► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Posts Tagged ‘Bill Clinton’

Classwarfare is his last best defense

by Mojambo ( 83 Comments › )
Filed under Conservatism, Democratic Party, Elections 2012, Liberal Fascism, Progressives, Republican Party, Socialism, Tranzis at October 27th, 2011 - 8:30 am

Daniel Greenfield aka The Sultan Knish – notes something which is rather funny in a pathetic sort of way – Barack Obama who is the Establishment, is running as an insurgent incumbent (sort of like running against yourself). This is primarily because he cannot run on his miserable record and he is still trying to recapture the “Yes, We Can” magic of 2008 by running on a class warfare theme. The question is will enough fools be willing to  re-buy it?

by Daniel Greenfield

Obama’s team is nothing if not creative. After running for his first term as a force of change, he’s off and running for his second term as… the force of change. Don’t like the last change, this will be the change from that change to a whole other change.

“We Can’t Wait” oddly echoes with Obama’s old slogan, “We Are The Ones We Have Been Waiting For.” Now after having waited for three for ourselves… we can’t wait for another four years of the same thing. The problem with waiting for ourselves while waiting to vote again for the man who got us into this mess is that it means we’ll be waiting a long time.

But “We Can’t Wait” echoes another slogan that the Obama team was extremely familiar with, the left’s “We Can’t Wait To Drive the Bush Regime Out.” This time around Obama might have called it, “We Can’t Wait to Drive Boehner Out”, but it’s a slogan that would have confused most people.

What we really can’t wait for is the next phase of the Obama campaign, which has completely swallowed any pretense at actual governing, and is just treating the business of government as the backdrop to a series of negative campaign ads.

[…]

If the voters actually think about the message, instead of chewing the predigested CNN and WaPo memes shipped hot and fresh from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, then they might want to ask themselves why they should elect a man so incompetent that he can’t govern unless he controls all the branches of government.

[…]

The timing of the Occupy Wall Street protests lines up neatly with Obama’s class warfare reelection campaign and his weak Wall Street fundraising. Last time around Obama took home bundles of cash from the Street, this time he’s reduced to counting matchsticks. All the class warfare shtick serves a dual purpose, find someone to run against and warn the banks and brokers that they better reach into their wallets for the reelection campaign or the mob will do it for them.

The class warfare theme skips the question of whether Obama should campaign against Romney, for his wealth, business connections and religion; against Perry, for his accent, business connections and religion, or against Cain for his business connections, and in the left’s time honored way of dealing with black men on the right, his intelligence. Instead he can just campaign on a platform of fighting against corporate control of government—even while he has his hand so deep in the corporate till there are logos on his knuckles.

[…]

From “We Are the Ones We Have Been Waiting For” to “Greater Together”, the slogans once again try to fool younger voters into feeling as if they are part of his story. Back on the talk show circuit, the magazine cover, the smirk is flashed and everyone cheers at the right moment. The change is coming.

The problem with the incumbent as the insurgent is that the public blames the incumbent for the things that happened on his watch. For the incumbent to run as an insurgent, he needs an enemy to blame for everything that came before. The Republican congress fits part of the bill, with constant warnings that electing members of another party has so badly gridlocked the government that the bills he won’t submit aren’t being voted on.

The whole bill though demands an enemy. A bigger enemy than a bunch of congressmen that most people couldn’t name if they were being waterboarded. Capitalism.

[…]

Obama can’t run on his record for the same reason that Charles Manson can’t apply for parole based on how many murders he was involved in. The negative is all he has left. Teach the people to hate someone else more than him—and he might as well be toasting his second term.

That’s why it doesn’t matter if he’s at a 43 percent approval rating or a 33 percent approval rating. If he can get his opponent to a lower approval rating, then he will win. And the Republican party has made it a little too easy for him. Whoever wins the nomination won’t be a McCain, but neither will he be a Reagan or even a Bush. The problem though is that Obama looks more like Carter or Dukakis and his only stopgap is a press corps that’s eager for treats and a scratch behind the ear.

Class warfare is his last best defense

Class warfare is his last best defense because it shifts the discussion from him to an amorphous foe. Who are the bankers anyway? Why is home heating oil so expensive, why are there so few jobs and why are student loans so expensive. The bankers, obviously. The more people curse Wall Street, the less they’re thinking about how badly the guy with the grin messed up the country.

But on election day, the “bankers” won’t be on the ballot, and painting his opponent as a tool of big business interests is a charge that the media will echo, but is likely to only have a limited resonance with the American public. Most people know what crony capitalism is, even if they don’t have a name for it, and they know that lobbyists write their checks to everyone.

[…]

Read the rest: The Insurgent Incumbent

DEMOCRATS 2012 GOAL; 100,000 STRONG STANDING WITH OCCUPY WALL STREET

by huckfunn ( 64 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Business, Communism, Cult of Obama, Democratic Party, Economy, Elections 2012, Environmentalism, Fascism, government, Hate Speech, Health Care, Leftist-Islamic Alliance, Liberal Fascism, Media, Multiculturalism, Nazism, Political Correctness, Politics, Progressives, Socialism, Tranzis, unemployment, Unions at October 17th, 2011 - 8:00 pm

That’s right folks; The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) now stands hand-in-hand with, and proudly supports the “Occupy Wall Street” movement. The Democrats are part and parcel with the anarchists, communists, Nazis and every other anti-American group (far left or far right) that we’ve ever heard of. There’s even some Ronulans in the mix. Read the whole thing here. (Hat tip; The Lid)

Interestingly enough, Rep. Steve Israel (D-NY) is the chairman of the DCCC. Steve ISRAEL, a New York Jewish Congressman who no doubt represents many tens of thousands of Jews, has never met an anti-Israel, anti-semitic hate group that he didn’t support. Let’s check Steve’s bio…

Steve Israel, Representing the 2nd District of New York.

Congressman Steve Israel represents New York’s 2nd Congressional District, including the Long Island communities of Huntington, Babylon, Islip, Smithtown and Oyster Bay. He was first sworn into Congress in 2001.

Israel is a member of the House Leadership, serving as the Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

The Middle East and Israel
Israel is a leader in the House in supporting U.S. assistance for the State of Israel and has been an active voice on behalf of U.S.-Israeli relations. He was considered an instrumental Congressional influence in helping to monitor and close tunnels from Egypt to the Gaza strip.

How is it possible that a Jewish New York Congressman (who has most probably witnessed the anti-semitic mobs in Manhattan) can be in support of such a movement? I simply don’t understand. I also thought that the dimocrat party would step back from this mob but now they proudly own it.

 

The contemptuous president: America is lovable in proportion to the love he gets back in return

by Mojambo ( 30 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Election 2008, George W. Bush at October 7th, 2011 - 5:00 pm

Jay Nordlinger of National Review has written that:

“To Barack Obama, America is lovable in proportion to the love it gives him in return.”

Yes, and I always thought the same was true of Jimmy Carter. I don’t think he ever quite forgave the American people for “firing” him in 1980. I think he has taken it out on us ever since. I think Rosalynn was even more unforgiving.

And if Obama loses in 2012, I think he’ll be much the same kind of ex-president as Carter — in attitude, I mean. I hope I’m wrong. (About Obama’s ’tude, that is. I hope that the electorate will replace him with the Republican nominee — natch.)

If hopefully Obama becomes a one-termer, he will out “Carter” Jimmy Carter in his traveling the world creating problems for the “ungrateful, unwashed masses” who had the audacity to turn him out of office. Barack Obama feels nothing but contempt for Americans – both his supporters and his opponents.

by Bret Stephens

Nixon was tricky. Ford was clumsy. Carter was dour. Reagan was sunny. Bush 41 was prudent. Clinton felt your pain. Bush 43 was stubborn. And Barack Obama is . . .

Early in America’s acquaintance with the man who would become the 44th president, the word that typically sprang from media lips to describe him was “cool.”

Cool as a matter of fashion sense—”Who does he think he is, George Clooney?” burbled the blogger Wonkette in April 2008. Cool as a matter of political temperament—”Maybe after eight years of George W. Bush stubbornness, on the heels of eight years of Clinton emotiveness, we need to send out for ice,” approved USA Today’s Ruben Navarrette that October.

[…]

The Obama cool made for a reassuring contrast with his campaign’s warm-and-fuzzy appeals to hope, change and being the ones we’ve been waiting for. But as the American writer Minna Antrim observed long ago, “between flattery and admiration there often flows a river of contempt.” When it comes to Mr. Obama, boy does it ever.

We caught flashes of the contempt during the campaign. There were those small-town Midwesterners who, as he put it at a San Francisco fund-raiser, “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who are not like them.” There were those racist Republicans who, as he put it at a Jacksonville fund-raiser, would campaign against him by asking, “Did I mention he’s black?” There was the “you’re likable enough, Hillary,” line during a New Hampshire debate. But these were unscripted digressions and could be written off as such.

[…]

Take the “mess we have inherited” line, which became the administration’s ring tone for its first two years.

“I have never seen anything like the mess we have inherited,” said the late Richard Holbrooke—a man with memories of what Nixon inherited in Vietnam from Johnson—about Afghanistan in February 2009. “We are cleaning up something that is—quite simply—a mess,” said the president the following month about Guantanamo. “Let’s face it, we inherited a mess,” said Valerie Jarrett about the economy in March 2010.

For presidential candidates to rail against incumbents from an opposing party is normal; for a president to rail for years against a predecessor of any party is crass—and something to which neither Reagan nor Lincoln, each of them inheritors of much bigger messes, stooped.

Then again, the contempt Mr. Obama felt for the Bush administration was merely of a piece with the broader ambit of his disdain. Examples? Here’s a quick list:

The gratuitous return of the Churchill bust to Britain. The slam of the Boston police officer who arrested Henry Louis Gates. The high-profile rebuke of the members of the Supreme Court at his 2010 State of the Union speech. The diplomatic snubs, petty as well as serious, of Gordon Brown, Benjamin Netanyahu and Nicolas Sarkozy. The verbal assaults on Wall Street “fat cats” who “caused the problem” of “10% unemployment.” The never-ending baiting of millionaires and billionaires and jet owners and everyone else who, as Black Entertainment Television’s Robert Johnson memorably put it on Sunday, “tried rich and tried poor and like rich better.”

[…]

What is it that Mr. Obama doesn’t like about the United States—a country that sent him hurtling like an American Idol contestant from the obscurity of an Illinois Senate seat to the presidency in a mere four years?I suspect it’s the same thing that so many run-of-the-mill liberals dislike: Americans typically believe that happiness is an individual pursuit; we bridle at other people setting limits on what’s “enough”; we enjoy wealth and want to keep as much of it as we can; we don’t like trading in our own freedom for someone else’s idea of virtue, much less a fabricated concept of the collective good.

When a good history of anti-Americanism is someday written, it will note that it’s mainly a story of disenchantment—of the obdurate and sometimes vulgar reality of the country falling short of the lover’s ideal. Listening to Mr. Obama, especially now as the country turns against him, one senses in him a similar disenchantment: America is lovable exactly in proportion to the love it gives him in return.

Hence his increasingly ill-concealed expressions of contempt. Hence the increasingly widespread counter-contempt.

Read the rest: The President of Contempt

Bill Clinton besides throwing Israel under the bus, engages in some crude ethnic stereotyping of Israeli Jews

by Mojambo ( 118 Comments › )
Filed under Israel, Palestinians at September 23rd, 2011 - 5:00 pm

So much for Bill Clinton’s reputation as being pro Israel. It seems he is pro Israel as long as he has lap dogs like Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert doing his bidding. To blame Netanyahu for the lack of peace progress is similar to Pat Buchanan’s blaming Winston Churchill (in his execrable book written a few years ago)  for both World Wars.  How stupid and arrogant is it for Clinton to trash Netanyahu (a man he worked to defeat in 1999) while his wife has to at least on the surface collaborate  with him in negotiations? Not content to show his true colors, Clinton divides Israelis into different ethnic classes such as Arabs, Sabras, Ashkenazis, Sephardim, Orthodox, and Russians (the last two being villains) – as if some are more tolerant of Palestinian intransigence and terror then others. He has forgotten that it was Likud who signed Camp David n 1979 (that seems to be unraveling) and Sharon who got out of Gaza. Why should Israel offer the Palestinians the same deal that they rejected in 2000 and which has cost so many Jewish lives?

by Elliot Abrams

Bill Clinton today blasted Benjamin Netanyahu, blaming the Israeli prime minister for the lack of progress toward peace with the Palestinians.

The errors and misstatements in Clinton’s interview with bloggers are sufficient to change his reputation from that of a firm supporter of Israel into that of a firm supporter of Israelis who agree with his twisted version of the facts. Clinton simply blames the Israeli right for killing peace efforts. He appears entirely—in fact, embarrassingly— unaware of what has actually happened to the Israeli right over the last ten years, where the change has been extraordinary.

First, Ariel Sharon embraced Palestinian statehood in 2003, at the Aqaba Summit, and then took all Israeli settlements and bases out of Gaza in 2005. Sharon broke up his Likud Party over this, forming Kadima to back his policies. Likud fought those new Sharon policies for years, but Netanyahu is now bringing Likud, or most of it, around to supporting the basic Sharon view—that there should indeed be a Palestinian state. In his speech to the Knesset on Israeli independence day this year (May 16), ignored by Clinton (as it was by the Obama administration), Netanyahu agreed again to Palestinian statehood and the compromises it entails: “These compromises, by the way, will be hard to make because, no matter what, they involve parts of our homeland. It is not a strange land, it is the land of our forefathers, to which we have historic rights as well as security interests.” In his speech, Netanyahu also said Israel “must maintain the settlement blocs,” thereby tacitly acknowledging that every other settlement outside those few blocs may have to be given up.

[…..]

As he did last year, Clinton once again offered his vulgar, pop sociology explanation of Israel: “you’ve had all these immigrants coming in from the former Soviet Union, and they have no history in Israel proper, so the traditional claims of the Palestinians have less weight with them. The most pro-peace Israelis are the Arabs; second the Sabras, the Jewish Israelis that were born there; third, the Ashkenazi of long-standing, the European Jews who came there around the time of Israel’s founding. The most anti-peace are the ultra-religious, who believe they’re supposed to keep Judea and Samaria, and the settler groups, and what you might call the territorialists, the people who just showed up lately and they’re not encumbered by the historical record.”

Natan Sharansky, one of those Soviet immigrants “who just showed up lately” and who Clinton presumably thinks does not want peace, said in response: “I am particularly disappointed by the president’s casual use of inappropriate stereotypes about Israelis, dividing their views on peace based on ethnic origins.” Presumably, if you disagree with Clinton over the necessary preconditions for peace, you are against peace entirely—and you need to be denounced. The implication that someone like Sharansky, because he is an immigrant from the USSR, is “not encumbered by the historical record” and is indifferent to Palestinian claims requires no refutation; Clinton should be ashamed of himself. Unlike Clinton, whose most frequent foreign visitor to the White House (13 times!) was Yasser Arafat, Sharansky has stressed the importance of human rights and democracy as a prerequisite for a Palestinian state. Clinton was apparently quite ready to allow Arafat to create a terrorist satrapy.

[……]

That “deal” was adopted at an Arab League summit attended by only 10 of the 22 Arab leaders of the day, and among those not in attendance were the king of Jordan, the president of Egypt, and Yasser Arafat—suggesting that support for this proposal may have been quite limited. Moreover, it was a take-it-or-leave-it offer, never proffered as a basis for negotiation. This “heck of a deal” required “Complete withdrawal from the occupied Arab territories, including the Syrian Golan Heights, to the 4 June 1967 line and the territories still occupied in southern Lebanon.” In other words, go back to the indefensible 1967 borders, give up every settlement bloc, and give up every square foot of Jerusalem, including the Western Wall. Not quite as “huge” an offer as President Clinton recalls.

“The two great tragedies in modern Middle Eastern politics, which make you wonder if God wants Middle East peace or not, were Rabin’s assassination and Sharon’s stroke,” Clinton said. I can think of some others: The fact that a terrorist and thief, Yasser Arafat, led the Palestinian people for decades; the fact that he turned down Israeli peace offers at Camp David; the fact that the Palestinians turned down Ehud Olmert’s even more generous peace offers in 2008; the fact that thousands of Israelis were wounded or killed in the first and second intifadas; the fact that no Palestinian leader has ever spoken with candor to the Palestinian people about the compromises they will need to make in any peace agreement; the fact that for the last two and half years the Palestinian leadership has adamantly refused to come to the negotiating table.

In his Knesset speech, Netanyahu had a far clearer view than Clinton of the real tragedy: “The Palestinians regard this day, the foundation of the state of Israel, their nakba, their catastrophe. But their catastrophe was that they did not have a leadership that was willing to reach a true historic compromise between the Palestinian people and the Jewish people.”  It is sad that President Clinton cannot seem to grasp this elementary fact.

Read the rest –  Bill Clinton reinvents Israel