Obama’s Re-election Strategy

Is Obama trying to lose the election?  The current disconnect with reality and desire to pander to every far left cause has me wondering if Obama is trying to lose, is he just this clueless, or, as Rush noted recently, is he simply confident that he has bought enough votes to assure his re-election?

The keystone pipeline was a no brainer, and could have boosted consumer confidence to a new level resulting in higher approval numbers for Obama, not to mention bringing unemployment down, creating good paying jobs, and stimulating the local economy of many towns along the way, but Obama chooses to pander instead to environmental extremists.

The recent constitutional over reach with respect to religious liberties was another bone-headed move and not very well thought out, although it appears the move may be the first broadside in an effort to shift the political conversation away from abortion to “the GOP wants to ban contraception”.  I guess we’ll find out in a few months if that’s a viable strategy.

The fact that Obama is talking out of both sides of his mouth with respect to the individual mandate in Obamacare, on one hand calling it a tax, and on the other calling it a fine, depending on the audience, was largely overlooked by the MSM. But then his budget director got caught on camera saying this.  So either the OMB Director committed perjury before Congress or the Solicitor General will be perjuring himself before the Supreme Court.  Either way, it should be interesting.

Obama’s allegiance to AG Holder and turning a blind eye to Fast and Furious, would be a huge controversy were it not for complicity of the MSM. To date, no one has been fired, much less prosecuted.

The recent call for significant nuclear disarmament at a time when the threat level is at a post-Cold War high, and the continued indifference to the action in Egypt, Syria, etc., may pander to the far Left, but the majority of Americans have to see these actions as detrimental to America’s future.

Obama proves once again that he is not a serious president by submitting a budget with a deficit that adds another 1.3 trillion of debt, when it was just 4 years ago while campaigning he called Bush unpatriotic for much smaller deficits. When the GOP finally lands on a nominee, the conversation will be about Obama, and not only can he not defend his record, his own words will be used against him to a point that everyone will finally realize that he is not a serious president.

America is slipping into a malaise of mediocrity under his guidance and if he is reelected, we may have federal school officials checking our kids’ lunch boxes for the proper nutrition ……… Oh wait.

This president has abdicated leadership and is the most partisan president this country has ever had. The only things Obama has improved in the last three years are his bank account and golf game.

Thanks to Cluster for most of the content for this post.//RS

246 thoughts on “Obama’s Re-election Strategy

  1. Cluster February 17, 2012 / 8:29 am

    I had to address this from Xavier:

    Here’s my “statist ideology” so you won’t have to guess, or construct strawmen. I believe that both Democrats and Republicans like Big Government. They just like it BIG in different places. You guys like an absurdly large military (which we can no longer afford), and you like using it recklessly. You also don’t want to pay for it…..Look at the charts that Bloody Penguin posted. Like it or not, those are the facts. The deficit we’re wallowing in today was caused primarily by 1) The Bush Tax Cuts, 2) Iraq/Afghanistan, and 3) the financial collapse.

    Xavier, you start wanting to define your statist ideology, but then never do. Of course their are politicians of all stripes that like big government – that’s where they get their power. BUT conservatives are the only ones trying to change that, and shrink the federal government. Liberals such as yourself continue to support candidates that promise to grow it even more – hence the statist label. Re: your military comment – the size of the military is a subjective matter, and the execution of which is the first constitutional responsibility of the government. Please try and retain that information.

    Re: bloody’s “facts” = tax cuts DO NOT cost the government money, the Iraq/Afghanistan cost just over a trillion dollars, which is still less than a one year Obama deficit, and the financial collapse originated from the housing crisis – care to wager a guess on who promoted that?

    This post Xavier was simply a regurgitation of liberal talking points, and exposed you as nothing more than a foot soldier for the “progressive movement”. And now let’s talk about another cartoonish construct liberals have re: politics. I think it was James who said boldly – “welcome to the new generation” – or something to that effect. Implying that all conservatives are old and past their prime. I will remind you that the best young minds currently in politics, are all conservative – Rubio, Ryan, Haley, Christie, Cantor, McDonnell, Walker, etc, etc. Do liberals have anyone? Any young great mind? Debbie Wasserman-Shultz? Please

  2. Cluster February 17, 2012 / 9:08 am

    The liberal inanity continues. The follow line is from that liberal rocket scientist Piers Morgan:

    “If Rick Santorum becomes president, does he actually like women?”

    Morgan has the gray matter of an endangered salmon, sadly though people like bloodypenguin, James and watson will hear that and will become emotionally charged up over it.

    When our first obstacle is media dishonesty and liberal emotional instability – you can get a feel for how difficult this task will be.

    • hesindnile February 17, 2012 / 11:15 am

      Cluster, you do realize that Piers Morgan is a buddy of Rupert Murdoch? He worked for Murdoch for years. I seriously doubt that he is a “liberal rocket scientist.” But it was a good question to ask. It is one that millions of American women will be asking before heading to the voting booth should he be the Republican presidential candidate.

      • tiredoflibbs February 17, 2012 / 12:11 pm

        Velma/sunny: “Cluster, you do realize that Piers Morgan is a buddy of Rupert Murdoch? He worked for Murdoch for years.”

        SHESindnile, SO WHAT! That does not mean anything.

        Remember, obAMATEUR was friends with Vandorn, Ayers, Rev. Wright, etc. etc. but according to obAMATEUR and you mindless drones, the friendships don’t mean anything.

        Sheesh velma/sunny, do you even think before you spout those dumbed down Murdoch talking points?

  3. watsonredux February 17, 2012 / 12:38 pm

    I offered facts about Obama’s approval rating and polling against Republican presidential candidates, in order to counter the silly theory that Obama is intentionally try to lose the election, and spook’s response is, “Sorry, Watson; engaging you in conversation is counter-productive — piss off.”

    Okay, so I take that to mean that you actually do believe in the premise of this article that cluster fed you. Is it counter-productive because I don’t agree with the nonsensical premise of this article? That’s kind of sad, but not surprising.

    • RetiredSpook February 17, 2012 / 1:15 pm


      What part of “piss off” didn’t you understand?

      • Count d'Haricots February 17, 2012 / 1:53 pm

        You often display a wonderful economy of words, Spook.


  4. bagni February 17, 2012 / 2:12 pm

    matt neo
    me no pig
    but this blog should be renamed
    “blog by neo?
    c’mon…matt…bust a move
    you could catapult your hero neo
    he could become the leader of the new world pig pen order

    • neocon1 February 17, 2012 / 4:59 pm

      nanu nanu

      he could become the leader of the new world pig pen order

      as the new PIG leader I would order you roasted and eaten by muslems every where…OINK!

  5. bloodypenquinstump February 17, 2012 / 2:43 pm
    • neocon1 February 17, 2012 / 3:53 pm


      READ it and weep .*** Outside of the Catholic Church***, the overwhelming numbers of juvenile victims of sexual abuse are female.

      ***Within the church, however***, four out of five of their victims are male. Most were adolescents aged 14 or over; 15% were under 10.

      #1 the check is in the mail
      #2 I love you.

    • Amazona February 18, 2012 / 11:22 am

      Interesting. I wondered how the Leftist knee padders were going to try to spin the predatory homosexual nature of abuse by priests. And now we know.

      You see, those abusive priests were not really predatory gay men, using the Church as cover for their stalking of vulnerable young men. No sirreee—it was the CHURCH’S fault, you see, because it allowed only young men to serve at Mass, thereby putting them in contact with these priests.

      So the new meme is a prediction that abuse of young girls will rise to the level of gay predation on young men, now that girls are allowed to serve at Mass.

      And don’t forget—if this prediction fails to materialize, the excuse is already in place—-the Church is so VICIOUS toward females who report abuse. You know, not kind and sensitive, as it is toward young men.

      The snitch who made these claims “quit the Church in DISGUST”—-it sounds like his commitment to the dogma of the Church was pretty flimsy, if it could be wiped out by the actions of some individuals. Evidently Identity Politics has a cousin, Identity Religion. And of course, there can be no question of his motives in making these comments—after all, who could be a more believable witness than someone who openly hates the organization he is sliming?

      And, get this—-of the 60 clergy sex offenders evaluated by psychology professor Plante, most exhibited a variety of psychiatric problems, like personality and impulse control disorders. Yet he conveniently neglects to include homosexuality, or homosexual fixation on young men and boys. Hmmmmmm. Evidently, to this mindset, homosexuality and homosexual predation on young men and boys is not a ‘psychiatric problem’ at all.

      You guys just get goofier every day. You are so desperate to slime religion and people of faith you are completely shameless about citing the dumbest, most biased, most blatant efforts to excuse the inexcusable.

      • RetiredSpook February 18, 2012 / 12:59 pm

        You are so desperate to slime religion and people of faith you are completely shameless about citing the dumbest, most biased, most blatant efforts to excuse the inexcusable.

        Another good example of that is the recent claim that 98% of Catholic women use birth control. Turns out the study eliminated virtually all categories of Catholic women who don’t use birth control before coming to it’s conclusion.

  6. bloodypenquinstump February 17, 2012 / 2:45 pm
    • RetiredSpook February 17, 2012 / 3:15 pm

      Facts say no such thing, Stumpy. I posed 3 possibilities in the opening paragraph: that Obama was trying to lose, that he was clueless or that he has concluded that he has bought enough votes to win. Like the true partisan hack he is, Watson cued in on the first possibility as though it were the only one.

      Moreover, Watson and I actually agree on more than we disagree on, yet he continues to be combative and confrontational. I’m not taking my ball and going home; I’m just ignoring him, like I usually ignore you.

  7. bloodypenquinstump February 17, 2012 / 2:48 pm
    • RetiredSpook February 17, 2012 / 3:23 pm


      Fascism is a totalitarian system, where big government and big business are in collusion to lord it over ordinary citizens. Private property is allowed “on paper”, but because owners are not free to use or dispose of their property as they wish, the term loses all its meaning. Under a fascist system of government, the individual’s interest is subservient to the national interest.

      Communism is also a totalitarian system, where all property belongs to the state. Government and business are the same thing – as the state owns the means of production. Under a communist system of government, the individual’s interest is likewise subservient to the national interest.

      Both political systems result in effective dictatorship. Both reduce their citizens to the status of serfs – under a ruling class. So the extremes on both sides are really two sides of the same coin — variations on an identical theme (collectivism and property confiscation) – rather than actual opposites.

      Did the Nazis believe in individual liberty? Nope. Did they believe in small government serving by the consent of the governed? Nope. Did they believe in free enterprise? Nope. Did they believe in religious freedom? Nope. Did they believe in the rule of law? Nope. So in what way were the Nazis conservative?

      • Cluster February 17, 2012 / 3:55 pm

        What’s interesting too is that Hitler’s rise to power was a result of his populist socialist rhetoric. Go back and listen to, or read some of Hitler’s speeches given in the late 1920’s.

    • neocon1 February 17, 2012 / 4:02 pm


      You do realize the Nazis were the conservatives Marxists right?

      sure do…..

      The Nazis Were Marxists
      By Bruce Walker
      The Nazis were Marxists, no matter what our tainted academia and corrupt media wishes us to believe. Nazis, Bolsheviks, the Ku Klux Klan, Maoists, radical Islam and Facists — all are on the Left, something that should be increasingly apparent to decent, honorable people in our times. The Big Lie which places Nazis on some mythical Far Right was created specifically so that there would be a bogeyman manacled on the wrists of those who wish us to move “too far” in the direction of Ronald Reagan or Barry Goldwater.


  8. bloodypenquinstump February 17, 2012 / 3:20 pm
    • tiredoflibbs February 17, 2012 / 4:07 pm

      rednstumpy: “Is there a conservative alive who understands the first amendment?”

      I would not expect a lib to know any part of the Constitution since they believe the “living document” crap.

      So stumpy consider this a free lesson.

      Is there a conservative alive who understands the first amendment?

      I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

      Ok. Let’s see, liberals like the first clause concerning religion, but completely ignore the “FREE EXERCISE THEREOF” clause. As in obAMATEUR’s mandate forcing Catholics to provide birth control in direct violation of their beliefs. Or a state’s school district putting limits on the students’ ability to practice religion freely, so it does not offend other students.

      Freedom of speech and the Press – liberals have been pushing for the “fairness doctrine” and “campaign finance” both of which put LIMITS on free speech. To them, you can have free speech as long as you follow the rules they set in both of those doctrines.

      Petition the Government for a redress of grievances….. Let’s see, liberals are imposing “permits” to hold demonstrations – while said permits were not required for most of the Occupy Anywhere movements, it certainly was required for the Tea Party demonstrations. Again, you can exercise your right to protest as long as you get the necessary permit – no permit, no demonstration.

      Consider your idiot-self educated.

  9. RetiredSpook February 17, 2012 / 5:14 pm

    Happy days are here again. Congress has passed the payroll tax cut extension, and the President is anxious to sign the $150 billion raid on the social security trust fund that is expected to create or save as many as 37 million jobs.

    • Cluster February 17, 2012 / 6:36 pm

      So Obama has decided to cut off the only funding mechanism social security has, putting that program closer to insolvency and jeopardizing senior citizens monthly stipend in a pandering effort to offer throw some crumbs to his constituents in the form of a “tax cut” in an election year?

      Sounds like something he would do.

  10. watsonredux February 17, 2012 / 5:38 pm

    retiredSpook said, “Like the true partisan hack he is, Watson cued in on the first possibility as though it were the only one. Moreover, Watson and I actually agree on more than we disagree on, yet he continues to be combative and confrontational.”

    We do agree on some things. And I know you told me to piss off, but you can put up with one more post on this thread. Here’s the problem I have with your article. Yes, you offered more than the possibility that Obama is intentionally trying to lose the election. But the fact that you would even say something so patently absurd–and use it as your lead–shows that you are simply trying to pander to people who agree with you, and little more.

    So I would ask, what was the purpose of your post? If you are just looking for some nods of agreement from a handful of B4V readers, then fine, you did a good job. But if that’s the case, why even bother? Just to make yourself feel better? I think you are a better writer and thinker than that.

    I would hope that you are perhaps trying to change some minds, or at least trying to get people to re-think their positions. Starting off with an absurd premise in the first sentence demonstrates that you have little interest in doing so, and little respect for those who may disagree with you. You shouldn’t be surprised to receive a “confrontational” response.

    I also think that as a political commentator, you have a responsibility to back up your positions with facts. I would expect that you would have at least looked at the polling and approval rating data, for instance, to see if in fact it appears that Obama is losing the election at this stage, or how the public feels about some of the positions you take issue with. It’s telling that in asking me to leave, you have failed to even address any of the substantive posts I raised.

    Anyway, sorry if my original post was “combative and confrontational.” I re-read it. Yes, I challenged your basic premise, but by B4V comment standards, it was barely combative or confrontational.

    • Cluster February 17, 2012 / 6:30 pm

      So I would ask, what was the purpose of your post? If you are just looking for some nods of agreement from a handful of B4V readers, then fine, you did a good job. But if that’s the case, why even bother? Just to make yourself feel better? I think you are a better writer and thinker than that. – watson

      watson, the post was my idea and Spook graciously posted it for me, so you need to direct your ire towards me. The post is what it is – usually politicians tack to the center in an election year, but Obama has moved even further left in the last 6 months – hence the inquiry, and that is hardly an “absurd” premise. I also have zero desire to “convince” anyone to change their minds – I in fact don’t even think that most liberals have a mind.

      The simple fact is this – Nov. 2010 proved that voters and most Americans reject this top down, statist approach to government, so instead of moving to the center as most astute politicians would, Obama has gone the other direction. This is not a winning strategy in my opinion, and the current polls mean nothing. Wait until Romney or Santorum win the nomination and set their sights on exposing the incompetent and hypocritical Obama. It wont be flattering and the polls will not be kind. The only recourse Obama has will be too attack them personally, of which he will and it will get ugly. Hopefully our nominee will stay civil and on message and not get down in the mud with the slimy Obama, because that is what he will need them to, and what the media will try to get them to do.

      • watsonredux February 17, 2012 / 8:29 pm

        But don’t you think it has already gotten downright dirty in the Republican primaries? Ask Newt what he thought of Mitt’s attacks. So far as I can tell, there is absolutely no reason to think that they won’t be just as dirty, if not more, during the general. This might provide some interesting reading about Romney’s attack dog:


        It’s not absurd to disagree with Obama, or to suggest that his decisions and policies will not serve him well in a re-election bid. But it is absurd to suggest that he is intentionally trying to lose the election.

        As for not trying to change minds, then the question still stands, what is the point of the article?

      • Cluster February 17, 2012 / 9:13 pm


        A blog post is an opinion, right? In my opinion, nearly everything Obama is doing right now is going to hurt him badly in the general election. That’s the point of the article.

        I agree that the primaries are getting to personal, and have simply said that I HOPE our nominee will be more civil in the general and keep the campaign issue based, but knowing that Obama is going to go on the personal attacks, I have a feeling that this could be one of the nastiest elections in history.

      • watsonredux February 17, 2012 / 10:34 pm

        Sure, a blog post is opinion. It just seems pointless to go to the trouble of stating an opinion specifically for the people who already agree with you. The fact that you say, “I in fact don’t even think that most liberals have a mind,” just shows how close-minded you are. That statement is something one might expect from a 12-year old, not a political commentator.

        Anyway, I see no reason to even hope that the Republicans won’t continue to be dirty, with all the PAC money coming into the Republican coffers, and with the people behind Mitt–assuming he’s the nominee. This guy wants desperately to be president, and obviously will do just about anything, including completely reversing himself on issues. The guy stands for nothing at this point.

      • Cluster February 18, 2012 / 8:39 am

        watson –

        I am not a political commentator, and got a good laugh when I read that. I am sorry my opinion has upset you so much, but that’s life kid. You think Romney stands for nothing and I think Obama is far left moron – isn’t America great?

        Liberals desire to have everyone march in lockstep is annoying as hell and hurting this country. In fact just this morning, another liberal authoritarian is on the news wanting to close down the Heart Attack Grill because their menu lends to heart disease. Would it be too much to ask you liberals to leave me the f**k the alone and let me choose what restaurant I want to go to, what light bulb I want to use, and what health care plan is best?

    • J. R. Babcock February 17, 2012 / 6:31 pm

      I’ll give it a shot, Watson, since you seem to be on Retired Spook’s sh*t list.

      Just a couple points about Obama trying to lose: (1) he picked an unnecessary fight with the Catholic Church (a big supporter both in terms of the Church’s support on ObamaCare and the overhwhelming number of Catholic votes; and (2) he picked an unnecessary fight with his biggest supporters of all — labor unions, over the Keystone Pipeline. There are only two explanations I can think of that would explain those two moves: either a death wish or an incredible level of arrogance and narcissism.

      Actually, I just thought of a third point — the Occupy movement, largely made up of young people who gave Obama 80% of their votes in 2008. He’s pretty much thrown them under the bus. Just not the actions of someone who wants to win.

    • neocon1 February 17, 2012 / 6:04 pm


      the man supports his daughter = BFD
      does not make her any less a pervert.

  11. Green Mountain Boy February 17, 2012 / 6:16 pm

    Ahh, I see the warm weather has brought the trolls out from under thier bridges again. Glad I missed it. 🙂

  12. watsonredux February 17, 2012 / 10:57 pm

    More evidence that President Obama is intentionally throwing the election and is “disconnected from reality”…

    According to a new CBS News/New York Times poll, 61 percent of Americans support federally-mandated contraception coverage for religiously-affiliated employers; 31 percent oppose such coverage. This week, voter approval of Obama’s handling of the economy reached its highest level since December. And this week’s polls show Obama not only beating every Republican contender, but increasing his lead over each of them over the last month.

    • Amazona February 18, 2012 / 11:05 am

      Can it be that the wattle truly is as stupid as he sounds? This poll he cites is completely irrelevant to the real issue, though it is a peek into the mechanism of semantic distortion that sucks in so many, well, suckers like wattle. It doesn’t say that these people think the religious organizations should pay for the contraception, but that is the impression it is designed to convey.

      I could work for a Catholic school or hospital and get birth control any time I wanted it. I could just not ask the Catholic organization to pay for it.

      I’d like to see the methodology of this poll, because it contradicts others that show disagreement with the federal effort to override religious freedom.

      • RetiredSpook February 18, 2012 / 1:01 pm

        Can it be that the wattle truly is as stupid as he sounds?

        I don’t know that he’s “stupid”; more like bi-polar or just incredibly intellectually dishonest.

  13. Green Mountain Boy February 18, 2012 / 12:09 am

    I don’t think I answered your original question. The vast majority of children that are born into the mennonite communties are not born in hospitals. They are born in thier own homes. We have no birth certificates. Baptismal records we do have have. At this time they are still accepted as proof of birth and citizenship.

    The vast majority of mennonites also never leave the farm so to speak. It is only the few like me that have that wanderlust that do. Sometimes I do regret leaving. Then I realize I would never have met my wife if I had not.

    I got the better of that trade. Nicht wahr FTF?

  14. Cluster February 18, 2012 / 8:53 am

    I just couldn’t let this comment go by without a mention:

    The very few folks who post on this unknown, backwater blog believe rather than think and trust rather than question. – watson

    This is coming from a guy who voted for a candidate that promised to heal the planet, recede the seas, and bring harmony around the world. He is also still in support of a candidate that now says things were worse than he thought, accelerating debt is nothing to worry about, and that his opponents want you to drink dirty water.

    And he is the one accusing others of believing rather than thinking, and trusting rather than questioning. That is absolutely hilarious. Not sure if that diminishes my “political commentator” cred. It’s also important to note that Xavier chimed right in in support.

    watson is what Amazona calls the unexamined liberal – emotionally supporting everything that “feels right” and doesn’t “offend” anyone – without a single thought to the repercussions of said policy. Liberals are the adolescent children who still live at home and constantly complain that mom and dad are too mean and too old and don’t give them enough money.

  15. Green Mountain Boy February 18, 2012 / 1:10 pm

    So I have an alliegence to the progressive movement because I critisize the repubs more than the donkys? Do any of you ever pay attention to why the draw more of my ire than donkys?

    I do not think so. Maybe if the repubs would start opposing the progressive agenda some the would not draw the ire of myself and people like me. That would not fit the narrative of Cluster and now Spook would it.

    An opposition party that will not oppose. An opposition will cut deals and cross the isle and compromise and do whatever to be like my the media and the so called moderates and independents.

    So, I am a progressive now?

    • RetiredSpook February 18, 2012 / 1:24 pm


      I don’t see anyone claiming you’re a Progressive. Who exactly are you responding to with this comment? And exactly what “narrative” of mine don’t you fit?

  16. watsonredux February 18, 2012 / 2:40 pm

    There’s no doubt I’m left of center of the B4V crowd, but you all are to the right of 90% of America. As for dodging facts, I have presented facts on this thread a number of times, only to be criticized for being mean to spook or dodging the facts. As for not criticizing Democrats, this is conservative blog. I typically react to what you guys say, like claiming President Obama is just tired of being president and is trying to throw the election. As for the Republican candidates vying for the presidency, I don’t think they are even appealing to you guys, so why would I find them so?

    Romney? Was for abortion, now he’s against it. Was for a health care mandate, now he’s against it. He’s a walking, talking contradiction. He stands for nothing. The only reason someone would vote for him would be to vote against Obama.

    Gingrich? There’s the old Bob Dole joke about the three file cabinets in his office. The first big one contains Newt Gingrich ideas. The second big one contains more Gingrich ideas. And that last little one contains Newt’s good ideas. He’s about himself, nothing more.

    Santorum. His social policies are a non-starter for me. Would never get my vote for anything.

    Then there are the has-beens who thoroughly embarrassed the Republican party.

    Cain. Former pizza salesman who is now… a pizza salesman. 9-9-9 was a national joke.

    Perry. A complete failure to grasp any facts. Apparently thought his oozing charm would win the day.

    Trump. Stifle the laughter.

    Huntsman. A true conservative, so far as I can tell, but made the fatal mistake of being an ambassador during the Obama administration. Also, the fact that he can speak another language pretty much rules him out for conservatives. To learned.

    And then there is Sarah Palin, who just this week said she would serve if called. Former half-term governor and now a B-list celebrity.

  17. bagni February 19, 2012 / 4:10 pm

    please stop talking for a bit
    you’re not doing yourself any favors
    even with your own

  18. pincheesguru February 21, 2012 / 11:13 pm

    wow – this is quite possibly the dumbest thread in the history of the internets.

Comments are closed.