PDA

View Full Version : Does Obama really want to win?



txradioguy
11-28-2011, 09:03 AM
“Over the last decade, we became a country that relied too much on what we bought and consumed.”

- President Obama, Nov. 19, 2011

“Too many of us now tend to worship self-indulgence and consumption. Human identity is no longer defined by what one does, but by what one owns.”

- President Carter, July 15, 1979

There are only two ways to look at the Obama re-election campaign right now: Either the upstart candidate who stunned the world when he defeated the Clinton machine to capture the Democratic nomination three years ago has lost every bit of that massive mojo, or the bruised and battered president, after three years in office, just doesn’t want another spin in the Oval Office.

How else to explain the nonstop missteps, the stammering and stuttering campaign, not to mention the brazen attacks on American voters, who, he has said, have “fallen behind,” lost their “ambition and imagination,” gotten “lazy” and “a bit soft” - this is a guy seeking the support of America?!

For the past 36 months, Americans have hoped for the best. But it hasn’t turned out that way. In fact, some argue that Mr. Obama actually made the economy worse - the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said last week that his 2009 stimulus package may have sustained as few as 700,000 jobs at its peak and that over the long run it will be a net drag on the economy.

But then, this. The president, traveling the country purportedly to look for votes in 2012, decided to lecture the American people on their shortcomings: fat, lazy, stupid. And now, he’s channeling - of all people - Jimmy Carter.

Don’t doubt the premise here. Democrats must spend - spend and spend and spend. It’s in their DNA. Mr. Obama offered a $3.8 trillion budget this year, to be paid for by - $2.1 trillion in revenue (read: your money). He knows that over the next four years, with automatic budget cuts set to take effect and the American people’s rising ire over the profligate spending in Washington, he’s going to have no money to redistribute to the masses.

So, why bother? It’s going to get worse before it gets better. Who needs it? Why preside over a government that, instead of giving everything to everybody free, takes it all away, cuts so deeply that nearly every American will be affected? Especially if you think Americans are lazy, lack ambition - they’ll never rise to the challenge, so why not just bail?

Crazy? Not according to two Democratic strategists. Patrick H. Caddell, who coincidentally worked as a pollster for Mr. Carter, and Douglas Schoen think Mr. Obama should follow LBJ and just pack it in.

“He should abandon his candidacy for re-election in favor of a clear alternative, one capable not only of saving the Democratic Party, but more important, of governing effectively and in a way that preserves the most important of the president’s accomplishments. He should step aside,” they wrote, “for the one candidate who would become, by acclamation, the nominee of the Democratic Party: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.”

Of course, Mr. Obama’s hubris will not allow such a move. But consider this, 344 days before Election Day 2012: The president’s greatest advocate, Chris Matthews, who got a chill up his leg every time he heard the candidate speak, has thrown in the towel.

“Once having won the office,” the MSNBC cheerleader said, “he seemed to think that that was the end of it in terms of his connection to the American people. … I think everybody feels an absence of communication from the time he’s been elected. And it’s not about not being left-wing enough or too left. That’s not his problem. It’s connection. And Mrs. Obama, she’s an amazing asset. And what has she done? Obesity? How about connecting with the American people about being Americans? I don’t think she’s happy. I don’t think they like being in the White House. The American people can tell that. They don’t seem thrilled at the fact the American people have selected them as our first family. I don’t sense the gratitude, the happiness level, the thrill of being president.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/nov/27/curl-does-obama-really-want-to-win/

Arroyo_Doble
11-28-2011, 09:12 AM
“How else to explain the nonstop missteps, the stammering and stuttering campaign, not to mention the brazen attacks on American voters, who, he has said, have “fallen behind,” lost their “ambition and imagination,” gotten “lazy” and “a bit soft” -


"Well, this is an issue, generally. I think it's important to remember that the United States is still the largest recipient of foreign investment in the world. And there are a lot of things that make foreign investors see the U.S. as a great opportunity — our stability, our openness, our innovative free market culture.

But we've been a little bit lazy, I think, over the last couple of decades. We've kind of taken for granted — well, people will want to come here and we aren't out there hungry, selling America and trying to attract new business into America. And so one of the things that my administration has done is set up something called SelectUSA that organizes all the government agencies to work with state and local governments where they're seeking assistance from us, to go out there and make it easier for foreign investors to build a plant in the United States and put outstanding U.S. workers back to work in the United States of America."


~ President Barack Hussein Obama

He did not call American voters lazy. Although the Washington Times appears to think their readers are.

txradioguy
11-28-2011, 09:26 AM
He did not call American voters lazy. Although the Washington Times appears to think their readers are.

Do you get government subsidized knee pads fanboi? Or do you pay for them out of your own pocket?

It isn't just the Washington Times that's reported this lazy comment. Believe it or not it has been picked up by the MSM as well. So sorry your attempt to portray this as some kind of hit piece from the VRWC is a giant fail on your part...again

But just out of curiousity Bok who is the "we" your Dear Leader is referring to as being lazy if not the American people?

Tipsycatlover
11-28-2011, 10:13 AM
His campaign strategy is to demonize the white working class. Like that's gonna work.

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/27/the-future-of-the-obama-coalition/

DumbAss Tanker
11-28-2011, 12:56 PM
The missteps are because he lives in a Liberal echo chamber, more or less a Leftist version of "Downfall," not because he sees himself for the failure he is.

noonwitch
11-28-2011, 02:49 PM
"Well, this is an issue, generally. I think it's important to remember that the United States is still the largest recipient of foreign investment in the world. And there are a lot of things that make foreign investors see the U.S. as a great opportunity — our stability, our openness, our innovative free market culture.

But we've been a little bit lazy, I think, over the last couple of decades. We've kind of taken for granted — well, people will want to come here and we aren't out there hungry, selling America and trying to attract new business into America. And so one of the things that my administration has done is set up something called SelectUSA that organizes all the government agencies to work with state and local governments where they're seeking assistance from us, to go out there and make it easier for foreign investors to build a plant in the United States and put outstanding U.S. workers back to work in the United States of America."


~ President Barack Hussein Obama

He did not call American voters lazy. Although the Washington Times appears to think their readers are.


Of course he didn't. But people read what they want to read, and ignore the context. He was not referring to american voters, he was referring to business and political leadership being lazy about getting foreign companies to build factories here.

Odysseus
11-28-2011, 03:30 PM
"Well, this is an issue, generally. I think it's important to remember that the United States is still the largest recipient of foreign investment in the world. And there are a lot of things that make foreign investors see the U.S. as a great opportunity — our stability, our openness, our innovative free market culture.

But we've been a little bit lazy, I think, over the last couple of decades. We've kind of taken for granted — well, people will want to come here and we aren't out there hungry, selling America and trying to attract new business into America. And so one of the things that my administration has done is set up something called SelectUSA that organizes all the government agencies to work with state and local governments where they're seeking assistance from us, to go out there and make it easier for foreign investors to build a plant in the United States and put outstanding U.S. workers back to work in the United States of America."


~ President Barack Hussein Obama

He did not call American voters lazy. Although the Washington Times appears to think their readers are.

You know, he's got a point. We should follow his example and sell America to the rest of the world.

We can talk about us, and how "... it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

Or we can apologize for our arrogance.

Or, maybe we can just get this poseur out of the White House.

Arroyo_Doble
11-28-2011, 03:44 PM
Of course he didn't. But people read what they want to read, and ignore the context. He was not referring to american voters, he was referring to business and political leadership being lazy about getting foreign companies to build factories here.

There are plenty of issues to rhetorically attack the President on if you disagree with him politically. Not sure why making stuff up is necessary.

txradioguy
11-28-2011, 05:39 PM
There are plenty of issues to rhetorically attack the President on if you disagree with him politically. Not sure why making stuff up is necessary.


Nothing was made up you dolt.

Odysseus
11-28-2011, 05:51 PM
Of course he didn't. But people read what they want to read, and ignore the context. He was not referring to american voters, he was referring to business and political leadership being lazy about getting foreign companies to build factories here.
I didn't see the word "leadership" in that comment (of course, Obama wouldn't use the word leadership, except to describe what he doesn't know how do to), but I did see him refer to "we" and "the United States", so I tend to think that he meant the United States as a whole. But, if quoting him out of context is misleading, what do you call it when you create a context out of whole cloth?

There are plenty of issues to rhetorically attack the President on if you disagree with him politically. Not sure why making stuff up is necessary.

So, quoting him verbatim is now "making stuff up?" Okay, just what are we allowed to criticize then? :rolleyes:

txradioguy
11-28-2011, 05:56 PM
So, quoting him verbatim is now "making stuff up?" Okay, just what are we allowed to criticize then? :rolleyes:

Even though he'll never give a straight answer and will now proceed to ignore both of us...I'd like to know who he thinks Obama is calling lazy if not the American people.

Janice
11-28-2011, 06:28 PM
Further down in the article we read:
"But consider this, 344 days before Election Day 2012: The president’s greatest advocate, Chris Matthews, who got a chill up his leg every time he heard the candidate speak, has thrown in the towel.

“Once having won the office,” the MSNBC cheerleader said, “he seemed to think that that was the end of it in terms of his connection to the American people. … I think everybody feels an absence of communication from the time he’s been elected. And it’s not about not being left-wing enough or too left. That’s not his problem. It’s connection. And Mrs. Obama, she’s an amazing asset. And what has she done? Obesity? How about connecting with the American people about being Americans? I don’t think she’s happy. I don’t think they like being in the White House. The American people can tell that. They don’t seem thrilled at the fact the American people have selected them as our first family. I don’t sense the gratitude, the happiness level, the thrill of being president.”

Mr. Matthews went on: “What are we trying to do in this administration? Why does he want a second term? Would he tell us? What’s he going to do in the second term? More of this? Is this it? Is this as good as it gets? Where are we going? Are we going to do something the second term? He has yet to tell us. He has not said one thing about what he would do in the second term.”

Because he doesn’t really want one. And Americans seem ready to oblige.So its's obvious to many of us, including his own 'cheer leaders'.

Arroyo_Doble
11-28-2011, 06:55 PM
So, quoting him verbatim is now "making stuff up?"

Err .... I was the one that quoted him "verbatim."

I was not talking about his politically incorrect rhetoric with regards to those who turn to religion and weapons during times of stress.


Okay, just what are we allowed to criticize then? :rolleyes:

Whatever you like. Sometimes, it actually deals with objective reality.

Arroyo_Doble
11-28-2011, 06:55 PM
Even though he'll never give a straight answer and will now proceed to ignore both of us...I'd like to know who he thinks Obama is calling lazy if not the American people.

No. Just you.

Wei Wu Wei
11-28-2011, 07:26 PM
Do you get government subsidized knee pads fanboi? Or do you pay for them out of your own pocket?


slow down, your well-reasoned arguments are just too cunning for most of us to maintain pace

JB
11-28-2011, 07:52 PM
"I don’t think she’s happy. I don’t think they like being in the White House. The American people can tell that. They don’t seem thrilled at the fact the American people have selected them as our first family. I don’t sense the gratitude, the happiness level, the thrill of being president.”I've said that about both of them.

It's like just getting the job was the goal. Not actually doing the job. Explains his skill at campaigning though.

Chuck58
11-28-2011, 09:14 PM
I've said that about both of them.

It's like just getting the job was the goal. Not actually doing the job. Explains his skill at campaigning though.

I think that's what he's always been about, from the beginning. He's never held a real job. The campaigning has been the job. He likes the adulation, the validation that he's loved, but doesn't want to work once he gets what he's after.

Everything he's done has been a stepping stone to something bigger. Now, after being president, where does he go? Plus, deep down he knows he's a failure of epic proportions. I don't think he wants another term, but he'll go through the motions anyway because his ego won't let him drop out.

Odysseus
11-28-2011, 11:42 PM
I think that's what he's always been about, from the beginning. He's never held a real job. The campaigning has been the job. He likes the adulation, the validation that he's loved, but doesn't want to work once he gets what he's after.

Everything he's done has been a stepping stone to something bigger. Now, after being president, where does he go? Plus, deep down he knows he's a failure of epic proportions. I don't think he wants another term, but he'll go through the motions anyway because his ego won't let him drop out.

Obama and Clinton both enjoyed campaigning more than governing, but Clinton had been a governor and at least knew the basics of running an executive branch. His problems were that his ideology was far to the left of the American people, his lack of any real moral center (which actually worked well for him when it came time for his reelection campaign, as he had no trouble pretending to be less of a leftist than he actually was), his dishonesty and his appetites, but no matter how deeply he dug himself into a hole, he could always figure out an attack strategy that would get him out of it. Unlike Obama, Clinton had lost races and knew how to dig down and find what it took to win. Obama has never had any adversity in his life, so he's never had to dig himself out of the kind of hole that he's in, and he's never really had to work at anything. He got into prestigious schools without any real achievements. His autobiography was written for him by somebody else. He was elected to the Illinois State Senate after his staff had gotten his opponents thrown off the ballot, and they did pretty much the same thing to his Republican opponent for the US Senate, except that in that case, it took a sympathetic judge to unseal a confidential divorce record to force a withdrawal. It's no wonder that he approached the presidency the way that he approached everything else in his life, by showing up and expecting to be handed what he wanted. As an obscure legislator, that wasn't a problem, since he could get away with voting "present" for years without anyone noticing, but for his first executive position, he had to perform and show leadership, and he hasn't been able to even fake it well.

To answer the OP, it's not that Obama doesn't want to win. It's that he doesn't know how to win, because he's never had to compete for anything.

txradioguy
11-29-2011, 03:12 AM
No. Just you.

Typical. The questions you refuse to answer will still be there.

You'll answer Ody...in a way...but you'll still never rise above childish retorts after tossing out crap you an't defend or back up.

Bailey
11-29-2011, 07:31 AM
No way in hell will the magic negro give up the perks of the job.

Bailey
11-29-2011, 07:32 AM
No. Just you.

So you're saying he owns you and there's no point in answering, ok got it.

AmPat
11-29-2011, 10:29 AM
Apparently, the "correct" way to interpret the "we" from O Blah Blah's mouth is:

everybody in the US except the voters. He only meant to alienate those that don't vote. Apparently, O Blah Blah is attacking those precious disenfranchised among us that are primarily "undocumented workers" or minorities. :rolleyes:

Why can't you liberals just admit the obvious and stop apologizing for the Marxist In Chief?:confused:

noonwitch
11-29-2011, 12:19 PM
When I filled up the tank on Sunday, gas was $3.11 a gallon at Meijer. I thought "if it drops much lower, I guess Obama really does want to get re-elected".

AmPat
11-30-2011, 08:18 AM
Does Obama really want to win? I believe when asking a question like this of the ultimate narcissist, the question is more; Is O Blah Blah ready to lose?

He probably fears the possibility of losing much more than he cherishes the idea of winning.

He has already demonstrated he is arrogant, hostile, incompetent, intransigent, and disinterested in leading. Why would this Marxist want to continue?:confused:

txradioguy
11-30-2011, 11:38 AM
JOE SCARBOROUGH: Tina, what has happened to this president, the president from hope and change? What has happened?

TINA BROWN: Well it's so interesting. I think that Obama doesn't like his job, actually. I think that he is genuinely of a professioral disposition in the sense that I think that he's interested in chewing over the pros and cons, and he doesn't like, he doesn't like power and he doesn't know how to exercise power. And I think knowing how to exercise power is absolutely crucial. He doesn't understand how to underpin his ideas with the political gritty, granular business of getting it done. And that kind of gap has just widened and widened and widened. And so that every time there is a moment, a window where he can jump in, like something like a Simpson-Bowles as well, he just doesn't do it. He hangs back at crucial moments when you have to dive through that window.

SCARBOROUGH: And regardless of your ideology, it is very safe to say, I think most people would agree: LBJ he is not, Bill Clinton, he is not, when it just comes to understanding how to make Washington work.

MIKE BARNICLE: It appears off of what Tina just said, you just said, it appears that you could make a case that Barack Obama doesn't like politics.



http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2011/11/30/tina-brown-obama-doesnt-his-job#ixzz1fCg0OFdc

AmPat
11-30-2011, 06:05 PM
this looks like a carefully orchestrated operation to lay the foundation for eventual failure. They build the talking points now about how "disinterested" he is in_______________(insert lie here), instead of allow history to reveal just how dismal a failure he has been. Worst than Carter in half the time. Quite an "accomplishment" if you ask me.

Chuck58
11-30-2011, 08:38 PM
I agree with the post a couple up. I don't think obumble likes the job. God, it's a JOB after all. It's a new experience and apparently, considering all the delegating of authority to czars, a thing he doesn't like.

I've been attacked here and there for saying this. I believe The One was groomed, pushed and put where he is to destroy this country. I don't for an instant believe he loves America. I think he has a strong dislike for this country and the people. His handlers, those above him, were in too much of a hurry to take control.

I think they jumped the gun and underestimated the citizens. My guess, they're city people who don't realize that Americans from rural and small towns are of a different mindset than city folk. obama's appearance was, at the rate this country's educational and morality is deteriorating, about a quarter to a half century too soon.

In a way, his appearance on the scene was fortuitous. I don't believe we'll see another one of his extreme political leanings in our lifetimes - and I hope I'm right.

AmPat
12-01-2011, 12:26 PM
I agree with the post a couple up. I don't think obumble likes the job. God, it's a JOB after all. It's a new experience and apparently, considering all the delegating of authority to czars, a thing he doesn't like.

I've been attacked here and there for saying this. I believe The One was groomed, pushed and put where he is to destroy this country. I don't for an instant believe he loves America. I think he has a strong dislike for this country and the people. His handlers, those above him, were in too much of a hurry to take control.

I think they jumped the gun and underestimated the citizens. My guess, they're city people who don't realize that Americans from rural and small towns are of a different mindset than city folk. obama's appearance was, at the rate this country's educational and morality is deteriorating, about a quarter to a half century too soon.

In a way, his appearance on the scene was fortuitous. I don't believe we'll see another one of his extreme political leanings in our lifetimes - and I hope I'm right.

It was 32 years between the two worst presidents in America. We need at a minimum, ensure that we double that interval before the next Marxist, incompetent, American hating leftist is elected. This will be difficult with the continual DUmbing down of the electorate.

Tipsycatlover
12-01-2011, 02:19 PM
It isn't a question of obama wanting to be reelected. He's DEMANDING to be reelected. Whether he did a good job or not. He's entitled.

Not a winning strategy.

AmPat
12-01-2011, 04:47 PM
It isn't a question of obama wanting to be reelected. He's DEMANDING to be reelected. Whether he did a good job or not. He's entitled.

Not a winning strategy.

I just heard on Hannity that the Blowhard In Chief claimed to be the best friend of Israel of any American president. He is a bald faced liar!:mad: Worse, the media allows him to make false statements like this.:mad:

Bailey
12-01-2011, 05:22 PM
I just heard on Hannity that the Blowhard In Chief claimed to be the best friend of Israel of any American president. He is a bald faced liar!:mad: Worse, the media allows him to make false statements like this.:mad:

Can the Magic Negro ever make a statement without lying?:confused:

Chuck58
12-01-2011, 09:19 PM
Can the Magic Negro ever make a statement without lying?:confused:


Short answer.......No


Long answer........No

He's just a damned pathological liar.

AmPat
12-02-2011, 12:38 AM
Can the Magic Negro ever make a statement without lying?:confused:


Short answer.......No


Long answer........No

He's just a damned pathological liar.

Nearest I can recall is: 1. America is the greatest nation on earth, I hope you'll join me and help to fundamentally change it; and, 2. We need fundamental change in America. As the Marxist In Chief, he has stayed close to those statements. He lies only when the truth would be devastating politically. Considering his ideology, the truth is never safe politically, ergo, he lies nearly constantly.