Monday, April 16, 2012

Backfired: The Obama Campaign

What’s new Today 

Story #1 relates how in 2008 Obama prophetically described how an incumbent who has a bad record is forced to run for reelection.  #2 tells how Ted Kennedy’s son describes the pay for access set up at the Obama Whitehouse.  #3 is a story regarding the war on women.  #4 demonstrates the contradiction in global warming.  It can’t do what the latest claim is.

Today’s thoughts

It appears that the Obama Campaign strategy is to try to make Americans more concerned with what Romney does with his money, that what Obama does with ours.

Obamacare questions whether the government can order people to participate in commerce.  If the answer is yes, would it be able to order women out of the home into a job?

The Treyvon Martin case has some flaws in it to be a good progressive lesson.  George Zimmerman isn’t white, but Hispanic and he isn’t a Republican but is a registered Democrat. 

1.  Barack Obama: Prophet

"[I]f you don't have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics to scare the voters. If you don't have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from." That is what Barack Obama said when he accepted his party's presidential nomination in 2008. Four years later, it reads like a prophetic description of his re-election campaign.

President Obama's two biggest legislative accomplishments were the passage of his $831 billion economic stimulus package and his $1.8 trillion health care law. How's that working out? Last month's Washington Post-ABC News poll found that a mere 31 percent of Americans believe his "economic program" made things better, compared with 67 percent who said it had "no real effect" or even made conditions worse.

As the Supreme Court weighs whether Obamacare is even constitutionally permissible, support for the law is down to 39 percent, which is even lower than it was at the time of passage, according to an average of surveys compiled by the Huffington Post's Although Obama promised to cut the deficit in half in his first term, it's now projected to be $1.25 trillion in 2012 -- the fourth straight year it will exceed a trillion dollars. With gas prices rising, unemployment still at a stubbornly high 8.2 percent and economic growth sluggish, Obama cannot win if he runs on his record….

Running on his record is suicide, but running as a hit man isn’t working too well for him either.  People used to like him a lot more than they do today.

2.  Access for a Price

Access to the Obama White House is in direct correlation to the amount of money donated to the president's reelection effort and the Democratic party, the New York Times reports today.

The Times reports: "those who donated the most to Mr. Obama and the Democratic Party since he started running for president were far more likely to visit the White House than others. Among donors who gave $30,000 or less, about 20 percent visited the White House, according to a New York Times analysis that matched names in the visitor logs with donor records. But among those who donated $100,000 or more, the figure rises to about 75 percent. Approximately two-thirds of the president’s top fund-raisers in the 2008 campaign visited the White House at least once, some of them numerous times."

But the most explosive allegation in the news story comes from former Democratic congressman Patrick Kennedy, son of the late Ted Kenney, who calls what the Obama White House is doing "quid pro quo."

Patrick J. Kennedy, the former representative from Rhode Island, who donated $35,800 to an Obama re-election fund last fall while seeking administration support for a nonprofit venture, said contributions were simply a part of “how this business works.”

“If you want to call it ‘quid pro quo,’ fine,” he said. “At the end of the day, I want to make sure I do my part.”…

This shouldn’t come as a surprise unless you actually believed that Obama was different.

3.  War against Women

In all my years growing up in the good old Soviet Union, I never met a non-working woman. Let me put it another way: because all citizens were required to work and the government had officially abolished the differences between sexes in the workplace, one hundred percent of women were doing their part in creating paradise. The result was general misery, as usually is the case in going against human nature….

The risible "War on Women" is not about free contraception. It is about taking away the ability to decide what to do with your life and forcing women into "one-size-fits-all" shackles. I have lived that reality, and it's not pretty.

So I'll take Ann Romney, who "never worked a day in her life," over the overpaid professional loudmouth who led the charge against her. I'll even vote for Mitt if Ann promises to keep him in line.

I think the “forcing women into “one-size-fits-all” is the important insight in this.  Banning contraception does that as does discounting women who chose to stay home with their children. 

4.  Global Warming and its Own Contradictions

The typical doomsday cult believes that an apocalyptic disaster is imminent. When the disaster fails to arrive, the cult faces a psychological disaster from which it may or may not recover by announcing a new and later date for doom to arrive…

…An iron triangle, in political usage, describes a strong lobbying interest with three mutually supporting components. The iron triangle of interests that promotes government support for global warming consists of big science, environmental organizations, and alternative energy industries.

The advocates of global warming are beginning to have the classic doomsday cult problem. The Earth hasn't been warming for 16 years, and that's starting to get very embarrassing. The first adjustment to the dogma was to stop talking about global warming and start talking about climate change. The latest version of the party line is that we are going to have more extreme weather. The reality is that the weather is not any more variable or extreme than in the past. But with suitable fishing in the data, it is easy to make a case that this or that weather phenomenon has become more extreme.

The scientist Richard Lindzen has pointed out that the extreme weather theme is inconsistent with the global warmers' own theories. The global warmers have long claimed that the poles will warm faster than the tropics. One of their key scary claims is that vast amounts of ice at the poles will melt and raise sea level. So, according to warmer theory, the temperature difference between the poles and the equator will lessen. But it is that very temperature difference that drives weather, particularly extreme weather, when cold fronts from the poles collide with warm fronts emerging from the tropics. So the warmers' claims are fundamentally contradictory. How can weather become more extreme when the driver of extreme weather, the pole-to-equator temperature difference, is supposed to weaken?...

Don’t bother telling this to the believers because they don’t really understand science.  They simply accept the consensus.  Evidently they don’t understand what consensus is either. 

No comments:

Post a Comment