These Hands: Nevada + Articles

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 27, 2012 12:41 PM GMT


    Oh, taken out of context? Really?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 27, 2012 12:56 PM GMT
    http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/obama_of_roanoke_we_saw_you_coming.html

    Obama of Roanoke: We Saw You Coming
    By C. Edmund Wright, July 21, 2012

    Now that Brit Hume, perhaps the best network anchor of our time, is on record that it's fair to say that we know more (after the Roanoke speech) than we ever have about the President's view of business and the economy," the real Obama is finally starting to be recognized in the truly mass media. While Mr. Hume and many others have been reticent, Obama of Roanoke has been out there for all to see for years quite frankly.

    What might be "fair to say" is that Obama let slip in a momentous way what many of us knew all along about him.

    Ayn Rand saw Obama of Roanoke coming way back in the 1950's, before Barry Soetoro was even born. Ronald Reagan saw him coming in the 60s and 70s -- and was especially prescient on how he would use the medical industry to advance his goals -- even though our current President was but a choom boy "doing some blow" back in the day.

    Obama of Roanoke, understand, is not merely a specific person named Barack Hussein Obama. He is Van Jones. He is Elizabeth Warren. He is Valerie Jarrett. He is Steven Chu and Cass Sunstein. He is Jeremiah Wright and Frank Marshall Davis and Karl Marx and many others. Obama of Roanoke is not some benign elegant speaker. Obama of Roanoke is a malignant mindset. His fingerprints are all over the biggest disasters in world history. For this reason, he was and is utterly predictable long before Friday last.

    And many utterly predicted him, though for some reason they are not among the elite pundit wizards of smart or among elected Republicans for the most part.

    All through the campaign of 2008 Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Sean Hannity and Joe the Plumber saw him coming. Why do you think Rush said "I hope he fails." The millions who flocked to see "Atlas Shrugged" also saw him. And here, in early 2009,

    I outlined why we were systematically dismembering my business of 20 years -- that I actually did build by the way -- and why I knew instinctively that millions of others would do some iteration of the same thing we were doing.

    Why did we do this and how did we know it was the thing to do? Obama of Roanoke, that's why. It mattered not at all that he waited until July of 2012 to give the Roanoke speech. Obama of Roanoke is exactly who he has always been and he has done exactly as many of us expected him to do. The Roanoke speech was not a contextual problem nor was it an aberration or a teleprompter misprint.

    Roanoke was Obama, and Obama is Roanoke. As I paraphrased before inauguration, we already had in place plans to avoid those who naively think that "we didn't do that" in our business:

    Atlas has shrugged all over the country. Like many business owners, we are no longer willing to take all of the financial and legal risks and put up with all of the aggravation of owning and running a business. Not with the prospects of even higher taxes, more regulation, more litigation and more emboldened bureaucrats on the horizon.

    It is no secret that owners circulated endless emails leading up to election day discussing lay off plans were Obama to win. Entrepreneurs instinctively understand the danger posed by larger liberal majorities... the risk-reward equation and fierce independence spirit of start up businesses are anathema to the class warfare, equality of outcome and spread the wealth mentality of the left. [...]

    We got into business to be independent. We will get out for the same reason.

    Now at the time, we had not met folks like Jones and Chu and Sunstein. It didn't matter. We knew Obama of Roanoke and we knew exactly what kinds of people would be put in charge of our lives without having to know the specific names.

    And Roanoke may now become synonymous with the moment that others figured this out too.

    Yes, history has a way of soft morphing big truths into events or even speeches, and I suspect that the term 'Roanoke' will cease to connote a small town in Virginia populated by Hokie football fans and will instead live throughout this entire campaign and perhaps even have a long life in the annals of Presidential politics as a seminal moment.

    It may well be the moment that Mitt Romney and his advisors and the so called conservative pundit class finally had to admit that this particular emperor has not a stitch of proper economic or even pro American clothing. It may be the moment where on some level, the elites in Washington and Manhattan had to come out of the closet of ideological denial and join the enlightenment that so many so-called normal average folks had from the get go.

    It may well be the moment when the budding momentum by Democrats to shun the Charlotte Convention and to leave Obama there all by himself reached critical mass. As we saw in 2008 when all Republicans ran against George W. Bush, a party that runs against its own President is a party in deep trouble. The same was true in 1976 with Carter and Ford (Nixon).

    It may also be the moment that the independents and the moderates finally 'got it.' It may be a turning point of realization that their problem is not what Mitt Romney was doing with his money, but is what Obama of Roanoke is intentionally and systematically doing to their dreams to ever earn and keep some of their own money. It could be the time where they say to themselves "hell yeah, I hope I can one day send my money to the Caymans too!"

    And because of Roanoke, I am ironically more confident than I was in January of 2009

    Maybe Roanoke will be the term that defines when that "over 50%" tide started to turn. Maybe it will be the day the beltway Republicans realized that while Obama of Roanoke is many people, but he is not the same old Democrat Party of Tip O'Neil. It may be the day that Obama's electoral coffin - and the coffins of many other statist liberals, were nailed shut by a rare act of candor.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 27, 2012 12:58 PM GMT
    The Obama supporters cry foul, that the word "that" referred to the infrastructure not business. They cry foul because they claim that the sentence was taken out of context.

    The problem for Obama and his loyal supporters is the sentence is not out of context regardless of what "that" referred to.

    His remarks in Roanoke were clearly denigrating the business people who think they are so smart in a mocking tone that wreaks with condescension. Saying others are smart was saying that the business owners didn't do anything special. No, the sentence was clearly in context of his other remarks.

    But more telling, they are in context with his entire Presidency and belief system. His class warfare is both divisive and toxic, and people are starting to see it. People know his "fair share" tax rhetoric is not self-limiting in any way. They also know he wants to use laws to further wealth redistribution consistent with his ideology in ways the laws were never intended. Taxes were designed to raise revenue for the Government, not redistribute wealth even though we have a progressive tax system. If anyone forgot, review the discussion with Charlie Gibson. Obama favors tax rates that reduce revenue if they succeed in redistributing wealth. http://taxfoundation.org/blog/obama-and-gibson-capital-gains-tax-exchange

    More people are seeing Obama values are not consistent with the values that built this country. Post-Roanoke, it is clearer to those who were still undecided.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 27, 2012 1:00 PM GMT
    This is a theme that will resonate - but I think that it would be more effective if Romney came out even more unabashedly pro growth and talked to raising up fortunes and optimism with less emphasis on Obama's ideology that he has been most clear in articulating.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 27, 2012 1:03 PM GMT
    riddler78 saidThis is a theme that will resonate - but I think that it would be more effective if Romney came out even more unabashedly pro growth and talked to raising up fortunes and optimism with less emphasis on Obama's ideology that he has been most clear in articulating.

    I think going forward, especially in August-October timeframe, we will see a combination of Romney articulating a pro-growth policy while the SuperPACs will continue to emphasize what Obama is really all about and remind us what he accomplished the past 4 years.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 27, 2012 1:23 PM GMT
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443931404577551344018773450.html?mod=ITP_opinion_0

    By Kimberly Strassel

    Four Little Words - Why the Obama campaign is suddenly so worried.

    What's the difference between a calm and cool Barack Obama, and a rattled and worried Barack Obama? Four words, it turns out.

    "You didn't build that" is swelling to such heights that it has the president somewhere unprecedented: on defense. Mr. Obama has felt compelled—for the first time in this campaign—to cut an ad in which he directly responds to the criticisms of his now-infamous speech, complaining his opponents took his words "out of context."

    That ad follows two separate ones from his campaign attempting damage control. His campaign appearances are now about backpedaling and proclaiming his love for small business. And the Democratic National Committee produced its own panicked memo, which vowed to "turn the page" on Mr. Romney's "out of context . . . BS"—thereby acknowledging that Chicago has lost control of the message.

    The Obama campaign has elevated poll-testing and focus-grouping to near-clinical heights, and the results drive the president's every action: his policies, his campaign venues, his targeted demographics, his messaging. That Mr. Obama felt required—teeth-gritted—to address the "you didn't build that" meme means his vaunted focus groups are sounding alarms.

    The obsession with tested messages is precisely why the president's rare moments of candor—on free enterprise, on those who "cling to their guns and religion," on the need to "spread the wealth around"—are so revealing. They are a look at the real man. It turns out Mr. Obama's dismissive words toward free enterprise closely mirror a speech that liberal Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren gave last August.

    Ms. Warren's argument—that government is the real source of all business success—went viral and made a profound impression among the liberal elite, who have been pushing for its wider adoption. Mr. Obama chose to road-test it on the national stage, presumably thinking it would underline his argument for why the wealthy should pay more. It was a big political misstep, and now has the Obama team seriously worried.

    And no wonder. The immediate effect was to suck away the president's momentum. Mr. Obama has little positive to brag about, and his campaign hinges on keeping negative attention on his opponent. For months, the president's team hammered on Mr. Romney's time at Bain, his Massachusetts tenure, his tax returns. "You didn't build that" shifted the focus to the president, and his decision to respond to the criticisms has only legitimized them and guaranteed they continue.

    The Obama campaign's bigger problem, both sides are now realizing, is that his words go beyond politics and are more devastating than the Romney complaints that Mr. Obama is too big-government oriented or has mishandled the economy. They raise the far more potent issue of national identity and feed the suspicion that Mr. Obama is actively hostile to American ideals and aspirations. Republicans are doing their own voter surveys, and they note that Mr. Obama's problem is that his words cause an emotional response, and that they disturb voters in nearly every demographic.


    It's why Mr. Obama's "out of context" complaints aren't getting traction. The Republican National Committee's response to that gripe was to run an ad that shows a full minute of Mr. Obama's rant at the Roanoke, Va., campaign event on July 13. In addition to "you didn't build that," the president also put down those who think they are "smarter" or "work harder" than others. Witness the first president to demean the bedrock American beliefs in industriousness and exceptionalism. The "context" only makes it worse.

    This gets to the other reason the Obama campaign is rattled: "You didn't build that" threatens to undermine its own argument against Mr. Romney. Mr. Obama has been running on class warfare and the notion that Mr. Romney is a wealthy one-percenter out of touch with average Americans. Yet few things better symbolize the average American than a small-business owner. To the extent that Mr. Romney is positioning himself as champion of that little business guy and portraying Mr. Obama as something alien, he could flip the Obama narrative on its head.

    It would be all the more potent were Mr. Romney to use "you didn't build that" to launch his own economic narrative. One unexpected side effect of "you didn't build that" is that it has emboldened the GOP to re-embrace and glory in free enterprise (so abused since the financial crash). And the president's disparaging attack on business has also made voters more open to a defense of it.

    Meaning, it's a perfect time to marry emotion with some policy. Mr. Romney has explained why the president doesn't get it. The next step is to explain why his own tax policies, regulatory proposals, and entitlement plans are the answer for those who actually do the building. The president is on defense. We'll see if Mr. Romney can keep him there.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 27, 2012 1:35 PM GMT
    Obama's words are devastating because they articulate so clearly what most people suspected but were willing to overlook.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 27, 2012 2:40 PM GMT
    riddler78 saidObama's words are devastating because they articulate so clearly what most people suspected but were willing to overlook.

    Now with his attitude being seen by more, his desire to have taxes increased on small business owners will be seen as further reinforcing his position. Hearing him say the small business owners are not paying their fair share juxtaposed with words from small business owners on how much they are already paying and how increased taxes will require layoffs will cement his reputation if there were any doubters remaining.

    Seeing him hung by his own fair share class warfare rhetoric ........ Sweet!
  • nanidesukedo

    Posts: 1036

    Jul 27, 2012 2:47 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    riddler78 saidObama's words are devastating because they articulate so clearly what most people suspected but were willing to overlook.

    Now with his attitude being seen by more, his desire to have taxes increased on small business owners will be seen as further reinforcing his position. Hearing him say the small business owners are not paying their fair share juxtaposed with words from small business owners on how much they are already paying and how increased taxes will require layoffs will cement his reputation if there were any doubters remaining.



    But, but... They did it on their own. Why do they need tax cuts and incentives?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 27, 2012 3:09 PM GMT
    The Socal-Riddler Dialogues are a harmless little echo of comfort for two fellows who somehow imagine themselves to be fully involved in the world of industry and entrepreneurship.

    But unlike the people who actually do 'BUILD THAT'.........they entertain themselves with marathon sessions of online punditry.

    All very fine, Boys. Just don't delude yourselves.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 27, 2012 5:23 PM GMT
    Iowa small business owner, former Democrat and former Obama supporter who voted for him, explains why she is supporting Mitt Romney

    Life-long Democrat switches sides

    http://video.foxnews.com/v/1754962506001/small-business-owner-reacts-to-presidents-comments
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 28, 2012 2:00 AM GMT
    JockFacts said
    socalfitness said
    riddler78 saidThis is a theme that will resonate - but I think that it would be more effective if Romney came out even more unabashedly pro growth and talked to raising up fortunes and optimism with less emphasis on Obama's ideology that he has been most clear in articulating.

    I think going forward, especially in August-October timeframe, we will see a combination of Romney articulating a pro-growth policy while the SuperPACs will continue to emphasize what Obama is really all about and remind us what he accomplished the past 4 years.


    Agree - best to let the SuperPACs do all the dirty work.

    Oh, they will. There's tons of new material, especially anchoring his business owner tax plan and fair share rhetoric.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 28, 2012 4:24 AM GMT
    nanidesukedo said
    socalfitness said
    riddler78 saidObama's words are devastating because they articulate so clearly what most people suspected but were willing to overlook.

    Now with his attitude being seen by more, his desire to have taxes increased on small business owners will be seen as further reinforcing his position. Hearing him say the small business owners are not paying their fair share juxtaposed with words from small business owners on how much they are already paying and how increased taxes will require layoffs will cement his reputation if there were any doubters remaining.



    But, but... They did it on their own. Why do they need tax cuts and incentives?


    The tax credits should go away and the tax code simplified. You seem to think that profits are gifted to the people who earn them rather than the other way around.