Publicado: 04-18-2012 09:54 AM
Richard Bruce Cheney pronounces the Obama Administration an "unmitigated disaster"...
No president is perfect, but President Obama an "unmitigated disaster"??!
Mister Cheney: I do not think that phrase means what you think it means. You want "unmitigated disaster"? I'll give you "unmitigated disaster."
The partial tally of what this nation lost under President Bush so far:
• The World Trade Center
• A piece of the Pentagon
• Five or six trillion dollars--again, so far
• A doubled national debt
• Over six-thousand dead American soldiers and over forty-seven-thousand wounded (not to mention billions of dollars in weapons, supplies, and equipment blown up, wasted, or stolen)
• Untold numbers of Iraqis, Afghanis, and Pakistanis dead and wounded, and thousands of refugees
• The sympathy and the cooperation of almost every nation on the planet
• A big chunk of New Orleans
• The housing market
• Every amendment in the Bill Of Rights except the second
• A valuable CIA agent specializing in nuclear counter-proliferation
• Safe airline travel
• Safe food
• Safe water
• Safe, regulated exploration and extraction of coal, oil, and gas
• Impartial climate science
• A space shuttle and seven astronauts
• The integrity of the Justice and Interior departments
• Years of government research on climate change
• Eight years of stem cell research
• The nation's moral standing on war crimes and torture
• Two million jobs
• Fair elections
• The integrity of the private property system
• Trillions of dollars swindled from Americans by banks you refused to regulate
• The Kyoto Treaty
• Three-thousand points off the Dow
(I would list the American automobile industry but President Obama mitigated that one…)
This is not to mention the tragic, needless loss of life at home and abroad. You two--entrusted with all of the might and with the unalloyed support of the most powerful nation on earth--failed to send enough troops into Afghanistan to kill Osama bin Laden in December of 2001 which has allowed death and destruction to metastasize throughout that region in a war that has yet to end ten years later. You have caused those brave men and women to be re-deployed again and again, leaving them and their families strained under the weight of duty.
- more -
Publicado: 04-18-2012 06:44 PM
Obama’s Oil Ploy
Posted By Jacob Laksin On April 18, 2012 In Daily Mailer,FrontPage
As gasoline prices have soared to $4 a gallon, putting a pinch on consumers’ wallets and President Obama’s approval ratings, the president has been casting about for a convenient scapegoat. He’s found one in oil market speculators, whom he charges with driving up the price of crude oil and gasoline.
In response to speculators’ supposedly sinister machinations, Obama this week urged Congress to crack down on speculation by stepping up surveillance of energy futures traders and increasing the penalties for those convicted of manipulating Congress. No doubt the move will convince Obama’s supporters that he is “doing something” to bring down gas prices. In truth, the crackdown on oil speculation, not unlike Obama’s recent campaign for a “Buffet rule” tax on millionaires, is little more than a cheap political ploy. Laws are already in place to regulate market manipulation, making Obama’s crackdown largely symbolic. The bigger problem, though, is that there is little connection between rising oil and gas prices and speculation in energy futures markets.
That’s not to say that oil speculation has no effect whatsoever on gasoline prices. But since those prices are ultimately determined by the laws of supply and demand, the only way that oil speculation can influence gas prices is by impacting the supply of oil and gasoline available. Thus, if oil producers expect prices to rise in the future, they may keep oil from the market in the hopes of selling it at a premium. That in turn could lead to diminished supply and increased prices at the pump.
Unfortunately for Obama’s anti-speculation crusade, there is no evidence that this scenario is actually happening. Cato Institute scholars Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren observe that if speculation were having the effect on gas prices that Obama claims, we would see a buildup of inventory among crude oil producers. Instead, crude inventories have remained within the normal range. Even more significant is that gasoline inventories, rather than increasing, have actually been decreasing at a faster-than-average rate. Consequently, Taylor and Van Doren note, “there’s no evidence that speculators are reducing the supply of crude or gasoline through increased storage.” To be sure, inventory rates might not be a meaningful indicator if producers were instead curbing production in anticipation of future price increases. Yet there is no evidence that this is happening, either.
As it happens, there are external factors limiting the supply of oil on the global market. But the true culprit is not oil speculation but geopolitics. Oil analysts point out that due to disruptions in production in strife-torn countries like South Sudan, Yemen and civil-war-engulfed Syria, at least a half a million barrels of oil a day are being withheld from the global market. A precipitous drop in crude oil production in Libya following a complete shutdown last year has cut the global supply by another 2 percent. Combine that with a fall in spare oil capacity and the result is a 20 percent increase in oil prices just since December. Prices may rise even more as a policy that President Obama (along with most Republicans) has supported – new sanctions on Iran intended to curb its nuclear weapons program – goes into effect.
Obama’s strategy of blaming speculators for price increases is thus a serious misdirection, ignoring the role that global politics, and his own policies, have on oil prices. But it’s actually worse than that. Not only does a crackdown on oil speculators miss the true causes of the problem but it risks making it worse. According to energy consultancy HIS, a crackdown on speculation – for instance by enforcing the Volcker Rule limiting speculation in the Dodd-Frank Act – could send ripple effects throughout the economy, lowering energy production, increasing gasoline prices, and killing jobs. HIS points out that many oil refineries depend on their banks’ futures strategies to protect them against fluctuations in oil prices. If those refineries are denied access to the banks’ capital because the banks can’t speculate on oil futures, the refineries could be forced to close. That would mean that more gasoline would have to be imported from abroad, raising gas prices. And high gas prices, as Obama well knows, are a drag on employment and economic growth.
It’s tempting to think that increased domestic production could bring down oil prices. But even then, analysts say, the benefits would be long term rather than immediate. Permitting more U.S. oil fields, as Obama has refused to do, would clearly increase domestic production, but the lead times between discovering oil and putting it into production can stretch into years and even into decades. Meanwhile, oil boom states like North Dakota have an outdated pipeline and a lack of infrastructure that makes it difficult to collect, process and transport extracted oil and gas. “Drill, baby, drill!” may be a good political slogan, but in the near-term at least, it’s not a solution to high gas prices.
Still, it’s a vast improvement on Obama’s strategy of targeting a non-problem. Given that high gasoline prices correlate with voter discontent, it’s not surprising that the president would make reducing prices a top priority. But the crackdown on oil speculators won’t achieve that result and should be seen for what it is: a triumph of election-year politics over sound energy policy.
Publicado: 04-18-2012 06:52 PM
To liberals Bush was a failure right?
July 06, 2011 by no gnu taxes
If Obama can’t surpass Bush in these facts what will you call HIM?
To liberals Bush was a failure right! If Obama can’t surpass Bush in these facts what will you call him?
PRESIDENT BUSH HAS A GOOD ECONOMIC RECORD
The evidence shows that much of the Democratic Party’s evaluation of President Bush’s economic record is wide of the mark, says Keith Marsden, a fellow of the Centre for Policy Studies.
How does the performance of the U.S. economy really compare with other well ahead economies over the eight years of George Bush’s presidency? Data in print by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the Establishment for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the World Bank, the International Comparison Program (ICP) (a cooperative venture coordinated by the World Bank) and the U.S. Census Bureau allow a nonpartisan, factual assessment, says Marsden.
U.S. output has expanded quicker than in most well ahead economies since 2000.
The IMF reports that real U.S. yucky domestic product (GDP) grew at an average annual rate of 2.2 percent over the period 2001-2008 (including its forecast for the current year).
President Bush will leave his successor an economy 19 percent larger than the one he inherited from President Clinton.
This U.S. extension compares with 14 percent by France, 13 percent by Japan and just 8 percent by Italy and Germany over the same period.
The latest ICP findings, in print by the World Bank in its World Development Indicators 2008, also show that GDP per capita in the United States reached $ 41,813 (in purchasing power parity dollars) in 2005; this was a third higher than the United Kingdom’s, 37 percent above Germany’s and 38 percent more than Japan’s.
The ICP study found that the average per-capita consumption of the U.S. population (citizens and illegal immigrants combined) was second only to Luxembourg’s, out of 146 countries covered in 2005.
The U.S. average was $ 32,045; this was well above the levels in the UK ($ 25,155), Canada ($ 23,526), France ($ 23,027) and Germany ($ 21,742). China stood at $ 1,751.
Source: Keith Marsden, “Bush Has a Excellent Economic Record,” Wall Street Journal, September 3, 2008.
Bush had under 5% in unemployment, inflation, appeal rate and a deficit of 400 billion yet we all know he was a failure. Won’t Obama have to beat all these numbers to be considered a success. So far not even close.
Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not.~Jeremiah 5:21
You know DUh-bama DUmocrats miss Bush...they cannot blame their mistakes on him any more but are forced more often to look into the mirror for blame.
Obama's espiritual and political mentor, Rev.Wright, a rabidracist and anti-american marxist says blacks should God Bless America" but "God da..mn America."
Margaret Thatcher: "El socialismo dura hasta que se les acaba el dinero de otros"
O como dijo Churchill: "El socialismo es la filosofía del fracaso, el credo de los ignorantes, el evangelio de la envidia y su virtud es el reparto igualitario de la miseria."
Publicado: 04-19-2012 06:42 AM
THE SCANDAL OF GSA IS TINY COMPARED WITH MICHELLE VACATIONS
The Real GSA Scandal: Job-Killing Big Labor Payoffs
By Michelle Malkin On April 18, 2012 In Daily Mailer,FrontPage
Stop the presses: Big-spending Democrats are finally up in arms over a federal boondoggle. Details of the U.S. General Services Administration bacchanalia get worse by the day. We’ve graduated from overpriced breakfasts in Vegas, friends-and-family junkets galore and in-house videos mocking their own profligacy to extravagant bonuses, alleged kickbacks, obstructionism and bribes.
But the scandal is still small potatoes compared to the potential billions GSA is pouring down the Big Labor drain.
Whistleblowers and an independent inspector general investigation estimate that the GSA’s Sin City conference cost taxpayers an estimated $1 million in 2010. Washington bureaucrats squandered another $234,000 on public relations damage control. An interim GSA director announced Tuesday on Capitol Hill that 35 upcoming conferences would be canceled at a cost savings of less than $1 million. Democratic Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland vowed that GSA officials would be “made to pay back” taxpayers.
The arrogance of these civil servants is, of course, jaw-dropping. Regional Commissioner Jeff Neely, the Paris Hilton of GSA party animals, wrote in an invitation to personal friends: “We’ll get you guys a room near us, and we’ll pick up the room tab. … I know I’m bad, but as Deb and I often say, why not enjoy it while we have it and while we can. Ain’t gonna last forever.”
Neely’s gone, along with seven other top administrators, and the GSA travel budget has dried up for now. But this is just a sliver of the permanently enshrined waste that constitutes the bread-and-butter business of the behemoth agency, which runs on a $45 billion annual budget — including $5.5 billion in federal stimulus money to oversee capital building projects.
Thanks to President Obama (whose White House reflexively tried to blame Party in the GSA-gate on the Bush administration), the federal government is steering that money toward Big Labor patrons with a proven track record of cost overruns, construction delays and corruption.
As I’ve reported previously, the linchpin is E.O. 13502, a union-friendly executive order signed by Obama in his first weeks in office. It essentially forces contractors who bid on large-scale public construction projects worth $25 million or more to submit to union representation for its employees. The blunt instrument used to give unions a leg up is the “project labor agreement,” which in theory sets reasonable pre-work terms and conditions. But in practice, it requires contractors to hand over exclusive bargaining control, to pay inflated, above-market wages and benefits, and to fork over dues money and pension funding to corrupt, cash-starved labor organizations.
These anti-competitive agreements undermine a fair bidding process on projects that locked-out, nonunion laborers are funding with their own tax dollars.
And these PLAs benefit the privileged few at the expense of the vast majority: In the construction industry, 85 percent of the workforce is nonunion by choice.
David G. Tuerck of the Department of Economics and Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University testified on Capitol Hill last year: “The adoption of a PLA amounts, in effect, to the conferral of monopoly power on a select group of construction unions over the supply of construction labor.” The mandate serves “one purpose: to discourage competition from nonunion contractors (and, in some instances, union contractors) to the end of shoring up declining union power, along with union-mandated wages and benefits, against competitive pressures.” The institute’s studies show that PLAs have added between 12 and 18 percent to school construction costs in Massachusetts and Connecticut.
The total price tag for GSA projects built with PLAs remains unknown. But here’s just one example: The Washington Examiner reported in 2010 that the GSA paid the federal Lafayette Building’s general contractor an additional $3.3 million above the initial $52 million contract to ensure that the project was built with a union payback PLA. The Obama administration had previously tried to slip a PLA mandate into a $35 million jobs center construction project in New Hampshire, but retreated when state contractors challenged the provision as an unfair restriction on competition. According to The Washington Times, just 8.7 percent of construction workers are unionized in New Hampshire.
Among the GSA administrators fired over Vegas-palooza was Robert A. Peck, chief of the agency’s Public Buildings Service. That’s the same office overseeing the $5.5 billion in stimulus contracts for capital projects like the Lafayette Building. But neither Peck nor any other GSA official nor the White House has been held accountable for job-killing union favoritism in its everyday contracting practices.
And as the pro-competition watchdog website The Truth About Project Labor Agreements points out: “Numerous (GSA) projects have been awarded to contractors submitting PLA bids at the expense of qualified firms opposed to PLA mandates. Full and open competition has been curtailed in violation of the federal Competition in Contracting Act. Taxpayer dollars have been wasted. Skilled nonunion craftspeople and their qualified employers have been denied jobs and opportunity as a result of this needless policy.”
For Obama’s union donors and their GSA fixers, the party’s still on.
Publicado: 04-19-2012 11:27 AM
Betraying Every Ally
By Daniel Greenfield On April 18, 2012 In Daily Mailer,FrontPage
While in the United States the news from the Summit of the Americas involved a prostitute scandal, on the other side of the ocean it was about Obama’s continuing determination to undermine America’s allies. After Prime Minister Cameron’s last humiliating outing with Obama, all he had to show for it was a supposed assurance of neutrality, which the bumbling prime minister attempted to spin into support for the status quo and self-determination for the islanders. It was however no such thing.
When asked, at a joint conference with the President of Colombia, about the Falklands, Obama said curtly that he was remaining completely neutral. Last month while visiting Ground Zero, Prime Minister Cameron had pitifully tried to assure reporters that while Obama might not be for the legal rights of the islanders, he wasn’t actively against them. This may even be a victory of sorts as Hector Timerman, Argentina’s leftist Minister of Foreign Relations, had earlier suggested that the Obama administration had been the most favorable to Argentina’s claims to date.
Obama’s obnoxious behavior is all the more senseless because while there isn’t very much that the United States needs from Argentina, it needs to maintain a good level of cooperation with the UK. Last year the UK lost one soldier to every ten American soldiers in Afghanistan. This year it’s more like one to five. If Obama wants any kind of orderly retreat from Afghanistan, he needs the cooperation and help of a country where the war is even more unpopular than it is here. Then there’s the plan by both leaders to stabilize their political situation with a release of oil from their strategic reserves.
Argentina on the other hand is facing major economic problems and last month the administration was forced to suspend trade benefits due to money owed to two American companies. One of the companies, Blue Ridge Investments, is a subsidiary of Bank of America. Warren Buffett is a major investor in the latter. If Obama could take such an unprecedented step in defense of Warren Buffett’s financial interests, why not take a smaller one for an international ally?
As a further display of cynicism, the Obama administration took a **noallow** against a ruling by Judge Thomas Griesa obligating Argentina to make payments to Elliott Management Corporation. EMC is run by Paul Singer, who is a major Republican donor. Singer has already given a million to Romney’s SuperPAC and Fortune Magazine has described him as the Wall Street figure whose support is most crucial to the Romney campaign. It’s in Obama’s own interest to handicap Singer and reward Buffett, and that is exactly what the administration appears to have done.
Obama isn’t unwilling to alienate Argentina for his own culture of corruption, trashing international trade to see to it that his friends get paid and his enemies don’t. He just does not appear to care enough to make the most minimal gesture toward the United Kingdom and Prime Minister Cameron. Cameron, like Brown, has shamelessly humiliated himself before Obama, and taken home nothing for it.
A single word from Obama might make a repetition of the Falklands War less likely by an Argentine government sensing weakness. UK defense officials have already questioned the outcome of a second conflict on the thirtieth anniversary of the war. A statement that the United States will support its ally, whose men are dying for it in Afghanistan, would have gone a long way toward keeping the peace.
This has become an unfortunate pattern by an administration that makes so many bad decisions that it is often hard to tell whether it is being willfully destructive or mindlessly clueless. Obama’s intervention in the French election in support of Sarkozy was an arrogant misstep that Bush would never have made. Pandering to Russia yet again is a move that is almost as futile as trying to dictate to the Eurozone or negotiate with North Korea. And Obama has done all three.
The North Korean negotiations were a particularly senseless move after a long history of similar failures and yet when North Korea launched its missile, Obama only said, “They’ve been trying to **noallow** missiles like this for over a decade now and they don’t seem to be real good at it.” The same might be said of Democrats and foreign policy, except it would be more like two decades.
Some pundits predicted a hard line attitude from the White House on Iran. Instead fresh off the farce of North Korea negotiations, Obama lurched into nuclear talks with Iran hosted by Islamist thugs who are some of the regime’s best Sunni friends. Netanyahu accused Obama of giving Iran a “freebie” while Obama retorted, just as he had on North Korea, that nothing was being given away. Not counting the extra time for Iran to continue developing its nuclear program.
Iran has had to make no concessions and its proposal to hold the next round of talks in Baghdad has been accepted. If the West wasn’t being run by men too dumb to put on their own pants without assistance, the lead players might realize that Iran was stating that it now controls Iraq and is inviting the former occupiers into its own turf. Instead the diplomats will dutifully troop from territory that they once controlled to territory now controlled by Prime Minister Maliki, Iran’s man in Baghdad, without understanding that simplest of messages.
While the press spins the talks as some sort of Iranian concession, on the Iranian side, the head of Iran’s parliamentary committee on national security and foreign policy described it as a defeat for the West. Either way the Iranian centrifuges keep spinning and that’s the real point. Anonymous sources keep suggesting to the press that Iran is prepared to accept some smaller number than 20 percent enrichment, but Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator has already said at a press conference in Istanbul that his government has no intention of doing any such thing. But who are you going to believe, the anonymous sources who tell the press that Obama is on the right track or Iran’s chief negotiator?
All the participants have described the talks as “constructive” and news articles trumpet a statement by Iran’s Supreme Leader that Obama had finally taken “an exit from delusion” in believing that he could defeat Iran. A Newsweek article praises this as “one of the most positive comments he had made about the United States since the Islamic Revolution in 1979.”
Left standing with a knife in his back, is Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, who didn’t expect Obama to sign on to a strike on Iran, but is recognizing that there is no level of interference too great for the White House. At least to his credit, he didn’t abase himself the way that Cameron did. Both Israel and the UK have been screwed by Washington D.C., but the Israeli Prime Minister at least retained his dignity.
If that is how traditionally close allies like the UK and Israel are being treated, there’s no hope for anyone else. Eastern European allies already knew they had been sold out before the “hot mic” incident and the message to Vladimir, that shameful moment just brought it home to them.
The Philippines-US war games have begun, but China isn’t impressed. Unlike China’s leaders, Obama has yet to make a definitive statement on the South China Sea, except to urge all parties in question to work it out peacefully. Not the sort of language that’s likely to warn China off bullying smaller countries.
Meanwhile shortly after Obama’s arrival, bombs went off near the US Embassy in Bogota. It would have been the perfect setting for Obama to make a strong statement about terrorism, but instead he once again ducked. After having betrayed so many allies, what was one more betrayal to add to the toll?
Having betrayed every ally, the foreign policy of this administration has not actually won any new friends. Obama may whisper sweet nothings to Medvedev or approve another round of talks with Kim Jr or the Supreme Leader, but gets nothing in return for it. And never gets held accountable for it by a press that is eager to forget his failures while looking forward to foreign policy triumphs that never come to pass.
Publicado: 04-21-2012 12:56 PM
Hotair ^ | 04/20/2012 | AllahPundit
The information's hiding in plain sight but it’s still a nifty catch by the Standard’s Daniel Halper. You know why? Because the idea that Jon Corzine is still raising hundreds of thousands of dollars for The One is so insane and implausible, virtually no one would have thought to check. Of coursethat's not happening. Of course.
He's in the $500,000+ club for the first quarter of this year, the most elite group there is among O's cash cows. You know what else happened during that quarter? News broke that more than a billion dollars in MF Global client funds had apparently been “vaporized” in the firm’s collapse, with investigators clueless as to where the money might have gone. As recently as last month, new evidence emerged pointing to Corzine’s direct involvement in using clients’ cash to cover the firm’s debts. And yet, presumably, he was squeezing his rich friends for dough for Obama the whole time. Ace asks a good question: “Why is a man under investigation by a government agency permitted to raise money for the man who controls that agency?” Wouldn’t be the first time Corzine’s used his political leverageto personal advantage.
If you missed it a few days ago, read Ed’s post on Patrick Kennedy claiming that the White House rewards its rich donors with certain quid pro quos. Can’t wait to see what Jon Corzine gets in return for his extreme diligence on behalf of the “Not a Republican” reelection effort. Exit question: Does Team O understand that transparency is supposed to act as a deterrent to impropriety or the appearance of impropriety? They love to pat themselves on the back for voluntarily disclosing the names of their bundlers, but the point of disclosure is that it dissuades you, at least in theory, from dealing with cretins lest you be scrutinized for it. Where’s the dissuasion, guys?
LA MADRE DE TODOS LOS DEFALCOS, CORZINE DONA MILLONES A OBAMA MIENTRAS DEFRAUDA ¡$1,800 MILLONES A SUS CLIENTES!!!
OBAMA/ CORZINE, UNA MANO LAVA LA OTRA...
LA MAFIA DEMOCRATA EN PLENA ACCION
QUID PRO QUO... LA MAFIA DEMOCRATA
Publicado: 04-22-2012 08:51 AM
Former Rep. Kennedy, Who Alleged W.H. 'Quid Pro Quo,' Is an Obama Bundler
In a Sunday story in the New York Times, former congressman Patrick Kennedy alleged "quid pro quo" access to the White House. After telling the Times it's "how this business works,” Kennedy said, "If you want to call it ‘quid pro quo,’ fine."
As the Times reported then, Kennedy has given $35,800 toward Obama's reelection effort. And he has been "seeking administration support for a nonprofit venture," which explains his investment of such a large amount of money.
But that's not all Kennedy's done for Obama and his team.
The Obama 2012 campaign just released a list of their fundraising bundlers in the last quarter. On that list is former congressman Kennedy, the son of the late senator Ted Kennedy.
The Obama campaign says that Kennedy has bundled between $50,000 to $100,000.
It's no doubt another smart investment on his part, if, as Kennedy alleges, it's the price of admission to White House meetings.
Publicado: 04-22-2012 02:10 PM
Top 10 Obama flimflams
This list of half-truths, sleight-of-hands, and outright lies are a good reason why Obama doesn't deserve a title more ennobling than huckster-in-chief.
1. Unprecedented shorthand
After the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on ObamaCare, the President came forth with his thoroughly discredited analysis that it would be “unprecedented” for the high court to overturn a congressional action, perhaps thinking we all forgot about Marbury v. Madison (1803). After the nation's laughter subsided, White House spokesman Jay Carney explained away the fumble, saying “the President was not clearly understood by some people because he is a law professor, he spoke in shorthand.”
2. Invoking Reagan
Obama tried citing President Reagan's tax policies as a cover for his own tax-hiking fervor, referring to Reagan as “that wild-eyed, socialist, tax-hiking class warrior.” Not even close, Mr. President. We all know that Reagan cut the marginal rates for the top income bracket from 70 percent to 28 percent and reduced the capital gains tax from 28 percent to 20 percent, creating an economic boom.
3. Keystone cop-out
President Obama was obviously stung by the backlash to his Keystone Pipeline decision, as even his union backers were aghast that he jettisoned a jobs-creating project. Obama tried to change perceptions by taking credit for the Southern leg of the pipeline, from Oklahoma to the Gulf of Mexico. But the Pipeline to Nowhere was already in the works before Obama said he green-lighted it and, besides, it will not bring any Canadian oil to the U.S. Market.
4. False Rutherford B. Hayes smear
Obama's campaign rhetoric reached back to the 19th Century to make a point about Republicans opposing new technology. Obama said, “One of my predecessors, Rutherford B. Hayes, reportedly said about the telephone, ‘It’s a great invention, but who would ever want to use one?’ That's why he's not on Mount Rushmore because he’s looking backwards.” Actually, Hayes was something of a high-tech geek for his era, introducing the first telephone to the White House and hobnobbing with Thomas A. Edison.
5. Weathering budget cuts
It is a tried and true Democratic tactic to exaggerate proposed Republican budget cuts -- which are usually just slowdowns in future proposed spending. Obama got in on the act, saying that under Paul Ryan's budget, “Our weather forecasts would become less accurate because we wouldn't be able to afford to **noallow** new satellites.” Hmm, less accurate weather forecasts -- sounds like a prescription for more global warming alarmism.
6. Poisoning children
Another liberal strategy is to demonize the opposition, making the GOP sound like evil maniacs. Obama recently implied that the Republican vision includes “poisoning our kids” by allowing higher levels of pollution. No, Mr. President -- the problem that our kids will inherit is the crushing debt caused by your out-of-control spending.
7. Buffett gimmick
Even the President admits that the so-call ed Buffett rule is a gimmick that would do virtually nothing to close the budget deficit. But that hasn't stopped him from repeatedly trotting out the plan to make sure the very rich pay a higher marginal tax rate than their secretaries. Even Obama can't figure out how to do that in real life, as his own tax returns show him paying a 20.5 percent tax rate, lower than his own secretary.
8. Blaming others
Obama has perfected the blame-game maneuver, saying his dismal record in office was the fault of George Bush, the Japanese, or the Arab Spring. Our favorite Obama excuse was his attempt to deflect attention from his poor job-creation record by saying it was the fault of Automatic Teller Machines putting bank clerks out of business.
9. Rhetorical overkill
Obama is cranking up the rhetoric, calling Republicans “members of the flat Earth society,” mocking Mitt Romney for using the word “marvelous,” and calling Paul Ryan's budget a “Trojan Horse” for “social Darwinism.” Of course, running a campaign that focused on the issues would require the President to defend his first term's record.
10. War on women
Obama is attacking Republicans for waging a war against women, which in reality is nothing more than Democratic talking point. Obama tried to show solidarity with female voters by bemoaning higher dry-cleaning bills for women, saying, “We haven't gotten on the dry cleaning thing yet. I mean, I know that is still frustrating. I'm sure.” Yes, Mr. Obama, focus your efforts on the dry-cleaning crisis and quit meddling with healthcare and the economy.