Obamateurism of the Day -- from HotAir

[obumazombie]

I love this thread. I love seeing how incompetent, and inept owebuma is on a daily basis.

[Eupher]

How long has it been since Barack Obama answered a serious question from the White House press corps?  Keith Koffler counts the days … and counts … and counts:

The last substantive question Obama took from a White House reporter was during a June 20 press conference following the G20 Summit in Los Cabos, Mexico. Obama allowed only six questions during the event, which was nearly guaranteed to keep him out of political hot water as the focus was on foreign policy.

Since then, Obama has held no press conferences, given no interviews to White House reporters, and taken no questions at the White House events he has held where reporters have been present.

Matt Lewis has figured out how to get Obama to take a question — pay for an answer:

While he might be dodging the press, Obama has been much more willing to take questions from donors at campaign fundraising events. In fact, I count at least half a dozen examples in the last month (here, here, here, here, here, and here) where he has uttered some version of “I want to spend most of my time in a conversation answering your questions.”

That may be a little unfair.  After all, the President does spend every waking minute worrying about our economy and job creation, doesn’t he?

It’s worth noting that while President Obama had too much “on his plate” to meet with his jobs council — or take questions from the press corps — he did have time for another round of 18 holes this weekend.

Never mind.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/08/09/obamateurism-of-the-day-801/

[obumazombie]

His outsourcing jobs council ?

[Eupher]

For today’s OOTD, I’m turning the reins over to one of our terrific Green Room contributors.  Steve Eggleston of No Runny Eggs relates Barack Obama’s campaign message that we should intervene in every industry like we did with automakers:

If Ed weren’t recovering from back surgery, I’m positive this would have been today’s Obamateurism of the Day. I have to credit Ace for digging up this little gem from a speech President Obama in Pueblo, Colorado yesterday:

We’ve got a bunch of examples of the differences, the choice in this election. When the American auto industry was on the brink of collapse, more than 1 million jobs at stake, Governor Romney said, let’s “let Detroit go bankrupt.”

I said I believe in American workers, I believe in this American industry, and now the American auto industry has come roaring back and GM is number one again. So now I want to do the same thing with manufacturing jobs not just in the auto industry, but in every industry. I don’t want those jobs taking root in places like China. I want them taking root in places like Pueblo.

Let’s review what, exactly, Obama (and to be fair, President Bush as a lame duck and enabler) did to the auto industry:

Expended $43.2 billion (not including a $6.7 billion “flash money” “loan” from otherwise unused DIP financing used to create a credit-worthy Government Motors out of whole cloth) to seize control of the largest auto maker, General Motors. Of that $43.2 billion, only $16.8 billion has made its way back to the Treasury, with another $10.3 billion in stock the government still holds in GM (as of the close of the markets yesterday). That puts the projected loss on the GM deal at $16.1 billion, while the UAW VEBA (retiree health-care fund) has already recovered more than what it was owed pre-bankruptcy and stands to get close to $30 billion on the $20.6 billion it was owed before all is said and done.
Expended $12.8 billion to seize the third-largest auto maker, Chrysler, hand initial majority control to the UAW, and facilitate the transfer of ultimate control to a foreign entity, Fiat. Of that $12.8 billion, $8.2 billion was ultimately recovered from former owner Cerebus and Fiat, putting the final loss at $4.6 billion.
What, exactly, did we get for that $30 billion, besides a government-run company whose recent success is due more to its controlling owner upping its fleet purchases than anything else and an Italian-union collaboration? Did you think it would be an increase in jobs? You would be mistaken if you thought that.

The Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, widely considered the most-accurate measure of jobs as it is a census that includes every job provided by a private employer subject to the unemployment tax, has as one of its industry subgroups “automobile and light truck manufacturing” (NAICS 33661 in bureaucrat-speak). In December 2007, when the “Great Recession” started (at least according to the economists charged by the government with defining recessions), there were 187,219 people employed in the industry. In December 2008, when Bush decided to bail out GM and Chrysler, employment dropped to 155,504. In December 2009, after Obama turned them into Government Motors and UAW Motors, employment dropped to 131,525. There was little change in December 2010, but employment did bottom out at 131,020. There was a bit of a recovery by December 2011 (the last month QCEW data is currently available) as employment rose to 142,532.

To recap – we spent $20-30 billion (depending on whether one thinks we’ll get even $20.65 per share once/if Treasury decides to let GM go), sold the smallest of the Big Three to the Italians, and, 3 years after the bailout started and 2 1/2 years after the economy “recovered”, had 13,000 fewer people employed in the automotive industry. I’ll let Jim Hanson have the last word on the Crony Capitalist Socialist in Chief:

[video at the link]

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/08/13/obamateurism-of-the-day-802/

[obumazombie]

The way owebuma touts his "success" at GM, you would think there might be some actual evidence that his policies worked there. Delphi, a one time subsidiary of GM has announced they will no longer be honoring retirement agreements with 20,000 of it's retirees.

[Eupher]

There’s nothing like the hometown to get a politician feeling on top of the world.  When Paul Ryan headed home as Mitt Romney’s running mate this weekend, a “massive” crowd greeted him like a homecoming hero, despite having only hours to coordinate it:

The largest crowd of the campaign so far for a Mitt Romney event welcomed home favorite son Rep. Paul Ryan at a massive rally here in the congressman’s district Sunday night, pushing the GOP’s vice presidential nominee to tears as he took the stage, setting off cheers with two simple words:

“Hi mom.” …

“I’m a Wisconsinite through and through,” Ryan said to cheers from a crowd which contained many members of Ryan’s extended family, and which the campaign estimated to be more than ten thousand strong, likely the largest turnout ever for a Romney event.

Some estimates had the crowd size as high as 13,000.  But you know who else had a homecoming?  The man at the top of the other ticket, Barack Obama.  He came to Chicago for a long-planned fundraiser only hours after Ryan generated the huge crowd in Wisconsin.  Tickets started at $51 a pop, celebrating the President’s birthday a week earlier.  The hometown crowds must really have been huge, considering the size of the city in comparison to Ryan’s less-populous district, right?  Er …

jodikantor@jodikantor
Just to clarify, tix *started* at $51. Obama campaign sez event was sold out, but room is about half full. Hmmm.
12 Aug 12 ReplyRetweetFavorite
There may have been a reason for that:

 jodikantor@jodikantor
The invitation to the president's birthday fundraiser today in Chicago. twitpic.com/aiib1k
12 Aug 12 ReplyRetweetFavorite
https://twitter.com/kevinmeyers/status/234629654647029760

 Kevin Meyers@kevinmeyers 12 Aug 12
@jodikantor Did they really screwup CST/CDT?
 jodikantor@jodikantor
@kevinmeyers You're the second person to say that.
12 Aug 12 ReplyRetweetFavorite

Politico tried to scoff at Kantor’s first-person report:

But the crowd for the afternoon fundraiser at the Bridgeport Art Center totaled 1,000, an Obama campaign official said – more than the 850-person estimate the campaign offered earlier in the weekend. Tickets for the Gen44 fundraiser, targeted at younger supporters, started at $51, but many were more expensive.

And, to this reporter and several others in the White House press pool, the room seemed plenty full. There was empty space at the back of the large loft space during and immediately after the president’s remarks, but the crowd was densely packed to get close to the stage at the front of the room where Obama spoke.

Kantor wasn’t buying it:

 

DRUDGE REPORT@DRUDGE_REPORT 12 Aug 12
REPORT: Obama fundraiser in Chicago. 'Admission only $51, but room is half full'... drudge.tw/R5LqFF
 jodikantor@jodikantor
@DRUDGE_REPORT Admission *began* at $51, to clarify. Obama campaign said event was sold out, though the room looked abt 1/2 full to me.
12 Aug 12 ReplyRetweetFavorite

Too bad Obama comes from such a small hometown, or he might have done better than one-thirteenth of the crowd Ryan attracted.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/08/14/obamateurism-of-the-day-803/

[Eupher]

Via Jim Hoft:

[video at the link]

As Jim points out, Paul Ryan and House Republicans passed the farm bill two weeks ago.  The Democrat-controlled Senate hasn’t acted on their own version so the two bills can go into conference committee.  Maybe Obama should call Harry Reid and find out what the problem is … and while he’s at it, ask him why his party hasn’t produced the budget resolution required by law every year, for the last 1200 days.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/08/15/obamateurism-of-the-day-804/

[Eupher]

Barack Obama has campaigned on equal-pay issues going all the way back to 2007, so it’s no big surprise to hear him still campaigning on it in 2012.  He regularly cites the Lily Ledbetter Act as one of his big achievements as President, fighting for equal pay for women, although the merits of a bill that allows for more retroactive lawsuits is certainly debatable.  However, it seems that Obama has a new crusade — equal pay for … First Ladies:

[video of Barry the Buffoon at the link]

And let me say this.  When I talk about women’s issues, I’m talking about the experiences that I’ve seen in my own life.  Everybody knows Michelle.  (Applause.)  The fact that we are partners in this process, this journey of life, has been my source of strength.  And I want to make sure that she has control over her health care choices.  I want to make sure that when she’s working, she is getting paid the same as men.  I’ve got to say, First Ladies right now don’t — (laughter) — even though that’s a tough job.

Well, actually, it isn’t a job.  There is no “job” called Presidential Spouse, just as there is no “job” called Presidential Child.  Is life difficult for presidential spouses and children?  In many ways, yes.  And in many ways, no.  Few people get to live in an elaborate mansion with household and kitchen staff on duty all hours of the day and night, for instance, paid by taxpayers for their comfort.  Few other spouses get the kind of political/cultural platforms that First Ladies do, either. As this First Family has discovered, the vacation venues and covered travel expenses are usually a bit better than the hoi polloi experience, too.

But First Ladies don’t get paid because Presidential Spouse isn’t a government position; it’s a circumstance of being married to the President … who, by the way, gets $400,000 a year in salary, a hefty pension even after just a single term that includes the kind of Cadillac-plan health care that Obama himself decried in the private sector, and lifetime a decade of free personal security.  If that’s not enough, then perhaps the Obamas should take this opportunity to retire so that Mrs. Obama can go back to work in the private sector.

By the way, there’s nothing that legally prevents a First Lady from having a job of her own, or a First Dude if those circumstances arise.  It would be impractical for a number of reasons, not the least of which are issues of conflicts of interest and security.  But it has been done, albeit for a very brief time: Hillary Clinton formally entered the Senate more than two weeks before her husband stopped being the President in January 2001.

Update: I had forgotten that the President could lead on this issue very easily — by paying women equally in his own White House.  So far, Obama is all talk.

Update II: Secret Service protection for former Presidents and their families was curtailed to 10 years; I’ve corrected that above.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/08/16/obamateurism-of-the-day-805/

[Eupher]

Seriously — how hard is it for a Democratic President to antagonize the media into open war?  Almost as difficult to fumble Medicare to the point where it becomes an effective Republican attack in a presidential election … but that’s an OOTD for another day.  This week, Barack Obama gave interviews to two hard-hitting news sources: People Magazine and Entertainment Tonight.  That got Joe Scarborough laughing at his lack of courage in facing the White House press corps, but got ABC’s White House correspondent Jake Tapper mad enough to take public the rising anger among the reporters assigned day-in and day-out to cover the President.

As Jim Geraghty noted before the storm broke yesterday, even the entertainment industry is tired of seeing him:

Back in May, after President Obama answered questions about the Kardashians and Fifty Shades of Gray in an appearance on “The View,” Entertainment Weekly’s television critic Ken Tucker argued that it was time for the commander-in-chief to start skipping the fluff interviews: “If you’re going to spend time on TV, Mr. President — and Mr. Romney — do us all a favor and skip Whoopi and The Daily Show and Jay and Dave and the Jimmys and all the celebrity news anchors on the networks. Just speak to us directly, or engage in debates that are real debates which will allow for considered thought and direct questioning of your opponent’s positions.”

What about Mr. Romney?  Hey, he’s ducking the press and angering them equally, right?  Er ….

 

Garrett Haake@GarrettNBCNews
We hammered him when he wasn't available, so lets give credit where it's due: Romney has held three tough press avails this week.
16 Aug 12 ReplyRetweetFavorite

And what about positions?  Jake Tapper wanted to know that yesterday, too:

[video at the link]

It was a joke.  Just like Obama’s refusal to engage serious journalists while escaping to the celebrity shmooze circuit.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/08/17/obamateurism-of-the-day-806/

[obumazombie]

The extent of owebuma's "transparency" is going on talk shows and answering probitive questions like "what is your favorite New Mexico food?", and, "what superhero superhero would you most want to have?" to which owebuma might answer "the ability to speak all languages". Presumably at or near the top of the list would be Austrian.

[Eupher]

Via Real Clear Politics, a true Alfred E. Newman moment … what, me divide?

[video of Barry at the link]

“I don’t think you or anybody who’s been watching the campaign would say that in any way we have tried to divide the country. We’ve always tried to bring the country together,” President Obama said in an interview with Entertainment Tonight.

John Podhoretz scoffs that this comes down to the age-old argument from the person caught redhanded: Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?

President Obama’s answer on Wednesday to a question about his running mate claiming Republicans are going to put “y’all back in chains” was a classic bit of soothing presidential palaver.

I don’t think you or anybody who’s been watching the campaign would say that in any way we have tried to divide the country,” he said about a moment in which Joe Biden had done precisely that.

The president’s answer has the quality of the adulterer caught in bed with another woman who says to his wife, “Who you gonna believe? Me or your lying eyes?”

Obama has been using an almost-explicit class-warfare campaign since his speech to Congress in September of last year.  From blaming those who use corporate jets to the wealthy for the massive deficits his administration has rung up — over a trillion dollars in each of his years — Obama has been trying to stoke rage against the wealthy for the woes of the nation.  That strategy was put into place specifically to run against Romney, which is why Team Obama keeps obsessing over Romney’s tax returns rather than talking about what their second-term agenda is.

The only place Obama could possibly peddle this comic relief is Entertainment Tonight … which is not coincidentally the only national media outlet he’s engaging.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/08/20/obamateurism-of-the-day-807/

[obumazombie]

The most divisive ever. After claiming he would be a uniter.

[JohnnyReb]

The most divisive ever. After claiming he would be a uniter.

He's united all the wierdoes, crazies, loafers, homos and other riff-raff under the giant democrat tent or at OWS events. Where's a suicide bomber when you need 'em?

[Eupher]

I love Barack Obama press conferences, scheduled or impromptu.  Either way, they provide fertile ground for OOTD entries, and yesterday was no exception. When challenged on the negative manner in which his re-election campaign has operated — especially with the personal attacks on Mitt Romney — Obama seemed nonplussed, emphasis mine:

[video of Dear Leader at the link]

Nancy Cordes, CBS: As you know, your opponent recently accused you of waging a campaign filled with anger and hate. You told Entertainment Tonight that anyone who attends your rallies can see that they are not angry or hate-filled affairs. But in recent weeks, your campaign has suggested repeatedly – without proof – that Mr. Romney might be hiding something in his tax returns. They have suggested that Mr. Romney might be a felon for the way that he handed over power of Bain Capital. And your campaign and the White House have declined to condemn an ad by one of your top supporters that links Mr. Romney to a woman’s death from cancer. Are you comfortable with the tone being set with your campaign? Have you asked them to change their tone when it comes to defining Mr. Romney?

President Obama: Well, first of all, I am not sure that all of those characterizations that you laid out there were accurate. For example, nobody accused Mr. Romney of being a felon. And, I think that what is absolutely true is if you watch me on the campaign trail, here’s what I’m talking about. I’m talking about how to put Americans back to work.

Really?  Then I guess that Stephanie Cutter, one of Team Obama’s official spokespeople, has officially been declared a “nobody”:

Obama deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter suggested that Mitt Romney may be a criminal on a conference call with reporters this morning about a Boston Globe report that shows that Romney stayed at Bain Capital three years past when he said he’d left.

Cutter said that there were two ways to interpret the story. The first: Mitt Romney was “misrepresenting his position” at Bain to the Securities and Exchange Commission, “which is a felony.”

Don’t take our word for it.  Here’s Cutter on CNN accusing Romney of committing a felony:

[video goodness at the link]

Aaaaaaaaand here’s Ed Rendell rebuking Team Obama for going the full felony:

[more video goodness at the link]

Maybe Obama doesn’t know what his own campaign is doing … but that’s taking deniability into the realm of the implausible.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/08/21/obamateurism-of-the-day-808/

[obumazombie]

Official lib policy...

Deny, Deny, Deny
Counteraccuse, Deny

Make liberal use of denial, sprinkle in counteraccusations.

[Eupher]

Once again, we return to Barack Obama’s press conference on Monday for today’s example of the “Me or Your Lyin’ Eyes” credibility strategy.  In this case, President Obama gets asked whether he’s prepared to condemn the super-PAC run by his former aide, Bill Burton, which implied that Mitt Romney was responsible for the death of a laid-off worker’s spouse.  Obama tells the press that he had nothing to do with the ad:

[Dear Leader in his every-six-months-or-so presser at the link]

Q    Well, why not send a message to the top super PAC that’s supporting you and say, I think an ad like that is out of bounds?  We shouldn’t be suggesting that –

THE PRESIDENT:  So let’s take that particular issue, as opposed to — because you lumped in a whole bunch of other stuff that I think was entirely legitimate.  I don’t think that Governor Romney is somehow responsible for the death of the woman that was portrayed in that ad.  But keep in mind this is an ad that I didn’t approve, I did not produce, and as far as I can tell, has barely run.  I think it ran once.

That’s true, strictly speaking, that Obama didn’t produce the ad; campaigns cannot legally coordinate with PACs or super-PACs, only with their party committees.  However, as BuzzFeed’s Andrew Kaczynski discovered, Obama’s official campaign website certainly promoted the claim the ad made.  Andrew found this image in a slideshow attacking Romney:

[image with the quote at the link]

Does Obama not expect to be held responsible for his own campaign website?  Perhaps that’s why he’s been hiding from the national news media and giving fluff interviews with People and Entertainment Tonight.  As far as whether we should trust Obama or our own lyin’ eyes, well …

[Who else but The Eagles and a Greatest Hits LP at the link?]

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/08/22/obamateurism-of-the-day-809/

[obumazombie]

Not only is there no owebumaManiaMedia reporter competent enough to formulate that type of investigative journalism as a basis for a tough question for owebuma, they wouldn't have the professional courage to ask it. Nevertheless, whatever inane, inaccurate, or dodging response owebuma would give to such a question, the "journalists" would let him get away with it.

[Eupher]

Sorry, gang, but this one is stupid. Must've been a slow news day.

Begin quoted article:

This one’s a two-fer, one for Barack Obama and another for a prominent media outlet.  Yesterday, Obama campaigned in Ohio and wanted to engage in some of the local sports customs, such as the Ohio State cheer that uses four people to spell the state name.  Unfortunately, it’s the spelling part that became the problem:

Christopher Maloney@CHRISMAL0NEY
A word of advice to @BarackObama: it's "O-H-I-O" that has 18 electoral votes, not "O-I-H-O" pic.twitter.com/babXzAtp
 
22 Aug 12 ReplyRetweetFavorite

Oiho?  Maloney had a lot of fun with that on his Twitter feed, and The Hill picked up the story:

President Obama needed a do-over to spell “Ohio” correctly on the campus of Ohio State University this week.

Although Obama and several students at a campaign stop Tuesday morning at Sloopy’s Diner on the campus of OSU tweeted out photos of the president correctly posing as the “I” in Ohio, another student supplied a photo of a spelling mishap to Mitt Romney’s campaign.

The photo, tweeted by Romney’s Ohio communications director, Christopher Maloney, shows Obama and three students all a little confused about how to spell the state’s name, with Obama holding his hands up in what seems to be an “H” and as the third letter.

That’s when the Washington Post swung into action.  Apparently thinking that no one could be so dumb as to misspell “Ohio,” the Post tried to debunk the picture as a Photoshop, a moment captured by their rivals at the Washington Examiner:

[image at the link]

After numerous people corrected the Post on Twitter, they finally had to admit that they were “fooled” … apparently someone is that dumb:

 

The Washington Post
✔
@washingtonpost
Correction re: that Obama photo. We were fooled. wapo.st/O6hXYQ
22 Aug 12 ReplyRetweetFavorite

That’s OK, though.  The President of the United States managed to get “Ohio” right on his second try.  Can’t wait to see what happens in Connecticut.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/08/23/obamateurism-of-the-day-810/

[obumazombie]

I kind of wondered about that. If the OIHO picture was a mirror image of an original.

[Chris_]

What a bunch of ****ing geeks.

[Eupher]

This week, the Congressional Budget Office issued a very dire warning about the economic disaster that will result from the so-called “fiscal cliff” or “Taxmageddon” at the end of this year.  According to the CBO, the damage from the policies in place now would cost 2 million jobs and create a “significant recession.”  One might think that this would interest the man currently holding the top job in the federal government and running for a second term. However, as Jake Tapper pointed out in a White House press briefing yesterday, Obama seemed to talk about everything but the fiscal cliff and the tanking economy this week:

[video at link of my hero Jay Carnal]

ABC’s Jake Tapper: “The Congressional Budget Office report is a pretty dire warning about what this nation faces, yet I didn’t hear the president mention it yesterday, is there a reason why?”

White House Spokesman Jay Carney: “Well I think I put out a statement which is the White House’s view and the president’s view. The president talks every day that he’s out there, as he was yesterday, about what we need to do to help build our economy, help it to continue to grow, help it to continue to create jobs and yesterday, and the day before, he was focusing on the need to continue investments in education because he firmly believes that education is a matter of our economy, it’s an economic issue.”

Tapper: That’s not what the Congressional Budget Office was addressing, they were talking about … The president talked about education, he talked about Todd Aiken, he talked about Michael Jordan, he talked about a lot of—“

Carney: “He talks, you know, all the time about what we need to do to specifically to help the economy grow and create jobs. And his belief that we need to take a balanced approach to address the kinds of fiscal challenges that are necessary.”

Just call this the Seamus The Roof-Riding Dog That Didn’t Bark.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/08/24/obamateurism-of-the-day-811/

Jeezus, Jay, just go ahead and spin like a ****ing top. It's what you do, asswipe. 

[obumazombie]

A "Balanced Approach". That's libspeak for raising taxes.

[thundley4]

A "Balanced Approach". That's libspeak for raising taxes and cutting/gutting defense spending.

FIFY.

[obumazombie]

FIFY.

That was a good fix.

[Eupher]

Everybody knew this one was coming:

Begin article:

The task of Commander in Chief is daunting for every President, with the possible exception of men like Dwight Eisenhower and Ulysses S. Grant, who entered politics after commanding armies — in Eisenhower’s case, the largest multinational force ever put into the field at that time.  It helps, though, to learn the ranks of each of the services, and to make sure that you know in which service your top commanders lead:

Perhaps most seriously, however, was Obama’s slip in an interview with KSDK in St Louis, Missouri when he was asked about the new 22-minute film ‘Dishonorable Disclosures’ by a group of former Special Forces troops and intelligence operatives.

‘I won’t take this film too seriously,’ he responded. ‘I gather that one of the producers is a birther who still doesn’t think I was born in this country.

‘You’ve got one who was a candidate, a Republican candidate for office. And a proud card carrying member of the Tea Party. So this is obviously a partisan film.

‘I’d advise that you talk to General McRaven, who’s in charge of our Special Ops. I think he has a point of view in terms of how deeply I care about what these folks do each and every day to protect our freedom.’

The difficulty with this is that William McRaven is and admiral not a general. As a SEAL, he is member of the US Navy, not US Army or US Marines.

D’oh! It could have been worse, as the Daily Mail notes.  Obama might have called Admiral McRaven a “corpseman.”

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/08/27/obamateurism-of-the-day-812/