Thread: Gaffes Don’t Count

Ann Coulter has some fun with Hussein’s recent gaffe:

Last week, President Obama said "the private sector is doing fine."

He did not help matters by becoming lachrymose over the suffering of public sector employees: "Where we're seeing weaknesses in our economy have to do with state and local government. ... And so, if Republicans want to be helpful, if they really want to move forward and put people back to work, what they should be thinking about is, how do we help state and local governments ..."

I suggest that from now to election day Hussein’s gaffes will be well-planed and formulated to accomplish exactly what he wants; i.e., keep the public’s attention focused on the gaffer instead of on Congress where it belongs. Joseph Farah’s 38 reasons supports my interpretation:

38 reasons why Obama should not be re-elected
Exclusive: Joseph Farah shares collaborative effort to explain what BHO has wrought
Published: 12 hours ago
by Joseph Farah

http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/38-reason...be-re-elected/

Combine Hussein’s past & future gaffes with Biden’s and they will have zero effect on the outcome of November’s election. Gaffes galore simply do not damage the gaffer enough to alter the result of an election. Gaffes serve the purpose of dividing air time among product commercials, scandals, and blunders. Hell, scandals hardly register and are soon forgotten.

In truth, Hussein signed everything Congress stuck under his nose. None of it originated with him. The real mess was made by Congress, and yes —— that includes Congress before Hussein came to office. “Blame Bush” should have been “Blame Congress.” Note that Democrats took control of both Houses by blaming Bush for the mess Congress made. That’s how the system works.

It’s easier to blame one man than it is to punish 535 members of Congress. When they run for reelection they claim they are only one vote. They are never punished individually for their party’s votes. The president gets blamed for everything Congress does. It’s weird when you see that a president never gets blamed for destructive EOs, or misusing federal bureaucracies, or giving his cabinet and his czars carte blanche to bypass Congress. Worse still, neither party stands up to the president when he does things he has no business doing.

The country just went through two years of campaigning. In those two years the media made it look like the country’s fate rested solely with the president. If Hussein is not on TV it’s Romney, or talking heads taking about them. You ain’t seen nothing yet. Just wait until after the nominating conventions are over. The media will have the American believing there is no Congress at all.

Frankly, I think Hussein knows he is a gone goose. Saving Democrat seats in Congress is the goal. The best way he can do it is to take all of blame and ask for more.

Tea Partiers are the best alternative to what is happening. Neither Democrat nor Republican want congressional races to outshine the presidential race, but it’s not too late for Tea Party conservatives to focus on grabbing off a bunch of seats in both Houses.

Question: Did Romney give any sign he would veto “bipartisan” economic crap legislation like the stuff Hussein and Bush signed? If he did I missed it. Tea Party conservatives with enough seats in Congress can make the president irrelevant so that he does NOT get legislation to sign or veto.

Finally, I want to take a crack at answering Ann Coulter’s question:

Take away the ability to fire people, and you have airport security, public schools, Veterans Administration hospitals, the Postal Service, General Motors and Pinch Sulzberger, New York Times family scion.

And this:

Ironically, Romney is proposing that all Americans have the same ability he has to hire and fire insurance companies and doctors. The rich already can do this. Why can't the rest of us? We hire -- and fire -- our own appliance stores, pet groomers, restaurants, hairdressers and computer companies. Why not health providers?

And why are the media so desperate to avoid that conversation?

June 14, 2012
Obama's Public Sector Full Employment Plan
By Ann Coulter
6/13/2012

http://townhall.com/columnists/annco...mployment_plan

Here’s my answer to the question:

Conversations about firing workers is the last thing media decision makers want because they know that labor unions took away an employer’s Right to fire lazy, incompetent, drunks, perverts, drug addicts, and outright criminals. All of the other union demands combined do not compare to the destructive power that comes from employees who can’t be fired. It’s not too late to change it.

If this country allows labor unions they should be restricted to bargaining for wages and protecting against PROVEN, WELL-DOCUMENTED, unsafe working conditions —— not vacation time, sick time, coffee time, pensions, work rules, and the rest of the garbage labor unions imposed on the country.

Quote from OP

Worse still, neither party stands up to the president when he does things he has no business doing.

Hussein granting certain illegal aliens immunity is making law as well as nullifying existing law. That is exactly the kind of business I meant in the above quote.

Not enforcing immigration laws is a stopgap policy at best. Passing the DREAM Act would have been permanent. Hussein could not get Congress to go along; so he did it for them:

The policy change, described to The Associated Press by two senior administration officials, will affect as many as 800,000 immigrants who have lived in fear of deportation. It also bypasses Congress and partially achieves the goals of the so-called DREAM Act, a long-sought but never enacted plan to establish a path toward citizenship for young people who came to the United States illegally but who have attended college or served in the military.

You know that Congress will stick their heads up their collective ass, make a little noise, and do nothing about their supreme legislator.

Parenthetically, I assume Latinos think Hussein’s none-law is just wonderful for them. Before they get too comfortable with none-laws they should listen to what a man for all seasons has to say about cutting down laws —— Thomas More could be talking to Hussein:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=PDBiLT3LASk

The biggest insult is this:

"Many of these young people have already contributed to our country in significant ways," Napolitano wrote in a memorandum describing the administration's action. "Prosecutorial discretion, which is used in so many other areas, is especially justified here."

Don’t you just love prosecutorial discretion in a “nation of laws”? What this country needs is a nation of enforced laws. If picking and choosing is the new norm stop writing laws altogether.

I don’t doubt that most Latinos work hard. The insult is when a character like Janet Napolitano talks about contributions to our country. The guy who gave her the job she now abuses has been a parasite all of his life. He is the first president born into the parasite class. His entire life was lived in the company of parasites; he is the model for every parasite lusting after a government job. His entire Administration represents the parasite class.

Janet Napolitano is a lawyer who has been in government much of her adult life. Her father was in higher education; so she easily qualifies as a second generation parasite. I don’t know who paid for her higher education, but common sense tells me it was taxpayers.

In short: When Janet Napolitano talks about illegal aliens making contributions to the country she means contribute to the parasite class.

Then there is the obvious attempt to deceive:

The extraordinary move comes in an election year in which the Hispanic vote could be critical in swing states like Colorado, Nevada and Florida.

Ergo, Latinos, legal and illegal, should show their gratitude by voting for Hussein.

Obama administration to offer immunity to certain illegals
By Alicia A. Caldwell and Jim Kuhnhenn-Associated Press
Friday, June 15, 2012

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration will stop deporting and begin granting work permits to younger illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children and have since led law-abiding lives. The election-year initiative addresses a top priority of an influential Latino electorate that has been vocal in its opposition to administration deportation policies.

The policy change, described to The Associated Press by two senior administration officials, will affect as many as 800,000 immigrants who have lived in fear of deportation. It also bypasses Congress and partially achieves the goals of the so-called DREAM Act, a long-sought but never enacted plan to establish a path toward citizenship for young people who came to the United States illegally but who have attended college or served in the military.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano was to announce the new policy Friday, one week before President Barack Obama plans to address the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials' annual conference in Orlando, Fla. Republican presidential challenger Mitt Romney is scheduled to speak to the group on Thursday.

Under the administration plan, illegal immigrants will be immune from deportation if they were brought to the United States before they turned 16 and are younger than 30, have been in the country for at least five continuous years, have no criminal history, graduated from a U.S. high school or earned a GED, or served in the military. They also can apply for a work permit that will be good for two years with no limits on how many times it can be renewed. The officials who described the plan spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss it in advance of the official announcement.

The policy will not lead toward citizenship but will remove the threat of deportation and grant the ability to work legally, leaving eligible immigrants able to remain in the United States for extended periods.

"Many of these young people have already contributed to our country in significant ways," Napolitano wrote in a memorandum describing the administration's action. "Prosecutorial discretion, which is used in so many other areas, is especially justified here."

The extraordinary move comes in an election year in which the Hispanic vote could be critical in swing states like Colorado, Nevada and Florida. While Obama enjoys support from a majority of Hispanic voters, Latino enthusiasm for the president has been tempered by the slow economic recovery, his inability to win congressional support for a broad overhaul of immigration laws and by his administration's aggressive deportation policy. Activists opposing his deportation policies last week mounted a hunger strike at an Obama campaign office in Denver, and other protests were planned for this weekend.

The change is likely to cause an outcry from congressional Republicans, who are sure to perceive Obama's actions as an end run around them. Republicans already have complained that previous administration uses of prosecutorial discretion in deportations amount to back-door amnesty. Romney and many Republican lawmakers want tighter border security measures before considering changes in immigration law. Romney opposes offering legal status to illegal immigrants who attend college but has said he would do so for those who serve in the armed forces.

An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll last month found Obama leading Romney among Hispanic voters 61 percent to 27 percent. But his administration's deportation policies have come under fire, and Latino leaders have raised the subject in private meetings with the president. In 2011, Immigration and Customs Enforcement deported a record 396,906 people and is expected to deport about 400,000 this year.

A December poll by the Pew Hispanic Center showed that 59 percent of Latinos disapproved of the president's handling of deportations.

The changes come a year after the administration announced plans to focus on deporting serious criminals, immigrants who pose threats to public safety and national security, and serious immigration law violators.

One of the officials said the latest policy change is just another step in the administration's evolving approach to immigration.

Under the plan, immigrants whose deportation cases are pending in immigration court will have to prove their eligibility for a reprieve to ICE, which will begin dealing with such cases in 60 days. Any immigrant who already has a deportation order and those who never have been encountered by immigration authorities will deal with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

The exact details of how the program will work, including how much immigrants will have to pay to apply and what proof they will need, still are being worked out.

In making it harder to deport, the Obama administration is in essence employing the same eligibility requirements spelled out in the proposed DREAM Act.

The administration officials stopped short of calling the change an administrative DREAM Act — the name is an acronym for Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors — but the qualifications meet those laid out in a 2010 version that failed in the Senate after passing in the House. They said the DREAM Act, in some form, and comprehensive overhaul of the immigration system remained an administration priority.

Illegal immigrant children won't be eligible to apply for the deportation waiver until they turn 16, but the officials said younger children won't be deported either.

Last year, Napolitano announced plans to review about 300,000 pending deportation cases and indefinitely suspend those that didn't meet department priorities. So far, Immigration and Customs Enforcement has reviewed more than 232,000 cases and decided to stop working on about 20,000. About 4,000 of those 20,000 have opted to keep fighting in court to stay in the United States legally. For the people who opted to close their cases, work permits are not guaranteed.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...in-immigrants/

The pathetic desperation of the Right is well revealed when they have to resort to using the president's middle name to try to make negative associations for the thoughtless Fox News cattle.

Give up, Righties. All you are doing is preaching to your cud-chewing choir, and making it clear to everyone else what desperate losers you all are.

Originally Posted by fiddlerdave

The pathetic desperation of the Right is well revealed when they have to resort to using the president's middle name to try to make negative associations for the thoughtless Fox News cattle.

Give up, Righties. All you are doing is preaching to your cud-chewing choir, and making it clear to everyone else what desperate losers you all are.

To fiddlerdave: You’ve read my messages and responded in the past; so you should know by now that I have no use for FOX. In fact, I’ve repeatedly said that FOX phonies are Hussein’s biggest apologists under the guise of “fair and balanced” reporting. Number one apologist Bill O’Reilly apologizes by repeatedly telling his audience “Respect the office if not the man.” Presumably, he means do not say nasty things about the man or the office. I also presume he means it’s okay to say nasty things about every politician except the president.

And you should be the last one to dump on FOX. There are more liberals on FOX spouting the garbage you believe than there are conservatives saying things I agree with. You should be grateful to FOX for giving liberals a conservative audience. If they appeared on an overtly liberal network few people, and no conservatives, would watch.

Unlike "Bu(*)(*)(*)(*)ler" and "Chimp" so often used by the Left on his predecessor, Hussein is his legal name. He is a lawyer. He could change his name. He doesn't because he's proud of it.

so why does the Left get worked up when his legal name - which he is proud of - get used?