Obamateurism of the Day -- from HotAir

[obumazombie]

The only real world experience Obama has is smoking pot with the car windows up.

He was sustaining before sustainability was in vogue.

[Eupher]

Remember the TV series “My Three Sons”?  Many of us probably only remember it through reruns, but it told the story of a single father raising three boys, starring Fred MacMurray and a lot of sweaters and pipes, if memory serves.  That’s actually part of the point, because Barack Obama cast himself in a new family in two speeches last week, this one called His Two Sons … and it’s not the first time:

[video goodness at the link]

At the Iowa State Fair Grounds on Thursday, Obama said: “We don’t need another political fight about ending a woman’s right to choose, or getting rid of Planned Parenthood or taking away affordable birth control. We don’t need that. I want women to control their own health choices, just like I want my daughters to have the same economic opportunities as my sons. We’re not turning back the clock. We’re not going back there.”

Both the transcript of the Iowa speech distributed by the White House and a video of it posted by the Des Moines Register indicated that Obama mistakenly said “my sons.”

The video of the speech posted by the Des Moines Register also shows that despite his slip about “my sons,” the president was speaking with the help of a teleprompter.

On Wednesday at the Fox Theatre in Redwood City, Calif., Obama made the same mistaken reference to “my sons.”

“We don’t need another political fight about ending a woman’s right to choose, or getting rid of Planned Parenthood, or taking away access to affordable birth control,” Obama said, according to the White House transcript of his speech. “I want women to control their own health care choices, just like I want my daughters to have the same opportunities as my sons. We’re not rolling back the clock.”

In other recent speeches, Obama delivered virtually the same line as he did at the Iowa State Fair Grounds and at the Fox Theatre but said “your sons” instead of “my sons.”

Well, the good news is that Obama doesn’t have to worry about his daughters being treated differently than his sons.  The bad news is that Obama and his speechwriters haven’t learned from their exact same mistake in January. Why not just say “our sons” and “our daughters”?  Does it always have to be about Obama himself, so much so that he and his speechwriters invent phantom sons for his speeches?

That’s all right, though.  I’m pretty sure this show will get canceled before the next season starts, and will be replaced by Happy Days.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/05/29/obamateurism-of-the-day-750/

[obumazombie]

I wouldn't be a bit surprised if owebuma had illegitimate sons.

[Eupher]

All I can say is that I may not forgive my co-blogger for bogarting the best OOTD candidate I’ve seen in a while. Don’t worry, though — we’ll come back to that one later this week for sure.  (For the record, Allahpundit elbowed me and yelled “INTERCEPTED!” when that tip came to our inboxes.)  For now, let’s go to E-nough for a look at Barack Obama’s Memorial Day speech at Arlington National Cemetery.  It included this solemn pledge:

As long as I’m President, we will make sure you and your loved ones receive the benefits you’ve earned and the respect you deserve.

“As long as I’m President” might not be much consolation, given Obama’s poll numbers and the state of the economy.  However, even if Obama won a second term, it wouldn’t make veterans and their families feel all that secure.  Don’t forget that this is the same President who considered this plan in 2009:

Lawmakers say they’d reject a proposal to make veterans pay for treatment of war wounds with private insurance. Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki confirmed Tuesday that the Obama administration is considering a controversial plan to make veterans pay for treatment of service-related injuries with private insurance.

Water under the bridge, you say?  Lesson learned?  Consider this development from just two months ago:

The Obama administration’s proposed defense budget calls for military families and retirees to pay sharply more for their healthcare, while leaving unionized civilian defense workers’ benefits untouched. The proposal is causing a major rift within the Pentagon, according to U.S. officials. Several congressional aides suggested the move is designed to increase the enrollment in Obamacare’s state-run insurance exchanges.

The disparity in treatment between civilian and uniformed personnel is causing a backlash within the military that could undermine recruitment and retention.

The proposed increases in health care payments by service members, which must be approved by Congress, are part of the Pentagon’s $487 billion cut in spending. It seeks to save $1.8 billion from the Tricare medical system in the fiscal 2013 budget, and $12.9 billion by 2017.

Many in Congress are opposing the proposed changes, which would require the passage of new legislation before being put in place.

“As long as I’m President”? My guess is that veterans can’t wait for his term to expire.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/05/30/obamateurism-of-the-day-751/

And Mr. Morrissey would be absolutely correct.

[obumazombie]

By now any casual observer can easily see owebuma rarely if ever lives up to his word.

[Eupher]

So today, I have to go there — and not just because of Barack Obama’s use of the term “Polish death camp,” either:

[yet another video of Barry at the link]

Allahpundit has done a good job of explaining the diplomatic debacle Obama created with these three words, but perhaps the White House should be reading it, because they clearly don’t understand the impact of this insult, nor the easiest path to dealing with it.  Obama got a lot of flak from the Right about the tenor of his appearances abroad in his first year in office, calling it the “apology tour,” but that’s exactly what’s needed in this case — and it doesn’t even require the tour.  It could take the form of a public appearance, with a reporter selected to ask the question that would prompt a prepared response along these lines:

I’m glad you asked me that, [favored reporter].  You know, when I honored the valiant Polish freedom fighter and humanitarian Jan Karski, I made the mistake of associating the location of these camps with the brave Polish people.  Of course I didn’t mean to do that, but I’d like to take this opportunity to apologize for that insensitive remark.  As we all know, those camps were operated by the same people who were at the time brutally occupying and oppressing the Polish people, who had to fight for another forty years to free their nation from foreign domination after the Nazi death camps were liberated. 

That’s all it would take — perhaps 30 seconds of Obama’s time, and just a slight serving of crow over a real and hurtful insult to a nation that has had to fight bravely for its very existence for centuries.  Anyone can make a mistake and thoughtlessly insult a friend, but a real apology offered immediately will suffice with a friend, too.  Instead, for two straight days after Obama insulted Poland, he’s sent his flunkies out to the media to stammer about “regret.”

That’s about as amateurish as it gets.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/05/31/obamateurism-of-the-day-752/

[thundley4]

So today, I have to go there — and not just because of Barack Obama’s use of the term “Polish death camp,” either:

[yet another video of Barry at the link]

Allahpundit has done a good job of explaining the diplomatic debacle Obama created with these three words, but perhaps the White House should be reading it, because they clearly don’t understand the impact of this insult, nor the easiest path to dealing with it.  Obama got a lot of flak from the Right about the tenor of his appearances abroad in his first year in office, calling it the “apology tour,” but that’s exactly what’s needed in this case — and it doesn’t even require the tour.  It could take the form of a public appearance, with a reporter selected to ask the question that would prompt a prepared response along these lines:

That’s all it would take — perhaps 30 seconds of Obama’s time, and just a slight serving of crow over a real and hurtful insult to a nation that has had to fight bravely for its very existence for centuries.  Anyone can make a mistake and thoughtlessly insult a friend, but a real apology offered immediately will suffice with a friend, too.  Instead, for two straight days after Obama insulted Poland, he’s sent his flunkies out to the media to stammer about “regret.”

That’s about as amateurish as it gets.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/05/31/obamateurism-of-the-day-752/

Instead , the White House keeps insisting it was a harmless slip of the tongue.

[obumazombie]

In owebuma's mind owebuma can do no wrong, and everyone else is wrong to think he is capable of fault.

[JohnnyReb]

Whitehouse memo to all staffers....lay off the Po-lock jokes for a week or two.

[Eupher]

Consider this the Wisconsin recall edition OOTD.  At first, I was fairly certain we wouldn’t get an OOTD out of this event at all.  Barack Obama has done his best to stay as far away from Tom Barrett as humanly possible.  In fact, last Friday he managed to fly over Wisconsin to get to Minnesota for a few fundraisers, and then fly over Wisconsin again to get to a few more fundraisers in Chicago later the same day, a fact with which Republicans had some fun this weekend:

The president, who campaigned for Mr. Barrett two years ago, has been conspicuously absent this time. His aides argued that he had a full plate and did not have time to come. But Republicans were quick to point out that Mr. Obama was only a helicopter ride on Marine One away from the state on Friday when he visited Minneapolis, and again on Saturday after spending the morning in his old neighborhood in Chicago.

“He couldn’t drive 15 miles and show his face here?” said Reince Priebus, chairman of the Republican National Committee, who spent the weekend in his native Wisconsin to stir the pot and campaign for Mr. Walker. “There are going to be a lot of Democrats in Wisconsin who are going to be pretty disappointed with their president who did not come in and help out.”

Fear not, Democrats!  Barack Obama has finally reached out in support of Barrett, as Allahpundit noted briefly in an update on this post.  But he picked a strange medium for the support, and hilariously ironic wording, too:

It’s Election Day in Wisconsin tomorrow, and I’m standing by Tom Barrett. He’d make an outstanding governor. -bo

Obama could have cut a TV spot, a web ad, or even a voice-over for a last minute radio spot.  Instead, the deepest level of commitment Obama could muster for Barrett is a Twitter message.  And note that the tweet claims to have Obama doing something he refused to do literally — “standing by Tom Barrett.”  Not only did Obama do his best to avoid standing anywhere near Barrett in this election, Obama apparently couldn’t dare to be in the same state.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/06/05/obamateurism-of-the-day-755/

[obumazombie]

^Supporting from behind, and from way out of sight.

[thundley4]

Maybe Obama knows that his open support has turned into a touch of death for many DemonRats.  After all, how many  lost after getting his support in the 2010 elections?  I think Sarah Palin had a better track record of backing winners than Obama did.

[Eupher]

Hey, the President’s a busy man. Apparently, he’s too busy to remember the correct name of the man who wants his job:

[yet another video of Barry and TOTUS at the link]

Criticizing his opponents’ economic policies at a New York fundraiser, President Obama made an interesting slip of the tongue tonight, identifying the GOP nominee as “George Romney.”

The enthusiastic crowd at the Broadway fundraiser reacted with giggles, and a few cheers, as the president regained his composure.

“Governor Romney … has had great success in his life and he’s raised a beautiful family,” the president ultimately said, correcting himself. “But he has a theory about the economy that basically says, if I’m maximizing returns for my investors, for wealthy individuals like myself, then everybody’s going to be better off.”

Except, of course, that Romney’s investors weren’t all “wealthy individuals like” himself.  In fact, most of Romney’s investors were people who were putting their retirement funds in Bain’s hands in order to grow their wealth for their golden years.  Some of those people were actually Obama’s biggest backers … the unions.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/06/06/obamateurism-of-the-day-756/

[obumazombie]

George Romney hey ? Maybe he was thinking of other famous Georges. Clooney, Costanza, people on his intellectual level.

[thundley4]

George Romney hey ? Maybe he was thinking of other famous Georges. Clooney, Costanza, people on his intellectual level.

You forgot his true intellectual equal.  Curious George.

[obumazombie]

You forgot his true intellectual equal.  Curious George.

Superb !

[Eupher]

I got a few e-mails suggesting that Barack Obama’s failure to address the 68th anniversary of D-Day qualified as an OOTD. Not every anniversary gets a presidential address, however, although a statement on the holiday honoring the heroes of the event is usually de rigueur.  The White House did post such a statement yesterday, along with video of Barack Obama’s speech on the 65th anniversary of the greatest amphibious invasion in history, honoring those heroes of the war that liberated western Europe from the grip of a murderous tyranny.

Last week, though, Obama insulted the hero of the movement that helped free eastern Europe from the grip of a murderous tyranny:

According to the Wall Street Journal, Polish officials requested that Walesa accept the Medal of Freedom on behalf of Jan Karski, a member of the Polish Underground during World War II who was being honored posthumously this week. The request makes sense. Walesa and Karski shared a burning desire to rid Poland of tyrannical subjugation. But President Obama said no.

Administration officials told the Journal that Walesa is too “political.” A man who was arrested by Soviet officials for dissenting against the government for being “political” is being shunned by the United States of America for the same reason 30 years later.

Obama apparently doesn’t like bestowing awards on people who are “too political” … unless he likes the politics, in which case Obama shows solidarity:

Meanwhile, one of the recipients of the Medal was Dolores Huerta, the honorary chair of the Democratic Socialists of America. So socialist politics are acceptable, but not the politics of a man who stood up and fought socialism.

Smart power, eh?

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/06/07/obamateurism-of-the-day-757/

[obumazombie]

Klein, and his new book "Amateur" are accruing vindication daily.

[Eupher]

Yesterday, the Romney campaign took their Democratic counterparts to school.  Team Obama released their May fundraising numbers early, hoping to get a boost in the media with the improved totals over April of $60 million, in partnership with the DNC.  Within the hour, Romney’s campaign completely swamped out their media strategy, changing the narrative from Obama improvement to Romney’s triumph, beating Team O by nearly $17 million in May.

Unfortunately, Barack Obama flunked that lesson.  Instead of letting his campaign address the issue, Obama took to Twitter to argue that Romney’s fundraising was somehow less genuine:

    “What we’re seeing are two very different models of fund-raising.” http://OFA.BO/LQrRyE

Really?  The Romney campaign quickly pointed out — again — that 93% of their donations in May were $250 or less:

     In the first full month of joint fundraising between Romney’s campaign, RNC and various committees associated with the two, 93% of donations were of $250 of less, totaling 297,442 individuals. That leads to a grand total of more than 319,800 donors for team Romney, compared to the more than 572,000 who donated to Obama and the DNC in May. Ninety-eight percent of donations to the president’s side were $250 or less.

So, that looks pretty much like the same model, doesn’t it?  And really, dahling, is Obama in any position to argue about being more connected to The Little People after running this ad a week ago?

[video of Anna Wintour at the link]

Maybe someone should take the Twitter device away from the President.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/06/08/obamateurism-of-the-day-758/

[thundley4]

I found out how Romney is raising so much money.

He keeps going up to Joe Biden and saying : "Joe, can you give two tens for a five".

[Eupher]

Remember when Barack Obama argued last week that the economic problems facing the US stemmed from cuts in the public sector?  Turns out that Obama only likes to blame government cuts when he’s not taking credit for government cuts.  On Friday, Obama had this to say:

The private sector is doing fine. Where we’re seeing weaknesses in our economy have to do with state and local government — oftentimes, cuts initiated by governors or mayors who are not getting the kind of help that they have in the past from the federal government.

Exactly one month earlier, though, Obama took credit for shrinking the size of government:

The only time government employment has gone down during a recession has been under me. So I make that point — I make that point just so you don’t buy into this whole bloated government argument that you hear.

The juxtaposition prompted the Romney campaign to put the two statements side by side in this web video last night:

[lovely video of King Barry at the link]

Just remember — Obama was for the $87 billion before he was against it against the government jobs before he was for them.  Besides, he’s wrong on both counts.  Federal government jobs — the jobs for which Obama is directly responsible — have increased by 29,000 during his term in office.  When Democrats controlled Congress in the first two years of his presidency, federal jobs increased by 83,000, and peaked in March 2011 at 89,000 above the level when Obama took office.  At that point, Republicans forced him to compromise on the remainder of the FY2011 budget — and by the end of the year, the federal workforce had trimmed 43,000 jobs, with another 12,000 reductions this year so far.  One party seems at least a little interested in getting rid of bloat, but it’s not Obama and the Democrats.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/06/12/obamateurism-of-the-day-760/

[obumazombie]

Is someone pointing out that owebuma can claim both ends of an issue if it benefits him, again ?

[Eupher]

What’s the one issue foremost on the minds of voters in this election cycle? The economy, and specifically job creation. Every poll shows that the economy is by far the predominant issue for the electorate, almost always with a majority. Barack Obama likes to accuse Mitt Romney of being out of touch, but at least the Republican challenger has built his  campaign to demonstrate that jobs and the economy are his central focus.  What does Obama think is the most important issue for a second term in office?  Here’s a hint — if you’re thinking “jobs,” you’re not getting warmer at all.  In fact, that’s not even his second pick (via the American Thinker):

Obama has an ambitious second-term agenda, which, at least in broad ways, his campaign is beginning to highlight. The President has said that the most important policy he could address in his second term is climate change, one of the few issues that he thinks could fundamentally improve the world decades from now. He also is concerned with containing nuclear proliferation.

Climate change, followed by nuclear proliferation?  The last time Gallup polled on election issues was in February, and climate change didn’t even make the list.  Nuclear proliferation might be considered a part of “terrorism and national security,” but that came in fifth place.  In first place was the economy, followed by unemployment, the budget deficit, and repealing ObamaCare.  Rasmussen tests this in its daily tracking polls, and the latest week’s data shows economic issues being chosen as most important by 53% of likely voters, followed by fiscal issues (16%), domestic issues (14%), and cultural issues (6%).  Climate change and nuclear proliferation aren’t even on the radar screen in an electorate tired by years of economic malaise.

Besides, as Investors Business Daily points out, it’s not as if Obama hasn’t spent a lot of money on green-tech issues already. In fact, when charted out, Obama’s spending looks like a hockey stick, just like AGW hysterics seem to enjoy:

So forget about the abysmal jobless numbers above 8% for over three years, or the $15 trillion deficit that threatens to turn the U.S. into Greece. No, amid those very real calamities, climate change is more important.

If this isn’t a sign of a president out of touch with reality, what is? If climate change is Obama’s “most important” policy issue, then neither the Tea-Party-led victories around fiscal discipline — such as the Wisconsin vote, nor the West Virginia primary, here 40% of Democrats chose a jailbird to protest Obama’s anti-coal agenda, made a dent on him.

Like a madman doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result, it can only mean Obama intends to double-down on his green agenda if re-elected.

Already no president has ever spent money on “climate change” as he has. The Congressional Budget Office reports that since 1998, $99 billion has been spent among 14 agencies on “climate change.” Of that, $35 billion was earmarked from the 2009 stimulus.

The top agency charged with enacting the Obama green agenda — the Department of Energy — has seen its budget soar from $24 billion in 2009 to $38 billion in 2012, the Office of Management and Budget estimates.

Here’s the chart:

[go to the link to see it, please]

Looks like Obama’s been a little too obsessed with his own hobby horses.  Maybe voters should elect a President who shares their priorities … and can handle them.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/06/13/obamateurism-of-the-day-761/

[obumazombie]

The longer owebuma is in office the more out of touch he gets.

[Eupher]

Barack Obama tried pushing back last week after an awful jobs report — by blaming Republicans for not doing enough to protect public-sector jobs:

“These are teachers and cops and firefighters,” he said. “Congress should pass a bill putting them back to work right now, giving help to the states so that those layoffs are not occurring.”

On the official White House schedule, this briefing was billed as Obama “delivering remarks urging Congress to act on the ‘To Do List.’”

IBD Editorials noted, though, that the “To Do list” has nothing to do with addressing state or local jobs:

The only things on that list are tax incentives for companies to create jobs at home; help for underwater homeowners who want to refinance; some targeted small business tax credits; more money wasted on “green” energy; and a silly new “Veterans Jobs Corps.”

Not that it matters, since Democrats have entirely ignored Obama’s picayune To Do List anyway.

There may be a reason why that issue isn’t on Obama’s “To Do List.” It already appears on his Already-Done List, as IBD points out:

However, on that same White House web page, Obama lists all his amazing job creation accomplishments, with little green check marks to show they’ve been done. Things like “Rescue the auto industry” and “Sign 18 tax cuts to help small businesses.”

And right there on that list are these: “Keep 400,000 teachers in the classroom” and “Keep police officers, firefighters and other first responders on the job.”

So, help us out here. If Obama’s already saved these jobs, why is he saying state and local governments are cutting them and putting the economy at risk?

Because Obama’s stimulus package only kicked the underlying issues of the size and costs of state and local governments down the road temporarily.  He didn’t “save” those jobs at all — he just “rented” them.  And now he wants more money from Congress to temporarily rent them again, and keep the states and localities from making the long term budgeting decisions that are now three years past due.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/06/18/obamateurism-of-the-day-764/