Sunday, December 5, 2010

Obama: The Republican Candidate in 2012?

If one reads the scuttlebutt around the tubeosphere, one may just wonder why Obama just doesn't switch parties and get it over with.

The folks are upset with the McFly Act, Transvestite State Secrets in place of Transparency, Tea Bagging Glory in place of Dance With The One Who Brung Yuh, and the like.

Lately the punditosphere has become more and more vocal about the cross dressing, and I ain't talking about Thanksgiving:

... hope for a surprisingly bipartisan conclusion to the lame duck Congress.

My questions are: What planet do he and they think they are on ...

(Fineman). Howard, we answered that question recently in the post On The Origin of MOMCOM.

An exasperated reporter recently ranted:
Within roughly 24 hours, President Obama preemptively capitulated to the Republicans and proposed an unabridged GOP idea -- freezing federal worker salaries, then, almost as if on cue, the Senate Republicans put their unflinching childish obstructionism in writing and pledged to block everything unless the president extends the deficit-ballooning Bush tax rates. And in that mix, the Republicans blocked extensions of unemployment benefits. Twice.

The upshot? The president looks extraordinarily weak. Weaker than at any other time in his presidency. It probably didn't help that he was literally beaten and bloodied when he announced the pay freeze, due to his weekend basketball fracas.

Of course the intention isn't to appear weak. The intention is to appear magnanimous.
(Cesca). In a similar vein there were very rich comments from one who does not like mince meat:
THOSE desperate to decipher the baffling Obama presidency could do worse than consult an article titled “Understanding Stockholm Syndrome”... This dynamic was acted out — yet again — in President Obama’s latest and perhaps most humiliating attempt to placate his Republican captors ...
(Rich). Republican rite wingers are calling him a close friend, while some of them are growing a goatee.

Like Alice said, "things are getting curiouser and curiouser".


  1. The Manchurian candidate Obama won't do the right thing and switch parties, but he will run again as a democrat (really now, complete sellout that he is, who do the yellow stripers have that isn't just as bad?), and in the process lose the election in a landslide of historic proportions (although the Repugs and the Tea Bags might split the rest). This one's gonna make Reagan '80 pale in comparison.

    The resulting right wing surge is gonna turn us into something resembling Weimar 1933, what with the currency going down the tubes, censorship on the rise, corporate America completely in charge, and rampant miltarism that would have Hitler himself licking his chops.

    I don't think this was any mere accident either. The march to this point has simply been too orderly to ascribe to mere circumstance. Obama was bought and paid for before he ever threw his hat into the ring. Gotta say, the Repubes certainly got their money's worth from this guy - the best pseudo-President that money could buy.

  2. I guess Agent Orange (a.k.a. John Boehner) is the character "Biff Tannen" in back to the future:

    "In the first film, George [McFly] is portrayed as weak and the main target of Biff Tannen's bullying."

    see the Wikipedia link in Dredd's post.

  3. When it comes to Obama's ill-begotten "Presidency," I think the term "buyers remorse" might be operable.

    From WikiPedia:

    Buyer's remorse is the sense of regret after having made a purchase. It is frequently associated with the purchase of big-ticket items such as a car or house [or President]. It may stem from a sense of not wishing to be wrong, of guilt over extravagance, or of suspecting having been "snowed" by a sales associate.

    Buyer's remorse, when evidence exists that it is justified, is a classical example of cognitive dissonance. One will either seek to discount the new evidence, or truly regret and try to renounce the purchase.

    On cognitive dissonance Wiki has this to say:

    Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding conflicting ideas simultaneously. The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance. They do this by changing their attitudes, beliefs, and actions.[2] Dissonance is also reduced by justifying, blaming, and denying. It is one of the most influential and extensively studied theories in social psychology.

    Experience can clash with expectations, as, for example, with buyer's remorse following the purchase of an expensive item. In a state of dissonance, people may feel surprise,[2] dread, guilt, anger, or embarrassment. People are biased to think of their choices as correct, despite any contrary evidence. This bias gives dissonance theory its predictive power, shedding light on otherwise puzzling irrational and destructive behavior.

    Yep, pretty much explains the remaining dems' continued support of a president who by all objective measures should be considered one of the greatest election frauds in US or any other nation's history.

    Questions? When do the impeachment hearings start, and who do I talk to to get a seat?

  4. And before the dirty deal is even done, here is the "liberal elite media's" take on it:

    WASHINGTON — Members of Congress said Sunday they are on track for a deal that would include a temporary extension of the George W. Bush-era tax cuts for all Americans. An extension of unemployment insurance — a demand of President Obama and many Democrats — would also be part of a potential agreement, lawmakers from both parties said on various talk shows.
    "Most folks believe that the recipe would include at least an extension of unemployment benefits ... and an extension of all of the tax rates for all Americans for some period of time," said Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., who is involved in negotiations with the White House.

    USA Today

    Could anyone even make this shit up? No one I know for sure.

    There is a pestilence already loosed upon this land, and it remains to be seen whether or not the dem "representatives" we've elected are even capable of recognizing it, nevermind actually acting on it.

  5. W rolls over and confides to Luara before slipping off to yet another deep night's sleep, "Karl told me I'd f*** them stupid-assed dems over down the road when we passed this one, and he was right, as always."

    This in response to this.

    What can you say? Those who can, govern. Those who can't, get governed. dems, what are they good for? ABSOLUTELY NOTHIN', SAY IT AGAIN!

  6. The republicans call Nancy Perosi soft, because she isn't. She will not let the tax cuts for the rich go through, so long as her fellow House dems hold.

    They have already passed the tax cuts for those making under $250G (middle class, poor), and all republicans voted against it. The tax cuts for the rich were left out so they expire this month.

    Hold the fort Nancy until the dinos get the picture.

  7. The consensus is growing:

    "Let's stop pretending. Barack Obama is a disaster as a crisis president. He has taken an economic collapse that was the result of Republican ideology and Republican policies, and made it the Democrats' fault. And the more that he is pummeled, the more he bends over."

    (Huffington Post, Kuttner).