43 thoughts on “Obama’s Army”

1. Dick Morris:

   In 1980 (the last time an incumbent Democrat was beaten), for example, the Gallup Poll of October 27th had Carter ahead by 45-39. Their survey on November 2nd showed Reagan catching up and leading by three points. In the actual voting, the Republican won by nine. The undecided vote broke sharply — and unanimously — for the challenger.

   1. This is 2012. Not 1980. Obama is not Carter. And most definitely, Romney is no Reagan. The depths of the Great Recession are receding- albeit slower than any of us would like. The DJA is back up to 13.5, to the relief of all 401K holders; GM lives and Osama is dead. And as Morris well knows, what tipped the scales for Reagan was his smooth, Hollywood trained, debate performance beside a besieged Carter, which defused lingering concerns over Ronnie’s age and start-a-war, cowboy mentality.

      Romney’s no Reagan. And whether you agreed with him or not, Reagan was at least consistent in his messaging. He actually stood for something and presented a viable alternative at the time. Romney has not- indeed, he changes faster than Florida weather and reinforces doubts about himself through his own actions– as the 47%-ers learned this week. This is not 1980 redux. It’s more akin to 1948 when, contrary to early Chicago papers, Truman defeated Dewey.

      1. Obama is not Carter – he’s worse.

         1. Interesting, if not knee-jerk. So you hate Obama. Tell us why you love Romney. And don’t just say, ‘Because he’s not Obama.” Don’t berate. Persuade.

            1. I don’t love Romney.

               But:
               He doesn’t -hate- profit.
               He doesn’t -hate- businesses.
               He doesn’t think “It’s -all- good!” about government spending. (Said with a puzzled voice, like what kind of moron -doesn’t- believe this.)
               I’ll be shocked if he puts the country into yet -another- war without even asking Congress.
               I don’t expect a complete reversal of the extra-Constitutional position on Czars, but I do expect the numbers to be halved if not quartered – so movement in the correct direction.
               I don’t expect an Alito, Scalia, or Thomas out of him, but replacing Ginsberg and Breyer with another Roberts would still be a movement in the correct direction.
               He won’t be apologizing or apologetic for being an American or upholding our values.
               He’ll manage -something- in the energy field before the EPA manages to shutter enough power plants to put us permanently net-negative on energy.
               Reauthorizing Yucca Mountain, for instance.
               He won’t be an American Idol President – whose only true skill is being quite personable and photogenic.
               He might actually interact at the Presidential Daily Briefings – the one Obama was actually proud of missing with the defense “I can read!” until after the Libyan fiasco.
               He won’t have Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State.
               He won’t have Geithner, Holder, Sebelius or LaHood.
               He particularly won’t have Chu or Jarrett.

               I don’t actually hate Obama, he’s just quite pitiful.

               All I ask is someone that is vaguely competent at the moment.

               And the press is managing to demonize -that-.

            2. Interesting, if not knee-jerk. So you hate Obama. Tell us why you love Romney. And don’t just say, ‘Because he’s not Obama.” Don’t berate. Persuade.

               Can you name another president ever, who has members of his administration committing crimes like those in “Fast and Furious” where roughly two thousand high quality firearms from the US were smuggled to Mexican drug gangs. These weapons were subsequently linked to a large number of crimes including a couple of hundred known murders, both in Mexico and the US? The managers who ran this travesty, and perhaps criminal conspiracy, are currently being protected by the Obama administration.

            3. I don’t have to “love” Romney to vote for him- that’s one of the things that makes me different from Democrats, who it seems must “love”, worship, swear oaths to obey, sing songs about their candidate to be happy (seems creepy and unAmerican to me, but we are talking Dems here).
               I jsut have to acknowledge that, by any objective standards, Obam has been a shameful failure who has left the country worse off in almoist every way, and who should not be given an opportunity to fail even worse for four more years.

         2. And that the nugget, isn’t it– the Supreme Court. The the Rabid Right’s guiding star. The rest is window-dressing. But people tend to cast votes for candidates they generally like- and polls show Mr. Obama is still well liked- Mr. Romney, not so much. And in your case, clearly not loved, either. but we’ll see. how it goes.

            1. Earlier you posted “Don’t berate. Persuade.”

               Now you post the term “the Rabid Right”.

               Case settled, you’re an idiot.

            2. That’s not news to anyone who reads Space Politics. The cowardly pseudonymous troll has apparently decided to start infesting this site.

            3. The the Rabid Right’s guiding star.

               I have never seen someone so mad with hate that they stutter with written words. Relax, no one has accused Obama of ordering a missile strike against the Pentagon. Many accused Bush of this, but nobody hates Obama so much to suggest he’d do such a thing.

      2. Just curious, why do you think Obama isn’t ahead in national polls by 10 points? Gotta be media bias right?

         1. The economy’s lousy, but slowly getting better. We’re at war, but foreign policy isn’t the pressing issue. Under these circumstances you’d expect a close race.

            1. If the war got any coverage, it wouldn’t be good news for Obama. Same could be said for much of our foreign policy issues. It is a strength for Obama because our media wont cover what is happening.

      3. GM went bankrupt despite the claims by Obama to say otherwise. It is rather ironic that Obama ended up leading GM through bankruptcy as both McCain and Rommey recommended, although Obama wasn’t going to let any laws constrain him during the process. How many interviews, the last time was univision, have we seen Obama complain that he has to follow laws, work with congress, or wants a judiciary that will cooperate with him?

         And how many time have we seen Obama lead by dictate? In numerous cases he has been rejected by both parties in congress only to implememt policies by executive decree, including parts of the Dream Act which he said previously he could not legally do on his own.

         It is great that Osama is dead but in Obama’s rush to spike the football, he was leaking classified information to anyone that would write for him. He even gave Hollywood top secret access to make a movie that was supposed to come out in late October. But the leaks didn’t just lead to propaganda films designed to influence the election, they lead to the imprisonment and torture of the Pakastani doctor that helped us catch Osama.

         That man sits in jail today and his family fears for their lives because Obama has a big mouth. It is indicative of Obama’s foreign policy where allies are thrown under the bus if it means Obama can gain short term political points at bome.

2. Curt, Morris’ statement is absolutely correct. But his analysis assumes that the polling data we are being fed is accurate.

   Frankly, I think its nonsense on stilts. And I think a lot of people, not just died in the wool conservatives, think its nonsense, too.

   1. No, he doesn’t make that assumption. He states that they’re wrong, and explains why:

      If you adjust virtually any of the published polls to reflect the 2004 vote, not the 2008 vote, they show the race either tied or Romney ahead, a view much closer to reality.

      1. Morris is assuming that the minority vote will be much lower than 2008, despite growth in the minority population since then. That’s a pretty risky assumption.

         Morris writes:

         Almost all of the published polls show Obama getting less than 50% of the vote and less than 50% job approval.

         That just isn’t true. If to look at the recent polls at Real Clear Politics, you see that four of the last ten have Obama at or above 50%. Six of the last 10 approval ratings are 50% or higher. Morris seems to be ignoring information he doesn’t like.

         1. That “growth in the minority population” you’re addressing aren’t doing very well. Do you have anything concrete you’d like to say to them?

            Morris says “So you need to increase the weight given to interviews with young people, blacks and Latinos and count those with seniors a bit less”. And concludes the polls are a bit… conflicting. But never mind, 50% and all that. And 1980?

            Shut up.

3. “Margin of Error” is not “The correct value lies between these bounds 96% of the time. It’s “If we used the same methods, we’d get the same answer 96% of the time.”

   If meterstick sucks in the first place, it’s 100% kabuki.

4. So the Media is biased. The sun rises in the sky every morning, the Pope is Catholic, and honey is sweet.

   With respect to Reagan in 1980, we don’t have the national humilation of the embassy staff held hostage in Iran, gasoline is expensive but you can pretty much buy it when you want without waiting with your car in a line wrapped around the block. Without the President making a campaign appearance in Los Angeles telling you that the gas lines are your own darned fault because you didn’t heed what he told you about energy conservation.

   The other thing is that Ronald Reagan, was, Ronald Reagan. No matter how much the press narrative that he was a doddering fool who had “his facts wrong”, he was an effective communicator who said things that resonated with working class people.

   I lived through the time of the Reagan campaign and presidency, I voted for Ronald Reagan, and I have a sense that Mr. Romney, sir, you are no Ronald Reagan. Yeah, yeah, I know it is the Obama voting RINOs like Peg Noonan sounding the alarm that Mitt Romney is increasingly like John McCain with perhaps more campaign money in reserve.

   But there is some “vibe” that Mitt doesn’t have it in ‘im. “I believe in America.” Yes Mr. Romney, and so do I, but what is your vision, what do you stand for? People all over the Right Blogosphere are writing speeches for Mitt Romney, telling him what he should say to the American people, but I am not hearing thoses speeches from him.

   Mr. Obama has been a disasterous President — Bob Woodward with Media street cred, heck, The Bob Woodward of All the President’s Men is telling us Mr. Obama cannot negotiate his way out of a wet paper bag. Negotiate with the Chinese? Negotiate with the Iranians? This man cannot successfully negotiate with the Republicans, who many in the Media think are Iranians, but how is he going to negotiate with the real Iranians if the Republicans have him flummoxed?

   But things don’t look that good for Mr. Romney right now and I don’t think it is all Media fluff.

5. That Palace Guard piece is devastating.

   Obama: HHS is “interested in testing approaches that build on existing evidence on successful strategies for improving employment outcomes.”

   [dry-heave]

   Rector: states in the past routinely tried to dodge the welfare to work requirements by defining “activities such as hula dancing, attending Weight Watchers, and bed rest as ‘work.’ ”

   And the disability dodge:

   “The memo outlined … the kinds of waivers that would be considered. It suggested projects that ‘improve collaboration with the workforce and/or post-secondary education systems’ and ‘demonstrate strategies for more effectively serving individuals with disabilities”

   Rector: “There’s no one on TANF that’s disabled. If you’re disabled, you’re on another program called SSI”

   You really don’t even need to read Rectors comments. “improving employment outcomes” and “improve collaboration with the workforce”. Completely puke-inducing.

6. “People who vote for Romney aren’t just voting against Barack Obama — they’ll be voting against the media.”

   =eyeroll= LOL In other words, facing the increasing probability of a devastating defeat and subsequent down ballot damage with the worst GOP candidate in a century, Rabid Righties are prepping the landscape to shift blame to the messenger for delivering their flawed candidate’s soundly rejected message. Priceless.

   1. So the “messenger”, the one that delivers such an accurate and un-biased message of competence and intelligence on the part of the current crew, obviously does the same for their challengers.

      Talk about “rabid”.

   2. Project much? When the Republicans took over the House in 2010 Obama blamed the media and poor messaging for the landslide loss. And saying, “I’ve got to do a better job explaining to the American people…” In other words, “my positions make perfect sense, it’s just that all of you are too stupid to understand them, so I’ve got to try harder at explaining.” Why even just back in the beginning of August Obama was complaining once again about a media that is slanted against him as to why his job approval numbers were slipping. And various agencies within the administration have been sending memo’s to media outlets encouraging them to exhibit a more pro-Obama narrative. No, sorry, it’s the Dem’s by far that are much more likely to blame the media for their shortcomings.

      1. You’ve proven my point. Apparently the Rabid Right is doing a great deal of projecting, and what they see looming ahead spells disaster. There’s no doubt that for a gifted orator, Mr. Obama’s capacity to convey complex positions has proven to be muddled at times and as you noted he blamed himself- and his messaging platforms. He was handed quite a mess. But that’s not the pitch being made by the GOP now. When Romney loses, it will be because he’s a bad candidate with an ill-defined, scattershot message, not because he lacks any friendly messaging platform (aka Fox). He will lose because of who he is and how he projects himself. That video- unfiltered or spun- was the real Romney- the plutocrat dismissing the 47%-ers; the one saying they’re not part of his job. That’s half the country. It dovetails with his own caracature, which he keeps reinforcing. And it has seeped down to the comedy platforms- and when your persona becomes a punchline, it’s tough to be taken seriously. Obama can laugh at himself. Romney cannot. The smart pols down ballot are already bailing; the rest will smarten up after October 3 and head for the lifeboats as well.

         1. Obama can laugh at himself. Romney cannot.

            Another dispatch from Bizarro World.

            1. THe 47%-ers disagree– and with the added indies, will get the last laugh. Won’t they. Priceless.

            2. Rand, who is this DCSCA?

               You are not running an echo chamber here as strong dissent is presented to many of your opinions by “regulars” around here.

               I have never heard of this DCSCA, a seeming new commenter with that verbal tic “Priceless” at the end of every post.

               This is the heat of the campaign season where one tactic is to send loyalists to do drive-by snark on opposition Web sites?

            3. Rand, who is this DCSCA?

               The creature is a long-time troll at Space Politics, but one which has apparently decided to start to infest this site. I haven’t yet decided what to do about it. But while Jeff doesn’t filter trolls, I do have options, and have exercised them in the past.

         2. Meanwhile, Obama is splitting the country by demographics and promising each needed group a government program or two. Whether it is free birth control to women, free money to college students, health insurance to the poor, or expanded medicare services to old people. Romney conflated the 47% of people who will vote for Obama regardless with those dependant upon the government but Rommey is right by saying people who support Obama want more free stuff from the government.

            1. Romney conflated the 47% of people who will vote for Obama regardless with those dependant upon the government but Rommey is right by saying people who support Obama want more free stuff from the government.

               Except he’s not. And the 47%-ers paid into it. In 45 days, you’ll learn soon enough. Obama’s rally in Wisconsin today with voters was stellar; Romney’s fundraiser in California today, not so much- (still fundraising 45 days out rather than meeting with voters.) Amazingly out of touch.

            2. Umm have you seen Obama’s non-stop fundraising? How out of touch to be fundraising the day he learned our ambassador was killed in a terrorist attack.

               And yes he is, you need to listen to Obama more closely if you haven’t noticed him wanting to give stuff to people based on how their demographic group could effect.his campaign.

               Also, recent evwnts have shown that WI is not in the bag for Obama. He might get turn out for a speech consideeing his base camped out in the capitol for months on end but when it came time to hit the polls, Obama and his party’s policies were firmly rejected.

            3. “….if you haven’t noticed him wanting to give stuff to people based on how their demographic group could effect.his campaign.”

               In fact, voters heard exactly who and how Mr. Romney proposes to to “give stuff to…” and it isn’t the 47% of the population he dismissed. That’s the real Romney. And the smart pols will be shoring up the down ballot offices– and wiser ones planning for 2016 alrready. As much as the Rabid Right will deny it, everything for Romney rides on his debate performance when he’s on stage w the President. It’s his best shot- and he’ll be forced to answer questions without going into pretzel mode. His past performances w/Teddy and the dwarfs in the primaries do not bode well. You can’t teach an old dog new tricks- especially with just days to go. He did little but stand and smile in those primary Q&As and the few questions asked were answered with evasive platitudes then a change position within days; sometimes hours. But we’ll see. Voting is an emotion drven act and people tend to vote for candidates they like. the polls show Americans like Mr. Obama. Mr. Romney– not so much. And he’s fast becoming a punchline- a caracature of himself. But we’ll see.

            4. Well, clearly we disagree on what motivates the two candidates.

               The debates should be interesting. It will be one of the first times Obama has faced tough questions. I expect him to set up many strawmen, subtly play the race card, use the OWS language of class warfare, accuse Romney of not liking women and old people, and flat out make things up like his story about Libya or F&F being a Bush program.

               Obama will also turn hawkish in his “support” for the military and on foreign policy but in light of recents events, there is a lot of risk with that tactic.

               Rommey did ok in the primaries and has been steadily plodding along in the polls despite everything Obama and his media have thrown at him. The press conference Romney did on 9/12 showed he has the poise to deal with a hostile environment. I expect a strong steady performance in the debates.

               Obama’s record doesn’t bear up well under scrutiny. It should be interesting to see how he deflects from his performance. The public knows Obama isn’t up to the challenge of being president and Obama seems to be saying, “I might be doing a bad job but this other guy will do even worse.”
               I’m not sure how he convinces the public of that and his negative campaigning could backfire big time.

         3. He was handed quite a mess.

            If Obama is re-elected, his predecessor will have handed him an even bigger mess. I’d almost like to see him elected so he can blame that on the preceding administration (himself, in case that wasn’t clear.)

         4. If I hear “(Mr. Obama) was handed quite a mess” one more time . . .

            Mr. Obama got to be elected because of the mess. He campaigned on a promise to clean up the mess. According to Ron Suskind’s book “Confidence Men” about the financial system, Mr. Obama won the presidency because he had inside knowledge about the magnitude of the mess owing to face time given to Wall Street campaign contributors, a mess that Mr. McCain was clueless about.

            If it were not for the mess, Mr. Obama would not be President as Mr. McCain would have been elected as part of giving the Republicans a third term.

            So if I hear about the burden “the inherited mess” placed on Mr. Obama, dunno, didn’t FDR say “the only thing we have to fear is fear, itself”? I don’t remember from the history books about FDR ever, once, as the Great Depression dragged on complaining about the mess he inherited from Herbert Hoover.

            Is this the legacy the Left wants for President Obama, “Yeah, he was a failed President, but consider the mess he inherited from Bush?”

            1. “Mr. Obama was handed quite a mess.”

               Live with it. The rest of the country and large parts of the planet sure has.

               And as you asked, Rand drives visitors by posting links to this site on occasion to draw attention to his opinions. Economics, if not ego, you know. Funny a right wingnut would think there’s something more sinister behind it. Speaks volumes about that mind set. Especially as your candidate’s campaign is imploding. Frankly, just wanted to see if Rand was posting his Endeavour images as the LAX area was once home, and clicked on to this page. Seldom visit this echo chamber, otherwise. His politics are well known and a great source of laughter, but fringe and of minimal appeal. So don’t hurt your head and try to read anything more into anymore into it. It’s in his interest to draw clicks to his site as you know- certainly does nothing for me. Rand can be an engaging, yet rude curmudgeon in temperment, as regulars who know him know quite well. And he needs to see his taylor more often. Dress for success, Rand. 😉 And as with any broken clock, he can be right twice a day. You can , too. His response would be ‘creature’ and ‘troll.’ Routine.

               Post those Endeavour shots if you’ve got ’em, Rand. Bet it was a good sight. Saw Enterprise do it’s forst pass over Manhattan back in the early 1980’s. It was a good show as well. And, now, as Lee Grant seethed in ‘In The Heat Of The Night,’ “we’ll pack up… and just leave you all… to yourselves.”

            2. It isn’t the best echo chamber. Commenters argue with each other and with Rand all the time.

            3. It is a good thing my Wingnut street cred has been vouched for. A lot of people here had begun to wonder, but now I know I am safely back in the gang.

               I and many others have lived with mess that President Bush and enablers in the 2006 Congress got us into, the deeper mess that President Obama has brought on, and the I am not telling you my answer to this mess but trust me message of the Romney campaign. I and many other people with different political viewpoints are living with this and don’t see anything the least bit funny about it. And if a person is going to tell the “priceless” joke in a post, tell it once instead of repeating it with every post. And also get it right.

               It seems the message that President Obama seeks to be reelected on is nostalgia for the good economic times at the end of President Clinton’s second term. When tax rates were higher, not just “on the rich” but on everybody. Also when the economy didn’t have the overhang of the pending implementation of the Affordable Care Act in 2014. Or the cost of the Senior Prescription drug entitlement prior to 2008.

               So maybe a tear-of-the-Bandaid let-all-the-Bush-tax-cuts-expire tough love for the economy may be Mr. Obama’s plan for the second term, and we just have to tough out the recession. But what about the two additional entitlement programs since President Clinton? I don’t think President Obama’s plan of simply raising rates on wealthy people is going to do much.

            4. I don’t think President Obama’s plan of simply raising rates on wealthy people is going to do much.

               It would do one thing; it would allow a certain (small) segment of the population to sleep better at night. If Obamacare handled Ambien the same way it handles birth control we’d probably all be better off.

7. The media is balkanized with people only watching to reinforce views they already hold. This is why you see no moment in polls when there is news that should affect things. This is not good.

8. 55% asked about trust and confidence in the media responded “not very much” or “none at all”

   The other 45% voted for Obama no doubt.

Comments are closed.