► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Posts Tagged ‘Aaron Goldstein’

Was Mitt Romney really serious about winning?

by Phantom Ace ( 169 Comments › )
Filed under Elections 2012, Mitt Romney, Republican Party at March 5th, 2013 - 12:00 pm

When Tagg Romney said he his dad Mitt really did not want to run for President, it struck a nerve. Romney campaigned as if he really did not care about winning. In the primaries, he cynically became a clone of Rick Santorum to appeal to the Republican base. This move fooled no one and it hurt Mitt Romney with the general election. Everyone knew he was a Moderate Eisenhower Republican and this made him appear not genuine.

After winning the nomination, Mitt Romney did absolutely nothing for 3 months. Barack Obama and OFA launched one of the most brutal campaigns in modern history. They called Romney a felon, murder, tax cheat, racist and anything else they can think of. Instead of answering, Mitt Romney just sat there and did nothing. His convention speech was a joke and so were his ads. Mitt Romney either thought he should win and did not feel like doing what was needed or even worse. It is very possible that Mitt Romney was really not serious about running for President.

In his first interview since the election, Romney expressed his dismay in not having the keys to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. “I wish I were there. It kills me not to be there, not to be in the White House doing what needs to be done,” said the former Massachusetts Governor.

It is interesting that Romney should use the word “kill” in describing his feelings about losing the election. After all, back in the summer of 2011, the Obama campaign concluded that the President could not run for re-election on the basis of his accomplishments in office. Instead, the Obama campaign made it their mission to “kill Romney.”

[….]

Shortly before Christmas, the Boston Globe published a story on the Romney campaign. The article quoted his eldest son Tagg who revealed that his father did not want to run for President for a second time: 

“He wanted to be president less than anyone I’ve met in my life. He had no desire to …run. If he could have found someone else to take his place… he would have been ecstatic to step aside.”

There is no reason believe that Tagg Romney isn’t telling the truth and no one has suggested so. So it is quite possible that after the first debate, Romney thought to himself (perhaps on a subconscious level), “Holy crap, I could actually win this thing.” In which case, instead of spending the final month of the campaign going for the knockout punch (in effect “killing Obama”), he spent it resting on the laurels of the first debate.

[….]

The fact that Hillary was denied her place in the White House by Obama in 2008 makes her all the hungrier to be President. There will be a huge target on the back of the Republican nominee in 2016. Whoever Republicans nominate had better be prepared to place a bigger target on Hillary’s back. Otherwise, in four years time, we will have yet another Republican telling us it kills them not to be in the White House.

If I was a betting man, I would place a bet that Hillary or the Democrat nominee will win 2016 in a cakewalk. There is nothing on the Republican side that can counter OFA. The Republican Consultant Class is more interested in making money than winning elections, hence they reject any innovative ideas.  Losing seems to have become ingrained in the political culture of the Republican Party.

Americans do not like losers and if the Republicans continue with its acceptance of losing, it will go the way of the Whigs.

 

Bill Maher’s waiver from Barack Obama

by Mojambo ( 65 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Media at March 8th, 2012 - 2:00 pm

Apparently hateful, sexist things said against conservative women are a “lesser crime” to the Obama White House. My prediction – the Left will over play their hand with the Limbaugh-Fluke incident and will eventually suffer some blowback for it.

by Aaron Goldstein

We’re still waiting for the president to call to Sarah Palin.

After Rush Limbaugh referred to Georgetown University Law Student Sandra Fluke as “a slut” on his radio program last week, the Obama Administration wasted little time in coming to her defense.

On Friday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney confirmed that President Obama had spoken with Fluke. When Carney was asked to describe their conversation, he replied:

[…….]

Although Rush would issue an apology the following day it wasn’t enough for longtime Obama adviser David Axelrod who said, “I think what Rush Limbaugh said about that young woman was not only vile and degrading to her, but to women across the country.”

So what do Messrs. Carney, Axelrod and, for that matter, President Obama have to say for Bill Maher?

It is no secret that Maher despises conservatives especially of the female variety. Nearly a year ago, Maher delighted both himself and his left-wing audiences when he called Sarah Palin “a dumb twat” and “a c–t” — words even harsher than the ones Rush used against Fluke.

[…….]

Let us also remember that Axelrod wasn’t satisfied with Rush’s apology because what he said about Fluke “was not only vile and degrading to her, but to women across the country.” So does Axelrod also believe that Maher said things about Sarah Palin that “were not only vile and degrading to her, but to women across the country?”

Or has Bill Maher been granted a waiver by the Obama Administration for saying degrading things about Sarah Palin and other conservative women who do not agree with their policies? Consider how Maher bragged that he could get away with what he said because he is on HBO while Rush is at the mercy of commercial sponsors. This surely sounds like a man who has been granted dispensation from the highest authority.

After all, it was with great fanfare last month that Maher donated $1 million to Priorities USA Action, an Obama Super PAC. As the large check was being hauled out on stage, Maher said to his audience at Yahoo headquarters in Silicon Valley, “I think Mitt Romney’s going to get the (Republican) nomination, and then I hope Obama beats him like a runaway sister-wife.” Well, it’s good to know that a joke about domestic violence (not to mention Mormonism) is such a hit with liberal audiences. Of course, had Rush joked about domestic abuse (not to mention Muslims) the very same audience would rise in unison to accuse him of hate speech.

Now I, for one, did not like what Rush said about Fluke. In one fell swoop, he shifted the issue from the heavy handedness of government in compelling religious organizations to provide insurance coverage for contraceptives to the heavy handedness of Rush Limbaugh in casting aspersions upon someone for taking a point of view which differs from his own. His intervention was not helpful and Rush was ultimately right to make amends to Fluke. Unlike Axelrod, I accept both Rush’s apology and his reasons for doing so. As Rush put it:

I ended up descending to their level. It’s important not to be like them, ever, particularly in fighting them. The old saw, you never descend to the level of your opponent or they win. That was my error last week.

Of course, it should come as no surprise that Axelrod would not accept Rush’s apology. The Left has wanted Rush excised from the airwaves for nearly a quarter century. Now Rush has stumbled and they see blood in the water. So at this point, the Obama Administration is about as willing to accept Rush’s apology as Afghan President Hamid Karzai is willing to accept the Obama Administration’s apology last week for the accidental Koran burnings at Bagram Air Base. Karzai wants to put American soldiers on trial while liberals yearn to do the same with Rush. Both proceedings would be sure to have all the fairness found in a kangaroo court.

Unfortunately, I suspect that this double standard is not likely to be raised by the White House Press Corps (with perhaps the possible exceptions of Jake Tapper at ABC or Ed Henry at FNC). If I were a member of that scrum, I would ask Jay Carney the two following questions, “In light of Rush Limbaugh’s apology to Sandra Fluke for his inappropriate comments, why didn’t you call upon Bill Maher to apologize for his inappropriate comments against Sarah Palin a year ago? Will President Obama now publicly call for the Super PAC acting on his behalf to return the $1 million donated by Maher?”

When it comes to Sarah Palin and other conservative women being pilloried for expressing their views on public policy, I don’t think the Obama Administration will put the money where Bill Maher’s mouth is. In other words, the Obama Administration has no waivers for conservative women like Sarah Palin.

Read the rest – Obama’s waiver for Bill Maher

 

The Petulant President

by Mojambo ( 282 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama at August 20th, 2010 - 9:00 pm

Obama has got to be the most emotionally immature president in anyone’s lifetime. His vaunted intellect has been nonexistent, his judgment horrendous, his priorities deranged, and his ability to connect with the hopes and fears of  average working Americans – well the less said the better. He has been an over hyped, over promoted, fiasco – sort of like the 2010 New York Mets.

by Aaron Goldstein

Remember when Christopher Buckley endorsed Barack Obama? Let’s revisit.

The son of the late William F. Buckley, the founder of National Review, wrote in October 2008, “As for Senator Obama: He has exhibited throughout a “first-class temperament.”

Yet now nearly nineteen months into Obama’s presidency there is scant evidence of that “first-class temperament” to which Buckley refers. If Obama’s term in office thus far can be summed up with a single word I would choose petulant. Merriam-Webster defines petulant as “insolent or rude in speech or behavior”; “characterized by temporary or capricious ill humor.” This fits Obama to a tee.

President Obama has been petulant towards those who disagree with him. Just days after taking office he told Republican Congressional leaders who objected to his stimulus plan, “I won. I’m the president.” At this same meeting he told Republicans, “You can’t just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done.”

President Obama has been petulant towards those who seek freedom from totalitarianism. When it came time to choose between the Iranian mullahs and the millions of Iranians marching on the streets he chose the mullahs, stating it wasn’t for us to “meddle.” This would not be forgotten by the Iranian people. During the 30th anniversary of the Iranian Revolution, months following the “elections,” demonstrators could be heard chanting, “Obama, Obama — either you’re with them or you’re with us.”

President Obama has been petulant to dissidents. He would not meet with the Dalai Lama during his U.S. visit in October 2009 so as not to offend Chinese Communists prior to his state visit to Beijing the following month. When the Tibetan spiritual leader did finally meet with Obama last February, it was behind closed doors. The only glimpse the world got of the Dalai Lama was when he left the White House out a side door where a large pile of trash awaited him. Contrast this with the time the Dalai Lama met with President Bush in October 2007. On that occasion, Bush handed him the Congressional Gold Medal.

President Obama has been petulant to our closest friends and allies. After the stalwart friendship between Bush and Tony Blair, Obama paid his respects to Great Britain by returning a bust of Sir Winston Churchill, which Blair had lent, to Bush after the attacks of September 11, 2001. Obama’s rudeness didn’t prevent then British Prime Minister Gordon Brown from giving him a penholder made out of timbers from the H.M.S. Gannet, an anti-slavery ship. Obama’s idea of reciprocity was to give Brown 25 DVDs — which were unplayable in the U.K. Let us also not forget how Obama made every possible effort to avoid Brown during the opening of the UN General Assembly last September. And to think Brown was a fellow socialist.

What about President Obama’s petulance towards Israel? Build nuclear weapon in Tehran and Obama will be cool, detached, and behave as if nothing out of the ordinary has happened. But build houses in Jerusalem and Obama will unleash not only his sound and fury but also the entire weight of the U.S. government right down on you. When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wouldn’t let Obama push him around at the White House over settlements in East Jerusalem, Obama walked out on him.

President Obama has been petulant towards police officers sworn to protect us. Who can forget when the President chastised the Sergeant James Crowley and the Cambridge Police Department for having “acted stupidly” in the arrest of Harvard Professor (and Obama’s friend) Henry Louis Gates, Jr.? Yet it isn’t the only time he has cast aspersions against law enforcement. Last April, when commenting on Arizona’s immigration law which had passed days earlier, Obama said, “But now, suddenly, if you don’t have your papers and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you’re going to be harassed.” That President Obama would casually accuse law enforcement of planning to engage in wanton harassment speaks of a petulant disposition.

President Obama has been petulant towards this country. What American President refers to his country while abroad as “arrogant, derisive and dismissive”?

[…]

Does Christopher Buckley still think Obama has “a first-class temperament”? What does he have to say for Obama’s petulant presidency?

Read the rest here: Obama’s petulant presidency