Big Dogs Weblog

Obama Says He Lost Touch With The People

Jan 21, 2010 Political

Fresh off his third stinging defeat in as many tries, Barack Obama was licking his wounds and working on various evil plans to inflict his health care takeover on us when he took time out of his busy day to give an interview to George Stephanopoulos when he said that he had lost touch with the American people:

“If there’s one thing that I regret this year is that we were so busy just getting stuff done and dealing with the immediate crises that were in front of us that I think we lost some of that sense of speaking directly to the American people about what their core values are and why we have to make sure those institutions are matching up with those values,” Obama told ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos in an exclusive interview at the White House. ABC News

There was no immediate crises, only those that were trumped up because the Democrats cannot let a crisis go to waste. Obama was so busy getting stuff done that he could not talk to us. I feel like he was so busy doing stuff TO us but that is another story.

This is Barack Obama trying to rationalize his failure. His stimulus has been a failure, his cap and trade is on the back burner and will likely not reappear after the fraud in the global warming community and the vote in Massachusetts, and his health care legislation is in serious jeopardy after the Brown win. The legislation was always a loser considering that they had to chop it up and bribe people to vote for it.

Obama is saying to us, you know if I would have spoken to you in my elegant voice while reading carefully crafted words from a teleprompter you would have been mesmerized like you were during the campaign and you would have done anything I asked. Obama is showing us how humble he is by admitting that he failed us and that he will do better. He knows if he had just spoken to us we would not be upset with his health care takeover and he would still have a filibuster proof majority in the Senate.

If only he had talked.

Let’s get real. Since when is this guy NOT talking. I have seen him on TV just about every day since he was elected. He is on TV even when he is on vacation and he is talking all the time. Here are a few facts about Mr. I lost touch with you:

During his first year Barack Obama had:

• 411 speeches, comments and remarks
  52 of them were “addresses or statements specifically on his health care proposals” [emphasis mine]
• 42 News Conferences including 4 in Prime Time
• 158 Interviews
• 23 Town Hall meetings

Barack Obama had over 600 encounters in one form or another in his first year in office. This is an average encounter of 1.6 times each day for the entire year. This does not include the endless replays of these encounters on the news shows where people were able to see him over and over again. To top it off he talked about health care an average of once a week.

[note]My fear is that Obama really believes he did not speak to us enough and will put himself out there even more in his second year. He was overexposed in his first year and if he really believes he needs more exposure then they will have to get him his own network. Oh wait, he has one, MSNBC.[/note]

Make no mistake about it, Obama was out there more than enough and the people heard him more than enough. He did not lose touch with us because he was talking to us an average of 1.6 times each and every day. The reality is that Americans saw him too much and he began to wear on us. The more he talked and the more his henchmen in Congress did their thing the more we became disgusted. America got a good look at Obama in his first year due to his overexposure and we did not like what we saw.

He can spin it however he wants but Americans did not like what they saw and reacted to knock the emperor down a peg or two.

Obama can claim that he lost touch with us but as I have shown, this is not true.

The only thing he lost touch with is traditional American values.

Assuming he had any to begin with.

[tip]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.[/tip]

Tags: connection, defeat, lies, Obama, rationalize

Why No War Coverage During Campaign?

Nov 3, 2008 Political

When the Democrats were engaged in their drawn out primary they discussed the war on terror in Iraq quite frequently. Obama claimed that he had the best judgment because he opposed the war though no one knows how he would have voted because he was not in the Senate. In his 143 days of work (yep that is how many he has in 4 years) he has not done much to show his strong opposition or immense wisdom.

The war was supposed to be the big issue. The Democrats were going to club Republicans to death over Bush’s mismanagement of the war. Obama said the surge did not work, Reid said we lost and many other Democrats talked about how we were doing poorly.

Ever since the general election campaign started there is little news about the war. In three debates the issue was barely discussed other than some foreign policy discussion and Obama’s refusal to acknowledge the success of the surge. He also had the opportunity to lie about what he “has said all along” (when Obama uses those words he is lying and it is not what he said all along).

Perhaps the war is not discussed because the Democrats can get no traction out of it. When things were going rough they were going to ride anti war sentiment into the White House. The problem for the Democrats is, despite their best efforts, we are winning. The US has suffered the lowest number of casualties since the war began with 13 in October and 61 since the beginning of August. The number of Iraqi deaths has also fallen.

Our heroes are doing a great job and we are winning the war. George Bush has been beaten up pretty badly over the war but we are making real progress. It is not time to pull our troops out. We need an exit strategy that includes winning as a precondition of coming home.

It is hard to tell what Obama will do because he told people during the primaries that he would take them out immediately. Then he started changing his tune and now he calls for responsible withdraw. Responsible withdraw is when we win.

John McCain will not allow our troops to be defeated and will do a much better job with the military. Obama can claim he is better suited to be the Commander in Chief but those claims are from a fantasy world. John McCain had forgotten more about the military that Obama will ever know.

Source:
My Way News

I am the Big Dog and I approve this blog post.

Tags: casualties, defeat, Iraq, McCain, Obama, victory, war, withdraw

Obama; Wrong Then and Befuddled Now

Jul 23, 2008 Political

Barack Hussein Obama absolutely opposed the surge of troops into Iraq. This is an undeniable truth and his own words on the subject depict not only a man who opposed the surge but told us that he believed it would have the opposite effect. He said it would cause more violence, not less. Doug Ross documents Obama’s position on the surge:

• Barack Obama, Jan. 2007: “I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraqis going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse.”
• Democrat Barack Obama, Jan 2007: “I don’t think the president’s [surge] strategy is going to work.”
• Democrat Barack Obama, Jul. 2007: “My assessment is that the surge has not worked.”
• Democrat Barack Obama, Oct. 2007: “[The surge is a] complete failure… Iraq’s leaders are not reconciling. They are not achieving political benchmarks.”

There is no doubt that Obama opposed the surge, thought it would not work and declared it a failure. So what does the presumptive Democratic nominee do when confronted with the fact that the surge has been a success despite the defeatist attitude of him and his fellow Democrats? He refuses to admit he was wrong and then says that, knowing what he knows now, he still would not have supported it. Then, just to show how really out of touch he is, he advocates for a surge in Afghanistan. In other words, he wants us to do in Afghanistan what worked in Iraq but which he opposed and would still oppose were it presented today. Or would he since he is supporting it now but in another country? Confused yet?

We should have seen this coming since Obama told us six months ago that success was based on Democrats being elected to the majority:

What we have to do is to begin a phased redeployment to send a clear signal to the Iraqi government that we are not going to be there in perpetuity. Now, it will — we should be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in. I welcome the genuine reductions of violence that have taken place, although I would point out that much of that violence has been reduced because there was an agreement with tribes in Anbar province — Sunni tribes — who started to see, after the Democrats were elected in 2006, you know what, the Americans may be leaving soon, and we are going to be left very vulnerable to the Shi’as. We should start negotiating now. That’s how you change behavior.

And that’s why I will send a clear signal to the Iraqi government. They will have ample time to get their act together, to actually pass an oil law, which has been — they’ve been talking about now for years. [emphasis added] Flopping Aces

So, which is it Senator? Were the troops the reason for the decreased violence or was this brought about because Democrats were elected to the majority? Why do you want to put more troops in Afghanistan (to emulate the strategy in Iraq) if you opposed it as wrong then and still would not support it today?

Obama is busy trying to appease everyone in order to get elected. He needs to appeal to the left wing moonbats who oppose any military action and want an immediate withdraw. He needs to appeal to people who want victory as the exit strategy so he can pick up those votes and he needs to appear as if he knew what he was talking about all along so that people will not think he is inexperienced or a flip-flopper.

If he admits he was wrong about the surge then his base will think he abandoned them. He will suffer a reverse of Hillary’s fate. She refused to admit her vote for the war was wrong and she lost support. If he admits that the surge was the right thing to do he will lose support as well.

The problem is, he was wrong. He was wrong about it all and now he is being called on it. The Gateway Pundit has video of an interview with Katie Couric of CBS and Obama comes off as smug and uninformed. Obama’s position is that the surge worked but it was bad strategy. In the interview, he makes a weak attempt at deflecting to how money could have been used to do other things. It is quite pathetic.

Here is an idea. Pick a position and stick with it. If you are wrong then have the testicular fortitude to say that your initial assessment was wrong and move on from there.

The problem is, Obama is trying to be everything to everyone and in the end it will be his undoing. As the next 15 weeks move on more Americans will see that Obama really lacks the experience to lead us in these perilous times.

Obama had better get it right because if he is elected and then takes actions that cause us to lose the war it will alienate a lot of this country. Americans, all real Americans, can’t stand the thought of losing. Obama’s plan is to lose and if we had followed his desires we would be doing just that.

I just wish that the Democrats had as much desire for our country to win the war as they do to win elections.

Others:
Stop the ACLU | Hot Air | Marc Ambinder | Jake Trapper | Commentary Magazine | Brutally Honest

Tags: defeat, inexperience, katie couric, McCain, Obama, surge, triumph, war