Great company

The Communist Party USA has already announced that they are endorsing President Obama for reelection in 2012, despite their stated bitter disappointment in his not pushing harder in his first term for such promised goodies as single-payer government-controlled health care and "card-check" legislation designed to eliminate the secret ballot when workers are voting whether or not to unionize:

"Wrote [CPUSA Chairman Sam] Webb: 'Neither party is anti-capitalist, but they aren't identical either. Differences exist at the levels of policy and social composition. And despite the many frustrations of the past two years, the election of Barack Obama was historic and gave space to struggle for a people's agenda.'"

Chairman Mao himself couldn't have come up with more flowery propaganda.

The Commies are clearly salivating at the prospect of an Obama second term, one in which the president would no longer have to care about winning elections or pacifying moderate voters but instead would be free to fully advocate for advancing the Great Leap Forward agenda of such mentors of his as Saul Alinsky and Bill Ayers.

Remember the people who desperately need the current president to remain in office when contemplating your own ballot.

It's about time

After spending about four years and over two million dollars in legal fees fighting legitimate requests to do so, Dear Leader finally releases his long-form birth certificate, presumably in response to recent overwhelming bad press over the issue precipitated by Donald Trump.

Now was that so hard?

Anatomy of a political failure

The Washington Post has published a detailed post-mortem examining the factors behind Dear Leader's failed campaign promise to close the prison facility at Guantanamo Bay within one year of his inauguration.  The paper's findings don't look good for the Commander-in-Chief, to say the least:

"For more than two years, the White House’s plans had been undermined by political miscalculations, confusion and timidity in the face of mounting congressional opposition, according to some inside the administration as well as on Capitol Hill. Indeed, the failed effort to close Guantanamo was reflective of the aspects of Obama’s leadership style that continue to distress his liberal base — a willingness to allow room for compromise and a passivity that at times permits opponents to set the agenda."

The White House is also blaming anyone and everyone other than themselves for the outcome of this debacle, according to the story.  Now that's leadership "you can believe in".

Everyone always remembers President George W. Bush's disastrous "Mission Accomplished" carrier photo-op after the Iraq invasion, but this utter farce of an ostentatiously presented executive order from President Obama (on his very first day in office, no less) curiously gets much shorter shrift, even though it was arguably just as bad of a PR blunder. 

And people say there's no pervasive liberal bias amongst those in the mainstream media.

Out of the mouths of demagogues

"Over the last 2 and a half years, change turned out to be tougher than we expected,"

- President Barack Obama, at a campaign fundraiser in San Francisco this morning where he was heckled by his own supporters.

Boy, those rainbow-farting unicorns are a real pain to produce, aren't they? 

Dear Leader is finding out that being President is quite a bit harder than he apparently thought it was when he was merrily throwing bomb after rhetorical bomb at George W. Bush's administration during the 2008 campaign, even though he wasn't running against the former president. 

We wonder if, in light of this and other similar recent events, if Mr. Obama now will be forced to revisit a few of his more fanciful promises to his growing-ever-more-restless faithful. 

If so, we're sure they'll take it with the grace and class they've shown to date.

How different Dear Leader's actions are from his solemn campaign promises

President Obama has issued some more signing statements signaling his intent to blatantly ignore certain pieces of legislation designed to rein in his dictatorial tendencies:

"In a statement issued Friday night, President Obama took issue with some provisions in the budget bill – and in one case simply says he will not abide by it."

...

"One rider – Section 2262 -- de-funds certain White House adviser positions – or “czars.” The president in his signing statement declares that he will not abide by it."

That position is certainly different from the one he vigorously espoused while a candidate for his current job, when he on several occasions roundly castigated President Bush for doing the exact same thing:



We'll say this about Dear Leader - he never lets something as minor as, oh, a centerpiece campaign promise get in the way of his overweening agenda.

The best part of that clip has got to be the prominently featured "Change we can believe in" podium sign he stands behind while delivering that bold promise to his star-struck supporters, a vow that he apparently had absolutely no intention of fulfilling.

Can someone please explain to us how engaging in the very same acts that one (rightly) condemned his predecessor for doing is considered "Change"?


UPDATE:  Glenn Greenwald agrees with us:

"It would be one thing if these full-scale reversals were on ancillary issues. But these are fundamental. They're about the powers of that office and the nature of our government. And Obama made these issues the centerpiece of his campaign. These campaign statements are nothing less than vows made to voters about how he would exercise the power he was seeking if they voted for him. To insist during the campaign that Presidents have no power to start wars without Congress or to ignore laws the President believes are unconstitutional -- and then do exactly that once he's been vested with that power -- is a form of fraud. "

That's gotta sting

Outstanding.  Simply brilliant.