Not the President as Commander-in-Chief, not the President as executive of government, but Barack Obama, candidate for President of the United States.

He's not only running, but running almost exclusively. As but one example of this, why the release of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve? He has spoken endlessly of "investing in green technology" and "winning the future," but what was the "emergency" for selling oil now?

Answer: politics. This is NPR's "fair" analysis:

President Obama's decision to sell 30 million barrels of oil from the nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve ostensibly to offset supply disruptions caused by the turmoil in Libya will give many congressional Democrats what they've been asking for.

But it is likely to heighten criticism of the Obama Administration's energy policy by both Republicans in Congress and presidential candidates who have bashed the president for not having an energy policy that's to their liking.

Republicans have called for much more aggressive action by the administration to promote domestic oil and gas exploration and drilling as a form of greater energy independence from foreign sources. The release of oil from the reserve doesn't exactly fit that bill. . .

The calls were especially loud a few weeks ago when gas prices rose beyond $4 a gallon. The slowing economy only added to Democrats' sense of urgency that the president release oil from the reserve.

House Democrats even introduced legislation earlier this year to sell oil from the reserve. Speaker John Boehner dismissed those efforts, accusing Democrats of doing little to increase domestic oil production when they controlled the House.

I would note the very clear outline of Obama's energy policy in the article . . . if I could find it. Because he doesn't have one, and because he chose to go to war with Libya, oil prices have gone up, so the answer to political concerns is to raid the emergency depots?

Obama is raising money like crazy. The plan is to spend $1B on his reelection campaign. If he's doing such a great job, why does he need to shatter all records to spread the news? Rove explains the polls are not promising (Obama is rarely above 50% in approval or in head-to-head match-ups). Furthermore, he's not doing well on the issues and is losing support among key constituencies:

While many voters still personally like Mr. Obama, they deeply oppose his policies, and he tends to be weakest on issues voters consider most important. In the June 13 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, 56% disapprove of Mr. Obama's handling of the economy. Fifty-nine percent in the Economist/YouGov poll of June 14 disapprove of how he's dealt with the deficit.
About Karl Rove

And his health-care reform still holds its unique place as the only major piece of social legislation that became less popular after it was passed. According to yesterday's Pollster.com average of recent surveys, 38% approve of ObamaCare, while its survey average when the bill was passed in March 2010 showed that 41% approved.

Finally, Mr. Obama has made a strategic blunder. While he needs to raise money and organize, he decided to be a candidate this year rather than president. He has thus unnecessarily abandoned one of incumbency's great strengths, which is the opportunity to govern and distance himself from partisan politics until next spring. Instead, Team Obama has attacked potential GOP opponents and slandered Republican proposals with abandon. This is not what the public is looking for from the former apostle of hope and change.

I am not saying Obama WILL lose. I am saying he has stopped trying to govern. He is throwing sops to unions, liberals, and every constituency he can. He will find ways to spend more money and will steadfastly refuse to do anything about the deficit/debt problem. Why? Because he thinks portraying the GOP as the "kill granny and kids with autism" party is the key to his victory.

He's also willing to bypass the Constitution. The DREAM Act went down in flames in Congress. Think that's going to stop this imperial president? No way! It only slowed down Cap and Trade, and it won't stop the DREAM Act--because there are votes at stake!

Obama is trying to use his executive powers to enforce the Dream Act even though Congress couldn’t pass the legislation. Chris Wallace lays out the details:

I.C.E has announced changes to its deportation program. Agents are now specifically urged to consider whether an illegal is studying in high school or college or is serving or did serve in the military.

Krauthammer says that this is outright lawlessness on the part of the Obama administration because they are doing the same thing with the Dream Act that they did with Cap and Trade, using the EPA to enforce it anyway. He says we have a rule of law where the Congress creates the laws and the Executive executes them. By forcing agents to not deport illegals who are studying in high school or college is running an end around Congress. Further, he adds, by not basing this on the rule of law, the criteria that agents and prosecutors will use to make these judgments becomes arbitrary and unfair which means someone may get to stay that should be deported and visa-versa.

When addressing the political implications of this, that the Republicans risk becoming the party of deportation as suggested by his colleagues, Krauthammer simply states that the Constitution trumps politics. He adds that if we secure the border and then try to work out some type of program to give illegals a path to citizenship, then the American people will be generous if they know this is the last batch that will need this type of program. But if the border isn’t secured and illegals just keep pouring in, then the American people won’t go for it.

American be damned, the President has to be reelected. He knows it's for our good and if he has to destroy the country to save it, well, he's willing to make that sacrifice. He is beyond cynical; he is monomaniacal--he alone can save us and that means everything he does is justified.

This is why, no matter who the GOP nominates, I will be actively, financially supporting him/her. The President does not respect the Constitution and does not believe he has any obligation to stop our financial woes from dragging us into insolvency.

He is a permanent candidate; he is not a leader.

At least he has the media on his side, his wife says so. It's for the children, after all.

Incredibly, the media has seized on the Michele Bachmann "John Wayne" gaffe, but has given the President a pass on this:

No one in mainstream media seems inclined to mention Barack Obama’s horrifying mistake last Thursday when, speaking at Fort Drum, he said that SFC Jared Monti was “the first person who I was able to award the Medal of Honor to who actually came back and wasn’t receiving it posthumously.” Alas, he was mistaken. He awarded the Medal of Honor to Jared Monti posthumously in 2009 and awarded the Medal of Honor in person to SSG Sal Giunta in person in 2011. Obama later apologized for this mistake, but it’s really dismaying that a president who spoke movingly and even eloquently in awarding the Medal of Honor made a mistake of this magnitude.


“It shouldn’t take a teleprompter for the C-in-C to get it right,” writes military blogger Black Five. It’s interesting that mainstream media journalists who are so eager to zing Michele Bachmann for getting John Wayne’s birthplace wrong, have not been interested in asking whether this was a mistake Obama made in ad libbing or whether the White House speechwriters and fact-checkers fell down on the job. You might think that their chief motive is to make Obama look good and to suppress facts that make him look bad.

She is a nut, they say. Obama is the smartest President ever, they say. How does he make so many mistakes?

I can't wait for next year. Looking forward to many commercials like this by American Crossroads.

Liberals wonder how Obama could possibly be defeated. It's not complicated. We're going to run Obama against himself and his own pronouncements. Obama will defeat Obama.

I would like to thank you for the efforts you have made in writing this article. I am hoping the same best work from you in the future as well. In fact your creative writing abilities has inspired me to start my own BlogEngine blog now. Really the blogging is spreading its wings rapidly. Your write up is a fine example of it.

danivon wrote:I would like to thank you for the efforts you have made in writing this article. I am hoping the same best work from you in the future as well. In fact your creative writing abilities has inspired me to start my own BlogEngine blog now. Really the blogging is spreading its wings rapidly. Your write up is a fine example of it.

'preciate that.

Chutzpah personified. Obama tells Congress to not take a vacation. Really?

“They need to do their job. Now’s the time to go ahead and make the tough choices. That’s why they’re called leaders. And I’ve already shown that I’m willing ot make decisions that are very tough and you know, give my base of voters further reason to give me a hard time, but it’s got to be done, so there’s no point in procrastinating. There’s no point in putting it off. You know, we’ve got to get this done. And if by the end of this week we have not seen substantial progress then I think members of Congress need to understand we’re going to have to start cancelling things and stay here until we get it done. They’re in one week. They’re out one week. And then they’re saying Obama’s got to step in – you need to be here, I’ve been here, I’ve been doing Afghanistan, bin Laden, and the Greek crisis. You stay here. Let’s get it done.”

This is the same guy who has played golf 13 weeks in a row, is getting ready to go on another vacation (Martha's Vineyard), and delegated this negotiation to Joe Biden.

How do you spell leadership?

“These are bills that Congress ran up,” he noted. “The money’s been spent. The obligations have been made. So this is not a situation – I think the American people have to understand this – this is not a situation where you know, Congress is going to say, ‘Okay, we won’t buy this car or we won’t take this vacation.’ They took the vacation, they bought the car, and now they’re saying maybe we don’t have to pay or we don’t have to pay as fast as we said we were going to. That’s not how responsible families act. We’re the greatest nation on earth and we can’t act that way. So this is urgent and it needs to get settled.”

O-ba-ma! O-ba-ma! O-ba-ma!

The buck stops . . . over there!

The economy is underperforming even the "experts" modest predictions. Is that good news for Candidate Obama?

Most economists expect a report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics to show that the nation added about 100,000 jobs in June. That’s not enough to keep up with population growth, let alone lower the unemployment rate or make a dent in the 9 million jobs lost during the so called Great Recession.

[UPDATED: The jobs report released on Friday showed the economy added only 18,000 jobs, much less than anticipated. The unemployment rate creeped up to 9.2 percent.]

It’s looking more and more like Obama will have to do something no president has done since Franklin Roosevelt: Win reelection with unemployment around 8 percent.

Ronald Reagan, another president Obama is sometimes compared with, was reelected in 1984 when unemployment was 7.2 percent. Obama isn’t likely to see a number that low.

Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody’s Analytics, predicts the nation will have added 110,000 jobs in total in June, with 125,000 added in the private sector. Hiring by the public sector will continue to fall.

CNBC:

U.S. employment growth ground to a halt in June, with employers hiring the fewest number of workers in nine months, dousing hopes the economy would regain momentum in the second half of the year.

Nonfarm payrolls rose only 18,000, the weakest reading since September, the Labor Department said on Friday, well below economists' expectations for a 90,000 rise.

The unemployment rate climbed to a six-month high of 9.2 percent, even as jobseekers left the labor force in droves, from 9.1 percent in May.

"The message on the economy is ongoing stagnation," said Pierre Ellis, senior economist at Decision economics in New York. "Income growth is marginal so there's no indication of momentum.

The government revised April and May payrolls to show 44,000 fewer jobs created than previously reported. (Slideshow: Disappearing Jobs)

The report shattered expectations the economy was starting to accelerate after a soft patch in the first half of the year. It could prompt calls for the Federal Reserve to consider further action to help the economy, but Fed officials have set a high bar.

When will the President grasp that his policies are not working?

Substantially, the post is essentially the greatest on this useful field. I partially agree with each of your conclusions and will excitedly look forward to your coming up-dates. Just saying many thanks won’t just be adequate, for the great clarity in your writing. I will immediately grab your rss feed to stay abreast of any updates. Delightful work and much success in your business dealings! Best wishes, !

danivon wrote:Substantially, the post is essentially the greatest on this useful field. I partially agree with each of your conclusions and will excitedly look forward to your coming up-dates. Just saying many thanks won’t just be adequate, for the great clarity in your writing. I will immediately grab your rss feed to stay abreast of any updates. Delightful work and much success in your business dealings! Best wishes, !

Backatcha!

Sorry, I thought this blog was missing some spam. It's genuine spam, mind (minus the links).

danivon wrote:Sorry, I thought this blog was missing some spam. It's genuine spam, mind (minus the links).

There's no one in your league when it comes to generating Spam, save Monty Python.

Now, Richard, he can create some fat, gristle, and tripe. He yearns to create Spam, but is not able.

Hey, if you want to seize this forum and promote all of Candidate Obama's triumphs, feel free. Perhaps he does deserve re-election?

Oh, no Steve, I'll leave you to it now. I remember when you used to rail against Redscapers for 'blogging' on the site. Perhaps you need this little space to work through your ODS issues.

danivon wrote:Oh, no Steve, I'll leave you to it now. I remember when you used to rail against Redscapers for 'blogging' on the site. Perhaps you need this little space to work through your ODS issues.

Thanks for being so thoughtful, Dan! Really, it's a so refreshing.

You = rickyp, with an annoying British accent.