Exactly backwards

Obama was at the Iowa State Fair yesterday and decided to buy beer for people. There was a guy with a Romney sign nearby and Obama said, "I’ll tell you what, except for Romney sign, I’ll buy beers for ten people."

(The article says he was spending his own money, which is presumably why he limited it to ten people. When it's our money he's spending, he sees no need for restraint. And yes, I realize that even the money in his wallet is our money since he's never earned an honest dollar in his life.)

It struck me that this is exactly the opposite of what he should have done (no surprise there). A person with cleverness, class, or grace (none of which he is burdened with) would have bought the beer for the Romney supporter and done it cheerfully and graciously. (You'd especially expect this from the man who keeps claiming to be the great uniter!) It would have shown class and brains and would everyone would have been talking about how gracious he was. Even the Romney supporter would have gone away somewhat impressed by the man and probably have told others.

Romney Hood

So, President Suuuuuuper Genius thought it was clever to refer to Mitt Romney as Romney Hood. Really? Maybe the Romney campaign should hire him to come up with ideas for them. Because, as even children know, Robin Hood was the well-loved hero who was fighting against a corrupt government that was over-taxing its citizens. Romney Hood is exactly what we need!

P.S.

Of course, we don't really want Obama to work harder on the economy. The less he implements his socialist ideals, the better.

If only he'd work this hard on the economy

So far in this campaign, Obama has hosted more fundraisers than the last five presidents combined. He can always find time for fundraisers, golf, parties, and extravagant vacations. If only he'd work at, you know, being president. He loves the position (and the perks); it's the work he never has time for.

There are at least three important points to be made about this:

1. Seriously ... at a time when record numbers of Americans are suffering from the economy, Obama spends all his time getting re-elected rather than doing his job. (Similarly, we watch as Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, etc. spiral out of control. But he's too busy to seriously deal with any of those ... too busy fundraising.) He's joined by a Democrat Senate who haven't even been able to pass a budget for three years. But this is what we should expect from the Narcissist in Chief. He doesn't care about Americans; he only cares about himself. Besides, governing is a lot quicker when you skip the other branches of government and just issue decrees.

2. The only thing he's willing to devote time to is getting money for himself. All the normal Americans can twist in the wind as they watch their savings deplete. Obama doesn't care. He's not going to spend time being president and helping the country. He's too busy trying to scrounge up every cent he can. (Even to the point of telling people they should fore-go their wedding gifts in order to give him money. He's all class, that one.)

3. Lastly, we see (as always) his hypocrisy. He is incessantly whining about being outspent by Romney. This is hypocritical on multiple levels. First of all, he boasted about outspending McCain 3-1. But now that the shoe is on the other foot, the Crybaby in Chief can't stand it. Secondly, earlier this year he was boasting about how he was going to outspend Romney. It was evidence of how much people loved him and what a spectacular politician he was. But now that Romney is out-raising him, again, the whining is deafening. Lastly, he's spending all of his time fundraising - far more time than Romney is. The hypocrisy of criticizing Romney for raising lots of money when Obama is trying harder than any person in history to raise money is, ummm, rich. (I suspect that this is what is really galling Obama: Romney is more successful at this by doing it in his spare time than Obama is doing it full-time. His ego can't stand it.)

When is Sorkin moving?

So, in the typical liberal's oh-so-fresh idea of a "ground-breaking" plot, the star of The Newsroom (I don't know his name ... it isn't worth the few extra seconds on Google to find out) has a little hissy fit and decides to condescend and enlighten the peasants (i.e. those who don't share his liberal hatred for America) about how horrible America is.

Yawn.

Aaron Sorkin is a skilled writer. But we shouldn't assume that the talent of writing well is necessarily accompanied by a grasp on reality or truth. Whining about the U.S. is the admission fee for those who would be stars of the left. But it's hypocritical and dishonest. You'll note that his fictional anchor (just like Sorkin himself), although whining horrible the U.S. is and stating that it's not the best country in the world, nonetheless have chosen to live in it. We can't blame the TV character too much - after all, his hypocrisy is written into the plot. But Sorkin has more than enough money to live anywhere on Earth he wants. Yet, oddly, he chooses to live in the country he's so fond of claiming to be disappointed with.

If it isn't the best country on earth, then by all means ... pack up and move. Others would have the excuse of not being able to. But we're overflowing with rich liberals who claim to think other countries are better but simply will not leave, no matter how much the rest of us wish they would.

Of course, this hypocrisy is standard fare for the liberal elite. They lecture us on global warming, too, even though they use up more gas, oil, etc. on their multiple mansions, private jets, etc. than any 100 normal Americans put together. They whine about the rich and corporations when, in fact, they are among the richest and their entire lives are built on benefiting from corporations.

Just when we thought he couldn't get any more crass...

Obama has spent the last 3.5 years blaming Bush for all of his problems. We expect kids to grow out of this blame game by age 10 or so, but Obama never did. Even if it were true (and it's not), I'm not sure I'd still be claiming this at this point if I were Obama. Is he really so impotent that after almost an entire term as president (the first half of which his party controlled both houses of Congress, and the second half of which they controlled the Senate), he still can't accomplish anything? He should get fired for that alone. Of course, it's not exactly an either/or - either he's a liar or incompetent - he's both.

But I digress.

Today he set a new standard for classlessness. He launched into his "IT'S ALL BUSH'S FAULT!!!" routine at with Bush present at the ceremony unveiling the Bush portrait for the White House.

Barack, Barack, Barack. Real men, real statesmen, real presidents are so far above that kind of behaviour that they would never dream of it. Bush didn't spend four years blaming Clinton. And Bush has endured all the left's tantrums and insults for almost 12 years now with quiet dignity. The difference in class couldn't be more stark.

Liberal hypocrisy at its best

Part of Team Obama's strategy for beating Romney is to portray him as a rich elitist who's out of touch with the average American. This is, if you'll pardon the pun, rich. It's difficult to imagine a more elitist president than Obama. Along with all the extravagant parties and holidays, there's the little fact that Obama employs a dog trainer at $102,000 per year. Ah, yes ... now there's a man of the people!

Of course, the difference between him and Romney is that Romney spends his own money whereas Obama spends ours. Which is by and large the norm. There are many wealthy Republicans. But typically they've earned their money by hard work, providing countless jobs, products, and services that benefit average Americans. There are just as many wealthy Democrats. But they usually have become wealthy at the expense of average Americans.

We'd better hear about Obama's dog trainer a million times during this campaign ... enough that he springs to mind every time some Obama shill has the gall to talk about how rich Romney is.