Okay. You want to be the President of the United States of America, Michelle? You want to be the Commander in Chief? You want to be the leader of the free (?) world? Um, if you can’t see an ambush coming from Jimmy Flipping Fallon, who is a former SNL cast member (after the Phil Hartman era which is when SNL stopped being funny), and thus, by definition, a flaming liberal with no class who is wholly reliant on adolescent gutter humor, do you really think that you’re qualified to be the CiC? I’m serious. If you and your staff aren’t smart enough or self-aware enough to figure out that you don’t go walking into obvious set-ups with slack-jawed TV talk show hosts, then do you REALLY think you are going to be able to go up against Putin or the ChiComs? Hon, if you get rolled by JIMMY FALLON, then you won’t stand a chance against Hu Jintao.
But then, the very fact that the gateway to the Oval Office is now kept by the likes of undignified flotsam like Jimmy Fallon and these other TV carney hacks is just more proof that this country is officially, totally and irrevocably screwed.
h/t EBD
me no dhimmi – with regard to Bachmann’s entrapment (my view) in words, by this I mean that she has not had any responsibility for any governance either in the political or economic sense. Her domain has been only in the arena of analysis.
Romney has been a governor and in private business.
Gingrich has been speaker of the house and in charge of various departments.
Perry – a governor.
Cain – a CEO.
Do you see my point? Bachmann has not been in any position where her decisions had real-life practical results. She lives in the safe realm of words.
lookout – I fully agree with your point about Obama walking hand in hand with Wall St (and the unions); i.e., with Big Money.
But those facts, and they are facts, may be mentioned on FOX but not in the liberal MSM and won’t reach the majority of people.
We have to understand that a lot of the imagery of Obama is already set – as the idealist preacher of the future; he’s had several adulatory years to seal this imagery – which is why he hovers around 43%, no higher and no lower. I don’t know if more ‘barnacles’ (his Wall St cronyism, his socialist links, his obfuscation on his past) will attach themselves to this Image and reduce that percentage in time for the election.
He’s already had some barnacles added: his links to unions; his failed economic policies – but he is countering by saying the failures are due to Congress not him; And he then claims successes which are not by right, his to claim. Such as Bin Laden, such as Libya…neither of which really can be directly claimed by him but he certainly does just that.
Obama is not to be sidelined that easily; he’s ruthless, he’s a demagogue, he’s anti-American, he’s a sociopath. To counter him and this imagery which he devotes a great deal of time to polishing, you need a clear, simple set of fiscal conservative policies, a strong expression of pro-American patriotism, and a debater who knows his stuff and will confront Obama point by point. And, I’ll say it, you need the gods hovering over you with their assistance.
I agree, ET, that it’s somewhat hard to get the message out to a very large audience. But I go to Power Line, PJ Media (Pajamas), Breitbart, and National Review regularly and get lots of hard criticism of Obama, who is “slaughtered” on a regular basis with fact after fact. (Power Line’s got links to a whole lot of other worthwhile sites.)
I do think the message is finally getting out, via reality: Americans are living with the horrendous results of Fanny and Freddie, the bailouts, EPA regulations, Obama cutting off all avenues of domestic oil production, Obamacare, high unemployment, OWS with union and Obama backing, etc.
Nothing is certain in politics—especially when one’s dealing with the Democratic jackals—but I don’t believe that Obama’s going to have the cake walk he had in 2008.
I agree lookout but I’m not referring to the politically involved who do search for facts; I’m referring to the majority who are uninvolved. And who vote and base their views on the quick bits from the MSM or just their feelings about the day.
ET, we can argue about a candidate’s credentials but I think we differ on premise. The next POTUS need not be a CEO because their role is to manage and grow businesses and I would argue that these days far too many do so through rent-seeking rather than free trade. The dire need of the next President is to shrink leviathan, slash budgets, cut out agencies, privatize assets and above all else stand up to special interests. That’s a role for someone with thick skin and who is extremely stubborn, not a squish who introduced socialized health care in a state and then says he will kill it at the federal level. Given the electorate, especially the Tea Parties, Bachmann, CV shortcomings and all, is the best shot IMHO.
If any one item on your list of credentials were required by a POTUS, Obama would not be President. Real politics is not rational discourse. The Republic needs citizen legislators not political class jobs-for-life royalty.
“There’s not a radical bone in the Obama policy prescription…” – Libertarians…….
Ignoring the annexation of 20% of the GDP (Obamacare) while doubling down on the growth of government, even if Administration policies included doing nothing, the runaway leviathan state will suffer financial collapse under its own momentum leaving a feudal state with a thoroughly wiped-out middle class. Preventing actions to mitigate such a time bomb from going off sounds pretty radical to me but I’m not a self-described in-your-face-libertarian with an obnoxious handle that seems to want to impress those on the left by mostly criticizing conservatives.