Team Obama: Utterly Clueless

From the Daily Caller:

President Barack Obama will present his “jobs plan” on Wednesday at a company which is shipping jobs overseas.

Obama is scheduled to present his “jobs plan” in Apex, N.C., on Wednesday at the headquarters of WestStar Precision.

WestStar is a high-end, specialty manufacturer that just opened a new facility in San Jose, Costa Rica — creating many new jobs there, but not in the United States…

You have to wonder – are they really this stupid?  Obama has a massive staff of people dedicated to his well being and re-election…did no one check to see just what this photo-op backdrop was up to?  Couldn’t they find one company out there which actually expanded its American facilities of late?  Which didn’t just ship a bunch of jobs overseas?  Making this even more bizarre is the fact that the company owner is a Democrat who has donated to Obama’s campaign.

If we on the GOP side were allowed to write the script for Democrat implosion in 2012, we couldn’t have done better than this.  One thing I’d like to know – you liberals out there who are convinced that Obama is on the side of the little guy…here he’s going to an event to tout his job program at a company which ships US jobs overseas  rather than endure all the laws and regulations you liberals have imposed…and the owner of the company is not some GOP “millionaire and billionaire” fighting tenaciously for his corporate jet tax break…he’s a liberal Democrat.

Explain that, if you can.

40 thoughts on “Team Obama: Utterly Clueless

  1. Green Mountain Boy September 14, 2011 / 12:02 pm

    There is absolutely no way to spin this as the fault of us evil conservatives. The libbies will avoid this thread like the plauge.

    • bardolf September 14, 2011 / 12:21 pm

      How about Obama is a conservative on economic issues by any standard.

      Tax cuts for the rich— check. Bail outs for big corporations—check. Letting Mexican truckers do long haul into the US– check. Anti-union in industries that produce things– check.

      • Green Mountain Boy September 14, 2011 / 12:27 pm

        Conservative no. Republican yes. There is a difference Bardolf and it is growing bigger by the day.

      • bardolf September 14, 2011 / 2:46 pm


        When the Tea Party put one of its own on the unconstitutional super-committee it pretty much ended my confidence in the movement. Spook has such enthusiasm but nothing substantial has been accomplished.

        If the major triumph of the Tea Party is to get Obama out of office they are in for a rude awakening. The elite have no incentive in taking a risk and investing in the US when China offers better financial opportunities. Mittens was dead on about how Perry accomplished his Texas miracle.

      • Green Mountain Boy September 14, 2011 / 2:58 pm

        Bardolf, I agree with you on the total invalidity of this super committee. However if you reffering to Pat Toomey what should have he done? If anything he will be a voice of reason among the outright rinos.

        Should he have said no to the appointment? Would that have been more acceptable for you?

      • cory September 14, 2011 / 3:28 pm

        Why is it that every time you idiots don’t like something, you accuse it of being unconstitutional? What is unconstitutional about the supercommittee? Which article prohibits the legislature from using whatever bizarre procedural practices they want before ultimately putting a budget bill to an up or down vote? I’m not necessarily a huge fan of the mechanism they’ve designed, either, but the more I hear people complain that any little thing they don’t like is unconstitutional, the more I get convinced that none of you have any idea what the Constitution actually says.

      • bardolf September 14, 2011 / 3:38 pm


        Of course he should have said no. Our economy will eventually recover (it might take 10 years) as it always has. Putting cracks in the constitution may never be repaired.

        With the Kelo vs. New London decision e.g. you and your children and your grandchildren will never have the same sureness that the house you own won’t be taken away to put in a strip mall for the benefit of a developer. You can never vote to have the drinking age 18 in your state.

        In the future there will come a time when the super-committee falls into the hands of a majority (not a super-majority) of people you vehemently disagree with on fundamental issues. Your congressman might even take your phone call at that time. But he/she won’t be able to say a word on your behalf because she is not part of the club.

      • bardolf September 14, 2011 / 3:44 pm

        @Cory —

        Former New Jersey Superior Court Judge Andrew Napolitano told Fox News August 1 that he thinks the law may be unconstitutional:

        “Members of the Senate and members of the House have the opportunity under the Constitution to debate items that are sent to them and to modify items that are sent to them. To force them to vote just yes or no with no debate, not to follow the rules of the House, which permits amendments, not to follow the rules of the Senate, which permits a filibuster, is such a substantial removal of the authority the Constitution gave them that this legislation is treading in waters that might not be constitutional.”

        Now go to the bar and jabber about your freedom to pick the next winner of American Idol.

      • Green Mountain Boy September 14, 2011 / 3:46 pm

        If not Toomey in that position would not somebody else have taken it? How do you propose to eliminate it?

        BTW Bardolf I am in total agreement with you on this. I just don’t see how Toomey is a big problem.

      • bardolf September 14, 2011 / 4:12 pm


        If someone takes pork for their district they can’t complain about pork in general. I understand about being a ‘REALIST’ but Toomey has opened a huge crack for the elites to exploit. If he doesn’t balance it with a hell of a lot of fiscal restraint he has done more harm than damage by being willing to be on the committee.

      • Green Mountain Boy September 14, 2011 / 4:25 pm

        Well in the end this is just another attempt to get out of responsibility. The three stooges never should of agreed to this committee anyway. I don’t think it matters who serves on it. So I guess you are right. If Toomey wanted to protect his reputation he should have refused to serve on it.

      • cory September 14, 2011 / 5:30 pm


        Really, “violating” their own procedures by voting to overrule them is unconstitutional? Let me remind you what the Constitution has to say about the rules of procedure of the two houses:

        “Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.”

        Note that there is no constitutional grounding for the things that you are talking about. Show me where “filibuster” appears in the Constitution. Hint: it doesn’t. If the Senate wanted to abolish the practice, they could do it today, under the Constitution, without asking any other organization or body for permission. In this case, they voted to override the rules in exactly one instance. How could that possibly be more unconstitutional?

        I guess what I’m really saying is I’m waiting for somebody to actually quote an excerpt of the Constitution that the supercommittee violates, because I don’t think there is one.

      • Green Mountain Boy September 14, 2011 / 5:43 pm

        How about Article 1, section 1? Where does this super committee fit in? Is it a part of the House of Represenatives or a part of the Senate?

      • bardolf September 14, 2011 / 5:49 pm


        Can a super-majority of the house decide that members from a particular state e.g. New Hampshire are not allowed to speak on the house floor? Can they develop a procedure wherein an independent has no voice at all?

        When the super-committee rams through future fiscal boondoggles without opposition the so-called fiscal conservatives are going to have to shut up.

      • cory September 14, 2011 / 6:30 pm


        Who said that this committee was a branch of the legislature? It is crafting exactly one bill that will still have to pass the Constitutional voting requirements presented to become law. Procedurally speaking, the bill will still probably have to be submitted via the normal proposal process. It will still have to pass both houses of congress and get approved by the President to make it to law. That’s the proscribed procedure in the Constitution. What’s the problem?


        “Can a super-majority of the house decide that members from a particular state e.g. New Hampshire are not allowed to speak on the house floor? Can they develop a procedure wherein an independent has no voice at all?”

        Constitutionally speaking, yes, unless you can quote anything from the Constitution indicating otherwise. There are plenty of reasons that it won’t and shouldn’t happen, but again, just because you or I don’t like the concept doesn’t make it violate the Constitution. To violate the Constitution, you actually have to violate some portion of the text of the Constitution, not bardolf’s moral compass.

      • Green Mountain Boy September 14, 2011 / 6:44 pm

        Arcording to the constitution all spending bills originate in the House of Represenitives. The three stooges along with thier donkyrat consorts have abrogated this responsibility to 6 Senators and Six members of the House. All legislation by this committee must be voted either up or down with no debate or amending.

        If this is you idea of constitutional then have at it. In fact why not just appoint a super super committee of just one Senator and one House Member? Why stop there? Why not just give the President the power all by himself.

        Hello dictatorship.

      • Cory September 14, 2011 / 7:53 pm

        You do know there are 4 members of the House on the committee, right? And that per the Act, the bill will be submitted to the House via the standard mechanism of one House member submitting it?

        You also continue to exaggerate the power of this committee. They are simply crafting a bill to be possibly put through the standard, Constitutionally proscribed steps to make it to law. Debate on the House floor is not a Constitutionally required step. Opportunity for filibuster is not a Constitutionally required step. The required steps are a vote in, the House, vote in the Senate, and Presidential signature (and then occasionally two supermajority votes on a veto). That is an exhaustive list. If it isn’t there, you are not violating the Constitution by ignoring it.

      • Cory September 14, 2011 / 8:00 pm

        Lol, typo. 6 Members of the House.

      • bardolf September 14, 2011 / 10:30 pm


        So according to you the congress can essentially strip any power from representatives as long as they have a large enough majority. So if someday 2/3 of the house and senate are in Democrat hands then they could simply just put item after item up for a vote without discussion.

        So it would not be unconstitutional if someday the blue states make up less than 1/3 of either house and pay federal taxes but don’t get to discuss legislation, only cast ballots. At which time the red states could decide taxes on blue state industries need to be raised without the blue states getting a say, just a losing vote.

        My moral compass says that taxation without representation is problematic. But no matter.

      • cory September 15, 2011 / 5:17 pm

        Yes, those things would not be unconstitutional. In fact, debate can already be instantly quashed in either house by supermajority votes, so they don’t even have to change the rules or pass a new law to do it. It doesn’t happen because parties with supermajorities fracture as both the moderate and extreme fringes attempt to use their newfound leverage to try to influence policy in their direction from the main party line.

        I wouldn’t like it if they did any of that, either, by the way. But the reason they won’t do it is that we’d hopefully rise up in mass and throw them out of office, not because the Constitution has anything to say on the matter.

  2. Mr Evilwrench September 14, 2011 / 1:32 pm

    Could’ve given the speech at that new Boeing plant. Wait…

    • Dave the Engineer September 14, 2011 / 4:21 pm

      Excellent, my thought exactly

  3. Cluster September 14, 2011 / 2:17 pm

    Bail outs for big corporations—check.

    I would like to know who the conservative is that supports bail outs.

    • bardolf September 14, 2011 / 2:40 pm

      You’re right. I keep thinking Bush was a conservative. My bad.

      • dbschmidt September 14, 2011 / 2:45 pm

        President G.W. Bush was a progressive-lite. If given the chance I would repeal almost everything he got through right after the dismantling of President Obama’s disastrous term so far and in his upcoming lame duck year.

  4. js September 14, 2011 / 3:21 pm

    hundreds of folks in congress…thousands in the FBI…and tens of thousands of officials in state governments…failed to properly vet the current fraud in charge…

    what makes you think that the usurper has any more reason to do the right thing…

  5. Cluster September 14, 2011 / 3:23 pm

    Barstool, keep in mind that for conservatives like my self, I object to the last 11 years of deficit spending and debt increases. In fact, we have added nearly $9 trillion in debt, or more than 60% of the total, in just the last 11 years, that includes Bush, and that is unacceptable.

    • bardolf September 14, 2011 / 3:44 pm

      Are you a Perry supporter?

    • Cluster September 14, 2011 / 3:55 pm

      When the Tea Party put one of its own on the unconstitutional super-committee it pretty much ended my confidence in the movement. – barstool

      I would have though that the addition of that mental giant Patty Murray would have been enough to lose your support.

      No, I currently support Romney.

  6. bardolf September 14, 2011 / 5:36 pm

    Why would Patty Murray being on the committee end my confidence in the Tea Party movement?

  7. David September 14, 2011 / 9:13 pm

    Technically, Costa Rican jobs are American jobs.

  8. David September 14, 2011 / 9:18 pm

    “Can a super-majority of the house decide that members from a particular state e.g. New Hampshire are not allowed to speak on the house floor? Can they develop a procedure wherein an independent has no voice at all?”

    Yes and yes. This is pretty much how congress works already. The extant committee process already stomps on minority interests all the time.

  9. js September 15, 2011 / 8:33 am

    The Constitution is unmistakably clear. Article I, Section 1 states that “All legislative Power herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States….” If the power is legislative, and if the power is granted to the federal government by the Constitution, then the power must be exercised by Congress, and only by Congress. Congress is nowhere authorized to transfer the power to make laws to any entity. Only Congress is constitutionally empowered to make laws.

    Moreover, Article I, Section 7 mandates that any action of the federal government, which has the force of law, must be enacted according to the specific process enumerated therein. Both houses must approve, and the bill must be sent to the president for his signature. His veto may be overridden, but only by a supermajority in each house

  10. js September 15, 2011 / 8:34 am

    oblunder has no right or duty to present any legislation…he has failed to follow the basic set of rules in the constitution

    • Sunny September 15, 2011 / 11:02 am

      how so? Presidents have always presented legislation. Or is it only Obama who should not present legislation?

      • Leonard L'Farte September 15, 2011 / 12:16 pm


        You are clearly more knowledgeable about the budget process than I am. Beyond a suggested budget, what other kinds of legislation have Presidents “always presented” to Congress? Has Congress ever passed a piece of legislation submitted by the President? I did a rudimentary Google search and couldn’t find any evidence of anything besides budget and policy suggestions that the President submits to Congress.

      • Leonard L'Farte September 15, 2011 / 3:33 pm

        One further thought, Sunny; since House bills are designated with a prefix of “H.B.”, Senate bills are designated with a prefix of S.B., and bills that have passed both houses carry a prefix of H.R. What prefix does an Executive Branch bill carry? Just curious.

      • cory September 15, 2011 / 5:04 pm

        The answer is simple. The president never actually proposes a bill on the house or senate floor. It always (including budgets) has to be presented by a member of the respective house, and this one will be no different. He’ll hand it to one of many members of his party who will submit it for consideration.

        This is actually no different than the proposed budgets you mentioned, since the President has not special authority to propose budgets that would make it any different. And the process has used for plenty of pieces of legislation beyond budgets in the past (although rarely up until this point by Obama).

      • neocon1 September 15, 2011 / 8:40 pm



      • Sunny September 16, 2011 / 11:26 am

        leonard, I guess I stated this incorrectly. What I should have made clearer is that all presidents have legislation they would like to see enacted. The make recommendations for possible lelgislation, which is exactly what Obama did with his jobs bill. The right constantly yells that Obama never puts anything in writing – well he put this in writing and asked Congress to pass the proposed jobs bill. Staying in character, the GOP has already said “no”. Expected nothing less from the GOP – it is not their goal to do anything about passing any legislation to help create jobs. Their goal is to keep the economy as week as possible so they can take back the WH.

Comments are closed.