Free Markets, Free People


Obama: "Hey, Mitt, wouldn’t you rather be a nice loser than a mean winner?"

 

In a patented Instapundit zinger, Glenn sums up Obama’s whining about Romney with four words:

I’LL BET HE DOES: In tough fight with Romney, Obama longs for McCain.

Obama has spent his whole life getting pretty much what he wanted, with token opposition at best. He obviously likes it that way. I suppose if I had lived a charmed life as long as he has, I would also feel entitled to see the charms continue forever.

I’m on record as being no fan of Mitt Romney. I don’t expect to vote for him. I see grave danger that he will end up being the scapegoat of an unprecedented economic meltdown – if it happens on his watch, you can be sure the legacy media journalists and the academic left will work overtime to pin it all on him, and lie through their teeth to minimize the contribution of Democrats and leftists to the problem.

But I do loathe the sanctimonious, smarmy president we have now. Let me translate some of his sanctimony:

It will only be when Mitt Romney is defeated, the president continued, "that the fever may break, because there’s a tradition in the Republican Party of more common sense than that."

“There’s a tradition in the Republican Party of making a good show and then rolling over for the big-government left. Hey, they’re supposed to be more loyal to the rest of the political class, including me, than to those whackjobs that actually vote for them. It’s not fair if they don’t keep doing that.”

"The last time we ran, we had a Republican candidate who — I had some profound disagreements with him, but he acknowledged the need for immigration reform, and acknowledged the need for campaign finance reform, acknowledged the need for policies that would do something about climate change," Obama said. "Now, what we’ve got is not just a nominee but a Congress and a Republican Party that have a fundamentally different vision about where we need to go as a country."

“Come on, Mitt, don’t you want to be a loser like McCain? He understood the kabuki Republicans are supposed to perform. He embraced a whole bunch of leftist positions, but still pretended to be conservative. He knew he wasn’t supposed to really criticize me and my Lightworker persona. Now, I have to run against people who won’t play my game, and insist on setting out some kind of clear choice. That’s not fair.”

At about the same time, the Obama campaign released a web video that also featured McCain nostalgia. "John McCain stood up to the voices of extremism in his party," the video said. "Why won’t Mitt Romney do the same?"

“Why won’t Mitt Romney play the game the way I want? He should be wasting his time on the things I want him to waste time on. See, the whole repudiation thing is a win-win for me. With the help of my comrades in the media, I can keep Romney busy defending the indefensible, and he’ll still come out of it looking bad no matter how much he apologizes or repudiates. Plus, his base gets demoralized. Why won’t he go along with that? Doesn’t he understand that I need him to play the role of the valiant loser who gets a nice compliment in my victory speech? It’s not fair.”

I don’t expect that his whining is going to win over many voters, but what else can he do? His record is dismal in just about every respect you can name. He has to talk about something, and as out of touch as Obama is, even he knows he’d better not talk about unemployment, lack of growth, or troubles in Europe. When he tries to talk about foreign issues, he ends up speaking of the Maldives instead of the Malvinas, or Polish death camps, or whatever. With his speaking record already including 57 states and “corpse-man”, maybe he’s better off if he sticks to generic whining.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • email
  • Print
  • Google Bookmarks

15 Responses to Obama: "Hey, Mitt, wouldn’t you rather be a nice loser than a mean winner?"

  • I keep coming upon this meme that the policies of Mitt Romney are those that they are using today in Europe.
    Europe hasn’t had policies anything like those of Mitt Romney for at least a few decades.
    No, Europe took another route. They are beyond Barack Obama. They are where Obama would be if you let him be President for 10 or so more years. They are where Obama would be when he realizes that everything he has tried just didn’t work they way his academic friends said it would. Europe is where Obama would be when he realizes that Maggie Thatcher was right, that eventually you run out of other people’s money.

    • Europe is where Obama would be when he realizes that Maggie Thatcher was right, that eventually you run out of other people’s money.

      I challenge that. I do not believe Obama capable of such a realization. It would require repudiation of a lifetime’s actions and philosophy, and an admission to being wrong on fundamental reality for decades. He doesn’t have the psychic strength for that; most leftists don’t. No matter how bad it gets, they’ll blame wicked capitalists, and insist that if those mean rich guys who exploited workers would just give a little more money off the infinite-production money trees in their back yard, and we all would give them some more power over our lives, everything would work out just fine.

      • “I challenge that. I do not believe Obama capable of such a realization.”

        Amen brother, amen.

      • Take another look at Europe, they don’t want to believe it either.

  • Romney…whatever his faults…is proving to be NOT McAnus.  ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll good, in terms of tactics and effect.

  • The NYT told us today we can’t blame the “One”….it’s the Republican’s fault in Congress! they’re resisting his tax cuts, and his job plans!   They’re allowing the cuts in public service jobs to offiset the gains in the private sector and they won’t send money to the States to prevent those cuts!

     

  • He’s been coddled his entire life and just cruised. But there’s no messy divorce record that mysteriously gets unsealed, or opponent that campaigns with one hand behind his back this time for Bacacky to take advantage of.
    I remain convinced that Romney will make a mediocre (at best) Pres. but I am starting to like the fact that at least his campaign seems to have some fighting chops.

  • “I see grave danger that he will end up being the scapegoat of an unprecedented economic meltdown – if it happens on his watch, you can be sure the legacy media journalists and the academic left will work overtime to pin it all on him, and lie through their teeth to minimize the contribution of Democrats and leftists to the problem.”
    I also feel that danger keenly.  If he were actually conservative instead of merely not as far left as Obama–which the GOP “elites” insist is a fulsome reason for him to be a universally accepted GOP nominee–he would be someone likely to drag Boehner and the far more centrist GOP Senate to the right.  He would be someone thinking Ryan’s plan was a timid starting point.
    Progress made towards implementing such an attitude is all that could forestall such a collapse, I think, at this point.
    With GOP House, Senate, and Oval Office in R hands, economic conservatism will all but certainly in the public mind be successfully but wrongly blamed for that collapse even if it were the debt of the weakly conservative W by 20%–stupendously leftist O by 80%–and ineffectual response to it by the left of national center Romney which led to that collapse.
    Romney is not the right guy for the job that needs doing.
    Operation Counterweight is the only hope.

    • Except that the GOP is going to be blamed NO MATTER WHAT.  We only control 1 half of 1 branch of the government, but everything seems to be our fault regardless. So we may as well bloody Baracky’s ego and shove him out.  And there are other considerations. I want (I guess) Romney having the shot at having multiple SCOTUS appointees. Any squishy justice he names will be light years better than the “wise latina” and Fred Flintstone that Failbama appointed.  I also would prefer someone who wouldn’t stab Israel in the back when that inevitable shooting war starts in the Mid East. I have zero doubt who the current Pres. would throw in with, curse his freedom-hating heart.

  • “I’m on record as being no fan of Mitt Romney. I don’t expect to vote for him.”  So I guess like the conservatives that stayed home in 2008, you would help Obama become elected again.  Romney is growing on me with his proactive campaigning, but he is not who I wanted.  However, I expect to see a President, should he win, that can be reasoned with and whose character is what we always say we want in a politician.  Perfect he is not, but even JC wouldn’t please everyone.  But I don’t want this devil that we know now in office because he is destroying the nation I love and once swore to protect, so ABO; well almost anyone else.

    • No, I won’t be helping Obama get elected again. After laying off the Libertarian Party several times in a row, this time they’ve nominated somebody I can vote for, so I will.

      Therefore I won’t be voting for Obama, and anyone who says that’s helping Obama is playing the same game the establishment GOP has been playing most of my life, i.e., vote for our political class squishes because the other guy is worse, and maybe we won’t drive the country off the cliff quite as fast as the other guy.

      If the GOP wants my vote, it can put forth a candiate I’m willing to vote for. I owe the GOP nothing; I’m not a Republican. I want someone who will seriously advocate limited government and dramatic reductions in the federal government. Romney isn’t that guy. He just loves him some government healthcare, though he says it should be at the state level. He thinks it’s fine for government to “invest” in private companies, just not as much as the Democrats.

      Just as Bush gave us federalization of education and unconstitutional campaign finance “reform”, I expect we’ll see some similar awfulness from Romney. The difference is that the GOP won’t fight him when he proposes such idiocy. They would fight Obama, if by chance he gets elected again, which I doubt. So I don’t see that much difference, and not enough to vote for a squish like Romney.

      I don’t fear divided government; it seems to be the least bad of the our options until the GOP comes to its senses.

      • I hope you are wrong but I fear you are right.
        My solution is the Tea Party acting as enforcer, pushing the squishes into line.
        Probably won’t work, but far more likely to work than the LP.

        • Yeah, I gave up on the LP as a viable political organization for any actual governing a long time ago. But Johnson is not a bad fellow, has been a governor, has a decent record, etc. Voting for him is a signal to the GOP.

          The thing that distresses me about the constant pressure to vote for squishes is this: the GOP has had their biggest victories in my lifetime when they went wide open for limited government, Reagan, Gingrich in 1994, Tea Party in 2010. So the idea that they have to “moderate their message”, i.e. become permanent squishes who don’t really do anything, just to win elections is false on its face. It’s clear that they don’t *want* limited government, not really. They just want to run things.

          Sure, they don’t have as much itch to remake the world with more government programs as the left has. But that’s not good enough for me anymore. I will only support someone who will actually work for serious change before the debt bomb explodes, and the GOP isn’t supplying many of those. I’ll support any they do supply. But Tennessee’s Senate GOP candidate this year is amiable squish Bob Corker, and Nashville hasn’t elected a GOP Congressman since 1875, so that one’s pretty pointless to even look at.

michael kors outlet michael kors handbags outlet michael kors factory outlet