Thread: Drudge Report: PANETTA: OBAMA HAS GIVEN UP...

Drudge Report

PANETTA: OBAMA HAS GIVEN UP...




Panetta: Obama Has Given Up
Tuesday on MSNBC's "Andrea Mitchell Reports," former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta declared President Barack Obama a college professor who never rolled up his sleeves and fought for his ideas and now he has "given up."
www.breitbart.com

Panetta: Obama Has Given Up

Back to Breitbart TV

Video at the page link:

on Breitbart TV 7 Oct 2014, 9:53 AM PDT 979 post a comment

Tuesday on MSNBC's "Andrea Mitchell Reports," former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta declared President Barack Obama's approach to be like a law professor, however without the aspect of rolling up his sleeves and to get the job done.

Instead he suggested Obama has given up.
Panetta said, "He [Obama] approaches things like a law professor in presenting a logic of his position. There is nothing wrong with that. We want to have a president who thinks through the issues. My experience in Washington is that logic alone doesn't work. Once you lay out a position, you are going to roll up your sleeves and you have to fight to get it done. That is key in Washington. In order for presidents to succeed, they cannot just -- when they run into problems, step back and give up."
"There is a feeling and I have a feeling that the leadership and the president have given up on the big issues facing this country whether it's immigration or a budget deal or infrastructure funding or trade or energy. there is a sense that you can't deal with that. This country needs that. They can't give up."

Follow Pam Key on Twitter @pamkeyNEN

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-T...a-Has-Given-Up

Rush Limbaugh

Panetta and his book are really unloading on Obama so much so that Dana Milbank and the Washington Post is very concerned about the disloyalty.




Panetta Signals Democrat Shift from Obama to Hillary
RUSH: I predicted to you a long time ago. Leon Panetta's book came out that it was the beginning of the transition from the Democrat establishment moving from Obama to Hillary. And now Panetta and his book are really unloading on Obama...
rushlimbaugh.com

Panetta Signals Democrat Shift from Obama to Hillary

October 07, 2014


Windows Media

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: I predicted to you a long time ago. Leon Panetta's book came out that it was the beginning of the transition from the Democrat establishment moving from Obama to Hillary. And now Panetta and his book are really unloading on Obama so much so that Dana Milbank and the Washington Post is very concerned about the disloyalty. The thing about the Dana Milbank piece is that while he berates Panetta, he repeats everything Panetta says. So it's a double hatchet job, Panetta and Milbank, with Milbank defending Obama ostensibly while attacking Panetta.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Now, I mentioned, ladies and gentlemen, earlier in the program that Leon Panetta -- I want to get to this 'cause I mentioned it, I teased at the top, and I want to not have the program end without mentioning this. It didn't take long, Panetta's got a book out and in the book he's savaging Obama, savaging him, and it's all part of building up the Hillary Clinton in 2016 meme, if you will. And Bill Clinton's on the campaign trail now. He's down in Arkansas and he's campaigning.

A lot of people are quoting what Panetta said, Dana Milbank in the Washington Post today has a piece. What it purports to do is criticize Panetta for daring to be so disloyal to Obama, but yet it repeats every Panetta criticism. I mean, it's a pile-on piece. I don't know whether Milbank intended this or not. But it's dump on Obama time now.
Let's start with audio sound bite number two. This is Bill Clinton. Now, to set this up, way back in August, back on the 27th, is when I first intensely and with a focused message started talking about the Republicans' absence of a message in this campaign, about how they're keeping quiet. They see that there's a potential wave election for them, and a lot of people are down on Obama, down on the Democrats, and their strategy's shut up and not interrupt that and let that happen.
In the process what happens is that the Democrats once again are given a free rein to define the Republicans. I mean, in politics it's a truism, if you're not going to define yourself, your enemy will, and that's how you end up with a War on Women. That's how you end up with Republicans are racist, sexist, bigot, homophobes. If you refuse to define yourself -- and there's any number of ways to do it: your policy message or your agenda portfolio, whatever, if you refuse to do it, you leave yourself wide open.
And it was back in August that I first began to get nervous about this Republican silence about what they stand for and about how things will be different and better if they win. There hasn't been any of that. I chronicled the differences between today and 1994. When the Republicans took the House in 1994 it came out of the blue and surprised everybody. They did it. They had a Contract with America. They had a specific agenda. They told the American people what they were gonna do. "Here's what we're gonna do when we get elected. Here's what changes we're gonna make. This is how things are gonna get better."
It was effective and it won. It was a factor in their winning. The mistake they made then was, after that election they assumed the country had transformed itself to majority conservative, and they stopped teaching, they stopped explaining what they were doing. They just started implementing things left and right, and people got scared, said, "What is this?" They had just voted against Democrats, and the contract was the contract, but as it was implemented there wasn't sufficient explanation, quote, teaching.
Well, because there's no national message now from the Republicans, it allows people like Bill Clinton to go down to Arkansas and tell people what the Republican message is.
CLINTON: They're really running against the president, aren't they? They see these polls. The president's unpopular in Arkansas, and, yeah, the economy's coming back, but nobody believes it yet 'cause you don't feel it. (banging podium) You cannot afford to do what their opponents want. They want you to make this a protest vote. "You know what you gotta do? You gotta vote against the president! After all, it's your last shot." It's a pretty good scam, isn't it? "Give me a six-year job for a two-year protest." That's Mark Pryor's opponent's message.
RUSH: All right, that's Clinton now attempting to save Pryor and his campaign by defining what the Republicans stand for and what they really want, and he even got in a shot there on Obama about the economy. He's mocking Obama. Obama's said the economy's going great guns, it's just nobody knows it. You don't feel it yet. Clinton got even a little shot in on that. Now, Clinton being back has excited the Drive-Bys. CNN today. This is John King speaking with the political columnist Ron Fournier.
KING: There nobody like him.
WOMAN: (chortling)
KING: The raspy voice hasn't changed.

FOURNIER: Covering him for as long as I have, it's like I got paid for an advanced degree in politics. He's the best. You see what he did yesterday. He did a typical Clinton. He took the best argument, the best argument that the Republicans have against voting for Democrats, and he slowly took it apart. He's the master!
KING: Let's show some of the pictures as we go through this. Here's Bill Clinton on the rope line. He's taking selfies with people as he goes through. Uh, he came to age, remember, in the pre-Internet days. I don't know what it would have been like to have Twitter and Facebook and all this when Bill Clinton was governor and then president. I shudder to think about it.
RUSH: Oh, you shudder in excitement. "Oh, my God, can you imagine what the brilliant genius Clinton would have done with Twitter and Facebook? Oh, wow! Can you imagine how many Lewinskys there would have been with Twitter and Facebook? Oh, my God, it would have been nirvana." They can't contain themselves. Now, what did Clinton actually say that was so brilliant? Well, let me read it to you again. (impression)
"They're really running against the president, aren't they? They see these polls. The president's unpopular in Arkansas, and, yeah, the economy's coming back, but nobody believes it yet 'cause you don't feel it." Obama said that, not the Republicans. "You cannot afford to do what their opponents want. They want you to make this a protest vote. 'You know what you gotta do? You gotta vote against the president!
"After all, it's your last shot.' It's pretty good scam, isn't it? 'Give me a six-year job for a two-year protest.' That's Mark Pryor's opponent's message." It sounds like gobbledygook to me. I mean, I don't see the brilliance in it, but it doesn't have to be. Clinton's on the campaign trail, and this is a sign -- this media orgasming over Clinton back down in Arkansas. This is a sign of just how bad it is for Obama in the Drive-Bys.
Clinton doesn't even have to make any sense.
All he's gotta do is go out there and speak with his raspy voice and smile and assume to be speaking against Republicans, and they love him.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Now, let's not forget what a genius Bill Clinton is. A guy who had never run for anything but the Senate one time, came along and wiped the floor with Bill and Hillary Clinton. His name was Barack Hussein Obama, Mmm! Mmm! Mmm! A newbie, a rookie! A rookie wiped the floor with the brilliant geniuses Bill and Hillary Clinton in 2008, and even got away with throwing the race card down on Clinton.
For the first time in his career, Clinton's running around on the defensive on being a racist, and he should have 'cause he said to Ted Kennedy one day, "Hey, you know, Ted, it wasn't all that long ago this clown would have been getting us our coffee." He said that. Obama heard about it, threw down the race card, and Clinton got offended. But Clinton and Hillary got snookered.
Hillary would have been out even sooner if it hadn't been for us here in Operation Chaos. Yeah, big genius Bill Clinton. Now, another question I got. "How does Panetta ripping Obama help Hillary?" Well, if you put it that way, the two don't naturally go together, but Panetta's book lays the blame for foreign policy on Obama, and he was in the Regime. Panetta was there. He's not an outsider.
Panetta was CIA. Whatever else he was, he was in the Obama administration. He's got a book dumping on Obama in terms of foreign policy. That is an attempt to inoculate Hillary for any charge of incompetence in the 2016 campaign about Benghazi and other things. I'm not saying it's gonna work, but that's what they're trying. (interruption) Well, Mr. Newt and the Republicans and the Contract beat Bill Clinton in 1994.
The genius Bill Clinton. (interruption) Yeah, but... (chuckles) "It's so great to have the guy back! Oh, my God, you know, I'm ..." Ron Fournier. I'm sorry. "I'm just... I'm having the greatest time, here! I got Clinton back! Oh, this so wonderful! It's like a college degree to watch Bill Clinton," and I still don't know what he said. I read that transcript again.
I know what he's trying to say.
END TRANSCRIPT

Related Links

• Washington Post: Leon Panetta, Other Former Obama Subordinates Show Stunning Disloyalty - Dana Milbank
• Daily Caller: Panetta: Obama Damaged US Credibility With Syria 'Red Line'
• Breitbart: Panetta: Lack of Flexibility, Hesitation Cost US on Middle East Policy
• Washington Examiner: In Arkansas, Bill Clinton tries to save Democrats from Barack Obama

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/20...ama_to_hillary

Conservative Lady

[Watch] Krauthammer - Panetta Interview "Utterly Devastating" For Obama, Politics Show To Dictate Policy




[Watch] Krauthammer – Panetta Interview “Utterly Devastating” For Obama, Politics Show To...
Bill O’Reilly talks with Charles Krauthammer following his interview with Leon Panetta, and opens by asking how he did. Krauthammer responds that both...
gopthedailydose.com

[Watch] Krauthammer – Panetta Interview “Utterly Devastating” For Obama, Politics Show To Dictate Policy

Posted on 7 October, 2014 by Rick Wells



Bill O’Reilly talks with Charles Krauthammer following his interview with Leon Panetta, and opens by asking how he did. Krauthammer responds that both O’Reilly and Panetta did great but doesn’t share the same view about the portrayal of the occupant of the White House, saying “Obama did not do very well.”
Krauthammer describes Panetta as a “straight-shooter” and an icon of the Democrat Party. He says that you could tell from the tone of Panetta’s comments that he was sympathetic to the “president,” but “He loves his country and he feels he has to say the truth.”
Charles Krauthammer’s take on Panetta’s comments is that Panetta depicted Obama as lacking leadership abilities and as being indecisive and weak.
Krauthammer said the most telling moment was when O’Reilly questioned Panetta as to why Obama has not acted to help the Ukrainians and he was stumped. The fact that Panetta had no answer was very revealing. Putting that into the perspective of the events happening in the Middle East, Krauthammer says “It’s not just indecisiveness and how tentative Obama is, but it’s also how political he is.”

He says that the book former Defense Secretary Robert Gates wrote described the same thing, how the decision making was dictated by the political types in the White House. Panetta reports the same process in his book and in the interview. Krauthammer points to how the “White House concerns about the political, partisan fortunes of the ‘president’” were placed above the national security of the country.”
He said the impending election drove the narrative and drove the policy, with devastating results.
Watch the latest video at http://video.foxnews.com

Video at the page link:

Rick Wells is a conservative writer who recognizes that our nation, our Constitution and our traditions are under a full scale assault from multiple threats. Please “Like” him on Facebook, “Follow” him on Twitter or visit www.rickwells.us

http://gopthedailydose.com/2014/10/0...ictate-policy/

Rush Limbaugh

TheHill.com: "Most See Obama As a Failure." If they'd just listened to me, it wouldn't have taken six years.




Panetta Trashes Obama, the Regime Trashes Panetta -- and Just About Everyone Thinks Obama Is a...
RUSH: There's another poll, by the way, speaking of Obama failure.
rushlimbaugh.com

Panetta Trashes Obama, the Regime Trashes Panetta -- and Just About Everyone Thinks Obama Is a Failure (Six Years Late)

October 08, 2014


Windows Media

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Now, let me go back to not too distant a time. The president of the United States, when asked about ISIS, referred to them as "the JV team," not that important, not that big, and they were so invisible in terms of being on his radar that he did not even have a strategy for dealing with them. Shortly after that statement and a couple others like it, some polling data surfaced.
The polling data indicated the American people had dwindling, low and dwindling confidence in President Obama's ability to defend and protect the country, a dwindling and low opinion of the president's leadership on foreign policy. Within hours, a press conference was scheduled. Eh, not a press conference. It was an address from the White House, the Green Room, I believe it was, in which the president all of a sudden decided to announce a strategy for dealing with the varsity, ISIS.



They had magically jumped from JV status to varsity in terms of the real world overnight, and Obama had come up with a strategy. I -- your beloved and ever honest, on-the-point host -- told you what everybody knew but few really wanted to say: This is all being driven by polling data. The president's already told us his level of interest in this, which is not very high. But there are Democrats running for reelection in November and they're getting nervous out there about a lot of things.
They're getting nervous about the economy.
They're getting nervous about ISIS, Americans being beheaded, journalists and so forth.
It doesn't sit well. You combine that with polling data that shows the president doesn't seem to be engaged or care about it, and Democrats begged him to do something. Voila, he did, and the conclusion was obvious. That whole announcement was driven by polls, and its purpose was to get Obama's poll numbers up and attempt to renew the confidence of the American people in not just the president, but the Democrat Party in dealing with these things.

Now, how did that work out? It didn't, and we knew it before today because there have been previous poll results released, but we have another one now. It's from Chris Stirewalt at Fox News, but it's everywhere. "Obama insiders and Democrats told The New York Times that they are anxious to see the president continue his pivot away from foreign policy, with several calling for a focus on jobs and the economy. One can see why.
"Obama's about-face on Iraq and Syria doesn't seem to have changed voter attitudes about his foreign policy and that of his party. A new," wait for it, "CBS News/NYT poll says that the president’s approval rating for foreign policy is essentially unchanged since last month when he announced an escalation of air strikes in the two countries, the return of US ground forces to Iraq and increased arms shipments to rival rebel groups.
"Last month, 39% approved" of Obama's foreign policy. After a month of no-boots-on-the-ground warfare against ISIS his approval rating has jumped a staggering one point. He's gone up from 39% approval to 40% approval, which means that the reason we're doing this (from the Regime's standpoint) has not worked out. Now, I realize, my friends, that's a controversial thing to say. The truth often is. But it's undeniable.
Six weeks ago: JV team, no strategy! Meaning: No engagement. Don't really care. Not our problem except that it's our fault. They're mad because of our policies of support for Israel. They were mad at us because we've been too big for too long. We walked all over people, and we basically turned every country in the world into a hellhole while stealing everything they had so we could have a big superpower country and all that.
We kind of deserve this kind of thing. You know, they're mad at us. That's why he wasn't interested. What business do we have telling this little group where they can and cannot operate? That's their attitude. But the American people have a different view of America's role in the world, because the American people view the United States as the good guy. A lot of Americans still do view the United States as a good guy, and they expect their president to be one of the good guys!
They expect their president to think of the country as the good guys. So drastic action was called for, and that meant a reversal, a 180-degree reversal on attitudes and action against ISIS, Iraq and Syria. But the poll numbers are in, and it hasn't worked. ISIS is moving. ISIS is moving, and they're continuing to grab territory. The bottom line is: If you doubt me on this, just consult any cable news network you want, and every bit of this stratagem will be reported in terms of, "Is it helping or hurting Obama?"
Not, "Are we succeeding in beating ISIS?" but, "Is what's happening -- and is the way we're reporting it -- helping or hurting Obama?" That's their total focus. Now, Panetta? You add what Panetta's book is saying, and it is getting bloody out there on the Democrat Party side. Tuesday, yesterday on MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell Reports, NBC News, Leon Panetta showed up, and he said that Obama's approach in all of this is to be like a law professor.
You know, sit there like you're in the faculty lounge, and you stroke your chin while applying your supreme intellect to the task at hand, and you weigh in with your words, and you sit there and you talk with other learned intellectuals in the faculty lounge, and you deal with the hypotheticals and the theoreticals and the philosophical and all of this. You do it in ways and terms and attitudes that convey a superior intellect, while you at the same time ridicule the plebes you're trying to please and so forth.
So Panetta says this guy just treats everything like he's a law professor, deals with it in the abstract. And the prospect, the aspect of rolling up his sleeves and getting the job done is not the way Obama operates. Obama's not a roll-up-the-sleeves guy and get to it. And then Leon Panetta yesterday on PMSNBC Andrea Mitchell Reports, suggested that Obama has given up.



Let's start with number 12 and 13. Gloria Borger interviewing Panetta -- (interruption) yeah, 'cause we had a ban on PMSNBC, that's right. I don't permit any sound bites from them, so we gotta turn to CNN. So, Gloria Borger said, "President Obama's taking action against ISIS. He's conducting air strikes in Iraq and Syria. He's really being tough out there. What are your thoughts on that, Mr. Panetta?"
PANETTA: He's made the decision to put troops on the ground in Iraq, to try to help the security forces. He's made the decision to arm and train rebel forces in Syria. And he's made the decision to conduct air attacks. So, in many ways, he's made the right decisions. Now, I think those decisions should have been made two years ago.
RUSH: Ooh! Well, it's not quite saying he's given up like he told Andrea Mitchell, NBC News, Washington, but the stuff he is saying about Obama is devastating. Two years too late. He's given up. He treats everything here like a lawyer. And Gloria Borger, not happy, then said, "Should President Obama have started air strikes when Syria used chemical weapons against its own people, violating the president's clearly drawn red line?"
PANETTA: The president very clearly should have said, "You have crossed that red line and we're not gonna allow that to happen." And I think initially my sense was they were gonna do exactly that. But somehow they backed away from it.
RUSH: Uh-oh.
PANETTA: I think that was a -- you know, a key moment in time in terms of sending a message to the world.
RUSH: Oh, no.
PANETTA: That there was a question mark as to whether or not the United States would stand by its word.
RUSH: Well, there was. He's exactly right. We drew the red line and then pretended it didn't exist, hadn't drawn it, paper tiger kind of stuff. He's exactly right. There's something beginning to happen here, folks. Panetta's not the first. He's like the fourth or fifth former Regime official to come out with books or TV appearances really ripping Obama and his Regime. That has yet to happen to Bill Clinton. And, in fact, the people doing it are former Clintonistas. The people doing this are former Clintonites like Panetta, who, on the one hand it looks like they're paving the way for Hillary. But then Panetta said something yesterday that does not look like it helps Hillary at all.
I mean, he just tore into everybody over Benghazi. I mean, he just ripped into everybody, but there's no way that helps Hillary. So I may have to modify slightly, ever so slightly, my analysis of what Panetta's doing here, 'cause I still think that much of what he's doing is trying to inoculate Hillary from the incompetence of Obama and separate her from it so that she's free and clear of it if she decides to run on her own. But nevertheless he's just saying some devastating things here.
Now, Bill Burton went on CNN last night, Erin Burnett OutFront. Bill Burton, the former deputy White House secretary talking about Panetta's new book, and Erin Burnett said, "It's a criticism of the president's policy, but more significantly, Bill, it's a criticism by Panetta of Obama's leadership. It says he just didn't make a decision."

BURTON: Secretary Panetta, he is a guy who's had a long and storied career in Washington and has really served his country well. And it's kind of sad that in its twilight he's done such a dishonorable thing by going after the president that he served at a time of a lot of different instabilities around the world.
RUSH: It's just so sad, such a great guy, such a great public servant, and it's so sad that in its twilight he's done such a dishonorable thing by going after the president he served. So Panetta responded to this. Charlie Rose, CBS This Morning, Charlie Rose said, "There are those who say he appointed you to two of the highest posts in the country, and just wait until he's out of office. If you're gonna criticize him, fine, but wait 'til he's out of office, Leon, what do you say about that?"
PANETTA: You know what, it's exactly because I am very loyal to this president, because I want him to succeed that I think it's important to raise these issues now so that hopefully in two and a half years, you know, we can make sure that he really does have the kind of legacy that I think he deserves as president.
RUSH: Yeah, you're doing a great job building it up, Leon, I gotta give you credit here. So Leon Panetta doesn't want him to fail. He wants him to succeed. He really, really, really wants the president to succeed. There's another poll, by the way, speaking of Obama failure. It's TheHill.com: "Most See Obama As a Failure." If they'd just listened to me, it wouldn't have taken six years.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Now, one thing about Panetta here. He also is saying -- he was on MSNBC yesterday with Andrea Mitchell -- he said, "From the very beginning I knew that Benghazi was a terrorist attack." This totally undercuts everything that Hillary said and everything that Obama has said about Benghazi.

Andrea Mitchell, NBC News, Washington, said, "You wrote in the book that you disagree with David Petraeus, who immediately, after the fact, told The Situation Room that he thought it was a spontaneous demonstration outside the consulate. Why did you disagree? Why didn't it ring true that it was just a spontaneous demonstration?"
And Panetta said, "I didn't have any specific info, but the fact was that when you bring grenade launchers to a demonstration, there's something else going on. From the very beginning I sensed that this was an attack, a terror attack on our compound." Do you realize what this does? This undercuts that silly excuse that it was a video. It undercuts that it was an offshoot of what had happened earlier in the day in Cairo when we had apologized before anything had happened.
Somebody like Marie Harf -- it wasn't her, but somebody like her in our embassy in Cairo put out an apology for the stupid video, apologizing for it, in anticipation of protests. And then Obama and Hillary said (paraphrasing), "Yeah, yeah, those protests started because of the video, then spread to Benghazi." And here's Panetta... it's too bad he said this on PMSNBC because nobody saw it. But that's why we're telling you about it now.
He said, "From the very beginning I knew it was a terror attack. You don't bring grenade launchers to a demonstration. I remember looking at Petraeus and saying, 'Look, based on the weapons that I see and the nature of the attack, I think this is a terror attack.' And he said, 'Look, the information we're getting from intelligence sources is that it really was a demonstration.' I said, 'You know, David, I just don't see it that way. I think we're dealing with what, in effect, is a group of terrorists.'"
I know Panetta wants to sell books, there's no question, but where was this at the time? Why are we not knowing this long ago?
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Snerdley is asking me if Panetta's doing all this because he wants to -- 'cause this latest announcement by Panetta on Benghazi, that undercuts. I don't think this is getting its proper attention.
Leon Panetta said on MSNBC yesterday that he knew and he told in the War Room, in the Situation Room, he told Petraeus. Petraeus, he claimed was saying, "It's just a protest." And Leon Panetta said, "Nope, nope, nope. When you bring a howitzer or a mortar gun to a protest, that's not a protest." He said, "This is a terror attack." He said he recognized it as a terror attack from the get-go. And he's a gravitas guy, Panetta's one of these guys, when you put 'em in this Regime they're adding gravitas.
So he just pulled the rug out from everybody who claimed it was a protest resulting from that silly video that nobody ever saw, including Hillary. And so Snerdley's saying, "Maybe Panetta's trying to set himself up." I don't know. I've never looked at Panetta as somebody who wanted to be president. Maybe he does. I don't know. All I know is, that's a giant -- I mean, you know what I wonder? You know what's probably happening right now? There are people in the Obama campaign searching video archives hoping to find just one example of Panetta also blaming the video. And if they find it, you can count on Wolf Blitzer having it five minutes before he knows he's got it. And then it'll be over at the CBS Evening news. And then it'll be over at MSNBC. And maybe Andrea Mitchell will be the first to get it since that's where he pulled the rug out.
But you know that they're looking since he's now saying, "I'm the guy, I knew it from the get-go it was a terror attack." You know they're trying to find if he ever publicly blamed the video, like they all did. It won't be long to find out if they find it, 'cause when they do, it's gonna be prominently replayed over and over.
END TRANSCRIPT

Related Links

• RushLimbaugh.com: Panetta Signals Democrat Shift from Obama to Hillary - 10.07.14
• FOXNews: No wonder Dems Want to Stop Talking About ISIS! - Chris Stirewalt
• Breitbart: Panetta: Obama Has Given Up
• Weekly Standard: Fmr Obama Spokesman: Panetta 'Sad,' 'Dishonorable,' 'Small and Petty'
• RealClearPolitics: Panetta: I Knew "From The Beginning" Benghazi Was A Terrorist Attack
• FOXNews: Panetta: Obama Needs to 'Develop the Will to Get Into the Ring and Fight' ISIS
• RushLimbaugh.com: ISIS Speech is All Politics for Obama - 09.10.14

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/20...six_years_late

Rush Limbaugh

If any Republican disagrees with any Obama policy, it's always chalked up to racism and bigotry. And now here are these pompous, arrogant Democrat candidates out telling the world there's no way they can win if the first African-American president shows up to help 'em.



Democrats Shun the First Black President
RUSH: I mean, it sounds like racism to me.
rushlimbaugh.com

Democrats Shun the First Black President

October 08, 2014


Windows Media

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: So where are we with all the other things that are happening? Well, we've explored a little bit of Ebola today, but then there's another thing that's happening, and it's probably related in somewhat, but not exclusively related. Other factors are making it reveled. It's in no less than the New York Times, by Jonathan Martin who used to be at The Politico. The headline of the story: "In This Election, Obama's Party Benches Him."
This is stunning.
The New York Times has a story about how Democrat candidates for the Senate don't want Obama anywhere near their states. They don't want him coming in fundraising. They don't want him coming in doing campaign appearances. Imagine if you are a dutiful, loyal New York City liberal, and the New York Times is your gospel, and you awaken today, and you go grab your cup of coffee and your croissant, and you sit down to digest your daily lesson.
Imagine the shock of seeing the headline: "...Obama's Party Benches Him."

Obama benched? The coach, the GM, the owner?
It turns out that Barack Obama's become the problem.
Barack Obama is the problem, with Obama driving the Democrat Party bus to the far-left side of the road. "Every campaign..." This is a pull quote from the piece. "Every campaign has got to figure out -- and this is true in this election, and it's going to be true for every election going forward for Democrats for as far as the eye can see -- is which Democrats are only going to be able to win if they turn out enough of the Obama coalition, whether we’re in a midterm or a presidential." That's Dan Pfeiffer.
"So for candidates to distance themselves from the president, or even disparage him, is to ignore a potential path to victory." This is an inconvenient truth for Democrats. So, for Democrats, candidates to distance themselves from the president is to ignore a potential path to victory. The New York Times is chiding Democrats for not wanting their young president nearby in their campaigns. How dare they do this to him! But it's their business to get elected.
Again, a pull quote from the story. "But for now [Obama] has been reduced to something else: an isolated political figure who is viewed as a liability to Democrats in the very states where voters by the thousands had once stood to cheer him."
And then from TheHill.com: "Most See Obama As a Failure -- A clear majority of Americans describe President Obama's tenure as a 'failure' according to a new poll released Monday. The survey from IBD/TIPP indicates that 53 percent of adults in the United States now characterize Obama's presidency as a 'failure,' while 41 percent chalk it up as a success. Half of the people who live in states won by Obama see his tenure negatively, as do 59 percent of those aged 25-44 years old."

Now, the real question is, is Obama a failure? Does all of this constitute failure? I contend that in Obama's world none of this is a failure. There may be one aspect of it that's a failure. I really think that in his desire to transform the country, I think he really hoped that he would bring a majority of Americans along with him cheering this transformation. That's not happening. That's why, in the people who fail to see Obama's vision, the people that fail to want to tag along on this, they see Obama as a failure, but it isn't a failure. He's doing exactly what he set out to do.
The people that voted for Obama who now claim he's failed don't realize that Obama wanted to fundamentally transform America with his presidency, and who can deny that he's done that even beyond his wildest dreams? I would say that in Obama's world, when he and Michelle are up there in the residence quietly reflecting, I think that they look at what they've done as a resounding success. I think they have exceeded their wildest dreams in terms of what they wanted to accomplish. They've accomplished it.
Everybody else thinks he's an incompetent failure, and he's maybe incompetent in the traditional way we view the presidency, i.e., qualifications. Does he know what he's doing? Does he have the same values in terms of foreign policy, defending and protecting the country, and all of that. He doesn't. The United States isn't special, and it's not the solution. The United States is the problem, and it always has been the problem. Time to pay the piper now. Is there any way that you can measure and conclude the country is stronger today after six years of Obama? Nope. Therefore, job done. Obama, job done. Mission accomplished.
The country is not stronger today in any way than it was six years ago when he presumed office. So that's failure to the blind voters who blindly supported him. To him, it's rock on. And there's still two years, and I don't think it really matters to him who wins the Senate. I mean, it would help if the Democrats kept it, but he can make a lot of hay with the Republicans there. He knows he's got a media that is gonna join him in blaming the Republicans for whatever he needs to do in order to overcome them.

I mean, if the Republicans do not help, if they don't cooperate, if they don't pass his agenda, that's made to order for Obama and the media to rip into them and to praise Obama for taking whatever executive steps necessary to accomplish his objectives, even with an obstructionist Republican Congress. And make no mistake, the media can't wait to report that story. The media can't wait to report the story that the Republicans are standing in the way, refusing to cooperate, throwing and casting aside bipartisanship in exchange for selfishness and just motivated exclusively by stopping Obama.
And, as such, the Republicans will be blamed for excessive partisanship and playing politics with every issue while the president will be portrayed as decent and wonderful and simply trying to do the best for the country with the mean, rascally Republicans standing in the way. So that's how he can play the Republicans winning the Senate. The Democrats win the Senate, he's got a rubber stamp for whatever he wants to do. Even if the Republicans win it's not gonna stop him doing amnesty 'cause half of them are on board for it anyway. Ebola might be the biggest obstacle he's got to amnesty now. And in that case, pay special attention to the way the Regime deals with that.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Jason in Ellisville, Missouri, you're next on the Rush Limbaugh program. Hello.
CALLER: Thanks for having me.
RUSH: You bet, sir.
CALLER: And, by the way, my apologies to Mr. Snerdley, but I just wanted to tell you that I've already pre-ordered the next iterance of your book series. My daughter's gonna flip out when she sees it arrive.
RUSH: Well, thank you, sir, very much. Why are you apologizing to Snerdley?
CALLER: Well, he told me to get to the point, so I just --
RUSH: Well, that's the point, that's the point. You don't have to apologize for that.
CALLER: Okey-dokey. Well, my major point was, well, based off of Drudge's brilliant headline on his site, and your talks about anybody talking about isolating Liberia and those countries and being racist. Well, why is the Democrat Party not also being judged as racist for isolating Obama?
RUSH: You know, if only the same treatment would descend on them that they pass out. I mean, I get your point, it's right on the money. So here we have our first African-American president, and Democrat candidates are saying, "Stay away, buddy, stay away. We don't want you anywhere near our campaign. Do not even come to the state." Why isn't that racist?
You know, if any Republican disagrees with any Obama policy, it's always chalked up to racism and bigotry. And now here are these pompous, arrogant Democrat candidates out telling the world there's no way they can win if the first African-American president shows up to help 'em. I mean, it sounds like racism to me. The same kind of racism they pass out all day. Does it not, Mr. Snerdley? I mean, it does. The guy's got a great point here. Where are the accusations that these Democrat incumbents are racists and bigots?
Can you imagine having the New York Times report that you, a Democrat, do not want the help of the first African-American president in your reelection effort? Why not? Is it because he's black? Is that why people aren't gonna like it, hmm? How would that feel? You know, it's kind of like that Ben Affleck and Bill Maher uproar. I wonder how Bill Maher feels when Ben Affleck calls him a racist and a bigot.
You know, they throw it around us all the time. And of course they never even consider it would even be possible for anyone to think of them in the same way. And here's old Ben Affleck out there accusing them of it. Racism, bigotry, and whatever else he accused them of being because they are mean to Muslims. (interruption) Do people on the left think that Affleck is smart? Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. Oh, my. Absolutely. But not because of this. Because of Good Will Hunting. Affleck -- and what's the other guy? Yeah, Matt Damon. They're still living off of that. That's the real Affleck, and that's the real Damon.
Oh, yeah, there's a lot of people that think Affleck, on the left -- especially after this, after the dustup with Maher, absolutely. That's why I'm saying, I wonder how Maher feels, being on his own show, by a fellow leftist being tagged as a racist and a bigot. We'll never know, but it's just something worth asking.
END TRANSCRIPT

Related Links

• New York Times: In This Election, Obama's Party Benches Him
• TheHIll: Poll: Most See Obama as a Failure
• Breitbart: Gallup: Number of Democrats Who Say Obamacare Hurt Them More Than Doubles
• RushLimbaugh.com: Caller to Host: You're No Expert! - 10.07.14

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/20...lack_president