« | »

New York Times Wants To Re-Define Obama

From those tireless Obama flacks at the New York Times:

A Campaign Challenge: Defining Obama

September 6, 2011

LOS ANGELES — President Obama may have escaped the burden of a Democratic primary challenger. Yet the battle to define him is rapidly escalating — not only by Republicans competing to run against him, but also within his own team inside the White House.

After all this time, the New York Times are still trying to define Barack Hussein Obama? The truth is they want to re-define him. Because the American people have finally figured him out. And they don’t like what they see.

A Republican presidential debate on Wednesday, followed by the president’s economic address to Congress on Thursday, offers a window into the dueling efforts to provide voters a view of Mr. Obama and his record at a time when polling shows that he is increasingly vulnerable politically and that Americans feel the country is careering down the wrong track.

The White House is in the midst of rebranding the president as a pragmatic problem solver prepared to set aside ideology to address a compelling need (see last week’s concession on ozone regulations), a reasonable man in an era dominated by extreme views.

Yes, Mr. Obama’s temporary restraint about some piddling EPA regulation proves to the world that he is triangulating to the center.

But they also emphasize that he is willing to draw distinctions with conservatives, reflecting a central tension that has defined him as a candidate and as president: that in trying to lay claim to a broad swath of the electorate, as he succeeded in doing in 2008, he risks pleasing neither the center nor the left, the story of much of his time in office.

The "broad swath of the electorate" being union members and anyone receiving a government check. And to be fair, that probably is now a majority in this country, unfortunately.

Everyone else Mr. Obama seems to consider to be a Tea Party supporter. And consequently, in the words of his colleague and fellow traveler Maxine Waters, they can ‘go straight to hell.’

The Republican candidates, collectively and in distinctive ways, continue to cast him as the foil against whom they ran so successfully in 2010: a big-government liberal who has expanded regulations, created uncertainty for business and failed to revive the economy, with millions more Americans out of work than when he took office. They portray him as an unsteady leader who is unequipped to turn around a country in economic crisis.

How is this not the unvarnished truth?

The outcome of the presidential race over the next 14 months could well hinge to a large degree on which side prevails in the minds of moderate and independent voters.

In other words, the New York Times is formally announcing that the news media have their work cut out for them. This is their clarion call to buckle down and crank up the propaganda machine to the max.

While the president will not directly confront the Republican nominee until well into next year, his advisers believe that the next three months are critical to improving his standing and reversing his downward trajectory. He is frustrated — particularly at Republicans on Capitol Hill, but also at some of his own aides, according to people who have spoken to him recently — that he has been unable to rise above the morass of Washington and recapture the spirit that helped him win election.

Which is why he has sent out Maxine Waters and Jimmy Hoffa and Joe Biden to spread the spirit of bipartisan working togetherness.

The frustration has led to internal divisions among some advisers over the scope of his economic address to a joint session of Congress on Thursday night. The president intends to offer at least some progressive proposals to help regain a fighting posture that he has not had since the health care debate, but a provision is also being discussed to place a new moratorium on some regulations that affect the economy, excluding health care and financial rules. The proposals are likely to infuriate an already unhappy Democratic base.

Notice, once again, we are talking about "moratoriums" on the job killing regulations. As soon as Mr. Obama is safely re-elected they will be back and even doubled.

“He’s erred on the side of trying to reason with unreasonable people, which seems to be the wrong strategy,” said Andy Stern, the former president of the Service Employees International Union, who has advised the White House and is a senior fellow at Georgetown University.

And, after all, who are more reasonable than the violent goons of the SEIU?

“There is not a clear understanding in most people’s minds of what is his philosophy. In Republicans there is a clear understanding.” …

The Democrats’ problem is not that people don’t understand Obama. Their problem is that more and more people finally do.

“If this is just a referendum on economic conditions, then any incumbent is going to struggle with that, but it’s not just that. It’s a contest about what to do about it,” said David Axelrod, the chief strategist to the president’s re-election campaign. “I’d be more worried if I saw some compelling new argument for how to lead the country, but these guys are carrying the same old water.”

This — from Axelrod? The man behind the one trick teleprompter?

Yes, those darned Republicans keep on insisting on going back to those tired old nostrums that have worked every single time that they have ever been tried.

This article was posted by Steve on Wednesday, September 7th, 2011. Comments are currently closed.

8 Responses to “New York Times Wants To Re-Define Obama”

  1. Tater Salad says:

    Captain Barack Obama and his new movie that will be coming out just before election time in 2012 to help him get re-elected. The country is in debt with no plan from the President except for the one he wrote on the palm of his hand. Stay tuned! The economy is getting better as he tells us, the jobs picture is getting better as he tells us and the rich are getting richer, including Nancy Pelosi. What more could a person ask for that has been laid-off for the 3 years of his Presidency. It must be George Bush’s fault……..again because it couldn’t be Barack Obama’s. He is just so smart. Even without his tele-prompters. How is that “Hope & Change” thing working out for you now?

    1. http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2011/08/exclusive-first-look-at-obama-osama.html

    2. Captain Bullshit at his best:

    3. http://weaselzippers.us/2011/08/07/white-house-working-with-hollywood-to-release-bin-laden-movie-to-counter-obamas-image-problem-before-election/

    Barack Obama is an empty shell of a human along with being a narcissistic, self centered ruler of America. He thinks he is above the law. How things have “changed” since his election days when he was telling us that war was bad, GWB was bad and destructive, didn’t have permission for this and that, transparency during the healtcare debate BS and now he is doing the exact thing. That my friends is a hypocrite, plain and simple. This self centered President and his agenda has hurt America at a time when it was “vunerable” and he has taken us to the lowest point of possible survival as a free nation.



    “Everything Obama does comes straight from the most stilted and destructive clichés of the left. The man has never had an original idea in his life, and wouldn’t recognize one if it were served up on a plate with arugula. He is intellectually locked in concrete.”

    • JohnMG says:

      …..”He is intellectually locked in concrete……”

      Well…….not exactly. That would assume he had something of intellectual value that he was incapable of bringing to the fore.

      I believe him to be intellectually bankrupt. Or perhaps devoid of intellectual function.

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      Or, that his “intellect” is, in fact made of concrete. Not too different, actually, from that stuff you find at the bottom of the cereal bowl if you leave it for a day or two and forget to wash it.

      What nobody has seemed to want to say, but they have implied it, is that last night was a truly “turn-the-corner” moment in the US.

      Think about it: Captain Zero was shunned. Only half of the seats reserved for the news media were taken. There is barely a peep in the MSM today about his reverb-echo speech. The plastic has come off the seats and everyone sees the stains now.

      Many, including me, predicted this day would come. He is the slimy, nasty bad guy in the western and the good guys have found him hiding in the cellar and he goes to shoot his gun and *click*, out of bullets. But not out of bull. Last night, I could only imagine John Wayne looking at him, while he’s about to slip off the ledge into the gorge and says, “OK, mister…..Let’s see ya talk yer way outta this one.” Then, just as he’s about to utter a sound, a small furry critter startles him, he loses his grip and off he goes to oblivion. And the Duke slowly turns to walk away and says, “That’s what I thought.”

      There will be more of these kinds of moments in the months to come. He’s lost his “shine” and some time ago at that. Given that last night was chock-full of “those golden hits of yesterweek” and that people have become bored….I have to say…that that platform of “hope and change” are so ethereal, so deeply embedded emotionally, that they are volatile. That is, volatile in the sense that 1) everyone’s interpretation is different and that 2) it was bound to be a failure of a sound-bite because there was no way in all of creation that this president or this entire administration could meet the desires, wants and selfish ambitions of all the people who voted for Captain Clown, no matter how much they tried.

      This comes down to the basic precept that all national socialists hate one another anyhow. Their motivations are anger, jealousy, envy and greed. Occasionally, this group or that clings together and causes some sort of ruckus but such activities cannot be long-lived. This is because eventually, they start fighting amongst themselves and this is for no other reason than they really don’t like one-another.

      So, watch this space…..there is more to come of Bamster reruns. I tried to find the Neilsen ratings for last night’s speech but I’m pretty sure they fall way behind Fonzi’s jumping the shark episode of Happy Days. Or was it the episode of Marcia Brady getting hit in the nose with the football? Oh well, either way. He flopped.

  2. Astravogel says:

    I wonder how far the Sympathy Vote will take him.
    It’s probably declining as more and more liberals
    find out just how effective an administration this is.

  3. River0 says:

    The New York Times does this whenever a Democrat fails. They said in 1980 that the U.S. Presidency had become too big a job for any one man to handle; that Carter was doing as well any mortal man could do.

    O’Bummer is caught in a trap of his own making; an utter fraud who misrepresented himself and was encouraged to do so by millions of other fraudsters angling to enrich themselves at the country’s expense. This is the heart and soul of the Democrat Party.

    This is sick: “He’s erred on the side of trying to reason with unreasonable people, which seems to be the wrong strategy,” said Andy Stern, the former president of the Service Employees International Union, who has advised the White House and is a senior fellow at Georgetown University. Andy Stern created ACORN.

  4. Mithrandir says:

    N.Y. Times better hurry up and re-market redefine this guy…

    Because if the choice was:

    Barack Obama vs NOBODY—no candidate, no executive branch, no czars, no cabinet members, no first lady with huge staffs, close down the White House to save money, no Secret Service, no costly Air Force 1, and allow the House and Senate to do all the work…….

    Nobody would win in a landslide. That’s how ridiculously awful this guy is. He has so destroyed the credibility and usefulness of the office, that it is preferable to choose nobody rather than this guy for 4 more years.

  5. P. Aaron says:

    Re-define Obama? How as the leftist-commie most of us know he is.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »