trying to claw his way to re-election with an ugly, divisive campaign in which he is playing the role of fearmonger-in-chief…
[I]f Obama is re-elected the way he has run his campaign may make it almost impossible for him to govern effectively – let alone in the spirit of the ‘better angels of our nature’ that Abraham Lincoln cited in his first inaugural speech and that Obama used to love quoting.
It was John McCain who said in 2008 that he would not ‘take the low road to the highest office in the land’.
Obama seems to believe that the load road is his only route back to the White House in 2012. It is the kind of strategy that Candidate Obama in 2008 would have viewed as beneath contempt.
A senior Romney strategist who asked not to be named said they expected more attacks from Obama. “The Chicago guys know that he is below 50 on both ballot and approval,” he told National Journal. “It is not that Obama likes to be a hatchet man. They think they have got to bring Romney back down by bringing his negatives back up…. But it is dangerous to have the president himself doing it.”
Madden called it “unfortunate he has to close the final days of the campaign this way.” But that is how most campaigns end, with one candidate ratcheting up the attack rhetoric and the other one trying to stay above the fray. In past campaigns, the one mounting the assault is often the one who either feels the election is slipping away or who finds it impossible to accept that the challenger is making the race so close.
What is President Obama doing? What votes is he trying to get? I said last week he had better find ways to appeal to more white voters, especially white working women, or he was going to lose. Well, the Obama campaign must have had a meeting and decided it needed the campaign message to center on the president’s childish, not-quite-cute name-calling, highlighted by vulgar insults. In the meeting it was obviously decided that the clumsy use of “Romnesia” could stay, but that if the president used his own mouth to call Mitt Romney a “bull*****er” that would really appeal to…? Appeal to whom? I have no idea what the Obama campaign is about, 11 days before the election.
In the campaign autopsies that will start in less than two weeks, Oct. 19 could be identified as the exact date that any remnant of Obama’s call for hope and change vanished. The president has descended to a new Nixonian level of slander and slur. Hooting about “Romnesia” and now attributing the idea that Mitt Romney is a “bull*****er” to a 6-year-old girl is where Obama has taken us.
In the final stretch, Obama’s campaign isn’t about offering hope and change but is about appealing to a coarse ignorance that he sees in voters.
But even looking beyond the biased analyses being published by liberal sources, the refusal of many Democrats to accept the reality of the Romney surge may be rooted in something more emotional than just skewed poll numbers. Many if not most liberals share the attitude of contempt for the Republicans that were so easily discerned in the attitudes of both President Obama and Vice President Biden during the debates. Though most Americans have rejected the attempt by the president’s campaign to define Romney as a heartless plutocrat or a monster, liberals bought it hook, line and sinker. The idea that such a person could have caught and passed Obama in the space of a few short weeks seems impossible to them not so much because they think the numbers don’t support this thesis but because they just don’t want it to be so.
Rather than debunking Romney’s wave, liberal analysts who seek to deny it are merely confirming their inability to look dispassionately at what has occurred. Democrats living in liberal echo chambers need a reality check.
We shouldn’t be talking about this silliness — Big Bird, “bulls—-er” or a girl’s “first time.”
We should be talking about The Issues, we keep telling ourselves. But in the waning days of the presidential campaign, these are the issues — binders full of cultural issues that continue to divide us and by which Barack Obama hopes to win reelection…
Obama reasoned correctly that he had the majority with him, especially among women and youth, for many of whom these debates seem antiquated to not-applicable. Hence, a new Obama ad by the creator and star of HBO’s “Girls,” Lena Dunham, in which she compares voting for the first time (for a man who understands women) to, you know, “doing it” for the first time. It’s . . . what it is: a message to young women that losing one’s virginity is top of the bucket list, but first you gotta vote for the president who will give you free contraception.
The same ol’ culture wars. But, of course, women have had access to birth control for decades, and no one is trying to take it away. Anyone who suggests otherwise may have been spending too much time with Big Bird.
[A] funny thing happened over the next six weeks: Obama’s own cue balls shriveled. Biden had offered up a deft campaign slogan encompassing both domestic and foreign policy: “Osama’s dead and General Motors is alive.” But, as the al-Qaeda connections to Benghazi dribbled out leak by leak, the “Osama’s dead” became a problematic boast and, left to stand alone, the General Motors line was even less credible. Avoiding the economy and foreign affairs, Obama fell back on Big Bird, and binders, and bayonets, just to name the “B”s in his bonnet. At the second presidential debate, he name-checked Planned Parenthood, the General Motors of the American abortion industry, half a dozen times, desperate to preserve his so-called gender gap. Yet oddly enough, the more furiously Obama and Biden have waved their binders and talked up Sandra Fluke, the more his supposed lead among women has withered away. So now he needs to enthuse the young, who turned out in such numbers for him last time. Hence, the official campaign video (plagiarized from Vladimir Putin of all people) explaining that voting for Obama is like having sex. The saddest thing about that claim is that, for liberals, it may well be true.
Both videos — the one faking Obamagasm and the one faking a Benghazi pretext — exemplify the wretched shrinkage that befalls those unable to conceive of anything except in the most self-servingly political terms. Both, in different ways, exemplify why Obama and Biden are unfit for office. One video testifies to a horrible murderous lie at the heart of a head of state’s most solemn responsibility, the other to the glib shallow narcissism of a pop-culture presidency, right down to the numbing relentless peer pressure: C’mon, all the cool kids are doing it; why be the last hold-out?
Even a narrow win for Obama, though, would not reestablish anything like the mandate and amity the president enjoyed on his Inauguration Day. The reason is that, as the Obama coalition diminished, Obama no longer disguised the prejudices, inflections, outlook, and approach of the progressive movement. A confessed reader of Andrew Sullivan’s hysterical web site, the president has taken on the maximalist characteristics of the liberal blogosphere. He is scornful and contemptuous of Romney, as could be seen in his patronizing lecture on aircraft carriers and submarines during the third debate. His campaign seizes on the most trivial comments—“I like Big Bird”; “Binders full of women”—to engage in juvenile jibes that would not make the first cut at the Late Show writers’ meeting. His rallies have become self-congratulatory comedy hours in which the assembled Democrats laugh heartily at the insults and zingers the president throws Romney’s way. Obama has been on a seemingly nonstop tour of television shows hosted by late-night comics. His new attack line that the Republican nominee has “Romnesia” was, as the vice president might say, literally taken from liberal blogs. The vice president even asked his audience at a recent rally whether it had watched The Daily Show the night before. The men who hold the highest offices in the most powerful country in the history of the world have been debased to the point where they look like fill-in guests on Up with Chris Hayes.
The Democrats allowed the progressive movement’s hatred of Bush to take over their old and storied political party. That party and movement found a champion and a path to power in Obama, but the electoral forces on which his power relied were unstable. In 2008, he satisfied the left and won the middle. Once in power, though, he kept the left satisfied and lost the middle and right.
In 2012, there is just the left.
“The minute he starts playing small ball, the minute he starts making all these snippy little remarks, it’s over for him,” Steyn said. “He can’t be a dark and malevolent and attack ad kind of candidate. He has to be Mr. ‘Sunny,’ Mr. ‘Hope,’ and Mr. ‘Change.’ And because he didn’t run on any of that, and he’s basically left at 10 days before the election to resurrect that character, I think was a fatal miscalculation.”
Related Posts:









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 3
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
I go with option Three, above.
Lourdes on May 18, 2013 at 12:02 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:
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.
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
SERIOUSLY? You are THAT stupid that you have to ask?!
easyt65 on May 20, 2013 at 9:16 AM
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…..
There Goes the Neighborhood on May 20, 2013 at 10:14 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3