Obama Can’t Take The Heat

Obama is a man who likes his comfort. In the winter when it was cold he kept the White House very warm, warm enough to “grow orchids.” While he appears to think little of snow, as evidenced by his surprise that schools closed for just a little of the white stuff, he did not stay out in it preferring the comfort of his warm digs. He told us that we could not keep our thermostats at 72 degrees but when it came to his own comfort he kept it nice and toasty. We were told he does not like to be cold.

Snap forward to the Summer in DC and Obama is again a creature of comfort. Yesterday’s presser was moved from the Rose Garden to the James S. Brady Briefing Room. It seems that the humidity was too high for the sainted one. Summer is only a few days old and it was too humid. Sure, the claim was that it would make the press uncomfortable but they have been through this before. The real reason was stated after the faux concern for the press. The humidity would have made unflattering video.

Now I don’t care where they hold these things because I have no interest in what Obama has to say but to change because of a little humidity says a lot about the pampered White House occupant. Our troops are living in much higher heat and humidity and they cannot change where they are for comfort.

One would think their supposed leader could weather a little humidity. What was he afraid of, a bad hair day?

Big Dog

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

26 Responses to “Obama Can’t Take The Heat”

  1. Blake says:

    I guess he believed in that commercial, “Never let them see you sweat?”
    Perhaps he is a copious perspirer, and doesn’t want to let others know that he sweats like a pig.

  2. Darrel says:

    Finally! A substantive criticism of Obama. I think you got him this time.

    Oh wait… turns out it’s based on you saying “It seems…”.

    And your link says:

    “Aides in the Rose Garden discovered it was already sticky, which would have made for miserable journalists and unflattering video.”

    So they moved it to a different room.

    No evidence Obama had any input.

    D.

    • Big Dog says:

      I believe that I already pointed out what the source said about the humidity. Dies Obama have to say it for his wishes to be known?

      There was a valid criticism; he tells us where we should be keeping our thermostats while he keeps his pretty high in the winter. The info about the heat was from his own toady. I guess it is OK when taxpayers foot the bill.

      And it seems is valid. It is used to point out how something appears. The left was full of it seems with Bush.

      • Darrel says:

        Bigd: “[Does] Obama have to say it for his wishes to be known?>>

        DAR
        You provide no evidence he had any input on this mundane decision. It seems to me to be the type of thing that would be delegated to someone else. Not that it matters.
        I fail to see any benefit of having an uncomfortable press corp and our president, decked out in suit and tie, looking sweaty on camera.

        D.

  3. Bunny Colvin says:

    Dog-

    Where is the Sanford/Ensign coverage? I’ve added their names to the growing list of “moral values” (r)epukes that turn out to be lying, adulterous scumbags. Some role models these cheaters are to “the children” you guys always whine about. This clown Sanford was a big Ten Commandments monument guy. I guess he only read nine of them. The hypocrisy of the (r)epuke party truly knows no bounds.

    • Blake says:

      At least the Repubs take responsibility, unlike the Dems who run from their guilt.
      Jefferson, Rangel, Daschle, Killefer, Geithner, Emmanuel, all are crooks who cry for mommy and refuse to man up, so who is the responsible party here?

    • Blake says:

      Gee Bunny, don’t sugar coat it, tell it to us straight.
      Oh- by the way, what about Jefferson, Rangel, Daschle, Killefer, Waters, Edwards, and all the rest of the Dems? Is your outrage exclusive to Repubs? Or are you an honest person who condemns all?
      I think they are all disappointing to me- but at least the Repubs take responsibility for their misdeeds and resign, while Rangel is still in charge of writing the tax code he is still violating.
      Who’s the hypocrite here?

  4. Big Dog says:

    The coverage is all over the news. You should try watching it. Why don’t you just keep a list without the party? You can add Spitzer, Edwards, Clinton and a host of others to it.

    You seem to think that because a person believes something he is unable to fail or have a weak moment. I don’t condone what they did but the major media is taking care of the coverage you want.

    What do you mean the children? You pukes are the ones always saying something is for the children.

    There are people in both parties who do bad things. Notice, these two guys fessed up to what they did and will face the consequences. The three Dumbocrats I mentioned lied about it and fessed up once they were caught with their pants down, so to speak.

    Or are you saying that the Dumbocrats do not count because they have no moral values to begin with? That’s how I take what you wrote.

  5. Bunny Colvin says:

    Hmmm…A Sanford aide was caught lying about him being on a “hiking trip” on the Appalachian Trail when he was really in Argentina hiking up his girlfriends’ miniskirt.

    What I find funny is the whole “holier than thau” attitude of these CONservatives. Of course, they ain’t so holy after all.

    • Blake says:

      Look in the mirror Buns- your side professes to never break laws, and we know that’s not true, so begin your “laughing” at home.

  6. Big Dog says:

    No one has a holier than thou attitude. That is a fabrication of your small mind. Was the aide caught lying or did the aide tell people what Sanford told him?

    They are all the same. John Edwards and two Americas and how he is devoted to his sickly wife boo hoo and then he is boinking that chic and she had his kid. He then sneaks around a hotel and gets caught in a restroom wetting his pants over getting caught. Then he admits to it.

    There is scum on both sides. You and Darrel play games with this but you are both blinded by where you keep your heads to see it.

  7. Bunny Colvin says:

    I thought only gays threatened the sanctity of marriage. Apparently, “moral values” (r)epukes do too. And this Sanford clown was very critical of President Clinton’s cheating. At least Bubba didnt have to leave the country to get a piece. Must everything be outsourced? Sanford has four children and this “Maria” lover of his apparently has two. Those poor kids.

  8. Big Dog says:

    That is one item that did not need to be outsourced because it is not taxed. If it were then it would leave this country. The Dem policies chase business away.

    Once again, you act as if people are infallible. He was critical of Clinton, big deal. All politicians are critical of others while they are doing the same thing.

    Obama was critical of McCain for a plan to tax health care benefits from employers and now he is considering it himself.

    All of them, including Clinton, have been critical of someone and were doing the same thing.

    How often did Clinton say that one person or another was not being truthful? How often was he not truthful.

    And you don’t know if Bubba had to leave the country to get a piece. You only know he did not have to leave to get that woman, Miss Lewinsky.

  9. Bunny Colvin says:

    Which poses a larger threat to the “sanctity of marriage” in the state of South Carolina- Governor Mark Sanford or gay marriage???

    • Blake says:

      gay marriage

    • Big Dog says:

      Gay marriage. Marriage is a religious institution and government should not be involved in it.

      • Darrel says:

        BigD: “Marriage is a religious institution and government should not be involved in it.”

        DAR
        It’s hard to imagine a more colossal misstatement of fact.

        It would be nice if it were true because, since religion is unregulated and just made up on the fly as anyone wishes, the problem would be solved. That is, instantly, gone.

        Some churches would marry gay people. Some wouldn’t. Ah, freedom.

        But marriage is not in any meaningful sense a “religious institution.” No one cares about that because religious claims have no reality in the real world. They’re make believe.

        What is real is the fact that marriage is obviously, objectively, a legal instrument, a government bestowed category of contract which carries many rights and responsibilities. That’s what matters and is all anyone really cares about. Whatever babble is spoken about marriage in the church of your choice, matters not, one, whit.

        So to correct Bigd’s big error:

        “Marriage is a license and contract the government furnishes and whether people allow their religion to get involved with it is a private matter and quite irrelevant anyway.”

        D.
        ——————
        The Presidential Prayer Team, in its August 15, 2003 newsletter requested that we pray for a suitable definition of marriage to be codified into law. They urged Americans to:
        “Pray for the President as he seeks wisdom on how to legally codify the definition of marriage. Pray that it will be according to Biblical principles. With many forces insisting on variant definitions of marriage, pray that God’s Word and His standards will be honored by our government.”
        Here is a proposed Constitutional Amendment codifying marriage on biblical principles:

        A. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5.) Marriage shall not impede a man’s right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)

        B. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21) Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)

        C. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)

        D. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother’s widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen. 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)

        • Big Dog says:

          While government has taken over the licensing of marriages the institution is mentioned in the very first book of the Bible, when a man takes his wife.

          Marriage is an institution that God created and that government controls.

          One enters into a contract with another, the government allows for the contract if a fee is paid. This was not always the case. People did not need a license to marry long ago and the license only started when states began allowing interracial marriage. Once the state began requiring those then they required a license for everyone. Then the feds made in uniform in 1923.

          Government was not involved in it and should not be today. A license means you have permission to do something. Why do I need permission from the government to marry? I can marry who I want and do not need their permission.

          Now, you will say that marry who you want should be anyone of any sex. The definition of marriage from the Bible through our history is between men and women. Men use to be allowed many wives but government stopped that. Don’t know who would want it, too many mothers in law.

          So, yes marriage is a religious institution and the definition is between a man and a woman.

          A same sex couple could have a civil union that is a contract allowed and performed by the government. A change in the tax law and the law of succession after death would solve any the complaints against this process.

        • Darrel says:

          DAR
          Marriage is mentioned in Genesis but this is a Hebrew story written by and for the Hebrew people. It hardly has any bearing in the US today. The God in Genesis/Exodus also established slavery and allowed a slaves to be beaten to death (Exod 21:21). This is not a bit of writing anyone should be looking to for moral guidance. Best to not take stories with talking animals too seriously. See the definition of “fable.”

          BIGD: “Marriage is an institution that God created and that government controls.”>>

          DAR
          The first claim can never be shown, the second claim, is obviously true. The second claim is the only part that matters in reality. The first claim, sounds nice but has no effect or substance in reality.

          BIGD: Government was not involved in it and should not be today.>>

          DAR
          You want ministers to enforce marriage/divorce laws? That’s funny. Any “religious” role to marriage today is purely ceremonial, optional and completely irrelevant to our laws.

          BIGD: “Why do I need permission from the government to marry?”>>

          DAR
          Because it’s the law. Don’t like the law, petition your government to change it. Don’t expect any support on this one!

          BIGD: I can marry who I want and do not need their permission.>>

          DAR
          True, except for that bit about you actually being married. Try it and see.

          BIGD: “A same sex couple could have a civil union that is a contract allowed and performed by the government.”

          DAR
          Well if it’s the same thing, then lets let them get “married” and be done with it. If it’s not the same thing then, it’s unfair, unconstitutional and it’s not equal protection under the law.

          Still waiting for an argument for why we can’t give gays complete equality on this issue. I’ll be waiting a long time because… there isn’t one.

          D.
          ——————-
          “My wife is a sex object. Every time I ask for sex, she objects.” –Rodney Dangerfield

  10. Bill Jones says:

    I know I’m late to the party here…but I heard that the real reason it was moved in doors was because the weather was so bright and sunny that it was impossible to see the screens on the teleprompters.