David Axelrod, the ‘brain’ that peddles the Obama mouth, Claims Marco Rubio as Romney Veep would be an INSULT to Latinos

Axelrod: Romney Picking Rubio As VP “Would Be An Insult” To Hispanics

The above headline is attached to a video of David Axelrod at realclearpolitics video listing, who initiated the ‘insult’ to Hispanics comment.

David Axelrod, as you know is the engine pushing  Barack Obama’s racism and politics of divide American groups by sex, race, religion (atheism versus Christianity, union membership and class hatred.  Divide and conquer such strategies are called.   Marxists are those people at university and in the Democrat-Marxist Party who insist Mexicans and Latinos in general are not white.    The only exception I can think of is the New York Times claiming George Zimmerman,  who killed a youngish black male was a White Hispanic, a traditional American  lefty racist’s contradiction of terms.

I have not yet listened to David Axelrod on this argument emanating from  Obama books  of wisdom.   I usually am target wise to lefty cliches and analogies……but on this one I come up with nothing at all.   I am profoundly curious to discover the cause for the Axelrod       statement.    

What do you suppose David Axelrod, who peddles  the Obama mouth, has to offer?     Let’s find out together.

Click below for video:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/06/04/axelrod_romney_picking_rubio_as_vp_would_be_an_insult_to_hispanics.html

Digging for and Finding the Real Barack Hussein Obama at Powerline’s ‘Obamateurism’ Collections

The folks at PowerLine collect a list of Obamaquotes in which the Annointed One permits us to look into who he really is more accuratesly. 

Theses quotes are called Obamamateurisms.    They occur so often every day that it is easy for dozens to slip by in just a few minutes.

Here are some of the more recent Obama utterings which give us a better idea what kind of a person he really is:

Previous weekly “winners” in 2012:

• “[T]hose of us who have spent time in the real world . . .”
• Adds himself into presidential histories of his predecessors, screws up JFK quote
• “When I think about, ah, those soldiers or airmen or Marines, sailors, who are out therefighting on my behalf …”
• Includes Nazi collaborator/Hitler admirer in proclamation for Jewish American Heritage Month
• Obamas griped that the American public just did not appreciate their exceptional leader
• Gets annoyed when asked about number of vacations, doesn’t answer question
• “I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”
• “This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.”
• Blames Fox News for his unpopularity because “they hear Obama is a Muslim 24/7, and it begins to seep in”
• Attacks Limbaugh while remaining silent on Maher contribution to his super-PAC
• Says “when the chips are down, I have Israel’s back,” WH claims it’s not a military doctrine
• Apology to Karzai “calmed things down“
• Uses Boeing plant in SC to cheer manufacturing after his NLRB tried to shut it down
• Emphasizes graduation rates in SOTU, cuts DC voucher program that nearly doubled grad rates
• “Well, it turns out our Founders designed a system that makes it more difficult to bring about change that I would like sometimes.”
• Finds claim of unemployment “interesting” because he is getting “the word” that woman’s husband should have no trouble finding work
• Hails Roe as essential to allow “our daughters … to fulfill their dreams“
• Shuts down DisneyWorld in order to promote tourism
• “He didn’t want to take pictures with any more soldiers; he was complaining about it[.]
• Famous opponent of signing statements issues one covering 17 provisions of bill he signed

Previous Obamateurisms of the Year:

• Giving 2 minutes of “shout-outs” before getting to the Fort Hood shooting (2009)
• Obama leaves Clinton at press conference podium on tax deal to attend Christmas party (2010)
• “I would put our legislative and foreign policy accomplishments in our first two years against any president— with the possible exceptions of Johnson, F.D.R., and Lincoln.” (2011)

The Devious, Duplicitous, Divisive, and Dishonest, Barack Hussein Obama’s 4th Year of Campaigning

Barack Pinocchio Obama

Facts are Stubborn Things

 by  Fred Barnes    at  the Weekly Standard:

Are the media beginning to catch on to President Obama? The answer is a tentative yes. This doesn’t mean the press is softening its hostility to Mitt Romney. Heaven forbid! But at least for now Obama is getting razzed by the very people who used to uphold and defend him.

 Gary Locke

It’s about time. Obama and his team have been playing the media for fools. Think of the stories the White House has foisted on them (and some have bought). Obama secretly favors the Bowles-Simpson deficit reduction plan. The Republican landslide in 2010 was consistent with Obama’s election in 2008—both pleas for change. His endorsement of same-sex marriage was courageous. And besides “gutsy call,” there was “nobody messes with Joe.” 

A turnaround was perceptible last month after the president claimed “federal spending since I took office has risen at the slowest pace of any president in almost 60 years.” This went too far. It clashed with the reality of a presidency in which hefty spending increases and soaring deficits are hallmarks.

Media fact checkers waded in, not from the right but from the Washington Post and the Associated Press. “Obama claim of thrifty spending falls short of reality,” AP concluded. Glenn Kessler of the Post said the president’s data “are flawed.” It was a full debunking, but Obama aides didn’t give up. They continued to argue Obama had slowed spending.

That’s another mark of the Obama presidency with potential for media attention: repeating a claim after it’s been exposed as false, misleading, or flimflam. Obama did this early in his presidency when he zapped House Republicans for rejecting his request to work with him on the economic stimulus. In truth, the stimulus bill was already a done deal—crafted entirely by Democrats—when the president spoke to the House GOP conference.

The practice popped up this spring in the Obama reelection video. The narrator, Tom Hanks, raises the story of Obama’s mother and suggests her health insurer curtailed her medical coverage as she was battling her terminal cancer. It “drained all her resources,” Obama adds in the video. But according to a biography of his mother published in May 2011, only disability coverage to compensate for lost wages was in dispute, not medical coverage.

Obama also plays fast and loose with numbers, a blinking target for the press. He said in Dearborn, Michigan, in April that the “most sluggish job growth that we’ve seen” occurred during the Bush presidency, “2000 to 2008.” The Washington Post’s fact checker, however, found that the “worst numbers on record occurred under [Obama’s] watch.” Nonetheless, Obama repeated the claim about Bush a few days later.

Like many Democrats, the president has insisted the health care policy endorsed by Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney “ends Medicare as we know it.” That policy was adjusted earlier this year to retain traditional Medicare—Medicare as we know it—as an option. But Obama didn’t change his tune. He told Associated Press editors in April that the Romney policy “will ultimately end Medicare as we know it.”

Obama is slippery when assigning responsibility for failures and successes. “Under my administration, America is producing more oil today than at any time in the last eight years,” he said in February. The implication was his energy policies were the cause. Though National Journal, among others, pointed out the oil surge was a result of his predecessor’s policies, the president has persisted in acting as if the credit should go to him.

After Solyndra, the solar energy company, went bust last year, Obama noted that the program under which it was subsidized “predates me.” That is, it was George W. Bush’s program. But the loan guarantee to Solyndra was approved by the Obama administration. Again, months later, Obama was still insinuating the Bush administration was at fault.

Obama’s boldest effort to mislead was the notion that since President Reagan once said millionaires should pay more in taxes than average Joes, today he’d back the Obama-endorsed Buffett Rule to force those earning a million or more a year to pay a minimum tax rate of 30 percent on their individual income. “We could call it the Reagan Rule instead of the Buffett Rule,” he said in April.

No, we couldn’t. Obama was quickly exposed for having quoted Reagan out of context. In context, Reagan was calling for lower tax rates, not higher rates as Obama is. Still, the Reagan biography on the White House website has been updated to say Obama was “calling for the same” as Reagan in promoting the Buffett Rule.

Skirting the truth eventually gets a politician in trouble with the press. And Obama has the additional problem of having run in 2008 as a leader above the corner-cutting often associated with office seekers. So there’s hypocrisy here, the idealist now employing the tricks of the cynic.

Reporters, indeed most journalists, hate hypocrisy. When they spot it, they generally pounce. True, they often exaggerate it, but that wasn’t the case when they jumped on Obama for raising money from rich private equity investors at the same time he was denouncing Romney for his work as head of Bain Capital, a private equity firm. 

One more thing: arrogance. The press gets its back up at the sight of political operators who see themselves as masters of the universe. Yet that’s the impression of the Obama campaign strategists left by John
Heilemann in a highly revealing essay in New York. They’re cocky, profane, and convinced they play the political game as well as anyone ever has.

A dangerous tendency of politicians is to think so highly of themselves that the media become less important to them. I think Obama has gotten to that point. By denying the press what it craves the most—respect—Obama is asking for trouble. And, finally, he’s beginning to get it.

Fred Barnes is executive editor of The Weekly Standard.

George Will Reminds Us of Wisconsin’s Public Unions’ Rabble Rousing behind Tomorrow’s Vote

Wisconsin’s Peter Pan progressivism

by George Will    at the Washington Post:

This state, the first to let government employees unionize, was an incubator of progressivism and gave birth to its emblematic institution, the government employees union (in 1932 in Madison, the precursor of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees) — government organized as a special interest to lobby itself to expand itself. But Wisconsin progressivism is in a dark Peter Pan phase; it is childish without being winsome.

Wisconsin has produced populists of the left (Robert La Follette) and right (Joe McCarthy). On Tuesday, in this year’s second-most important election, voters will judge the attempt by a populism of the privileged — white-collar labor unions whose members live comfortably above the American median — to recall Republican Gov. Scott Walker.

In this Milwaukee suburb, a pro-Walker phone bank is conducting mobilization, not persuasion. Is any voter undecided? For 16 months, Wisconsin, normally a paragon of Midwestern neighborliness, has been riven by furious attempts to punish Walker for keeping his campaign promise to change the state’s unsustainable fiscal trajectory driven by the perquisites of government employees. His progressive adversaries have, however, retreated from their original pretext for attempting to overturn the election Walker won handily just 19 months ago.

He defeated Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett. A recall is a gubernatorial election, and the Democrats’ May primary was won by . . . Barrett.

In 2010, government employees unions campaigned against Walker’s “5 and 12” plan. It requires government employees to contribute 5.8 percent of their pay to their pension plans. (Most were paying less than 1 percent. Most private-sector workers have no pensions; those who do pay, on average, much more than 5.8 percent.) Walker’s reform requires government employees to pay 12.6 percent of their health-care premiums (up from 6 percent but still less than the 21 percent private-sector average). Defeated in 2010, the unions now are demanding, as frustrated children do after losing a game, “Let’s start over!”

Like children throwing tantrums against the rules of a game going badly, in 2011 petulant Wisconsin Democratic legislators fled to Illinois to disrupt the Legislature. Walker’s reforms included restricting the issues subject to collective bargaining. This emancipated school districts from buying teachers’ health insurance from a provider entity associated with the teachers union. Barrett used Walker’s reform to save Milwaukee $19 million.

In justifying a raucous resistance to, and then this recall of, Walker, the government employees unions stressed his restriction of collective bargaining rights. But in the May primary, these unions backed the candidate trounced by Barrett, who is largely ignoring the collective bargaining issue, perhaps partly because most worker protections are embedded in Wisconsin’s uniquely strong civil service law. Besides, what really motivates the unions and elected Democrats is that Walker ended the automatic deduction of union dues from government employees’ pay. The experience in Colorado, Indiana, Utah and Washington state is that when dues become voluntary, they become elusive.

So, Barrett is essentially running another general-election campaign, not unlike that of 2010 — except that the $3.6 billion deficit Walker inherited has disappeared and property taxes have declined. By re-posing the 2010 choice, Wisconsin progressives’ one-word platform becomes: “Mulligan!”

The emblem displayed at some anti-Walker centers is an outline of Wisconsin rendered as a clenched fist, with a red star on the heel of the hand. Walker’s disproportionately middle-aged adversaries know the red star symbolized murderous totalitarianism, yet they flaunt it as a progressive ornament. Why?

Because it satisfies the sandbox socialists’ childish pleasure in naughtiness, as does their playground name-calling (Walker is a “Midwest Mussolini”) and infantile point-scoring: When the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel endorsed Walker, Wisconsin’s Democratic Party chair fulminated that six decades ago the Sentinel (which merged with the Journal in 1995) supported McCarthy.

Also, many backward-looking baby boomers want to recapture their youthful fun of waving clenched fists in the face of privilege. Now, embarrassingly, they are privileged.

A January poll found that even 17 percent of Democrats think that recalls are justified only by criminal behavior, not policy differences. If, however, Walker loses, regular Wisconsin elections will henceforth confer only evanescent legitimacy. If he wins, progressives will have inadvertently demonstrated that entrenched privilege can be challenged, and they will have squandered huge sums that cannot finance progressive causes elsewhere. So, for a change, progressives will have served progress.

georgewill@washpost.com