SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (115344)10/12/2011 2:33:06 PM
From: JakeStraw3 Recommendations  Respond to of 224750
 
More old tired ideas that were/are proven don't work from the dopes in Washington... We need new thinking in Washington!



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (115344)10/12/2011 2:34:20 PM
From: JakeStraw4 Recommendations  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 224750
 
The Obama Problem
americanthinker.com

The Obama Problem is simple to explain but impossible to solve. The problem is Obama himself, and most people not named Barack or Michelle understand that.

President Obama's political career is in free-fall. He will not be reelected. Many Democrats and media personalities now understand what appeared impossible even mere months ago.

Mr. Obama burst onto the political scene as a relatively unknown wunderkind. He could read a mean teleprompter and did so with fanfare at the 2004 Democrat Convention. He had good speechwriters, an intelligent and disciplined campaign strategy, a carefully crafted biography, and a highly compliant media. He was charismatic and eloquent. Joe Biden awkwardly described him as "the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy."

The Perfect Storm

The 2008 election was the political equivalent of a perfect storm." Two factors were key to Obama's election:

  1. Americans were disgusted with Washington, and especially with George Bush. The media anointed Obama as their man. They publicized his strengths and hid his weaknesses. They painted him as an outsider, someone who could bridge the gap between political parties and make Washington function. The media engineered Obama into the nomination and threw Hillary Clinton overboard in the primary process.
  2. The Republicans chose a sure loser to run -- shopworn Washington-establishment figure Senator John McCain. McCain offered nothing that had not already been rejected by the public. He was little more than an elderly George W. Bush who carried the additional baggage of a Washington insider. It is likely that any Democrat would have easily beaten McCain.
When the perfect storm cleared, Obama was president.

No president in recent history began his term with higher expectations and goodwill than Barack Obama, but the promise and exhilaration that accompanied his election was short-lived. In less than three years, Obama plummeted from the heights (his "Messiah" entry) to the depths (a "worse than Jimmy Carter" figure).

The turnaround was astonishing in its speed and magnitude. To put matters in perspective, it took George Bush almost eight years to hit bottom. And Bush always had little support from the media, a force that continues to protect Obama.

How Things Went So Wrong So Quickly

To understand Obama's loss in popularity, it is necessary to recognize that Barack Obama was a fluke. He was an unlikely candidate, pushed to his party's nomination as a result of the media. His election was another quirk, more aberration than achievement. The perfect storm virtually ensured that the Democrat candidate would win in 2008. It is not a strain to conclude that the mainstream media, rather than the electorate, put Obama into the highest office in the land.

In hindsight, a great mistake was made. Even the fawning media and the Democrat establishment now recognize that, although are unwilling to publicly admit it. Their behavior is analogous to refusing to discuss a friend's terminal illness in the hope that it will somehow go away.

The media and the Democratic Party are at risk if the tragedy they foisted on the nation continues. Their future is intertwined with the Obama Problem. Both sponsored him, and both may ultimately be held accountable. The battle so easily won in 2008 may cost them subsequent battles, if not the war itself.

Both know the risk. They just have no easy way of solving the problem.

Opinions regarding the factors responsible for Mr. Obama's political demise abound. A full menu is available -- the economy, broken promises, cronyism, socialism, bailouts, corruption, disillusionment, inexperience, incompetence, Chicago-style politics, etc. Pundits have a target-rich environment from which to approach the failure of the Obama presidency.

The factors above are relevant but one level removed from the root cause. The real problem is that there never was any substance to Obama. He was the political equivalent of a Potemkin village. There was nothing behind the façade. There was no "there" there. All of the problems arise from this obvious flaw.

President Obama is little more than a run-of-the-mill Hollywood extra hired to play president of the United States. A brilliant marketing campaign coupled with the perfect storm put him in office. The marketing campaign was so good that it merits a case study for the Harvard Business School.

The "man with no past" and a Hollywood veneer turned out to be a perfect candidate. "Sizzle" rather than substance was sold. Little was known about Obama and his past, allowing David Axelrod to market the political equivalent of a Rorschach blot.

Voters saw in Obama whatever they desired in a candidate. To some, Obama was a breath of fresh air, a man of principles. To others he was an outsider, not a crass politician. Others saw him as a chance to prove that they were not racists. Still others saw him as the reincarnation of Roosevelt or whomever else they admired.

Obama was a blank slate to be imagined or drawn upon by the voters. He was their chameleon, and each voter could use his or her imagination to create the ideal candidate. Not surprisingly, voters bought this product that existed only in their minds. They elected Chauncey Gardiner. Unfortunately, this fraud did not come with Peter Sellers' range or abilities.

A brilliant marketing strategy can make a first sale, but performance and satisfaction are required for the second. Axelrod's skill in marketing had no counterparty in production. No one seemed to be concerned about delivering a product that actually worked.

Obama entered office unorganized and unstructured. Nothing in his background suggested that he knew anything about management, organization, or leadership. Nor did anyone see the need for bringing in talent with these skills. As a result, the Hollywood mannequin was almost immediately exposed as nothing but flair, hype, and hot air. The public had bought a product that did not perform.

Marketing can do many things, but it cannot sell a product that people have tried and rejected. That is Obama's reelection problem. At the risk of being unsophisticated and abusing the concept of Occam's Razor, Obama's reelection problem can be expressed in one simple sentence: "Now, too many people know him."

Obama's only strength was Axelrod's ability to play on the imagination of voters. That strength no longer exists. People now know the product and have rejected it. They did not get even Chauncey Gardiner. Embarrassed and angry, the public is stuck with Chance the Gardener.

The irony is that Mr. Obama has not changed. He is the same man who was elected. His problem is not communicating, Republicans, George Bush, tsunamis, or anything else. His problem is the man in the mirror. There is no more there than an image.

Obama was all hype and no substance. That realization has dawned on voters, resulting in horrendous polling. Richard Nixon was never liked, but he was at least thought competent. Obama was liked but never competent. Now Obama is living proof of the old adage that familiarity breeds contempt. He is neither liked nor competent.

Even the hapless Jimmy Carter did not attain that status.



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (115344)10/12/2011 2:57:47 PM
From: longnshort1 Recommendation  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 224750
 
In Flint, Michigan, Vice President Joe Biden suggested that more rapes and murders could occur if President Barack Obama's jobs bill is not passed.

Biden: Pass Jobs Bill To Avoid Increased Rape, Murder



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (115344)10/12/2011 3:42:21 PM
From: longnshort  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 224750
 
Ex-Indiana governor: That's not my signature on Obama petition


  • Comments
    44



  • Share864



  • Associated Press 12:33 p.m. CDT, October 12, 2011


    Former Gov. Joe Kernan says a signature on a petition to place Barack Obama's name on Indiana's 2008 primary ballot isn't his, putting him among dozens of dubious signatures found in a newspaper's investigation.

    Kernan, a Democrat who campaigned for Hillary Clinton during the 2008 primary, told the South Bend Tribune that he didn't sign the Obama document.






    "No, not at all," the former South Bend mayor said when asked whether the signature next to his name on the Obama petition looked like his own. "Nor does the printing look like mine."

    The Tribune reported Wednesday that it has talked with more than 40 people who say they didn't sign ballot petitions submitted in St. Joseph County for Obama or Clinton, despite their names appearing on the documents.

    State Republican Party Chairman Eric Holcomb has called for a federal investigation into the matter.

    "How deep does this problem go?" Holcomb said. "Is it isolated to St. Joseph County, or was it a broader, coordinated effort across the state? ... Who forged the signatures and why?"

    The Tribune first reported Sunday that it and the Howey Politics Indiana newsletter had found pages from Clinton and Obama petitions with names and signatures that appear to have been copied by hand from a petition for 2008 Democratic gubernatorial hopeful Jim Schellinger. The petitions were filed with the Indiana Election Division after the St. Joseph County Voter Registration Office verified individuals' information on the documents.

    The petitions were submitted in late January and early February 2008, weeks before it became apparent that Obama and Clinton would be hotly contesting Indiana's May primary in their tight race for the Democratic nomination. Clinton narrowly won the state, but Obama won many delegates in his successful drive for the nomination.

    Indiana law requires candidates for president, senator and governor to submit ballot petitions signed by at least 500 registered voters in each of the state's nine congressional districts to qualify for the statewide primary ballot. The Tribune reported the investigation had only found questionable signatures among the St. Joseph County petitions.

    County Prosecutor Michael Dvorak, a Democrat, has started an investigation into the faked signatures.

    Indiana Democratic Party Chairman Dan Parker said the petitions were submitted and approved through the normal process in a bipartisan county office and that he supports an investigation.

    "Even an isolated instance of misconduct, by one individual among the hundreds of volunteers working to collect signatures for the candidates, should be thoroughly investigated, and we support such an inquiry," Parker said.

    Holcomb said the questionable signatures raised "real questions" about the process and that he believed the U.S. Department of Justice should investigate the matter.

    "The integrity of every election is of the utmost importance," Holcomb said in a news release.



    To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (115344)10/12/2011 4:15:31 PM
    From: longnshort3 Recommendations  Read Replies (5) | Respond to of 224750
     
    Apologies Not Accepted Posted 10/11/2011 06:29 PM ET



    In November 2009, Barack Obama became the first U.S. president to bow to Japan's emperor. View Enlarged Image

    Leadership: Leaked cables show Japan nixed a presidential apology to Hiroshima and Nagasaki for using nukes to end the overseas contingency operation known as World War II. Will the next president apologize for the current one?

    The obsessive need of this president to apologize for American exceptionalism and our defense of freedom continued recently when Barack Obama's State Department (run by Hillary Clinton) contacted the family of al-Qaida propagandist and recruiter Samir Khan to "express its condolences" to his family.

    Khan, a right-hand man to Anwar al-Awlaki, was killed along with Awlaki in an airstrike in Yemen on Sept. 30. We apologized for killing a terrorist before he could help kill any more of us.

    It's yet another part of the world apology tour that began with Obama taking the oath of office to protect and defend the United States and its Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, something he immediately felt sorry for.

    One stop on his tour was Prague in August 2009. There he spoke of "America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons," ignoring that before 1945 we lived in such a world and it was neither peaceful nor secure.

    Another stop on the tour was in Japan, where Obama in November 2009 bowed to the emperor, something no American president had ever done. It could have been worse if plans to visit Nagasaki and Hiroshima to apologize for winning the war with the atom bombs had come to pass.

    A heretofore secret cable dated Sept. 3, 2009, was recently released by WikiLeaks. Sent to Secretary of State Clinton, it reported Japan's Vice Foreign Minister Mitoji Yabunaka telling U.S. Ambassador John Roos that "the idea of President Obama visiting Hiroshima to apologize for the atomic bombing during World War II is a 'nonstarter.'"

    The Japanese feared the apology would be exploited by anti-nuclear groups and those opposed to the defensive alliance between Japan and the U.S.



    Listen to the Podcast
    Subscribe through iTunes

    Whatever Tokyo's motive, Obama's motive was to once again apologize for defending freedom, this time for winning with devastating finality the war Japan started.

    While Obama envisions a world without nuclear weapons, and moves steadily toward unilateral disarmament of our nuclear arsenal, we envision a world without tyrants and thugs willing to use them against us. We do not fear nuclear weapons in the hands of Britain or France, countries that share our love of freedom and democracy.



    To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (115344)10/12/2011 7:17:35 PM
    From: lorne4 Recommendations  Respond to of 224750
     
    ken...More good news for dem dems.

    ..Proposed millionaires income tax would hit Democratic states hardest
    By Neil Munro --
    The Daily Caller
    Mon, Oct 10, 2011
    news.yahoo.com

    The millionaire tax being pushed by Senate Democrats this week would hit taxpayers in Democrat-dominated states almost twice as hard as those in Republican-dominated states, according to an analysis by The Daily Caller.

    States that have elected two Republican senators tend to have much lower levels of economic inequality than states which have elected two Democratic senators. Democrat-dominated states tend to have higher percentages of very rich people, higher percentages of very poor people, and a lower percentage of middle-income people.

    For example, the 5.6 percent tax on million-dollar earners will hit 0.7 percent of taxpayers in New York, 1.2 percent of taxpayers in Connecticut and 0.4 percent of taxpayers in Colorado, according to an Oct. 6 report by the left-of-center group Citizens for Tax Justice (CTJ).

    On average, 2.9 percent of taxpayers in the 18 states that elect two Democratic senators would be forced to pay the millionaire’s surtax if it becomes law.

    In contrast, only 1.7 percent of people in the 15 states that send two Republicans to the Senate would pay the surtax.

    In the the 17 states that split their Senate seats, 1.73 percent of taxpayers would be billed the millionaire surtax, which would be applied to individuals or couples with an “adjusted gross income” of $1 million.

    In Democrat-dominated Washington D.C., 0.9 percent of taxpayers would pay the tax. In adjacent Maryland and Virginia, 0.3 percent of people would get the surtax forms from the IRS.

    Nationally, only 0.2 percent of taxpayers earn at least one million dollars per year, according to the report.

    The tax bill is unlikely to become law, partly because of the GOP’s opposition to expanding government and raising taxes, but also because many Democrats are less interested in passing the tax than in using the votes as a campaign-trail talking point.

    Democrats, including President Barack Obama, expect to use GOP opposition to help paint it as the heartless friend of Wall Street. Wall Street is based in New York, and many of its leading players live in New York or nearby Connecticut. Both states are dominated by Democratic politicians and both states send two Democrats to the Senate.

    The GOP-led state with the highest percentage of millionaire taxpayers is Texas, where oil and high-tech business boosted the percentage of millionaires to 0.5 percent. That’s below the New York’s 0.7 percent, but much higher than the 0.3 percent scored by Democratic-dominated Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey and Washington state.

    The next highest GOP states are oil-rich Oklahoma and Wyoming, where 0.3 and 0.4 of taxpayers would reach the $1 million income threshold.

    In 10 Republican-led states, only 0.1 percent of taxpayers would pay the millionaire’s tax. In nine Democrat-dominated states, 0.1 percent of people would pay the tax.

    The comparison is somewhat muddied by recent elections, which have made the GOP dominant in Virginia’s state house, despite the two Democratic senators who will likely vote for the bill.

    Massachusetts’ state government is dominated by Democrats, but the 2010 election of Sen. Scott Brown takes it out of the Democrat-dominated column. If the tax passes, 0.6 percent of the states’ taxpayers would pay the surtax

    In 27 states, only 0.1 percent of people would be hit by the taxes. In eight states, 0.2 percent of people would pay the tax, says the CTJ report.

    ..



    To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (115344)10/13/2011 7:23:29 AM
    From: Hope Praytochange  Respond to of 224750
     



    To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (115344)10/13/2011 7:37:42 AM
    From: lorne5 Recommendations  Respond to of 224750
     
    Cain: The Democratic Party's biggest threat
    October 12, 2011
    Larry Elder
    wnd.com


    What to do about Herman Cain?

    This question goes not to the Republican Party, where "establishment" candidates like Mitt Romney privately dismiss Cain as lacking the experience, gravitas and resources to beat President Barack Obama and then to soundly govern the country.

    Herman Cain is not going to be the GOP nominee.

    Without a serious star-power staff, a ground game, chits to be called in by the candidate or the candidate's influential network of friends of influence, the "fat cats" sit on their checkbooks until and unless they believe their horse can win. A serious presidential candidate is not one who, like Cain, breaks from campaigning for a book tour timed to coincide with his unlikely quest for the White House.

    No, Cain is a clear and present danger to the Democratic Party – and their invaluable near-monolithic black vote. Cain says things like: "African-Americans have been brainwashed" into voting for the Democratic Party; "If you (Wall Street protesters) don't have a job or you're not rich, blame yourself"; "People sometimes hold themselves back because they want to use racism as an excuse for them not being able to achieve what they want to achieve"; and "I don't believe racism in this country today holds anybody back in a big way."

    Read the story before it unfolds! Herman Cain's latest book is now available: "This is Herman Cain! My Journey to the White House"

    How do some influential left-wing blacks react? Not well:

    Cornell West, professor of black studies at Princeton: Cain needs to "get off the symbolic crack pipe."

    Harry Belafonte, entertainer, civil-rights activist: "He's a bad apple, and people should look at his whole card. He's not what he says he is."

    Tavis Smiley, PBS host and NPR broadcaster, simply writes off Cain's comments as "ridiculous or crazy."

    But Cain threatens to change the race-card game in ways that even those who voted against Barack Obama hoped he would do: Put the stake through the heart of the nonsense that white racism still holds people back. Instead, Obama sides with a black Harvard professor who badly mistreats a white Cambridge cop who was just doing his job. Obama tells an author that racism fuels the opposition to Obamacare. Obama says nothing when comrades ranging from former President Jimmy Carter to Jesse Jackson Jr. to Morgan Freeman defend Obama by blaming racism.

    Now comes Cain.

    He calls his economic program 9-9-9. But Cain's real number is 95. That is the percentage of the black vote captured in 2008 by Obama. What if someway, somehow, the Republicans captured over 35 percent of the black presidential vote, as the GOP did as recently as 1956?

    Cain asks this question: Why do blacks, in 2011, vote Democratic? Answer: because a) they falsely believe racism remains a serious threat, and b) that Republicans are bad people who wish them ill. Neither of which, says Cain, is true. Blacks are more anti-abortion, more pro-traditional marriage and more pro-vouchers for inner-city parents than the typical non-black Democrat. A bad economy, made worse by Obama's tax-spend-regulate, welfare-state mentality, means blacks suffer disproportionately.


    This argument makes Cain a walking refutation to the black victicrat "leaders" who speak about the "plight" of the "black underclass" and who attribute legitimate policy differences to "racism."

    Cain represents a hardworking, up-from-the-bootstraps, financially successful, plainspoken Republican Southern black man who believes America in 2011 and America in 1960 are two different worlds. Worse for the grievance crowd, Cain calls out the Democratic Party for fostering a victicrat mentality and creating a sense of entitlement.

    Cain's straight talk makes him stand out in debates. He is now close to cracking the "top tier" of candidates. Clearly, lots of people have begun to listen. What if blacks start listening?

    Cain believes what former slave Booker T. Washington wrote a mere 35 years after slavery ended:

    "When a Negro girl learns to cook, to wash dishes, to sew, to write a book, or a Negro boy learns to groom horses, or to grow sweet potatoes, or to produce butter, or to build a house, or to be able to practice medicine, as well or better than someone else, they will be rewarded regardless of race or color. In the long run, the world is going to have the best, and any difference in race, religion, or previous history will not long keep the world from what it wants.

    "I think that the whole future of my race hinges on the question as to whether or not it can make itself of such indispensable value that the people in the town and the state where we reside will feel that our presence is necessary to the happiness and well-being of the community. No man who continues to add something to the material, intellectual, and moral well-being of the place in which he lives is long left without proper reward. This is a great human law which cannot be permanently nullified."

    Or, as Cain puts it, "I left the Democrat plantation a long time ago."