Peggy vs. the Prez: Charm Turns to Contempt.

“Obama? Oh yeah. He sucks.”

While President Obama’s DNC speech wasn’t as rousing as those delivered by Bill Clinton and Michelle Obama according to one of his former fans turned into one of his biggest critics, it was duller than watching paint dry.

“Barack Obama is deeply overexposed and often boring. He never seems to be saying what he’s thinking. His speech Thursday was weirdly anticlimactic. There’s too much buildup, the crowd was tired, it all felt flat. He was somber, and his message was essentially banal: We’ve done better than you think. Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?


There were many straw men. There were phrases like “the shadow of a shuttered steel mill,” which he considers writerly. But they sound empty and practiced now, like something you’ve heard in a commercial or an advertising campaign. It was stale and empty. He’s out of juice.”

That’s harsh, but what’s harsher is how Peggy Noonan  evolved from loving Obama to spitting on the ground he walks on.

There’s no reason to believe Noonan, a  former speechwriter for Ronald Reagan and currently a Wall Street Journal hack for Rupert Murdoch.  Noonan is disgusted by Obama now, but back in the day she was singing his praises

The case for Barack Obama, in broad strokes:  He has within him the possibility to change the direction and tone of American foreign policy, which need changing; his rise will serve as a practical rebuke to the past five years, which need rebuking; his victory would provide a fresh start in a nation in which a fresh start would come as a national relief. He climbed steep stairs, born off the continent with no father to guide, a dreamy, abandoning mother, mixed race, no connections. He rose with guts and gifts. He is steady, calm, and, in terms of the execution of his political ascent, still the primary and almost only area in which his executive abilities can be discerned, he shows good judgment in terms of whom to hire and consult, what steps to take and moves to make.

We witnessed from him this year something unique in American politics: He took down a political machine without raising his voice.

A great moment: When the press was hitting hard on the pregnancy of Sarah Palin’s 17-year-old daughter, he did not respond with a politically shrewd “I have no comment,” or “We shouldn’t judge.” Instead he said, “My mother had me when she was 18,” which shamed the press and others into silence. He showed grace when he didn’t have to.

Peg and the Prez in happier times.


Fast-forward three years later and
she’s hating on him something fierce and charm has turned to contempt.

“I never loved Barack Obama. That said, among my crowd who did ‘love’ him, I can’t think of anyone who still does.” Why is Mr. Obama different from Messrs. Clinton and Bush? “Clinton radiated personality. As angry as folks got with him about Nafta or Monica, there was always a sense of genuine, generous caring.” With Bush, “if folks were upset with him, he still had this goofy kind of personality that folks could relate to. You might think he was totally misguided but he seemed genuinely so. . . . Maybe the most important word that described Clinton and Bush but not Obama is ‘genuine.’” He “doesn’t exude any feeling that what he says and does is genuine.”

and then there’s this:

The president, if he is seriously trying to avert a debt crisis, should stay in his office, meet with members, and work the phones, all with a new humility, which would be well received. It is odd how he patronizes those with more experience and depth in national affairs.

He should keep his face off TV. He should encourage, cajole, work things through, be serious, get a responsible deal, and then re-emerge with joy and the look of a winner as he jointly announces it to the nation. Then his people should leak that he got what he wanted, the best possible deal, and the left has no idea the ruin he averted and the thanks they owe him.

For now, for his sake and the sake of an ultimate plan, he should choose Strategic Silence. Really, recent presidents forget to shut up. They lose sight of how grating they are.

When Noonan isn’t calling Obama “boring” and “a loser”, she’s suggesting he should simply “shut up.”   Is Miss Peggy is exhibiting some lingering regrets over her 2009 dinner with Obama at George Will’s house with fellow conservative attendees Bill Kristol, Rich Lowry, Charles Krauthammer, and Larry Kudrow?

Where is the love?  Did Obama take his shoes off at the dinner table, belch and fart or steal the silverware?

Why Noonan went from the world’s oldest Obama girl to ripping him without mercy is a mystery.   Did she wake up from a Hope and Change high to realize, “Crap, I forgot I’m supposed to be ripping this guy a new hole two or three times a week.”    If Obama thought he could charm his conservative critics, he’s learned it’s not happenng.

I thought Cornel West had set Usain Bolt-like speed records in going from admiration to detestation of the president without stopping at self-enlightenment, but Noonan is overcompensating for the heresy of her earlier “Barack is so dreamy” crush by eviscerating him without mercy.

Strange how Noonan once admired Obama for showing decency to Sarah Palin but  joined her in hating him.   It’s true that no good deed goes unpunshed.

When Ronnie met Peggy.

The Mitt Just Got Real

"Poor people SUCK! Thanks, for asking."

George Soros is not only a wealthy man, but one of its most demonized. Fox News has been on a mission to depict him as the sugar daddy for every liberal and left-wing cause under the sun. Soros is worth an estimated $14 billion and has contributed millions to progressive groups like Move On.org, forever ensuring the wrath of Rupert Murdoch’s propaganda outlet.

Soros gave an interview where he speculated on the presidential election and concluded, “If it’s between Obama and Romney, there isn’t all that much difference except for the crowd that they bring with them.”

Which goes to show you can have more money than God and not be able to buy a clue.

There is a difference between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. One guy sometimes has trouble with the retail politics of connecting with human beings one-on-one. The other doesn’t even try.

However, thanks to a few moments with Soledad O’Brien, Romney did take the opportunity to show how human he is. In fact, it might have been the most human moment in Mitt Romney’s life.

In an interview with CNN Wednesday morning that should have been a Florida victory lap, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney made a fumble that could give rivals an attack ad sound bite.

Asked about his economic plan, Romney said repeatedly that he was not concerned with very poor Americans, but was focused instead on helping the middle class.

Romney explained that he was confident that food stamps, housing vouchers, Medicaid and other assistance would keep the poor afloat — he pledged to fix holes in that safety net “if it needs repair.” He repeated past statements that his main focus is the middle class because those people, in his opinion, have been hardest hit by the recession (President Obama also has focused many of his efforts on the middle class).

But Romney’s awkward phrasing could give fuel to critics who argue that he does not empathize with the poorest Americans.

I’m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there,” Romney told CNN. “If it needs repair, I’ll fix it. I’m not concerned about the very rich, they’re doing just fine. I’m concerned about the very heart of the America, the 90 percent, 95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling.”

Host Soledad O’Brien pointed out that the very poor are probably struggling too.

“The challenge right now — we will hear from the Democrat party the plight of the poor,” Romney responded, after repeating that he would fix any holes in the safety net. “And there’s no question it’s not good being poor and we have a safety net to help those that are very poor . . . My focus is on middle income Americans … we have a very ample safety net and we can talk about whether it needs to be strengthened or whether there are holes in it. but we have food stamps, we have Medicaid, we have housing vouchers, we have programs to help the poor.”

Just two weeks ago, Romney appeared to have shifted on the social safety net, saying in South Carolina, “I’m concerned about the poor in this country.” But on Wednesday, he took a different tack.

In any political campaign, he said, “you can choose where to focus. You can focus on the rich–that’s not my focus. You can focus on the very poor–that’s not my focus. My focus is on middle-income Americans.”

And there you have it. Mitt being as real as real gets. Saying what he means and meaning what he says.

Could Mittens really be so dumb as to think saying something that cold and callous was actually going to work out well for him? When Mitt speaks off the cuff he says dumb things like “Corporations are people too” and making $10,000 bets with Rick Perry, but this came right after crushing Newt Gingrich in the Florida primary. Was Mittens sleep deprived when he went on Soledad O’ Brien’s morning show?

I doubt it. It’s likely, Mitt knows the Republican race is over and he felt relaxed to say exactly what was on his mind without fear. His original message was probably Mitt Tells the Poor to Eat Shit and Go Fuck Themselves. What the hell? It’s not as if the poor were going to vote for him.

It sounds exactly like Mitt Romney. Totally out of touch with the real world and cocky enough to tell a large point of the electorate to expect exactly jack if he’s elected.

There are an estimated 46 million Americans living in poverty.

For the Republican frontrunner to tell 46 million American he’s “not concerned” about them reveals beyond any doubt how disconnected Romney is from the harsh realities many Americans face every day simply to eat and find shelter.

Rich guys ROCK!

Apparently, if you’re poor you reside outside of the heart of America. Then again, who said Mittens had a heart?

Nice of him to hand the “Democrat” party a club to beat him up with from now until Election Day. He’s the gift that keeps giving to opposition researchers.

Back to George Soros, he was asked if he was one of “Lenin’s useful idiots.’

“Pardon?” a confused Soros responded.

The interviewer explained she wanted to know if due to Soros believing hedge fund billionaires might consider him a backstabbing betrayer when he says “I personally believe that when it comes to policy, you shouldn’t be pursuing self-interest, but the public interest. And I think that the income differentials are too wide and ought to be narrowed.”

Which is by raising taxes on the one percent as Obama wants to and Romney wants no part of.

Would that make Soros one of Lenin’s useful idiots?

“Well, I suppose so. I am a traitor to my class,” Soros said.

As it turns out there is doubt whether Lenin ever used the phrase “useful idiots.”

Whether he did or not, Romney is a useful idiot and he’s no traitor to his class. Despite his supposed “concern” for the middle class, there is little in his proposals to help them. In fact, it’s the wealthy who stand to benefit most if Mittens makes it to the White House.

Something that will not happen if even half of those 46 million Americans Romney cares less about turns out to vote against him in November.

Remember, this is the same Mitt that strapped the family dog to the top of a car for a 12-hour trip from Boston to Ontario, Canada.  If he’s that cruel to his own dog, why would he be kind to poor Americans?

Is it worth the risk to find out?

"No, I said CORPORATIONS are people, not poor losers like you."

Monkey Business

Hidden racism or just a really crappy cartoon?

Hidden racism or just a really crappy cartoon?

I don’t read The New York Post and don’t know anyone that does.

The Post is owned by Rupert Murdoch and its editorial board is largely Australian.   From what I understand the Post has a habit of engaging in nasty race-baiting like this.

Which doesn’t mean being Australian makes anyone a racist. I think it’s more an indictment of what happens in newspaper editorial meetings when there isn’t a conscious person of color at the table to say, “There might be a problem with this..”

This cartoon didn’t tick me off as much as The New Yorker’s “terrorist fist-bump” piece of shit.

Still, it is a badly drawn, totally insipid, heavy-handed attempt at satire.   There’s not a damn thing funny about a monkey going on a rampage and maiming someone.   It’s even less so when some hack cartoonist tries to tie a tragic incident to the President’s stimulus package.

So it’s a piece of shit too.