Obamateurism of the Day -- from HotAir

[Eupher]

Did any one really hope to have any change left when the democrats got though?

A couple of dimes and a nickel maybe. 

[JohnnyReb]

A couple of dimes and a nickel maybe. 

Now if you could just get that emoticon to turn his pockets inside out.

[Eupher]

Now if you could just get that emoticon to turn his pockets inside out.

I already talked to him about that. As a registered Dem, he claims he's one of the 99% and doesn't get paid enough.

Rat bastard. I give him the shirt off my back and he gives me shit.

[Jasonw560]

 

I already talked to him about that. As a registered Dem, he claims he's one of the 99% and doesn't get paid enough.

Rat bastard. I give him the shirt off my back and he gives me shit.

[Eupher]

One good reason not to hold a policy debate in the wake of tragedy is because of the nonsense it produces from politicians, especially those politicians who gauge their positions by holding a finger to the wind. The White House at first said Barack Obama wouldn’t press for more gun-control laws after the shooting in Aurora, then Obama changed his mind when his base began to gripe.  That prompted this platitude, and a curious claim:

“A lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals,” Mr. Obama said at the annual National Urban League convention in New Orleans. “They belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities.”

AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers?  Not American soldiers, who don’t use the Russian-designed Kalashnikovs.  Besides, the killer in Aurora used an AR-15, not an AK-47, as well as a Remington shotgun and a .40-caliber Glock. The AR-15 is the semi-automatic, civilian version of the M16, which is used by the American military.  The AR-15 is semi-automatic only so that civilians can purchase it legally, which they have done since the late 1950s.

Katie Pavlich pulls the rest of this statement apart, too:

First of all, alleged Colorado theater killer James Holmes wasn’t using an AK-47. Second, the U.S. military does not use AK-47s either, so I’m not exactly sure which soldiers President Obama was referring to. Third, all law abiding gun owners believe AK-47s shouldn’t be in the hands of criminals. Fourth, Obama mentioned Columbine and Virginia Tech, both gun-free campuses where students were left as sitting ducks before they were mowed down. Fifth, the Second Amendment isn’t about the American hunting and shooting heritage, it’s about the people protecting themselves from the government.

Actually, I’d add that it’s about defending yourself rather than building the kind of police state necessary to obviate the need for self-protection.  But Katie’s not finished:

Sixth, Obama spoke of pushing gun control without the help of that pesky thing called Congress. On this point he is correct. Last summer the Department of Justice, the same department responsible for funneling 2500 AK-47s and .50 caliber rifles to the Mexican drug cartels (criminals) through Operation Fast and Furious, pushed through a new long gun reporting measure for Southwest border gun dealers in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas.

It’s a little rich to hear the administration that sent thousands of AK-47s into the hands of Mexican drug cartels scold the rest of us on the need to keep them away from, er, criminals.  If Obama had bothered to get his facts straight before opining on the matter, he could have avoided that reference altogether.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/07/27/obamateurism-of-the-day-792/

Barry, don't bother locking and loading next time you run your mouth without vetting what you're attempting to spew. You'll look silly regardless.

[Eupher]

With Mitt Romney on his way to Israel, Barack Obama needed to make a public gesture showing his commitment to the key American ally. Unfortunately, Obama couldn’t quite figure out the difference between “million” and “billion” when it came to the spending he had just authorized with his signature, and ended up incorrectly correcting himself — in a rare televised signing from the Oval Office:

[lots of video love from Barry at the link]

“I’m also very pleased that this week we are going to be able to announce $70 million in additional spending — $70 billion, excuse me, in additional spending for Iron Dome.”

Actually, it was $70 million; $70 billion would be far larger than our total foreign-aid outlays. The Daily Caller dryly notes, “It is unclear why Obama was unfamiliar with the amount of the foreign aid increase.”  Unfortunately for those of us who have analyzed Obama’s spending proclivities, it’s entirely clear that he can’t tell the difference between millions and billions.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/07/30/obamateurism-of-the-day-793/

*sigh* An asshat of biblical proportions is our Barry.

[obumazombie]

With Mitt Romney on his way to Israel, Barack Obama needed to make a public gesture showing his commitment to the key American ally. Unfortunately, Obama couldn’t quite figure out the difference between “million” and “billion” when it came to the spending he had just authorized with his signature, and ended up incorrectly correcting himself — in a rare televised signing from the Oval Office:

[lots of video love from Barry at the link]

Actually, it was $70 million; $70 billion would be far larger than our total foreign-aid outlays. The Daily Caller dryly notes, “It is unclear why Obama was unfamiliar with the amount of the foreign aid increase.”  Unfortunately for those of us who have analyzed Obama’s spending proclivities, it’s entirely clear that he can’t tell the difference between millions and billions.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/07/30/obamateurism-of-the-day-793/

*sigh* An asshat of biblical proportions is our Barry.

Or even trillions. But that colossal gaffe will be entirely downplayed by the owebumaManiaMedia.

[Eupher]

This week, a new Gallup survey showed that Barack Obama’s campaign issues rank at the bottom of the stack with most voters.  That doesn’t mean that Obama can’t speak to the issues that matter.  Republican voters consider the deficit the most important issue, and Obama has a promise to make on that score.  Unfortunately, Obama’s own Office of Management and Budget has already made hash of it.  The Republican minority on the Senate budget committee pointed it out last week (via Power Line):




“Pay down” must somehow equal “inflate beyond all comprehension.”  Jeff Sessions wants Obama to pull the ads off the air:

President Obama is currently running a campaign ad saying he has a plan to ‘pay down the debt in a balanced way.’ He has made this claim in public remarks as well. But his updated budget—submitted two weeks after the legal deadline—reveals just how dramatically false this claim is. These ads ought to be pulled down.

His updated budget proposes a $10.6 trillion increase in gross debt through 2022, with debt remaining permanently above 100 percent of GDP. The picture in the out-years looks even bleaker. No change is proposed to our dangerously unsustainable debt course.

The President’s claim his tax hikes are for deficit reduction is shown to be false as well. His budget proposes to spend $46.2 trillion over ten years—an increase of nearly one-and-half trillion dollars above the current law baseline and a 57 percent increase above today’s spending levels. The President’s $1.8 trillion tax increase is not used to reduce the deficit but to fund this massive increase above what we are currently planning to spend.

Meanwhile, the President’s party in the Senate has refused to even produce a budget plan at all for three straight years.

Well, just think how bad it would be if Democrats produced an actual budget.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/07/31/obamateurism-of-the-day-794/

[obumazombie]

I got sick of the libs beating up GWB for his far less egregious budgets. In comparison, owebuma should be getting beaten up at a minimum twice as much, if not 3 times as much. Hardly a whisper of owebuma's egregious budgeting is ever heard, especially by the owebumaManiaMedia.

[Eupher]

I missed this last week, but it’s just as good a week later.  Nine days ago, Barack Obama asserted that under his leadership, the world had “a new attitude … confidence” in America, and you could see it everywhere he went:

[video at the link]

Of course, world tours tend to only bring Presidents into contact with diplomats (and Obama has pointedly not visited Israel in four years, either, which can hardly be described as more confident in American leadership these days).  On the other hand, when presidential candidates meet with foreign leaders, they hear something entirely different — which Romney heard on the same day Obama offered up his take:

Australia’s foreign minister privately warned Sunday that foreign leaders see “America in decline,” Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said.

Romney said he met with Foreign Minister Bob Carr in a San Francisco hotel Sunday night shortly before a Republican fundraiser.

He said Carr suggested that America could improve that international perception “with one budget deal” that helps balance the budget.

“And this idea of America in decline, it was interesting [Carr] said that; he led the talk of American being in decline,” Romney said at the fundraiser, according to The Sydney Morning Herald newspaper. ”And if they’re thinking about investing in America, entrepreneurs putting their future in America — if they think America’s in decline they’re not gonna do it.”

Later, Carr tried to clarify his remarks:

Foreign Minister Bob Carr and other Australian officials said Monday that Carr was praising American economic strengths during Sunday’s meeting. The meeting was kept secret until Romney shared Carr’s comments with donors later in the day.

“He said America is just one budget deal away from ending all talk of America being in decline,” Romney said, while addressing roughly 250 donors at San Francisco’s Fairmont hotel. “I said, ‘Can I quote you on that?’ and he said, ‘Yes.’” ..

“The foreign minister’s remarks represent a considered assessment of the U.S. economy and an antidote to talk of U.S. declinism,” said Kim Beazley, Australia’s ambassador to the United States.

He said Carr has identified increasing U.S. energy competitiveness and continued inventiveness coming from Silicon Valley “as a sound base for the next progression in the U.S. economy.”

Perhaps Carr did mean this as “an antidote to talk of US declinism,” but he wouldn’t have had to offer it had the talk been, as Obama suggested, of “confidence” in the US.  And it’s worth pointing out that the only explicit marketplace measure of American strength — our credit rating — has declined under Obama, the first time that has happened in over 90 years.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/08/01/obamateurism-of-the-day-795/

[obumazombie]

Amazing, after almost 4 years of on the job training, owebuma is still making amateur moves.

[Eupher]

Barack Obama seems to have trouble with his economic citations.  Just last week, he noted a favorable review from what Obama described as a “non-partisan” economist … who just happened to be a contributor to his campaign.  Yesterday in Mansfield, Ohio, Obama told a campaign-stop crowd that Romney’s tax-reform plan had garnered an unfavorable review from “an independent, non-partisan organization … This wasn’t my staff.”  Ah, but that depends on the definition of wasn’t:

[Dear Leader on the stump -- again]

And you do not have to take my word for it. Just today, an independent, non-partisan organization ran all the numbers on Governor Romney’s plan. This wasn’t my staff. This wasn’t something we did. Independent group, ran the numbers.

Independent? Not exactly. The study at the Brookings Institute was co-authored by Adam Looney — and guess where Looney worked before his current gig?

Adam Looney is a senior fellow in Economic Studies and policy director of The Hamilton Project. His research focuses on tax policy, labor economics, inequality and social policy. Previously, Looney was the senior economist for public finance and tax policy with the President’s Council of Economic Advisers and has been an economist at the Federal Reserve Board.

In fact, Looney worked for Obama for two years, 2009-10, on the same economic advisory board that brought us “shovel-ready jobs.”

So … “independent”?  “Non-partisan”?

[Vid clip with the lines, "You keep using that word. That's why you fail." at the link]

Just wait until he starts citing Christine Romer as a conservative economist …

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/08/02/obamateurism-of-the-day-796/

[docstew]

Anyone who doesn't already see the truth (that you can tell O is lying cuz his lips are moving) would certainly be tipped off by the repeated denial of any linkage to this "independent" economist.

[obumazombie]

I wonder how owebuma figures out who to invite to the White House to congratulate for winning some athletic endeavor, or contest ? Because whoever wins, they didn't build that win, or make that win, or earn that win. Someone else built it, or made it, or earned it.

[Eupher]

Barack Obama went to Ohio this week in order to convince Rust Belt voters that he really cared about their economic concerns. At one stop, Mansfield, the biggest economic concern in the Obama administration’s plan to close the local Air Force base, which would kill about a thousand jobs in the town. What did Obama say to Mansfield voters to set their minds at ease about the base closing?  According to Politico’s James Hohlmann — absolutely nothing:

BY THE NUMBERS (FROM BOSTON)-5,422: Words In His 2 Ohio Rallies. 2,563: Words In Mansfield Rally. 2,859: Words In Akron Rally. Up To 1,000: Jobs at stake at Mansfield AFB. 43: Minutes On The Stump Throughout Ohio. 22: Minutes On The Stump In Mansfield. 21: Minutes On The Stump In Akron. 0: Words Or Seconds Addressing His Budget’s Closure Of Mansfield AFB.

And guess where Obama landed with Air Force One?  Yes, indeedy:

As Obama delivered a blistering appraisal of Republican rival Mitt Romney’s tax plan at boisterous rallies in Mansfield and Akron, his ninth visit to Ohio this year was nagged by the irony that Air Force One landed at an airport with a base that his proposed budget has put in jeopardy.

After landing AF1 at the base the Obama administration wanted closed and an outcry arose in Ohio, the White House suddenly reversed course — even though Obama never personally addressed the issue while in Mansfield:

With Republicans mocking the visit, the White House clarified that it plans to eliminate the fleet of C27-J medium aircraft flown and maintained by the 179 {+t}{+h} Airlift Wing in Mansfield, but it does not plan to shutter the base and furlough 800 Guard members, as previously reported.

White House spokeswoman Joanna Rosholm said the administration will work with the Defense Department “to find a mission for Mansfield Lahm Air National Guard base so that the men and women who serve there can continue to make their important contribution to our national security.”

Republicans reacted wryly: “It’s ironic that it took a campaign event to convince (Obama) of the invaluable work of Mansfield’s Air Guard, rather than the thousands of letters and calls from those directly affected,” said U.S. Rep. Pat Tiberi, a Genoa Township Republican who will represent part of Richland County — Mansfield is the county seat — if he wins a seventh term, as expected.

First Obama lands at a base that his administration planned to close, then ignored the issue while in town — and reversed course afterward instead of using the trip to highlight the policy change.  It’s hard to see how Obama and his team could have screwed up that opportunity more.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/08/03/obamateurism-of-the-day-797/

[docstew]

First Obama lands at a base that his administration planned to close, then ignored the issue while in town — and reversed course afterward instead of using the trip to highlight the policy change.  It’s hard to see how Obama and his team could have screwed up that opportunity more.http://hotair.com/archives/2012/08/03/obamateurism-of-the-day-797/

He could have used the opportunity to announce the immediate closure and layoff of all concerned, military and civilian alike, but that's about the worst that he could have done.

[Eupher]

He could have used the opportunity to announce the immediate closure and layoff of all concerned, military and civilian alike, but that's about the worst that he could have done.

Agreed, and while Barry and his handlers have shown monumental stupidity, they didn't go quite that far in this case. Backpedaling and pandering are political qualities that Barry thinks he can demonstrate and not be called on -- until November, that is.

[Eupher]

One might think that Barack Obama would have learned his lesson from the “you didn’t build that” blowback.  He handed Mitt Romney a powerful attack by claiming that small businesses owed their success to government, and that entrepreneurs had nothing to do with the infrastructure that government provides — despite the fact that government only has the capital to build that infrastructure because entrepreneurs risk their own capital to create and expand markets, provide jobs, and raise the tax base.  Obama reacted by griping about being taken out of context, and then claiming that he always gives entrepreneurs the credit for their success.

Even after all that, Obama wants to find some anecdotes to push his argument that government should get credit for private-sector success (via Doug Powers at the Boss Emeritus’ place):

 

Barack Obama
✔
@BarackObama
If you or someone you know owns a small business, share how President Obama’s policies are helping it succeed: OFA.BO/rCWham
5 Aug 12 ReplyRetweetFavorite

When growth is 1.5% and joblessness is 8.3% only because millions of people have dropped out of the work force for despair of finding employment, anecdotes are all Obama will be able to offer.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/08/06/obamateurism-of-the-day-798/

[docstew]

How long til someone hijacks that request for anecdotes with twitter accounts named "SolyndraCEO", "Ener1CEO", etc and saying things like "I donated to Obama2008 and got loads of stimulus money. Too bad the company went bankrupt..."

[Eupher]

How long til someone hijacks that request for anecdotes with twitter accounts named "SolyndraCEO", "Ener1CEO", etc and saying things like "I donated to Obama2008 and got loads of stimulus money. Too bad the company went bankrupt..."

 

h5

[obumazombie]

How long til someone hijacks that request for anecdotes with twitter accounts named "SolyndraCEO", "Ener1CEO", etc and saying things like "I donated to Obama2008 and got loads of stimulus money. Too bad the company went bankrupt..."

I did too, where's my kickback ?

[Eupher]

Remember when we elected a President who promised to usher in a new era of meaningful politics, an end the days of partisanship for only the sake of partisanship, and rising above cheap personal attacks?  Good times, good times:

Adding a new attack line on Monday to his stump speech, the president railed against rival Mitt Romney’s tax proposals, saying they amount to “Robin Hood in reverse.”

“It’s Romney Hood,” the president added to loud applause from 500 supporters in a Stamford, Connecticut ballroom.

Obama’s campaign isn’t yet indicating whether the “Romney Hood” line will remain part of the president’s stump speech.

If he does, he’s going to have to explain it to his supporters, who didn’t quite get the reference:

In a sign of the times, a lot of people apparently have missed the Robin Hood reference entirely and have mistaken #RomneyHood for a place … a very bad place. But if you’re going to get the story wrong, you might as well get it really wrong, right?

 

AAmom@AVD911
#RomneyHood Where Hispanics self-deport and African-Americans lose the right to vote.
6 Aug 12 ReplyRetweetFavorite
 
Whitney@memfisman
In #RomneyHood you lie like a rug.
6 Aug 12 ReplyRetweetFavorite
 
utaustinliberal@utaustinliberal
In #RomneyHood middle-class families get a tax hike of $2K to pay for a $250K tax cut for the wealthy.
6 Aug 12 ReplyRetweetFavorite

However, as Twitchy also noted, conservatives reminded everyone that Robin Hood stole from the ruling class to give to the poor — the poor Saxons who had been taxed into poverty:

Just Karl@justkarl
Funny, I remember Robin Hood as the guy who took money from the corrupt gov't and gave it back to those who earned it.
6 Aug 12 ReplyRetweetFavorite

 Melissa Clouthier@MelissaTweets
@justkarl Everyone gets that story wrong.
6 Aug 12 ReplyRetweetFavorite

 Vodka Drinker@*******Lush
Dear @BarackObama, Robin Hood has been perverted by leftists. He stole from the gov't and gave back to taxpayers. #AssHat
6 Aug 12 ReplyRetweetFavorite

So maybe Obama should have someone explain the story to him before he gets around to explaining it to his supporters.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/08/07/obamateurism-of-the-day-799/

[thundley4]

Is Obama the evil King John or the equally evil Sheriff of Nottingham?  I'd have to go with King John.  Ruling by fiat and living the good life while making life harder for the rest of us.

[Eupher]

Is Obama the evil King John or the equally evil Sheriff of Nottingham?  I'd have to go with King John.  Ruling by fiat and living the good life while making life harder for the rest of us.

Yeah, the Sheriff was just a minor scumbag with a healthy dose of corrupt in the whole RH story, whereas King John was not only evil, but corrupt too.

[Eupher]

Here’s a riddle for you.  You hear Democrats talking constantly about the evils of the “Bush tax cuts,” the rates set in 2001-3 for income tax which haven’t been changed since.  Whenever the topic of tax rates comes up, Democrats blame the “Bush tax cuts” for everything from the trillion-dollar annual deficits to the financial collapse of 2008.  With all that in mind, when is a “Bush tax cut” not a “Bush tax cut”?

When Obama wants to take credit for it, that’s when:

Barack Obama
✔
@BarackObama
Use the hashtag #2200dollars to share how the President’s middle-class tax cut would help your family next year.
2 Aug 12 ReplyRetweetFavorite

Jeryl Bier explains:

Note the wording: “the President’s middle-class tax cut”.  This is the same administration that has balked at referring to the current rates as “the Bush tax cuts,” and now has appropriated that label for the President himself.  And it’s not even a new cut, simply a continuation of current tax policy.  The only answers the president should have received via Twitter should read: “I will spend the $2,200 on the same expenses I used it for in 2012 because my taxes are not being cut.”

Note to President Obama from Reality: this isn’t a tax cut at all, and it’s not an Obama tax rate, either.  It’s the current Bush-era tax rate. Republicans wanted to keep the tax rates exactly as they are, too, only they want to do it across the board.  Obama wants to raise taxes on higher-end income earners, those making $250,000 a year or more.  Maybe we should be asking what he’s going to do with the extra $80 billion a year while he runs trillion-dollar deficits, all the while promising to “pay down the debt in a balanced way.”

There’s a lot of unreality in Obama’s statements, isn’t there?

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/08/08/obamateurism-of-the-day-800/