Obamateurism of the Day -- from HotAir

[thundley4]

Several Western embassies in the Middle East and Africa in flames.  An American ambassador dies in the line of duty, the first time in 33 years that’s happened.  What does the leader of the free world do?  Travel to … Las Vegas:

Erick Erickson makes the obvious argument about media bias:

This is an OOTD on another level, too.  Incumbent presidents have an advantage in optics — the White House.  Forget for the moment that proper leadership called for the head of state to be seen back in the Oval Office and handling the situation.  That’s exactly the kind of image his campaign should be projecting, too.  Instead, fundraising was a higher priority for the campaign than either providing an example of leadership, or even the appearance of leadership.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/09/17/obamateurism-of-the-day-827/

There might be a reason for Obama to be concentrating on fundraising.  He knows he is going to lose the election, so he is just padding his retirement account.

[Eupher]

There’s really no good way to introduce this except to parrot Charlie Spiering’s headline — “Obama denounces, then endorses corporate welfare in Ohio”.  No, seriously:

On the stump in Ohio today, President Obama denounced taxpayer subsidies for oil companies explaining to voters that he didn’t want to participate in corporate welfare. Then Obama proceeded to explain how he would offer more taxpayer subsidies for green energy companies.

[video of the jug-eared Kenyan at the link, stumping away]

‘Cause as long as I’m President, I’m not going to let oil companies write this country’s energy plan.  And I’m not going to let them keep on collecting four billion dollars in taxpayer-funded corporate welfare!  [cheers]

We’ve got a better plan.  We’ll keep on investing in wind and solar, clean coal technology.  We’ll invest to help farmers and scientists harness new biofuels to power our cars and our trucks.

You can’t make this up.  By the way, Solyndra cost taxpayers $520 million in corporate welfare when it went bankrupt.  That’s one-eighth of everything that oil companies get, according to Obama, but at least the oil companies actually produce energy.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/09/18/obamateurism-of-the-day-828/

Obama and the hysterical liberals who pound on their chests and decry the big, bad oil companies and how they're raping the American people just don't understand how the corporate welfare that they espouse and celebrate is tantamount to being raped - only with an HIV-infected weapon of mass destruction. That being the schlong that belongs to the gubmint. ****ing asshats. 

[docstew]

There’s really no good way to introduce this except to parrot Charlie Spiering’s headline — “Obama denounces, then endorses corporate welfare in Ohio”.  No, seriously:

[video of the jug-eared Kenyan at the link, stumping away]

You can’t make this up.  By the way, Solyndra cost taxpayers $520 million in corporate welfare when it went bankrupt.  That’s one-eighth of everything that oil companies get, according to Obama, but at least the oil companies actually produce energy.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/09/18/obamateurism-of-the-day-828/

Obama and the hysterical liberals who pound on their chests and decry the big, bad oil companies and how they're raping the American people just don't understand how the corporate welfare that they espouse and celebrate is tantamount to being raped - only with an HIV-infected weapon of mass destruction. That being the schlong that belongs to the gubmint. ****ing asshats. 

I agree. There should be no corporate welfare, of any sort. Let corporations rise and fall based upon their own merits. The only time gov't should write a check to a company is when purchasing a product, and that should be through a bid process

[thundley4]

I agree. There should be no corporate welfare, of any sort. Let corporations rise and fall based upon their own merits. The only time gov't should write a check to a company is when purchasing a product, and that should be through a bid process

And unions should not be a consideration, just price and ability to do the job or provide the services or products.

[Eupher]

Democrats really tried to sell the American public during their national convention on the allegation that Republicans have declared a War On Wimminses, and that Mitt Romney is the Offender in Chief in dismissing the distaff set.   But as Eli Lake recounted this weekend in his excellent article of the effort women in the CIA have provided to bring justice to Osama bin Laden, the Champion Of All Julias doesn’t sound like much of an improvement (via Instapundit):

Just before the White House announcement of a new Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy, Obama asked Riedel and his team to come to see him in the Oval -Office so he could thank them. Riedel’s team consisted of an Afghan specialist from the State Department and a Pakistan expert from the CIA. Riedel introduced the CIA analyst to Obama as “the best Pakistan expert I’ve ever seen.” Obama looked at the CIA officer, who was sporting stiletto heels, and said with clear amusement, “You don’t look like a Pakistan expert.”

Maybe the CIA officer politely told the President that his slip was showing.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/09/19/obamateurism-of-the-day-829/

[obumazombie]

I agree. There should be no corporate welfare, of any sort. Let corporations rise and fall based upon their own merits. The only time gov't should write a check to a company is when purchasing a product, and that should be through a bid process

There are lib/dem/socialist assertions of corporate welfare, which are not actual corporate welfare, then there are cases of real corporate welfare, like Solyndra and several recent renewable energy kickback calamities.

[Eupher]

Normally I’d let an OOTD candidate percolate a few days after one of my co-bloggers, Erika Johnsen, did such a great job with it the day before, but if this isn’t in Sunday’s poll, I think I’d face a rebellion in the comments. The 2008 candidate of “Yes we can!” turned into “No, I can’t” yesterday:

[the jug-eared Kenyan once again in front of the cameras at the link]

“The most important lesson I’ve learned is you can’t change Washington from the inside.”

Let’s recall, as Ace does, exactly how hard it was for Obama to change Washington:

Foreign Policy Pres.@AceofSpadesHQ
Obama: Giving me the presidency, all of Congress, and a majority of the Court wasn’t enough for me to implement my vision.
20 Sep 12

Melissa Clouthier points out that this sounds more like an accusation than an excuse:

Melissa Clouthier@MelissaTweets
Shorter Obama: It’s not me. It’s you. As in, your fault.
20 Sep 12

Paul Mirengoff says this is a bigger admission of failure than it sounds at first:

In reality, Obama’s latest statement, like nearly every utterance of his that mentions “change,” is nonsense. He would have been closer to an insight if he had said: You can’t change Washington when your party suffers a massive defeat in congressional elections because the country doesn’t like the change you’re trying to impose.

But even this statement would be flawed because Obama has never really tried to “change Washington.” Rather, he sought to change America through measures — legislation, regulation, and executive orders — that emanate from Washington.

Mitt Romney certainly had fun with it:

Zeke Miller@ZekeJMiller
Romney: his slogan was yes we can. Now it’s no I can’t.
20 Sep 12

Maybe Obama should get ready for his career outside of Washington … sooner than he thought.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/09/21/obamateurism-of-the-day-831/

[obumazombie]

Another lesson owebuma had to learn the hard way due to lack of experience, carelessness, and overall ineptness was that jobs weren't shovel ready.

[Eupher]

Sometimes, it’s hard to tell whether a politician wants to lie to you or to himself.  As in this example from Barack Obama, it really doesn’t matter — especially in the YouTube era (via Instapundit):

[video of Barry at the link]

Maybe memories are unpatriotic.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/09/24/obamateurism-of-the-day-832/

[Eupher]

We’re never going to get Barack Obama to do math properly, but we’d like to see him figure out the difference between debt and deficit.  We’d also like to get him to recall the history involved in both.  Here’s an exchange from Sunday’s 60 Minutes interview where Obama seems mighty confused about debt, deficit, and the calendar:

KROFT: The national debt has gone up sixty percent in — in the four years that you’ve been in office.

OBAMA: Well, first — first of all, Steve, I think it’s important to understand the context here. When I came into office, I inherited the biggest deficit in our history. And over the last four years, the deficit has gone up, but ninety percent of that is as a consequence of two wars that weren’t paid for, as a consequence of tax cuts that weren’t paid for, a prescription drug plan that was not paid for, and then the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

Well, first of all, Kroft asked Obama about debt, not deficits.  Deficits add to debt, but they’re not the same thing.  The first budget might have been “inherited” — we’ll get back to that in a second — but the trillion-dollar-plus deficits in the next three years all belonged to Barack Obama.  Those were all his doing, and the laughable part of this claim is that if Congress had adopted his last two budgets, the problems would have been worse.  That’s why Obama’s two most recent budget proposals didn’t get a single vote in the Senate, which his own party controls.

Furthermore, Obama talks to Kroft as if he had no input into policy at all, but was simply a victim of a federal government left on a Bushian autopilot.  Obama’s party had large legislative majorities in both the House and the Senate the first two years of his term.  Obama could have done practically anything he wanted about deficits and debt during that time.  Instead, he spent his time passing ObamaCare and Dodd-Frank.

Speaking of legislative majorities, which party controlled Congress the two years previous to Obama’s election as President?  Why, it was the Democrats.  Who passed that budget that Obama “inherited”?  The Democrat-controlled House and Senate — including a Senator named Barack Obama.  And which President signed it into force with an omnibus spending bill in March 2009?  Obama did, which means he inherited the budget and its deficit from himself.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/09/25/obamateurism-of-the-day-833/

[Eupher]

Erika took a look at the most eye-popping quote from yesterday’s UN speech by Barack Obama, but the larger context bears some comment. Unfortunately, like “you didn’t build that,” the context of the remark that “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam” doesn’t improve Obama’s speech. In fact, it makes it even worse.  Here’s the end of that passage, along with a more full transcript of Obama’s demand for “tolerance” and its apparent opposite:

[video of Barry flapping his ears in his U.N. speech]

The future must not belong to those who target Coptic Christians in Egypt – it must be claimed by those in Tahrir Square who chanted “Muslims, Christians, we are one.” The future must not belong to those who bully women – it must be shaped by girls who go to school, and those who stand for a world where our daughters can live their dreams just like our sons. The future must not belong to those corrupt few who steal a country’s resources – it must be won by the students and entrepreneurs; workers and business owners who seek a broader prosperity for all people. Those are the men and women that America stands with; theirs is the vision we will support.

The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. Yet to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see when the image of Jesus Christ is desecrated, churches are destroyed, or the Holocaust is denied. Let us condemn incitement against Sufi Muslims, and Shiite pilgrims. It is time to heed the words of Gandhi: “Intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit.” Together, we must work towards a world where we are strengthened by our differences, and not defined by them. That is what America embodies, and that is the vision we will support.

If Gandhi said that intolerance is a form of violence, it must have been one of his off days.  Intolerance may lead to violence, but it’s not violence in itself.  Neither are “slander” equal to churches being destroyed, or the “bullying” of women.  Even if we knew what “slander” of a 1500-years-dead historical figure encompasses — literary criticism?  theological critiques? — the speaking of opinion about Mohammed or anyone else thousands of miles away doesn’t even come close to the act of vandalizing churches or conducting pogroms against the Copts. For that matter, neither does Holocaust denial; in the case of Ahmadinejad, it’s a symptom of the danger he represents as (nominal) head of the Iranian government, which is actively seeking nuclear weapons to aim at Israel.  It’s not the Holocaust denial that’s the danger.

Even worse is the implication of Obama’s equating of “slander” to acts of real violence.  He seems to be offering a deal that he can’t deliver, which is that the US will ban such “slander” if people stop torching churches and committing violence against women.  That’s a dangerous expectation to set for people in parts of the world who don’t understand that Obama can’t possibly deliver on it.

Demanding an end to outspoken criticism of the “prophet of Islam” is just another way of calling for blasphemy exceptions to free speech.  That is most certainly not “what America embodies.”  In a free society, people can choose to deny the Holocaust just as they can remain intolerant of, and criticize, Islam or Christianity or God Himself.  They can even express that intolerance in speech, writing, and yes, even filmmaking.  They just can’t commit violence to impose those views on others.  And that’s what America embodies.

Too bad Obama doesn’t seem to know that.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/09/26/obamateurism-of-the-day-834/

[Eupher]

Barack Obama decided to give Americans a little straight talk in his weekly radio address on Saturday.  He’d like to solve a lot of problems, especially mortgage reform, but he can’t.  Why not? Congress is too busy campaigning, that’s why:

But we can do even more if Congress is willing to do their part.

Back in February I sent Congress a plan to give every responsible homeowner the chance to save about $3,000 a year on their mortgages by refinancing at lower rates. It’s a plan that has the support of independent, nonpartisan economists and leaders across the housing industry. But Republicans in Congress worked to keep it from even getting to a vote. And here we are — seven months later — still waiting on Congress to act.

This makes no sense. Last week, mortgage rates were at historic lows. But instead of helping more and more hardworking families take advantage of those rates, Congress was away on break. Instead of worrying about you, they’d already gone home to worry about their campaigns.

Not like our President!  It was just three weeks ago when the first American ambassador was killed in the line of duty in 33 years, in the first successful terrorist attack on an American diplomatic facility in 14 years.  Congress was in session at that time.  Did our President rush back to Washington to do his job?  Er, not exactly.  He blew off a national security briefing so that he could go to Las Vegas … because he was more worried about his campaign.

The hypocrisy is simply breathtaking.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/10/01/obamateurism-of-the-day-837/

[Eupher]

Last week at the UN, Barack Obama made an appearance at the UN — and then blew off the world leaders to make an appearance on The View. Of course, his presence on this talk show was critical — right?

[video of Dear Leader on that POS TV show referenced above at the link]

O

bama on ‘The View’ today: Of being the only male on stage, he said, “I told folks I’m just supposed to be eye candy here for you guys.”

— David Nakamura (@DavidNakamura) September 24, 2012

RT@byrontau Obama during taping of “The View”: “I told folks I’m just supposed to be eye candy here for you guys.”

— WhiteHousePressCorps (@whpresscorps) September 24, 2012

Referring to himself as “eye candy” … well, that makes one person who thinks of Obama that way.

 

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/10/02/obamateurism-of-the-day-838/

[Eupher]

Barack Obama went back to work this week, by which I of course mean he continued talking with hard-hitting media outlets like, er, Glamour.  What topics did Obama want to discuss — the economy, foreign policy, or the federal deficit?  Of course not!  Mark Knoller tweeted out the highlight of the interview:

In interview with Glamour Magazine, out today, Pres Obama says to most Americans, “access to contraception should be a no-brainer.”

— Mark Knoller (@markknoller) October 2, 2012

“No brainer?”  Well … yeah.  That’s exactly what the Center for Disease Control found in its long-range study of sexually active women and unplanned pregnancy. The 2009 study showed that 99% of sexually active women who wanted to avoid pregnancy thought access to contraception a no-brainer, too.  In fact, the 20-year study never even suggests that access was a barrier to avoiding pregnancy; it doesn’t make the list of reasons for the unplanned pregnancies that occurred with respondents to their survey.

On the other hand, assuming that women can’t find birth control without their employer or school subsidizing and facilitating access, and forcing them to do so?  That’s treating women as “no brainers.”  It infantilizes women and puts employers, educators, and the government in the bedroom — where activists claim they don’t want those kind of intrusions.

Twitchy caught some of the reaction:

.@markknoller Is it news to Obama that access to contraceptives is already a no-brainer? Anybody not already have “access”?

— Champion Capua (@ChampionCapua) October 2, 2012

@markknoller So is it the president’s position that “access” to something is denied if your neighbor doesn’t foot the bill for it? #tcot

— Corr Comm (@corrcomm) October 2, 2012

Dear @barackobama, I am a woman who has NEVER had a problem “accessing” contraception. It’s a #nobrainer, actually.cc: @markknoller

— Lilia (@LiliaEP) October 2, 2012

Just a few words from some of the “brainer” set.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/10/03/obamateurism-of-the-day-839/

[thundley4]

I wish the left and right would start calling this issue what it really is. 

It isn't about women's access to contraception, it's about having the taxpayers pay for abortions.

[Eupher]

Nothing says sincerity like campaign promises, huh?  Last week, Barack Obama released a two-minute TV spot in which he directly talked into the camera and made a few promises about his second term.  The problem, as Guy Benson discovered, is that most of these promises are recycled from his first presidential campaign:

[video of Barry at the link -- if you can stomach it]

(1) His “plan” is to magically create a million manufacturing jobs.  Never mind the fact that the manufacturing sector has shed well over half a million jobs during his tenure, including 15,000 last month alone.  Focus on the words.

(2) He pledges increased energy independence.  Never mind that he made similar unfulfilled promises during his last campaign, that he’s manipulated science and unilaterally blocked domestic energy projects that his green allies don’t like.  Focus on the words.

(3) He calls for new “investments” to help build our economy.  Never mind that his investment record (using our money and borrowed funds) has been piss poor over the last four years, and that we’re trillions in the hole because of it.  Focus on the words.

(4) He says he’ll reduce the deficit through a “balanced” approach.  Never mind that he’s shattered his first-term promise to halve the deficit by now, and that his claimed war “savings” have been pummeled by fact-checkers as a thoroughly unserious gimmick.  Focus on the words.

Obama finishes with a call for “economic patriotism,” which our Erika Johnsen ripped:

It’s time for a new economic patriotism. Rooted in the belief that growing our economy begins with a strong, thriving middle class. Read my plan. Compare it to Governor Romney’s and decide for yourself. Thanks for listening.

“New economic patriotism”? Does that sound severely creepy to anyone else?

Sounds more severely protectionist, and as Guy points out (and I did earlier as well), more likely to produce jobs overseas by attacking capital that could be invested in the US.  Looks like Obama’s not only recycling old unfulfilled campaign promises, he’s also recycling Smoot Hawley, too.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/10/04/obamateurism-of-the-day-840/

[thundley4]

“New economic patriotism”? Does that sound severely creepy to anyone else?

Work for the good of The Fatherland and The Community, not for the betterment of yourself comrades.

[Eupher]

Oh, Lord. Barry picks his nose in this one. Spork Alert.

Talk about bad timing!  When Mitt Romney accused Barack Obama of “picking losers,” Obama appeared to be doing, er … just that at the 11-second mark here:

[video of Barry digging for gold at the link.]

There’s really no good time for that, is there?

[the famous Seinfeld episode of Jerry scratching uh...something at the link.]

One word for the next round of debate prep: Kleenex.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/10/05/obamateurism-of-the-day-841/

[thundley4]

I'll save people the trouble and bring the video over.   

[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3gp_4Ih3yQ&feature[/youtube]

[Eupher]

I’m old enough to recall the Roberto Duran – Sugar Ray Leonard fight in which the Panamanian champion simply stopped fighting in the middle of the round, telling the referee “No mas, no mas.”  I watched that fight live; I missed the Mitt Romney – Barack Obama championship bout, but this looks kind of like a replay:

[sound bite of the debate - Dear Leader once again in inaction - at the link]

Did Obama want to have Jim Lehrer change the topic?  Probably not, but that’s what it sounded like.  An experienced debater would be focused on his own answer, rather than giving the moderator a not-so-subtle hint to find something else to talk about after his opponent just dominated him on a topic.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/10/08/obamateurism-of-the-day-842/

[Eupher]

The first rule for lawyers is this: never ask a question to which you don’t already know the answer.  The first rule of political campaigns is to set up all public appearances with supporters – and make sure your candidate doesn’t get outside of the safe zone.  Barack Obama and his campaign appears to have ignored both rules in a walkabout in Cleveland last week:

Obama was greeting different vendors at Cleveland’s West Side Market when he came upon the proprietor of Rolston Poultry.

According to the White House pool report, Obama asked the man how business was going.

“Terrible since you got here,” he replied.

Reporters were unable to get close enough to ask the man his political affiliation. According to the report, Obama “didn’t appear amused by the sentiment” and the Cleveland Plain Dealer said he “quickly shifted direction to another stand” after the encounter.

Obama did a lot of walking away last week, huh?

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/10/09/obamateurism-of-the-day-843/

[AllosaursRus]

He also raised more money from our enemies than any other pres! POS!

[Eupher]

Because nothing says “I’m hipper than my opponent” than a cultural reference to … 1994 (via Ann Althouse): [video of Dear Leader once again showing his ass at the link]

Again mocking Mitt Romney for his proposal to cut public television, Obama added some riffs about the fate of some Sesame Street characters.

“Elmo has been seen in a white Suburban!” Obama told donors in San Francisco.

“He’s driving for the border!”

Except, perhaps, for getting it wrong:

Of course, Simpson rode in white Bronco – driven by friend Al Cowlings — during the famous slow-speed chase through Los Angeles in 1994.

Er … isn’t there something creepy about making jokes about OJ Simpson as part of a presidential campaign?  Especially in California?

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/10/10/obamateurism-of-the-day-844/

[Chris_]

This is what happens when you don't give him a prepared speech or a teleprompter.

Good God, and they said George Bush was stupid.

[Linda]

I just heard a clip of obama explaining why he did so poorly at the debate...

wait for it




he said he was just being to nice......