He LOOKS The Same, But...

Watching Obama talk about the last four years during this last debate, I find myself thinking: "it's too bad that guy wasn't president." It's almost like I was in an alternate universe.

This, of course, also made it knee-slappingly hysterical when Obama accused Romney of revising history. Ultimately, I thought both of them scored some points, but Obama occasionally seemed petulant and too focused on attacking Romney. Romney, for his part passed up--I thought--a number of opportunities to score a knockdown.

It was pretty close to a draw, which means Romney wins. The incumbent should always have a foreign-policy advantage. Here, Obama didn't seem to. The challenger needs to seem "presidential" enough to warrant the vote. I think Romney accomplished that.

Also, the way Obama was occasionally staring at Romney? It seemed like he was trying to make Romney's head explode with just the power of his mind. That kinda creeped me out.

"Well, I Didnt WANT To Say That."

I wish that some of the writers out there would learn the difference between the terms "said" and "meant." For example, Greg Sargent, over at The Washington Post, who just posted an op-ed titled "Why Romney Keeps Attacking Things Obama Didn't Say." It's one thing to argue that Obama's "you didn't build that" quote means this or that, in which case you'd have to admit that if it means anything other than what the Romney camp is implying it means, then the Great Orator...well, screwed up. He could have said, for example, "you didn't build that on your own." Three simple words. Problem solved. What you can't do, however, is argue that's not what he said. He did. Period.

This is also not a situation in which the words have somehow changed. For example, Romney's quote "I like being able to fire people," an endorsement of accountability in private enterprise over lack of accountability in government, somehow (gee, I wonder how) became "I like firing people," as though he took glee in the actual deed. (Go ahead, Google "Romney I like firing people" and see how many people changed the wording.)Here, the words are actually changed, thereby distorting the meaning.

In Obama's case, as I said, you'd have an argument if he had said "you didn't build that on your own," and they cut out the last three words. But he didn't, and they didn't. And can we dispense with the bullshit idea that his "that" somehow referred to the "bridges and roads"? That doesn't even make grammatical sense. You'd have to say "those" because of the plural antecedent.

 So go ahead and argue what the words mean if you want, but what team Obama still hasn't addressed is who else deserves the credit for that business. I've pointed out before that he "borrowed" this idea from Elizabeth Warren, who was much more artful (and specific):

There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own — nobody. You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police-forces and fire-forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory — and hire someone to protect against this — because of the work the rest of us did. 

The thing she doesn't define, though, is "the rest of us," just as Obama doesn't say who the "someone else" is. The truth is that if you're going to talk about things built by the government, "the rest of us" must be "taxpayers," which means she's ultimately implying that about half the country is not really responsible for the country. It also--ironically--means that the people she's proposing raising the taxes on because they weren't responsible for building roads, etc., are the very same people whose taxes are responsible for...building roads, etc.

Just take government out of the equation altogether. If instead of having those business owners pay taxes to the government, which then used that money for various programs, the businesspeople used their own money directly for those same programs, would anybody question if they were dependent on someone else? It's like arguing that people who donate to charities should acknowledge that they're not solely responsible for those donations--the charity and the charity recipients also deserve some credit. The former because they collected and dispersed the money, and the latter because...well, because they're also people, I guess. The problem is, you could still have charitable donations without charities or recipients, but without the donors, the other two are sunk. And I think, ultimately, that's what's so disappointing (and revealing) to so many people about what Obama said/meant: he gets it backwards. What he ought to be doing instead of reminding taxpayers that they wouldn't succeed without government, is acknowledging that government wouldn't exist without taxpayers.

UPDATE: It's an interesting illustration of bias, I think when you look at the fact that over at Politicfact, Team Romney's claim that Obama said "You didn't build that" (which he did)? "False!" The claim that Romney likes firing people (which is not what he said)? Ehhhh..."mostly false."

Fourth Time Gutsy!

Hey, remember when President Obama suggested that Mitt Romney wouldn't have made that "gutsy call" to kill Osama Bin Laden? Of course you do--he even put out an ad about it

It starts out by saying "The Commander-in-Chief gets one chance to make the right decision." As it turns out, according to The Daily Caller, that's not always true. In a book by Richard Miniter, it's claimed that

At the urging of Valerie Jarrett, President Barack Obama canceled the operation to kill Osama bin Laden on three separate occasions before finally approving the May 2, 2011 Navy SEAL mission.

Apparently, this Commander-in-Chief gets four chances to make the right decision.

So, This Means I Can Pay Next Year's Tax Bill In Cheers?

ThinkProgress tries to make a comparison between President Obama claiming business owners aren't responsible for those businesses, and Mitt Romney making a speech to the 2002 Winter Olympians.

Obama:

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.

Romney:

You Olympians, however, know you didn’t get here solely on your own power. For most of you, loving parents, sisters or brothers, encouraged your hopes, coaches guided, communities built venues in order to organize competitions. All Olympians stand on the shoulders of those who lifted them. We’ve already cheered the Olympians, let’s also cheer the parents, coaches, and communities.

The comparison between Mitt Romney's speech to Olympians, and President Obama's speech would be a completely valid one...if Romney was asking those Olympians to give up the gold from their medals.

Un-Truth Team?

Here's a little re-cut I made of Obama's latest ad. Everything in here was in the original, which can be found here.

Maher-Ginalizing The Left

Apparently, this is what passes for insightful commentary on the left these days:

Maher pontificates in that smug, condescending manner of his, and hopes, I guess, that people won't call him on his bullshit. (I suppose if you do so on your own show, with a friendly audience and guests, that's probably true.)

Unfortunately for Bill, the reality isn't "simple." The problem is that taxes have already been signed into law; they just haven't taken effect yet. Here are 21 of them. You'll notice that two that have already kicked in--taxes on tanning and smoking--are clearly behaviors only practiced by the super-wealthy. (Actually, if these taxes remain, you'll probably be able to read that sentence without the slightest hint of the sarcasm with which I wrote it.)

We can argue all day long about whether those are worthwhile taxes or not, but the fact is that they exist. Maher trying to distract you with a silly hat doesn't change that.

I suppose he could argue that those taxes don't count because he's talking about what taxes did, not what they're going to do. To that, I would remind him that paying a woman for sex afterwards instead of beforehand doesn't make her any less of a hooker.

And finally, I have to admit that I don't know just when he said this. It may have been before Obamacare (which contains most of the taxes) was passed. If that's the case, I'm sure he corrected his statement once it was passed, right?

P.S.: The cost isn't exactly improving, either, as this image from The Washington Times makes clear.

The (Cheap) Shot Heard Round The World

Despite my thinking I was done talking about this one, looks like it's not going away:

"Obama has hitched his wagon to an alien ideology touted by a tainted candidate who might be too liberal even for Massachusetts.

I don’t think this is going away. It is a theme handed to Romney on a silver platter, a silver platter built, of course, on roads the rest of us paid for.

It is a game changer. And we have Elizabeth Warren to thank for it."

If you take a cheap shot at those who have built, and continue to build, our nation, you've gotta expect to take some heat for it. After all, you work for us, and insubordination is a fire-able offense.

Okay, So I Was Wrong About The "Last Words" Part Of The Last Post...

But this--from Jon Lovitz--was too good to pass up:

My First--And Last--Words On The "Nobody Does It Alone" Speech (Probably)

I'm not sure what to make of Obama's speech, in which he downplays the importance of the business entrepreneur in...well, in creating the business. It's a little like downplaying the chef in creating the meal--sure, the owner provided the space, but without the chef, you've just got a room full of hungry people.

Two things that I think stood out were the fact that he more or less cribbed it from Elizabeth Warren, and that he was off the teleprompter when he did so. The former makes him seem a little (a lot?) unoriginal, and the latter makes him seem a little reckless. At least it wasn't one of his "go-fuck-yourself-San-Diego-Anchorman" gaffes, like the time he introduced people twice because the teleprompter told him to.


The big problem I have, though, is with his logic. Follow along with me, won't you?

1) Obama cites roads and bridges, created by government, as being partly responsible for the success of businesses. The logic here is that those two structures facilitated the acts of your going to work, transporting supplies and merchandise, etc., and resulted in the success of your company.

2) Each year around 40,000 people die in auto accidents on America's roadways. A few more commit suicide by jumping from a bridge. (About 20 a year just from The Golden Gate Bridge alone.)

3) Those roads and bridges certainly facilitated those deaths, at least as much as they facilitated those businesses Obama was talking about.

4) By Obama's logic, since government was responsible for those roads and bridges, and those roads and bridges were partly responsible for those deaths, then the government is partly responsible for those deaths!

And there are a number of other horrible things we could attribute to the government, using Obama's standard. The serial killer who picks up his victims by the side of the government-built road, and then transports them elsewhere? Government helped do that. What about mass shootings, such as Columbine? Those government-built public schools brought all those targets together in one place, under little security. According to Obama, Klebold and Harris didn't do that themselves.

Now, obviously, I don't believe the government was responsible for those events. I only bring them up to illustrate my point. My conclusion is ridiculous, but I hope you'll see by comparison that the president's is equally so. And you can't simply separate the two by claiming that the bad events don't count. If they count for the good, they must count for the bad.

One other thing I have to point out: the government doesn't actually have any of its own money. You know where it gets it from? Taxes. You know who pays taxes? Wealthy entrepreneurs. Well, not all of them, but the top 20% (average income of $273,000), pay about 67% of total federal income taxes. So while Obama implies that "government" built those roads and bridges? It's really the financially successful entrepreneurs who built them.

So be sure to thank those people come November. You know how.

Location, Location, Location

So...what you're saying is that Bain is kinda like Bill Ayers' house and Reverend Wright's church?

Wait, Have You Ever Actually SEEN "Star Trek"?

My sister just sent me a link to Gail Collins' newest op-ed column in the New York Times. I have to hand it to her--in a short amount of space, Collins manages to get most of the Democratic talking points in, and even manages to make a (somewhat tortured and unfunny) "Star Trek" joke. The main thrust of the column is that it is very confusing that somehow Romney was in charge of Bain Capital, but at the same time, not responsible for its results. I find this somewhat funny, because I would have thought Democrats would have no trouble understanding this, since President Obama has been in charge of the country for nearly four years, and yet he seems to take no responsibility for the results of that period.

The other main thing I noticed was that Collins pointed out that maybe Romney should release 10 years of tax returns, and that that would satisfy the Democrats. She's probably right, because look how satisfied they were when Obama released his school records, his health records, and the documents that could shed light on who was responsible for the deadly Fast & Furious gunwalking scandal...oh, wait.

Sloppy Secondscare?

I'm not a fan of Romney's, as those who know me personally will attest. I do think he's the lesser of two evils, though, so I'm about to defend him. I've noticed one of the new Democratic talking points after the Obamacare decision is that Romney is a poor person to carry the message against Obamacare since he created Romneycare in Massachusetts. I feel just the opposite--I think he's one of the best people to do so. Who better to point out the flaws in Obamacare than the person who has experienced them firsthand? For example, if you're a football player heading into the Super Bowl, who would you expect to get he best advice from--a player who's never been, or one who has, even if that trip wasn't a successful one?

If I were writing up the GOP talking points, that's how I would try to shape that message, anyway. Point out the differences in the two, and point out that your candidate is not only qualified, but uniquely qualified to elaborate on Obamacare's pitfalls.

Yes We Can (And Still Have 130 Characters Left)!

From the L.A. Times:

President Obama said last week that the Republican message could fit on a bumper sticker. On Tuesday, he brought that classic political dig into the 21^st century.

“You can pretty much put their campaign on a tweet and have some characters to spare,” Obama told a group of donors at a fundraiser in Maryland.

Ha ha! What an excellent burn! Everyone knows you can't get elected by using messages of as little as 21 characters or even 10 characters!

Blessed Are The Starchmakers!

I've always thought Tom Hanks was a fairly decent guy, and played his political cards close to the vest. However, I recently saw some clips from the new Obama campaign video, and I was literally speechless as I heard Hanks narrate:

"Not since the days of Franklin Roosevelt had so much fallen on the shoulders of one president."

WHAT?!

Yes, that's right--no president in the last 65 years has had to deal with any significant hardships. Unless, of course, you count Truman having to decide whether or not to destroy two Japanese cities to end World War II. Oh, and the Korean War. I guess we can also dismiss JFK and the Cuban Missile Crisis. That's the one that brought us within a couple of miles of World War III, in case you were confusing it with some other Cuban Missile Crisis. And pshaw to LBJ and Nixon, who only had to deal with Vietnam abroad and the Civil Rights Movement at home. Carter had a fairly shitty economy and an arguably worse oil situation. (Anyone remember those gas lines?) Reagan? Two words: Cold War. George H.W. had the invasion of Kuwait, and George W. certainly didn't have anything falling on his shoulders, and certainly didn't have it happen on September 11, 2001. But other than that, I guess Hanks is probably right. Once you disregard nearly every president since FDR, he's spot on. (And I want it noted for the record that I resisted the obvious Clinton-Lewinsky joke regarding so much falling on his shoulders.)

A little farther on in the video, I caught this little gem:

"And when he faced his country, who looked to him for answers, he would not dwell in blame, or dreamy idealism."

Again, I say...wait for it....

WHAT?!

That's pretty much all he fucking did! I mean, his campaign slogan was "HOPE and CHANGE," for God's sake! You know, "change" from that shitty situation he kept blaming his predecessor for, and "hope" as in that dreamy idealism he's supposedly not dwelling in. I suppose they had to use an actor to narrate as actors might be the only ones who can say lines like these without actually laughing out loud.

Still, someone needs to tell Tom Hanks that just because he says something in his earnest-y actor's voice, doesn't make it mean shit. I mean, he's not Morgan Freeman. That man could start a new religion by reading his laundry instructions. "It's important to make sure to put plenty of starch on the shirts...."* Next thing you know, people are running around carving "Blessed are the Starchmakers" onto stone tablets, and smiting those wearing wrinkly shirts.

* It's important to read this in Morgan Freeman's voice.

Epic Fail

If the President continues to trot out the "blame Bush" excuse (as he did the other night during the prime-time speech), then I think he has to also, logically, concede that his presidency has been an incredible failure anyway. Follow my logic here:

1) He ran, and won, knowing the state of the economy. It sounds obvious, I know, but it is the key to the rest of this. If the Bush administration was so horrible, it must have been fairly obvious to a member of the senate, running for POTUS, just how bad it was.

2) Knowing the state of the economy at the outset, he certainly wanted to improve it. I think we can all agree on that. I don't think he's an evil guy. And besides, he's far too full of himself to do anything but try to create a legacy for himself by, among other things, fixing that economy.

3) Despite spending exorbitant amounts of money, spending the likes of which we've never seen, despite promising better employment rates, despite promising he was going to "drive us out of the ditch," despite promising to bend the medical cost curve down, despite promising to be a "uniter" and to better relations between the U.S. and the rest of the world, despite all of that, he's accomplished...well, none of it, really. By any significant measure, we are worse off than when he took office. He's even had to resort to some mythical "jobs saved" measurement to not look completely incompetent. That's like saying I saved millions in child support because of all those women I didn't sleep with. With the execption of Bin Laden, which was a result of policies that he would have voted against as a senator, name me one success he's had. Anybody? He even won the Nobel Peace Prize (which I feel was completely undeserved), and then preceded to add one more war to the books (although given past winners, that shouldn't surprise anybody).

4) Objectively, he has failed in nearly every aspect of his presidency--foreign policy gaffes, ineffective, costly economic plans, you name it. Since he knew what he was getting into, ran for the job, welcomed the job, performed the job, it doesn't really matter whether he "inherited" problems or not. He hasn't fixed them, and has therefore failed. I'll use the analogy that he seems to be fond of lately--that of the American family. If a family is struggling and I come into their lives as a financial planner, with the objective of getting them back on track, and three years later their finances are worse than when I started? I've failed. And by the way, it certainly would do me no good to blame the household, except to make me look slightly pathetic. I came in to do a job, and didn't do it.

So there you have it. If he truly believes he "inherited" our current mess, then he is also a failed president. QED. Now would President McCain have failed as well? I don't really know. That answer is of the "jobs saved" variety. But I suspect two things--he wouldn't have failed quite as spectacularly, and he wouldn't have taken every opportunity possible to blame someone else.

Hu's On First?

I can't help it--every time I read about the visit by Chinese President Hu Jintao, I keep imagining some sort of hilarious misunderstanding at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Biden: Hey, Boss. I heard we’re getting a visit from the Chinese president.

Obama: That’s right, Joe.

Biden: Who is the Chinese President?

Obama: That’s right.

Biden: What’s right?

Obama: Hu.

Biden: That’s what I wanna know. Who’s the president of China?

Obama: He is.

Biden: Who is?

Obama: Hu.

Biden: Okay, look—the Chinese president gives national addresses, right?

Obama: That’s right.

Biden: So when it’s time for a national address, who gives the speech?

Obama: Every word of it.

Biden: Who does?

Obama: That’s right.

Biden: What’s right?

Obama: Hu.

Biden: THAT’S WHAT I’M ASKING YOU!!!

Where's Michael Moore When You Need Him?

Remember when President Bush got roundly criticized for golfing instead of running the country?

The Telegraph does.

Mr Obama's Sunday golf game prompted anger in Poland, where the Warsaw Business Post carried a headline reading: "Obama goes golfing instead of attending Kaczynskis' funeral".

Channeling Mandy Patinkin

"They keep on using that word. I do no think it means what they think it means."

Transparency: noun; the condition of being transparent.
Transparent: adj; open to public scrutiny.

Go Figure

Should I be surprised that a President without any previous executive experience would pick a nominee without any judicial experience for the Supreme Court?

Mmmmm.....Pie

Well, I'm glad to see that the AP is going after those hard-hitting Obama stories:


White House adviser spills secret: Obama loves pie!

Also, I'm sure, back rubs, kittens, and long walks in the rain.