Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
October 21, 2014, 10:40:03 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Obama hot mic: Tells Medvedev he'll have 'more flexibility' after the election  (Read 1146 times)
Skip8282
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6484



« Reply #25 on: March 26, 2012, 05:37:25 PM »

Must be more of that hope & change.

Yes....you morons did!
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 9243


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #26 on: March 26, 2012, 06:56:24 PM »


http://www.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeedpolitics/obamas-hint-to-medvedev-rattles-poland



POLITICS
Obama's Hint To Medvedev Rattles Poland

Obama's Republican rivals aren't the only ones alarmed by his hot mic suggestion that missile defense — implicitly, defending Eastern Europe from Russia — could be softened after his re-election. The headline in the largest Polish tabloid, Fakt: “Were they trading Poland? Puzzling Obama talk with Medvedev about the missile shield.” posted Mar 26, 2012 5:01pm EDT

BuzzFeed Politics

BuzzFeed Staff More from BuzzFeed P... ›
 Share   StumbleEmail79Boost
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 9243


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #27 on: March 26, 2012, 06:58:05 PM »

does anyone believe that obama won't do. The same thing to Israel next term?
Report to moderator   Logged
Fury
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 21030


All aboard the USS Leverage


« Reply #28 on: March 26, 2012, 07:02:24 PM »

I'm really at a loss here. Has Obama gotten any concessions from any of the countries he loves giving away shit to? What reciprocity have the Russians shown in the last 3 years because I can't think of a single thing.
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 9243


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #29 on: March 26, 2012, 07:06:26 PM »

I'm really at a loss here. Has Obama gotten any concessions from any of the countries he loves giving away shit to? What reciprocity have the Russians shown in the last 3 years because I can't think of a single thing.


That is not. His motivation!!! 


Obama is a communist for fucks sake and trying to right wrongs of the past in his demented mind! 
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 9243


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #30 on: March 27, 2012, 03:50:25 AM »

Free Republic
Browse · Search   Pings · Mail   News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.

Obama makes light of, clarifies hot mic moment
FoxNews.com ^ | March 26, 2012 | Kimberly Schwandt
Posted on March 27, 2012 2:41:46 AM EDT by Hunton Peck

President Obama made light Tuesday of the hot microphone moment he had the day earlier with Russian President Medvedev, where he said that after the November election, he'd have more "flexibility" on the issue of missile defense.

Just as leaders were greeting one another and about to sit down at the opening session of the Nuclear Security Summit, Obama spotted Medvedev, looks over at him, puts his hands over the microphone in front of him with a big smile, and then goes to greet the Russian president.

Obama was asked about the "flexibility" statement later while making remarks to the press about a nuclear safety agreement, and said "Arms control is extraordinarily complex, very technical, and the only way it gets done is if you can consult and build a strong basis of understanding both between countries as well as within countries."

***

...he also noted the START treaty took them two years to get ratified.

"I don't think it's any surprise that you can't start that a few months before a presidential and congressional elections in the United States and at a time when they just completed elections in Russia, and they're in the process of a presidential transition where a new president's going to be coming in a little less than two months," he added.

***

"[T]he only way I get this stuff done is if I'm consulting with the Pentagon, if I'm consulting with Congress, if I've got bipartisan support, and frankly the current environment is not conducive to those kinds of thoughtful consultations. I think the stories you guys have been writing over the last 24 hours is probably pretty good evidence of that," Obama said.

(Excerpt) Read more at politics.blogs.foxnews.c om ...






Unfuking real.   
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 9243


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #31 on: March 27, 2012, 05:06:55 AM »

 Wink


* obama-na_1a.jpg (53.05 KB, 800x485 - viewed 78 times.)
Report to moderator   Logged
Fury
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 21030


All aboard the USS Leverage


« Reply #32 on: March 27, 2012, 05:44:39 AM »

What other plans does the Usurper have stashed away that he'll introduce if reelected?  Undecided
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 9243


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #33 on: March 27, 2012, 05:53:53 AM »

What other plans does the Usurper have stashed away that he'll introduce if reelected?  Undecided

Another thread the leftists avoid like the plague.   
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 9243


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #34 on: March 27, 2012, 07:20:48 AM »

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/mar/27/obama-defends-missile-defense-comments-hot-mic


Unreal.   This arrogant communist traitor and kenyan ghetto thug must be defeated. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 9243


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #35 on: March 27, 2012, 07:29:21 AM »

http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/policy-and-strategy/218319-obama-im-not-hiding-the-ball-on-defense-shield-talks-with-russia


Notice how 240, Lurker, Straw, Blackass, Andre, Benny, and the Kneepad Train are nowhere to be found? 
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 9243


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #36 on: March 27, 2012, 07:45:01 AM »

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/27/obama-makes-light-of-open-mic-gaffe/?iref=allsearch


What a prick.   Corrupt, communist, incompetent ghetto jive-talking marxist. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 9243


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #37 on: March 27, 2012, 12:31:43 PM »

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTgkrTjXOj8" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTgkrTjXOj8</a>
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 9243


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #38 on: March 27, 2012, 02:09:12 PM »

The terrible truth told by Obama's open mic slip
Fox News ^ | 3/27/12 | Christian Whiton





President Obama just gave the world a glimpse into his future foreign policy plans this week, should he win a second term. On tap for Obama II: more faith in our adversaries, more betrayal of our traditional allies and more unilateral indulgence in nuclear abolition fantasies.

Monday, President Obama told Russian President Medvedev that “This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility.” Medvedev responded that he would dutifully report that tidbit to Vladimir Putin back in the Kremlin. The men apparently did not realize their discussion was being caught by a live microphone.

Given that the two were talking about missile defense, the implication was clear enough. In order to please Russia, President Obama will use a second term to weaken further the peaceful, purely defensive systems that can defend the U.S. and our allies from missile attacks.


(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...

Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 9243


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #39 on: March 28, 2012, 07:04:00 AM »

What Will Obama Give Russia If He's Re-elected?
Townhall.com ^ | March 28, 2012 | Terry Jeffrey





President Barack Obama would like to do some things for Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and President-elect Vladimir Putin that he does not want American voters to know about before they decide whether to re-elect him in November.

That was the intended-to-be-secret message Obama gave Medvedev in South Korea on Monday. But Obama was caught delivering the message on tape -- and, no matter how the liberal media try to spin it, the moment is destined to become emblematic of Obama as a man and as a president.

"On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this can be solved. But it's important for him to give me space,'' Obama told Medvedev -- the "him" being Putin.

"Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space," said Medvedev. "Space for you --"

"'This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility," said Obama.

"Yeah. Yeah. I understand," said Medvedev. "I will transmit this information to Vladimir. I understand."

A little context is needed here.

The last time Obama ran for president, the incumbent, George W. Bush, was advancing a plan to place a ballistic missile defense system in the Czech Republic and Poland. The system would include a radar system in the Czech Republic and 10 advanced interceptor missiles in Poland. The Bush administration intended the system to give the United States the ability to knock down missiles Iran might fire at U.S. allies and U.S. forces in Europe.

Obama, ever mindful of voters -- including those of Eastern European ancestry -- clinging to their guns, their religion, and their belief that defending yourself and your friends against a missile attack is morally superior to launching a missile attack, was wary of flat-out opposing a defense against Iranian missiles.

On June 16, 2007, when the president of the Poland visited the United States, Obama sounded a mildly hawkish note.

"Since joining NATO in 1997," Obama said, "Poland has become one of America's most important strategic partners, dedicating troops and resources to our operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.

"We now have an opportunity to build on this long and deep relationship," Obama continued. "Here is how we can. ... The Bush administration has been developing plans to deploy interceptors and radar systems in Poland and the Czech Republic as part of a missile defense system designed to protect against the potential threat of Iranian nuclear armed missiles. If we can responsibly deploy missile defenses that would protect us and our allies we should, but only when the system works."

Obama said nothing then about not deploying the missile defense because he wanted to appease the Russians -- who opposed it. But then Obama was elected president.

In September 2009, more than three full years before his next election, but just a week before he was scheduled to meet with Russian President Medvedev, Obama announced he was scrapping the plan to deploy the anti-Iranian missile-defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic. He would replace it, he said, with a partially mobile missile-defense system that could be more quickly deployed.

Medvedev instantly hailed the "good conditions" Obama had created. "I am ready to continue our dialogue," he said.

Obama and Medvedev then negotiated the "New START," a treaty calling for modest reductions in deployed U.S. and Russian nuclear warheads and missiles.

Two years have passed, another election looms. Obama's administration is now advancing its own plan for a missile defense in Europe to protect against Iranian missiles.

In November, Medvedev announced that if the U.S. deployed this missile defense in Europe, the Russians would target it with offensive missiles deployed in Europe.

Earlier this month, Medvedev's ally, Putin, who has served as prime minister for the last four years, was elected to a third, non-consecutive term as Russia's president. Putin ran on a platform of naming Medvedev his prime minister. Medvedev had stepped aside to let Put lead the ticket.

In some ways, the Putin-Medvedev campaign sounded like a liberal campaign in the United States.

The Congressional Research Service reported that according to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, which monitored the Russian elections, "Prime Minister Putin received an advantage in media coverage, and authorities mobilized local officials and resources to garner support for Putin."

"Besides these efforts," said CRS, "Putin boosted or promised large increases in military and government pay, pensions and student stipends."

Putin outlined his "election manifesto" in a series of seven newspaper articles, including one about what he understood "democracy" to mean.

"He defined this democracy in terms of the rights of Russians to employment, free health care and education, although he admitted that civil society recently had demanded more political participation," CRS reported.

It was to this once-and-future Russian president that outgoing Russian President and future Prime Minister Medvedev promised to bring Obama's message.

"After my election, I have more flexibility," Obama said.

"Yeah. Yeah. I understand," said an apparently sympathetic Medvedev. "I will transmit this information to Vladimir."

In his domestic politics, Obama is often profoundly disingenuous. But in his meeting with Medvedev, we may have caught a rare glimpse of our president expressing unfeigned empathy.
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 9243


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #40 on: March 28, 2012, 07:38:17 PM »


What Is Obama Promising Putin in Exchange for 'Space'?
Breitbart.com/bigpeace ^ | 3-28-2012 | Tom Thurlow
Posted on March 28, 2012 8:22:41 PM EDT by reformedcrat

So what did this mean? Obviously what is being referred to is something that the American people might not want, otherwise it could be mentioned in public before the election. And why does Obama have to ask the Russians for any cooperation on this issue at all? That doesn’t sound like a strong negotiation approach to me, assuming it is a real negotiation and not just a big giveaway.

(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 9243


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #41 on: March 29, 2012, 08:16:19 PM »


Obama's gaffe reveals chilling plans for 2nd term
Times247 ^ | 03/29/12 | Jeffrey T. Kuhner
Posted on March 29, 2012 10:15:40 PM EDT by lward99

President Obama has done the country a favor: He has given a hint of what his second term would consist of. Unshackled by the need to be re-elected, Mr. Obama would unleash an all-out radical assault. His plan is to bring Trotskyism to America, thereby imposing a socialist revolution from above. America’s military will be gutted. Its private economy subordinated to a centralized, bureaucratic state. The nation transformed into a Third World basket case. And all of this will come with the Kremlin’s blessing.

At a security summit in South Korea, Mr. Obama was overheard speaking with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. Both men did not realize the microphones were picking up their words. They were discussing a missile-defense system for Europe. Mr. Obama told Mr. Medvedev that he needs more time to resolve the issue.

(Excerpt) Read more at times247.com ...
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 9243


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #42 on: March 30, 2012, 08:59:37 AM »

The ‘flexibility’ doctrine
By Charles Krauthammer, Published: March 29




“On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this can be solved, but it’s important for him [Vladimir Putin] to give me space. . . . This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility.”

— Barack Obama to Dmitry Medvedev, open mike, March 26


You don’t often hear an American president secretly (he thinks) assuring foreign leaders that concessions are coming their way, but they must wait because he’s seeking reelection and he dares not tell his own people.

Not at all, spun a White House aide in major gaffe-control mode. The president was merely explaining that arms control is too complicated to be dealt with in a year in which both Russia and the United States hold presidential elections.

Rubbish. First of all, to speak of Russian elections in the same breath as ours is a travesty. Theirs was a rigged, predetermined farce. Putin ruled before. Putin rules after.

Obama spoke of the difficulties of the Russian presidential “transition.” What transition? It’s a joke. It had no effect on Putin’s ability to negotiate anything.

As for the U.S. election, the problem is not that the issue is too complicated but that if people knew Obama’s intentions of flexibly caving on missile defense, they might think twice about giving him a second term.

After all, what is Obama doing negotiating on missile defense in the first place? We have no obligation to do so. The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, a relic of the Cold War, died in 2002.

We have an unmatched technological lead in this area. It’s a priceless strategic advantage that for three decades Russia has been trying to get us to yield. Why give any of it away?

To placate Putin, Obama had already in 2009 abruptly canceled the missile-defense system the Poles and Czechs had agreed to host in defiance of Russian threats. Why give away more?

It’s unfathomable. In trying to clean up the gaffe, Obama emphasized his intent to “reduce nuclear stockpiles” and “reduce reliance on nuclear weapons.” In which case, he should want to augment missile defenses, not weaken, dismantle or bargain them away. The fewer nukes you have for deterrence, the more you need nuclear defenses. If your professed goal is nuclear disarmament, as is Obama’s, eliminating defenses is completely illogical.

Nonetheless, Obama is telling the Russians not to worry, that once past “my last election” and no longer subject to any electoral accountability, he’ll show “more flexibility” on missile defense. It’s yet another accommodation to advance his cherished Russia “reset” policy.

Why? Hasn’t reset been failure enough?

Let’s do the accounting. In addition to canceling the Polish/Czech missile-defense system, Obama gave the Russians accession to the World Trade Organization, signed a START Treaty that they need and we don’t (their weapons are obsolete and deteriorating rapidly), and turned a scandalously blind eye to their violations of human rights and dismantling of democracy. Obama even gave Putin a congratulatory call for winning his phony election.

In return? Russia consistently watered down or obstructed sanctions on Iran, completed Iran’s nuclear reactor at Bushehr, provides to this day Bashar al-Assad with huge arms shipments used to massacre his own people (while rebuilding the Soviet-era naval base in the Syrian port of Tartus), conducted a virulently anti-American presidential campaign on behalf of Putin, pressured Eastern Europe and threatened Georgia.

On which of “all these issues” — Syria, Iran, Eastern Europe, Georgia, human rights — is Obama ready to offer Putin yet more flexibility as soon as he gets past his last election? Where else will he show U.S. adversaries more flexibility? Yet more aid to North Korea? More weakening of tough Senate sanctions against Iran?

Can you imagine the kind of pressure a reelected Obama will put on Israel, the kind of anxiety he will induce from Georgia to the Persian Gulf, the nervousness among our most loyal East European friends who, having been left out on a limb by Obama once before, are now wondering what new flexibility Obama will show Putin — the man who famously proclaimed that the “greatest geopolitical catastrophe” of the 20th century was Russia’s loss of its Soviet empire?

They don’t know. We don’t know. We didn’t even know this was coming — until the mike was left open. Only Putin was to know. “I will transmit this information to Vladimir,” Medvedev assured Obama.

Added Medvedev: “I stand with you.” A nice endorsement from Putin’s puppet, enough to chill friends and allies, democrats and dissidents, all over the world.

letters@charleskrauthammer.com

Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 9243


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #43 on: March 30, 2012, 09:02:48 AM »

Where's an Open Mic When We Really Need It? (0 in "cahoots with Russian regime")
Wall Street Journal ^ | 3/29/2012 | Martin Peretz




When President Obama blurted out to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that he couldn't do serious business during an election year, the New York Times characterized it as a "moment of political candor." It seems to me, actually, to be a moment of political contempt—for the issues at hand as well as for the demos itself. Mr. Medvedev meanwhile was in familiar territory: Dissembling is the routine of the elected Russian dictatorship.

We are the big boys, Mr. Obama seemed to be telling Mr. Medvedev— or rather Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and I are, and you, Medvedev, are the messenger, to whom, as the newspaper photograph shows, I confide. "I will deliver this information to Vladimir," responded the second man in the Kremlin. Another news picture shows an image from the back, the two presidents walking together, the American chief executive with his big right hand firmly on his Russian junior partner's much slighter shoulder.

And what was the message to Vladimir? Mr. Obama was proffering the Russians "more flexibility" on missile defense, which he couldn't do, he said, in an election year.

But really the message, the important one, concerns us, here in America. It is that the American people can't be trusted if the president is honest with them about what he proposes. More bluntly, that the American people are not trusted by their own president. Otherwise the president would tell us the truth about his intentions. And here he is, admitting his distrust of his own people to a leader of a nasty foreign government that seeks to thwart our purposes in the Middle East and elsewhere. President Obama is in cahoots with the Russian regime against America's very body politic.


(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...

Report to moderator   Logged
Shockwave
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 20603


Decepticons! Scramble!


« Reply #44 on: March 30, 2012, 09:07:42 AM »

Fucking hilarious, itd be a a neighbor with firearms(with which youve had problems) telling you you cant have a firearm to defend yourself, because theyre worried that if they decide to attack you, you may be able to fight back.

Why the fuck is this even on the board? I mean really, why are we letting Russia dictate our own defense systems that may be used to DEFEND US FROM THEM!?
"USA, we are worried that in the event we choose to launch Nuclear Missles at you, that you may be able to shoot them out of the sky. Therefore you need to dismantle them so we may have a higher chance of hitting you with our missles."

WTF!?
Only a fucking madman would even entertain this idea. The Russians must be laughing hard @ Obama. Meanwhile Obama probably actually thinks the Russians really like him and want to be his friend.
Report to moderator   Logged
240 is Back
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 84014


Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com


WWW
« Reply #45 on: March 30, 2012, 09:44:46 AM »

http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/policy-and-strategy/218319-obama-im-not-hiding-the-ball-on-defense-shield-talks-with-russia


Notice how 240, Lurker, Straw, Blackass, Andre, Benny, and the Kneepad Train are nowhere to be found? 

i can spin it, if youd like, for the sake of good discussion.   of course, then you'll call me names.
Report to moderator   Logged

Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 9243


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #46 on: March 30, 2012, 09:46:39 AM »

i can spin it, if youd like, for the sake of good discussion.   of course, then you'll call me names.

Your silence until now on this while melting down on a local criminal case in florida speaks for itself. 

No spin necessary.  You have become an embarassment who sold his soul a long time ago.   
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 9243


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #47 on: March 31, 2012, 06:57:50 AM »

Free Republic
Browse · Search   Pings · Mail   News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.

Obama Makes the Case For His Own Defeat
Townhall.com ^ | March 31, 2012 | Steve Deace
Posted on March 31, 2012 9:56:13 AM EDT by Kaslin

Barack Obama may have just had his “etch-a-sketch” moment.

Last week, the Romney campaign was rightfully chastised after a top advisor essentially said when they’re done pandering to conservatives to win the Republican presidential nomination, they’ll just shake things up like one would an etch-a-sketch and come up with a whole new batch of folks to pander to in the general.

That comment is sure to become very familiar to the American people if indeed Romney is the GOP nominee, sort of like when John Kerry – aka Romney’s alter ego – was branded as the guy who “was for it before he was against it” in 2004.

Not to be outdone, however, President Obama has also now stepped in it—and provided his Republican opponent plenty of ammunition in the process.

According to CNN: In a private conversation about the planned U.S.-led NATO missile defense system in Europe, President Barack Obama asked outgoing Russian President Dmitry Medvedev for space on the issue. "This is my last election," Obama told Medvedev. "After my election I have more flexibility."

"I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir," Medvedev said, referring to incoming President Vladimir Putin.

Translation: Obama is essentially saying as soon as he’s no longer tied down by that pesky will of the people thing, he’ll just do what he wants to do when the will of the people can’t touch him.

Obama is fortunate he committed this gaffe – defined as when a politician or one of his top aides opens his mouth and speaks the unvarnished truth for a change – at a time the GOP does not have a nominee going one-on-one with him to make use of this, as well as the fact the media is largely distracted this week by the Obamneycare hearing at the U.S. Supreme Court. Otherwise this could be just as damaging as the “etch-a-sketch” comment was to the Romney campaign.

The “etch-a-sketch” comment reinforces the very valid criticism the malleable Romney is a RINO of no real conviction, so he will say anything to anyone to get elected. Similarly, Obama’s comments about having “more flexibility” after the election reinforces a narrative of his candidacy his campaign would rather not see perpetuated.

Many Americans are correctly concerned about the hard left direction Obama has already taken the country over their objections. They are thinking that if this is what Obama is like when he faces re-election, what will he be like after he doesn’t? If he’s willing to go this far when he faces the scrutiny of the voters, how far will he go when he no longer does?

To these voters, (and there are lots of them if you were paying attention to the last midterm election), Obama’s flippant off-mic gaffe with the Russian figurehead is a chilling reminder that no matter how likeable the president seems to be, he is still the hard left ideologue they tried to send a message to in 2010. And this gaffe gives them the impression either that message wasn’t received, or was just ignored entirely.

This is the sort of comment that can really help a candidate like Romney in a general election. It takes the focus off the fact that lots of voters (including lots of Republicans) have serious misgivings about Romney, and it puts the focus back on Obama.

For example, if I were running Romney’s general election campaign (and I shudder even just typing those words), I would base my entire campaign strategy on the premise of this Obama gaffe. I would first go back to my skeptical conservative base and tell them this:

“You may not like me. You may not want me. But look how far left this guy has governed when he had to worry about re-election. Imagine what he and his minions will do when they don’t. Imagine agencies like the EPA, and appointments like Eric Holder running even more roughshod over your liberties without the fear of facing the voters ever again?”

Even for a Romney critic like me that is a potent argument.

To independents that have doubts about Obama, I would make a similar case but tether the message to their tastes:

“I’m not a right-winger. I’m a businessman who simply believes you do what works. This president, unlike Bill Clinton when he had a Republican Congress, has been unrelenting in advancing his ultra-liberal agenda, even to the point of ignoring your concerns. And he’s already making plans for how much further he’ll go if you give him another four years. Are you willing to take that chance?”

Frankly, this may be the only valid basis for a person of sincere moral conviction to justify voting for Romney that I can come up with. Furthermore, since incumbent presidents of have won 69% of the re-election campaigns in American history, this is probably Romney’s only shot to win a general election barring the United States becoming Greece in the next eight months—and the president played right into it. He’s lucky it’s only March and most of America has yet to pay attention.

Given the lack of voter enthusiasm for either Romney or Obama, and their combined resources, a battle between the two this fall could easily be the most expensive negative campaign in American history. Many media outlets have lost a lot of their advertising revenue in the recession, so a battle between two unpopular politicians with a war chest at their disposal to tear down one another is a media buyer’s dream.

With that war chest, you can trust Romney to exploit these sorts of gaffes by Obama in ways John McCain was too sanctimonious to do so four years ago. Romney doesn’t fancy himself some larger than life maverick that is above the partisan fray. Unlike McCain, he suffers from no delusions of grandeur in that department. He knows he’s a pandering, hack opportunist politician who will lie every lie and flip any flop to win—and he’s made his peace with it. He will put the boot to Obama’s throat if he has to, not man-hug him like McCain. Romney has no legacy to protect, only power to acquire.

Romney will do whatever it takes to win, as will Obama.

Boy, howdy! Won’t that be an inspiring campaign between two desperate candidates the majority of Americans don’t want, no real substantive differences between the two philosophically, and each with enough money to remind us of that in 30-and-60-second increments every commercial break.
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 9243


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #48 on: April 01, 2012, 07:08:58 PM »

Medvedev: Working with comrade Obama has been the ‘best three years’ for U.S.-Russian relations..
Hot Air ^
Posted on April 1, 2012 8:14:08 PM EDT by Sub-Driver

Medvedev: Working with comrade Obama has been the ‘best three years’ for U.S.-Russian relations in a long time posted at 7:45 pm on April 1, 2012 by Morgen Richmond

Throughout the 2008 campaign Barack Obama promised that if elected he would ‘restore our standing’ in the world. I’m not sure all of our allies feel the same way, but as far as Russia is concerned: mission accomplished.

My colleague Barack Obama and I have once again had a constructive discussion of the various issues on the international agenda and on bilateral cooperation between the Russian Federation and the United States.

I said that although there are varying assessments of the reset in relations that has been much spoken about over these last three years, I think that we have accomplished very useful work over this time. These have perhaps been the best three years in relations between our two countries over the last decade.

This is an excerpt from prepared remarks delivered by outgoing Russian president Dmitry Medvedev at the close of the nuclear security summit in South Korea at the beginning of this week. So in a way it’s old news – in Russia – where the highlighted statement by Medvedev was splashed across numerous headlines. But curiously, there was nary a mention of it in the U.S. media. You’d think this sort of lavish praise for President Obama would be considered newsworthy, if for no other reason that the statement was also an implicit criticism of the Bush Administration. Was our media too busy covering (up) Obama’s ‘hot mic’ gaffe to mention this? Because if anything the president’s gaffe makes this statement by Medvedev even more newsworthy. Since it clearly suggests that the Russian government would relish the prospect of even more ‘flexibility’ under a second Obama term. If three years were so great, why not eight?

I think the White House realizes that the optics of these cozy little interchanges between Obama and Medvedev are really not good for the president. They can mock Mitt Romney all they want, but most Americans voters grew up in an era where Russia was our primary political ‘foe’. And it’s not lost on most Americans that the Russian government has continued to be a thorn in our side in dealing with Iran, Syria, and a host of other global challenges. Nor is it lost on most Americans that Vladimir Putin, a former KGB officer, has effectively presided over the Russian government for more than a dozen years now. If concern over Russia’s foreign policy intentions is based on caricature, it’s a caricature the Russian government has done absolutely nothing to dispel through their actions in recent years.

Given the concessions already made by the Obama Administration on missile defense, and the new START treaty, not to mention our support of Russia’s entry into the World Trade Organization, it’s hardly surprising that the Russians would have such a favorable view of U.S. policy over the past 3 years. But I’m pretty sure most Americans don’t view Russian policy towards the U.S. in the same favorable light, nor do they place much value on restoring our standing in the world, especially when it comes at the price of weakening our defenses.
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 9243


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #49 on: April 20, 2012, 07:25:18 PM »

Bumpy
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!