Will Voters Throw Obama Under His Bus?

---









More from Klavan regarding our President who Klavan claims is full of crap: See PJTV.com: "Klavan on Culture: Andrew Klavan, Talking Crap III: Absolute Crap!!!

EARMUFFS!!! The craptalker-in-chief's crap talk has been so craptacular that it's become difficult to see the crap for the crap. So let's get crapping."

Two more PJTV.Com videos worth watching: "ZoNation: The Problem With Our Economy is Liberalism, Not the "Queen of Rage" or Tea Party

Who's to blame for the downgrade, stock market crash, and lousy economy? Not the Tea Party. Zo thinks Democrats and their liberal ideology is truly to blame. Hear why.


Trifecta: President Keyser Soze? Liberals Want Obama to Scare the Tea Party

Is it time for Obama to strike fear in the hearts of the Tea Party? Should Obama go Keyser Soze? Find out."
---
An Israeli speaks out about Israel's collective insanity of tactical brilliance and strategic imbecility! (See 1 below.)

Meanwhile, 4 below proves his point.
---
A good way for our tax dollars to be spent. All in a days work by our beneficent State Department. (See 1a below.)
---
I was told the White House has eliminated Jerusalem from their web page map. I finally found how to e mail The White House: www.whitehouse.gov/contact
There is a dropdown menu for categories/ In this case choose foreign.

This is what I sent: "Understand, though have not confirmed, Jerusalem has been taken off web site map. When will our apologist president remove DC from the map?"
---
This from a long time delightful friend and fellow memo reader: "They sent my Census form back! AGAIN!!!

In response to the question: "Do you have any dependents?"

I replied .......

12 million illegal immigrants;
3 million crack heads;
42 million unemployable lazy bastards;
The entire cast of the Jerry Springer Show;
2 million people in over 243 prisons;
300,000 leftovers from Katrina;
Half of Mexico;
and hundreds more in the U.S. House and Senate.

Apparently, this wasn't an acceptable answer.
---
Abbas and the possibility of a third Intifada? Has he dug a hole for himself by his boldness which could backfire? Perhaps Abbas will prove victim of getting what he wants and with it a bonus equal to something he nor Palestinians bargained for?(See 2below.)
---
Dunn has written about Obama's political obituary but points out it is the Liberal mythology of failure portrayed as success that really needs burying. Then why are Left Elites also piling on the 'Obama Dissing Bus,' With plunging poll results regarding his leadership Obama feels the need to get out among the people and do what he does best - mesmerize crowds with his slick insincerity.

I do not think it will work again because his emptiness is now visible.

What is becoming evident is that because Obama is black and Democrats need to retain the black vote the likelihood of Obama being challenged is not in the cards. Consequently,if the economic picture continues bleak for the nation's employed and unemployed Democrats are going to have to focus on retaining the Senate and swallow hard.

That said, Eileen Toplansky writes we should not count Obama out because he is calculating, has begun dusting off his Music Man Magic and knows exactly what he is doing.

I am going to gratuitously post my own thoughts, expressed in an LTE which was not published, about Obama being purposeful again.

This from my learned and well connected political operative: "Good tug of war. Hard to believe that a man who wears temple garments could ever be President.-and he does not connect because he is disingenuous Perry is too god and swagger--has never been exposed or tested on the national level and will end up putting himself so far to the right of everyone- hard for him to come to the center."(See 3, 3a, 3b and 3c below.)
---
Battle for control of Egypt's gas pipeline shaping up as troops fight radicals? (See 4 below.)
---
Another Stuxnet problem? Time will tell. (See 5 below.)
---
Commentary on Obama's bus tour. Will voters throw Obama under it?

In typical Obama double talk fashion he told his audience the opposition would not compromise with his plan which he finally announced will be announced in September after his vacation.

I suspect Obama's plan, whatever it is and whenever he announces it will be one more politically shaped to give him scoring points against Republicans and to help him get re-elected rather than a program that truly reflects an understanding of how his policies have led us to where we find ourselves. No doubt it will be cleverly constructed to place Republicans in the corner with the intent of forcing them to react negatively because it will probably be a plan that will pit American against American, draw upon class distinctions etc.

Obama gave us insight into his campaign strategy today by chiding announced Republican candidates for saying they would not even compromise on a 10 to 1 cut to spend deal. Bachmann explained in a plausible manner why as follows:

a) The current Congress cannot bind a future Congress.

b) History shows toothless pledges of cuts have proven to be what they are - good sound bite myths.

c) Raising taxes is not the problem, spending is the problem.

Obama then proceeded to remind the audience he was the adult and everyone else were petulant uncooperative children.

Iowa narrowed the Republican field to three candidates. I suspect Bachmann will fade as she takes her message nationally, Romney remains the candidate the nation might be more in sync with while Perry is the one Republican Conservatives most prefer. The question is whether Perry's campaign style will resonate broadly and can Romney defend himself against a Perry attack.

If Perry is the ultimate candidate it will be fun watching his style against Obama's. I suspect our music man president will not know what hit him. (See 6, 6a and 6b below.)
---
Dick
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)Subject: Fwd: Israel a suicide nation, from the Jerusalem Post last week
By MARTIN SHERMAN

Once again the nation is being lured into disaster by the "pied-pipers
of Oslo," this time playing a new tune.

“Poor Menachem [Begin]... I got back... the Sinai and the Alma oil
fields, and what has Menachem got? A piece of paper” – Anwar Sadat on
the Peace Agreement with Israel, The New York Times, October 19, 1980.

There is something profoundly perverse in the conduct of the Jewish
people as a national collective.

Tactical brilliance, strategic imbecility

The rebirth of Jewish nationhood and the annuls of Zionist endeavor
are undoubtedly one of most stirring chapters of modern history.

It is an enterprise that has achieved remarkable feats against
impossible odds. Indeed, Zionism has arguably been the most successful
of national freedom movements in the last century. It has attained a
combination of political independence, economic prosperity and
individual liberties for its people unmatched in any other country
born of the dissolution of the European empires.

Beyond its borders, Israel has made amazing contributions to humanity
– in medicine, agriculture, computing, communications... Some of these
more recent accomplishments have been ably chronicled by books such as
the bestselling Start-up Nation: The Story of Israel’s Economic
Miracle.

Yet something is clearly rotten in the State of Israel. There is an
almost unfathomable disconnect between its capacities for
techno/tactical brilliance and for staggering strategic imbecility.

Indeed a deeply troubling pattern is emerging: Whenever dramatic
successes, entailing long-range reconstructive strategic potential,
are secured, their fruits are frittered away for short-term–at-best
intermediate-range–benefits.

Whether military or economic, successes seem to give rise to illogical
forces – self-induced and self-destructive – to willfully forgo them.

The strategic value of... paper

Thus, the sweeping strategic advantages, won in victories of the Six
Day War, have been foolishly squandered.

The Sinai Peninsula with its strategic depth, mineral wealth and
economic potential is now deteriorating into a lawless “no-go” region,
rapidly falling under the control of the most ruthless extremists on
the face of the globe. In the wake of the “Tahrir tsunami,” Israel is
facing an emerging lose-lose strategic predicament which will soon
force it to decide between:

• Allowing Sinai to degenerate into an Afghanistan-like haven for
al-Qaida and other jihadi organizations,
• Allowing a Muslim Brotherhood-controlled Egypt to remilitarize the
area in order to reestablish law and order, and
• Reasserting Israeli control of Sinai, effectively repudiating the
peace agreement.

Admittedly, the three decades of Egyptian prickly nonbelligerence
provided Israel with significant benefits – in return for considerable
strategic sacrifices. But from here on in, the challenges will be
daunting to say the least. All options are gravely menacing... After
all, all poor Menachem got was “a piece of paper.”

This was neither unpredictable nor unpredicted.

However, the sober voices who warned against the wisdom of or the need
to make such sweeping concessions to the depleted and disintegrating
regime in Cairo were dismissed as deranged warmongers. It seems that
future generations will yet be called on to pay the price of this
strategic myopia, a price, which could far outweigh the temporary
benefits of the acrimonious and relatively brief interbellum.

The triumph of irrationality over reason

If it took about a generation for the folly of relinquishing Sinai to
become tangibly evident, with 2005’s disengagement it took a matter of
weeks.

In a stunning triumph of irrationality over reason, Israel six years
ago surrendered all for nothing, erasing 30 years of Zionist endeavor
in Gaza in a fortnight. With dizzying speed all ominous warnings of
dangers came true; all promises of benefits proved false. But worse of
all, it conveyed an unmistakable strategic message to the Arabs: With
the Jews, no concessions are necessary! If confronted with adequate
resolve and violence, they will capitulate unconditionally.

In a stroke, Ariel Sharon’s mendacious promise that “the fate of
Netzarim will be the fate of Tel Aviv” was inverted. Now the Arabs had
every reason to believe that “the fate Tel Aviv will be the fate of
Netzarim.”

With demands for surrendering the Golan temporarily on hold due to the
butchery of Bashar Assad, efforts are now focused on how to divest
Israel of the remaining vestige of its 1967 military gains – the
strategic highlands between the Jordan Valley and the coastal
megalopolis.

Despite the benefit of hindsight, the nation is being led into another
episode of strategic insanity: The establishment of an adversarial
Arab entity on the territories that overlook the country’s major
population centers, control its only real international airport,
border the length of the trans-Israel highway and command much of the
county’s infrastructure.

With all of these in range of weaponry already used against Israel
from territories relinquished to the Palestinians, only the brain-dead
or the blatantly biased could fail to recognize the strategic dementia
of such a move. Reassuring promises of demilitarization are either
infantile or insincere. Even with the armament currently available to
the Palestinians, allegedly “renegade” elements could “bring Sderot to
Tel Aviv,” making social and economic routine in the country
impossible to sustain.

The clamor for economic hara-kiri

Which brings us to the present “middle Israel” protests. Once again
the perverse pathology seems to be kicking in.

Just when the economy is demonstrating remarkable resilience, winning
warm international praise and outperforming much of the industrial
world, we are witnessing an almost incomprehensible self-engendered
“declaration of economic war against Israeli prosperity,” as Jerusalem
Post Senior Contributing Editor Caroline B. Glick deftly put it.

Suddenly, in a nation where all the macroeconomic data reflect a
flourishing economy in the midst of a global economic crisis, and both
statistical and anecdotal evidence indicate that much of the general
populace is benefiting, a incongruous wave of discontent seems to be
engulfing the public.

After all, poll after poll, both foreign and local, shows extremely
high levels of satisfaction with life in the Israel, well above that
in most industrial countries.

Out of a population of 7.7 million, millions of Israelis travel abroad
regularly, spending billions of dollars on overseas trips. A cursory
stroll through urban Israel reveals that restaurants are full, cafes
are crowded, pubs are jampacked; the recreation industry appears to be
booming, with beaches teeming in summer, ski slopes crammed in winter,
rural byways swarming with off-road cyclists on the weekends.

Against this backdrop of popular plenty – the eruption of middle-class
wrath seems oddly misplaced. After all, surely not all these diners,
latte drinkers, late-night revelers, surfers, skiers, bikers,
vacationers can be parasitic ultra-Orthodox, privileged settlers, or
plutocratic tycoons? To be sure, injustices and distortions abound –
and have done so for years. So why now, on the cusp of economic
success, this clamor for economic hara-kiri.

Admittedly, plausible claims can be made for restructuring the tax
system, making markets more competitive, streamlining bureaucracy,
raising salaries for specific professions – topics the government
appears to be responsibly addressing. But little of these are
reflected in the emerging demands of protesters. These are no more
than a motley mélange of politically correct mantras, betraying the
underlying political bias of the organizers: meaningless generalities
expressing goodwill to mankind, haredim, settlers and tycoons
excluded; and a few actionable proposals that would put evermore
citizens at the mercy of an evermore bloated bureaucracy, reinstitute
of a command- economy of the kind that sealed the fate of the Soviet
bloc; and resurrect an all-invasive/ pervasive welfare state that has
brought the specter of calamity ever closer for much of the industrial
world.

From appeasement to entitlement; from ‘New Middle East’ to “Social Justice?”

So how are we to account for the widespread manifestation of this
lemming-like psychosis? The reason is not hard to find. The same
mendacious, manipulative media, with its ideological compliant and
complicit cliques that comprise the “bon-ton” social elites are once
again leading the people astray. Whipping up emotions by exploiting
primal traits of avarice and envy, the flimsily disguised objective is
to destabilize the government coalition and delegitimize its electoral
base.

It is difficult of overstate the potential danger of initiative.
Having in the past convinced a gullible public that appeasement is a
workable security doctrine, they now seem bent on persuading it that
entitlement is a practical economic one. Unchastened at having made
Israel virtually indefensible militarily, they appear to have no
compunction in trying to make it unsustainable economically.

The very same fraudulent “guild” that deceived the country with the
false promise of a “New Middle East” Eldorado, are now egging it on to
pursue an equally deceptive dream of a “New Social Order” Nirvana. The
very same “pied-pipers of Oslo” who seduced a misinformed nation into
disaster with the lure of “Peace Now,” are now trying to coax it into
another debacle – this time with a new tune, “Social Justice.”

They must be exposed, confronted and discredited.

The stakes are high, the cost of failure incalculable.

For with all its defects, Israel is still in many ways an inspiring
fulfillment of Theodor Herzl’s famous dictum “If you will it, it is no
dream.”

But we dare not lose sight of the fact the converse can also be true:
If you will it not, it is indeed a dream.


1a)US Helps Pay PA Terrorists Who Murdered Americans
Every single PA terrorist in Israel's jails receives a monthly salary from the PA, courtesy of American taxpayers.
By Gil Ronen

Every single Palestinian Authority terrorist held in an Israeli jail receives a monthly salary from the PA. Terrorists who committed the most heinous crimes – and therefore received longer sentences – receive the most money, according to a report in Israeli paper Yisrael Hayom.

Citing a report received by a senior government official in Jerusalem, the paper says that the terrorists' salaries are paid from the PA's "public budget," which accounts for about 3.5 percent of its total budget.

The PA treasury receives cash from two main sources: the US pays about 50 percent of the money, and the rest is mostly from European Union member nations.

Prisoners who were jailed for periods of up to five years receive 1,400 to 2,000 NIS per month. However, terrorists serving 10 to 15 years receive 6,000 shekels, the ones serving 15 to 20 years receive 10,000 shekels, and those serving 20 to 30 years get 12,000 shekels. These are people who planned, directed and took part in the intentional sadistic slaughter of civilian men, women and children, at point blank range.

Since some of the victims of PA terror are American citizens, the information means that US taxpayers pay monthly salaries to the people who murdered their fellow citizens. The latest US citizen who was a victim of PA terror is Ben Yosef Livnat, who was gunned down in Shechem.

The terrorists' wives and children receive additional cash, and prisoners with Israel citizenship get a bonus.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)Will Abbas's desperate gambit trigger a third intifada?
By Jackson Diehl,

Over the past four months Mahmoud Abbas has dug himself into a very deep hole in the Palestinian West Bank. Next month, he will try to blast himself out with what he hopes will be a controlled explosion — mass demonstrations by Palestinians that, he supposes, will neither turn against his regime nor get out of hand.

Abbas’s desperate gambit may turn out to be a dud. It might be called off at the last minute. But it also may be the trigger for another violent upheaval in the Arab Middle East — and one that changes the course of the poorly named “Arab Spring.”

First, let’s describe the hole. Back in April, frustrated with the Obama administration’s failure to deliver the concessions it had sought from Israel, the 76-year-old Abbas decided to pursue an entirely different strategy. He would arrange a reconciliation with the Gaza-based Hamas movement, then seek recognition of a Palestinian state at the United Nations.

In the following weeks it slowly became clear that Abbas and his aides had failed to think through their idea. U.N. statehood recognition can be blocked by the United States. A vote by the General Assembly for recognition as a “nonmember state” would pass but might draw damaging negative votes from Washington and much of Europe. Either the U.N. initiative or the formation of a joint government with Hamas would probably prompt Congress to cut off U.S. aid, which amounted to $500 million this year. That will trigger an instant economic crisis in a West Bank that has been enjoying a rare burst of prosperity.

Worst of all, the grand statehood initiative is likely to produce nothing tangible for average Palestinians, other than the loss of their jobs. There will be no Israeli withdrawal, no stop even to the expansion of West Bank Jewish settlements. No wonder that resistance to the Abbas plan has been steadily growing: Not just the Obama administration but the Jordanian government, Hamas and Abbas’s own prime minister have made it clear that they regard his initiative as foolhardy.

Hence, Abbas’s appeal, first delivered in Ramallah late last month, for “mass action, organized and coordinated in every place,” to accompany the U.N. vote. The idea is to stage huge, Arab Spring-style rallies in Ramallah and other West Bank towns beginning in early September, building to a climax when Abbas addresses the General Assembly on Sept. 21.

In theory, this will move countries to vote for Palestinian statehood, make Israel look isolated, attract the attention of Arab satellite channels and create at least the illusion of a triumph when Third World votes push the meaningless General Assembly resolution over the top.

The alternative is the exposure of Abbas’s fecklessness. “Abbas’s problem is that he will be humiliated if the U.N. votes and then nothing happens on the ground,” says a senior Israeli official who is deeply involved in planning for September. “So he is planning to jump on the back of a tiger. The problem is that if he loses control of the tiger, he is doomed.”

The Palestinians say they have a plan for that. The rallies will be carefully policed; they will be restricted to West Bank towns, far away from Israeli soldiers and settlers. Officials around Abbas say they recognize that if the demonstrations turn into a “third intifada,” they will be the losers: They will be swept from power by a more militant group of leaders.

Israelis, too, know they have much at stake. “Ten bodies could change the Middle East,” said the senior Israeli official I spoke to, who also said that Israeli army and police officials are engaged in intensive preparations aimed at avoiding violent clashes.

It’s not hard to imagine what could go wrong in a “third intifada.” The embattled dictatorships of Bashar al-Assad in Syria and Moammar Gaddafi in Libya could get a saving break as Arab attention focused on a new Israeli-Palestinian fight. Syria and Iran could promote new marches on Israel’s borders from the Golan Heights and Lebanon. Extremists in Egypt could use anger against Israel to whip up support in crucial elections scheduled for November. And so on.

The Obama administration, European governments and Israel’s right-wing government have been trying to come up with a diplomatic initiative that would give Abbas a reason to call off his plan: For example, a U.N. Security Council resolution that would lay out terms for Palestinian statehood and urge that negotiations resume. But the effort has been underpowered and for now seems unlikely to succeed — though some September brinkmanship can be expected.

If something stops Abbas, it will probably be Palestinians themselves. A recent poll showed that two-thirds of them oppose a third intifada, and only 14 percent said they would participate in one. If the world is lucky, the plan for a September explosion will turn out to be just another Palestinian dud.

diehlj@washpost.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)Burying Obama
By J.R. Dunn

Let me hasten to make it clear before the Secret Service kicks the door in: we're not speaking of the three-dimensional, physical Obama, but the image of Obama created by the DNC, the media, and assorted political mercenaries to sell him and his agenda to an unsuspecting nation. We need to rid ourselves of Obama as an influence, as an example, as a lens through which to view the world, as a figure to look up to, admire, or emulate in any sense.

Simply put, there must be no "Obama legacy." Obama the man is avidly digging himself deeper into his own personal hole and will soon vanish into the depths of the earth. It is Obama the legend that must be buried.

Every liberal president fails. The more "successful" he is, in the sense of actually putting his policies in place, the more clearly he reveals the emptiness of that bastard combination of socialism, Marxism, fascism, and Progressivism that goes under the name "liberalism." Franklin Roosevelt triggered a second dip in the Great Depression in 1937, delivering America to the same wretchedness in which he found it upon taking office. Lyndon Johnson threw the country into abject chaos for fifteen years with his "Great Society," essentially "New Deal, the Sequel." Jimmy Carter... well, where do we start?

Yet every liberal president leaves a "legacy," a vast and complicated myth that erases his failures, magnifies his successes (if any), and acts as a glowing mythological reframing of the triumph and promise of liberalism. These myths are as stereotyped as the plot of a Noh play, with the heroic figure of the president acting on behalf of the stock poor working family against a cast of enemies that includes reactionaries, businessmen, and uncaring bourgeoisie. In each case the president is about obtaining a complete triumph, to create the new liberal Jerusalem on this American earth, when he is cut short by the bleak machinations of the enemies of the people.

Of course, a little reworking is required in order to make the narrative fit the circumstances. FDR was lucky enough to have WWII, which made it appear that his policies had in fact worked. For a half century and more the myth that Roosevelt's policies ended the Depression and saved the country were taken as a given on all levels, and still prevails among the offhandedly educated. Only in recent years has the story of the false recovery generated by deficit spending followed by the collapse of 1937 and the ensuing double-dip been excavated. (Does this sound familiar?) The war saved FDR, and also saved the myth of American liberalism.

Lyndon B. Johnson was more problematic. Through an accident of history, Johnson was handed more power than any president up to his day. Taking office with the assassination of John F. Kennedy, Johnson inherited a nation eager to honor the dead president by fulfilling his agenda. Congress simply rubber-stamped any bills put before it that could be argued as "what Jack would want." Johnson did exactly what might be expected with that level of power -- he abused it. He immediately instituted a program of deficit spending in support of something he called the "Great Society," which was no more than an extension of the New Deal. Along with an ill-executed civil rights program and a badly planned and fought medium-sized war, LBJ drove the nation onto the rocks in less than two years. There it remained for a decade and half. Jimmy Carter, often disdained as the worst of presidents, is in truth merely a footnote to the Johnson saga.

The Johnson legacy was split, with the construction of a myth of a "good" LBJ who acted as a progressive saint as opposed to the "evil" LBJ who suppressed riots in American cities and fought a war of extermination in Vietnam. Nobody hated Johnson more than American liberals, but liberalism and the progressive ideal had to go on, so Johnson's reputation was at least in part rehabilitated. The Great Society in truth discredited the New Deal for all time -- but that's not how the narrative was written. The myth of the New Deal survived, awaiting a new prophet.

The equivalent Obama myth is already taking shape. The Tea Parties, half demented backwoodsmen, half Children of the Damned, emerging from the primeval forest beyond the Hudson to force S&P to issue the "Tea Party downgrade" --- that's right; it was the Tea Parties that sacked away all those trillions in deficits. You wouldn't know that if you didn't watch MSNBC. Then there are the Koch brothers, plotting in their private atomic-powered zeppelin high above the Great Plains, committing such unimaginable atrocities as (don't let the children see this) supporting politicians and funding political organizations. Imagine such things happening in America. And Fox News, embedding right-wing code-phrases in the Twitter threads of innocent, simple-minded American proles, going so far as to actually report what the Dems say and do. All of them working to undermine Obama, sabotage his programs, and wreck his vision of a new collectivized America, marching as one into the radiant future.

It's unlikely such a construct will be so easily believed this time around. People are not as naive as they were in the 30s, or as obedient as they were in the early 60s. We live in a different world, in which people have seen certain things and drawn certain conclusions. One of them is that the reign of Obama comprises liberalism's third failure. Three times liberals have tried to impose their system, three times it has collapsed. Games like this do not go on forever. Somewhere deep in the subconscious, there is an ancient subroutine that cuts off at three -- there is a reason why three strikes make an out.

There are plenty of signs that people are wising up. The phenomenon of the Tea Parties alone speaks volumes. The idea of a large fraction of the working middle class defying FDR or LBJ would have been simply unimaginable. Today it's business as usual. We are also living in a far more democratic society -- in the classic political sense -- than previous generations did.

But we can't expect liberalism to simply to pack it in. This kind of dream narrative is all they have left. They will never allow the liberal agenda to be damaged by public acknowledgement of failure. So the legendary Obama must be destroyed, his halo shattered, his white robes besmirched, his book of prophecies rent and scattered to the winds. Destroying the reputation of any individual is a terrible thing, and must be considered under presumption of error. But Obama has been and continues to be a disaster for this country, one that will affect us for the next twenty years or more. He has threatened our well-being and has destroyed lives, all under the cloak of a false mythology.

How do we defeat the Obama myth? By assuring that reality takes the place that it is designed to fill. By continually and repeatedly putting forward the facts about the man behind the myth. The man who led a conga line as the country shuddered in fear of economic catastrophe. The man who, with nothing else to offer, threatens to degrade the religious beliefs of an honorable opponent. The man who had an "uplifting" photograph of himself at a ceremony marking the return of dead heroes taken and published, in defiance of the wishes of surviving relatives who asked that no photos be taken.

And that's only one week. There will be plenty more to come. I think I can promise you that.

Obama will inevitably have the larger contingent working in his favor. Not only the hired flacks and the legacy media, but the kindergarten civics class types who will hear no criticism of "Our President," the weird political hermaphrodites such as Brooks, Parker, and Sullivan, who will follow the straight pants crease wherever it leads, and not the least, the paid trolls who slip into our sites and programs to throw as much spin as they can without exposing themselves. Just over the past week we've seen endless comments from people who are "no fan of Obama" (in that precise wording) but wish to see no further criticism or attacks for specious reasons or none. Somebody at NRO (don't have the link - sorry) identified that "no fan" opening as the newest tag line for undercover lefties. Be advised.

There's something different about this new millennial epoch, something that cannot be explained simply by the passage of a few years. The forces that held this country in a viselike grip for decades are losing their hold, while small, dispersed organizations grow in effectiveness and capability. We are seeing subtle changes in our politics that we do not yet fully understand. Consider Wisconsin, where the vast and powerful liberal superstructure consisting of the unions through the media through the judiciary all the way up to the shadowy and malefic Soros organizations was utterly humiliated, in a way for which it's difficult to find an equivalent in earlier epochs.

We need to ride that change. I have a feeling -- almost but not quite a conviction -- that it will take us out of the spot we find ourselves in today to somewhere closer to where we'd rather be.


J.R. Dunn is consulting editor of American Thinker and the author of Death by Liberalism




3a)Why the Left Elites Are Criticizing Obama
By Rosslyn Smith

I usually find that Eleanor Clift's columns are either predictably boring or infuriatingly ignorant. Her latest Why No Democrat Will Challenge Obama was actually fairly interesting, although perhaps not in a way the writer intended. First came the admission that although Obama is in deep political trouble he isn't likely to be challenged.

Anyone contemplating a run against Obama must consider the consequences of not only defeating the president, but the likely repercussions to his or her own career. "If he were white, he would have a progressive challenger," says Bill Schneider of the Democratic group Third Way. Because Obama is this historic figure, challenging him would hamper the prospects of anyone who wants a future in elective Democratic politics. "Blacks would be deeply offended by a challenge, and that's no way to score points in the Democratic Party," says Schneider. African-Americans are the Democrats' most loyal constituency, and while they too are disappointed in what Obama has been able to accomplish, they are not going to abandon him.


This isn't surprising, but one seldom catches a Democrat admitting the prime factor race plays when Democrats calculate their interests. The narrative of the invincible Obama juggernaut ignored the main reason he became the nominee in 2008 was concerns the super delegates had over offending black voters. He and Hillary were locked in a dead heat after the caucuses and primaries. The candidate who won the super delegates -- elected Democrats in each state -- would win the nomination. In many states the 90% share of the black vote is all that keeps the Democratic Party viable in statewide races. Indeed Minnesota is not a state known for its large black population but several recent statewide races were won by margins far smaller than the black vote in Minneapolis. Only a handful of super delegates from areas where the black vote wasn't material opted for Hillary, even though many of them had to know Obama's now manifest shortcomings from personal experience.

As I got deeper in the column it was obvious the headline was a misstatement, Clift's gist is that it is unlikely that Obama will have a major primary opponent.

"There's a deep frustration without a solution," says [political scientist Sam] Popkin. "What candidate is able to say he will do more, or fix it? All they can say is, I would have been meaner or louder or I would do better saying no to Republicans."

I can think of a couple of former Democrat governors who would certainly say they would have tried to do far less when it came to spending and regulation, but that message is not wanted from Democrats at the national level anymore.

As Clift goes on to report, those now urging potential candidates to step forward are all from the far left wing of the Democratic Party and here is where it get's interesting. Their stated goal is not to defeat Obama. It seems to be a desire to revive the euphoria of 2008.

Nobody's going to beat this guy in the Democratic primaries," says Nader. "That's not the goal. The goal is to turn him around and make him face up to his promises of 2008." Ideally, several people would step forward and force Obama to debate on Democratic turf -- the minimum wage, labor rights, shifting the tax burden to Wall Street. "Otherwise he's just responding to the crazy Republicans," says Nader.

Environmentalist Bill McKibben is among those being contacted, though he responded in an e-mail he didn't know anything about it, and may have missed it because he's "deep in the weeds" organizing two weeks of civil disobedience beginning this month outside the White House to resist a proposed oil pipeline from the tar sands of Alberta, Canada, to Texas. "We're billing it not so much as a protest," McKibben wrote, "as to show that there is enormous support for him returning to the Obama of that election [2008]-the one who, among other things, said that with his ascension 'the rise of the oceans would begin to slow and the planet begin to heal.' And this is the perfect issue to find out if that guy's still there, because he gets to make the call on the pipeline all by himself, with no interference from Congress."

A telltale sign: McKibben and other demonstrators will be wearing Obama buttons that say 2008, not 2012, as they try to reclaim the ideals of his candidacy. They hope to remind Obama who he is, or who he said he was, without the club, or the threat, of a formal challenge.

Which promises are we talking about? Notice that neither McKibben or Nader mention Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantanamo or the "kinetic military action" in Libya. War it seems is only objected to by America's peace movement when it is being waged by Republican presidents. As for who Obama said he was in 2008, where should one begin? In the ads that one could not escape even on the Food Channel and Nickelodeon in October 2008, the Obama campaign presented him as a moderate who was for fiscal responsibility and more jobs. His promise of an open, bipartisan and post racial government was what appealed to moderate suburban voters. While he glossed over his lack of experience, his demeanor promised a first rate temperament. Obama can't run as a blank slate twice. In 2011 it is becoming obvious to these swing voters the only thing transparent about this administration are its daily lies and endless evasions of responsibility. Nor can Obama hide his left wing politics, the radical agenda of his appointments or his petulant and puerile demeanor. What voters have seen for themselves can't be dismissed as baseless charges from right wing opponents,

A critical mass of voters now understand how they were manipulated. Obama's 2008 campaign had a split personality. The public image was of a candidate who ran as moderate and who made pretty sounding but content-free speeches designed to make him palatable to mainstream voters. It was this part of the campaign that became the focus of media cheerleading, Them there was the behind the scenes campaign. It consisted of a cadre of hard left political operatives who played hardball at the caucuses and who accused opponents of both parties of racism if they raised the candidate's lack of accomplishments, experience, or his decades-long series of connections to far left individuals and organizations. These people understood that Obama might throw them under the bus to win the election, but that was OK because once in office Obama would implement their decades old agenda of statism and cosmic justice.

Three years later this agenda is losing popularity with voters. Their much vaunted promise of "green jobs" has proven to be a waste of taxpayer greenbacks. Their pet cause of "healing the planet" is now at odds with an America that is starting to think an Employment Protection Agency would be a better use of tax dollars than an Environmental Protection Agency as the long term costs of over regulation are being felt both in the job market and the family budget. Each week seems to further demolish the idea that anthropogenic global warming had a basis in science. And of course those wars Senator and candidate Obama opposed are still in process.

As I read the quotes Clift had gathered I was fascinated. Are these people really that out of touch? Or is something else happening? Anyone with political instincts can see that Obama's current political interest dictate distancing himself from someone like McKibben and poking a bit of fun at the rhetorical excesses in 2008. He isn't likely to do either, so maybe what McKibben and his allies really want is to create a conflict where one doesn't exist. If Obama won't move to the center an increasingly vocal left yapping art his heels will allow him to appear moderate and in control to low interest voters.

Then I thought about how perhaps the largest of the now vanishing dreams was how Obama's army of young people was to became the vanguard of decades of progressive rule. A recent Pew poll showed a 10 percentage point increase in the number of white voters under age 30 who identified themselves as Republican since 2008. The latest Rasmussen poll reports that among identified Democrats the older they are the more they enthusiastic they tend to be about Obama.

From a generational perspective, the president earns from 75% to 84% approval from all measured age groups. However, there is a notable lack of enthusiasm among younger party members. Just 19% of Democrats under 30 Strongly Approve of the way Obama is handling his job. By way of comparison, that figure is at 45% among 40-somethings and higher among other age groups.

No job and a huge student loan tab to repay tends to sour one's enthusiasm as bit. Rasmussen goes on to note that:

these younger Democrats are more committed than their elders to voting for a Democrat on the Generic Congressional Ballot. The under-30 crowd prefers a Generic Democrat for Congress over a Generic Republican by a margin of 84% to four percent (4%). In terms of congressional voting, just 56% of conservative Democrats are committed to sticking with the party line, while 20% are ready to vote for a Republican.

Thus it appears that young voters who still identify themselves as Democrat have more problems with Obama as a leader than they have with the Democrat agenda itself. Much of the recent criticism of Obama from the left comes from people with backgrounds in academia. They would have a sense of the younger generation's growing disillusionment.

Thus I suspect a major goal of most of this criticism and talk of primary opposition is precisely to keep younger voters from identifying the problem as a failure of progressive policies. It is better for the Democrats in the long run if all fault is found to be the weakness of Obama's character rather than the unrealistic policies he pursued. Let Obama fall -- or be pushed -- from grace if that means preserving the prestige of all the king's men -- and not a few horse's asses-in academic, foundation and media circles. who safeguard the progressive agenda. After all, the sentiment that you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs has been attributed to self described champions of the down trodden from Robespierre to Lenin and Stalin.

The left always eats their own when they fail.



3b)Obama is a Calculating, Not Stupid Individual
By Eileen F. Toplansky

More and more people are writing about Obama's alleged stupidity. J.R. Dunn of American Thinker penned the piece "How Stupid is Obama?" and Brett Stephens' Wall Street Journal article asserts that "the president isn't very bright."

I respectfully disagree with these two writers. They are missing the point. Barack Hussein Obama is not stupid. He knows exactly what he is doing. He is bent on the erosion of American values and, so far, he is winning. We must step out of our proud-of- America-worldview and examine Obama's actions from a different focal point. Otherwise, we rationalize his decisions as acts of inexperience and foolishness.

For example, "one trip to New York for a single night's outing with Michelle" was Obama acting as the imperial majesty. So while he rants and raves about corporate executives using private jets, Obama has no problem spending taxpayer money. He and the Queen are on an outing as far as he is concerned.

His indifference to the plight of unemployed Americans is further demonstrated when his "stimulus" visit in June of 2010 to Columbus, Ohio resulted in workers being told not to come to work and informed they would not be paid for the forced day off.

His disdain is further established as he carelessly throws a flower on the grave of a fallen soldier, reflecting yet another sign of the haughty disrespect he has for this country and the soldiers who fight to keep us safe.

Thus, I will break ranks with these writers and state that Obama is not stupid at all. In fact, he is ushering in his own point of view about America. As Jean-Francois Revel has written in Anti-Americanism, for those "prone to adhere to Communism," anti-Americanism [is] rational, since America [is] identified with capitalism and capitalism with evil."

Whether the source of Obama's attitudes is his rage against colonialism and imperialism as described by Dinesh D'Souza's in The Roots of Obama's Rage or is based on the communist teachings of his mother, or the ideas of terrorist Bill Ayers or the Black Liberation theology of Reverend Wright or the Islamic education he received in Indonesia at an early age, all merge into Obama knowing exactly how he wants to transform this nation into a weakened, socialist country. And so far, he is victorious.

In essence, this man is fulfilling all of these people's and his own wishes in every way, shape, and form. This is not stupidity; it is crafty manipulation.

Stupidity is "marked by or resulting from unreasoned thinking or acting" but according to Obama's worldview there is nothing unsound about his actions. Obama believes that America is unexceptional; that the country is inherently evil; thus, her decline is part of his reasoned perspective.

Republican Representative Dan Burton, writes in the Washington Times that, Obama "has taken control of the student loan industry, the banking and financial sectors, and he [has] orchestrated the bankruptcy and reorganization of two-thirds of the American automotive industry." Consequently, "every solution proposed by the Obama administration to every problem is more government control."

ObamaCare remains the law of the land and GE is still beholden to the government. Restrictive environmental regulations are issued daily that dictate what Americans should eat, how citizens should light their homes, where companies can set up their shops, and how much mileage drivers need to achieve on large vehicles -- the list never seems to end. Thus, [t]he "Environmental Protection Agency is aggressively reinterpreting environmental regulations to accomplish ...government control of energy." Obama knows precisely what he is doing. That is not stupid; it is calculated, and terrifyingly astute on his part.

His actions reflect his arrogant desire to refigure this country into a socialist landscape. He has accelerated the debt crisis with no end in sight. He refuses to comply with simple requests for a budget plan because his plan is already taking shape. It is a blueprint that is unconditional in his desire to bring America to its knees financially. In essence, his hope and change are to destroy the American way of life.

Is he a poor public speaker? On the surface, he is quite awkward. His articulation and his reliance on a Teleprompter screen all reflect a discomfort with public speaking. But let us consider another possibility. A man who misleads must choose his words carefully lest his real agenda be exposed. Obama's public persona has to disguise his true feelings. Thus, his private persona is in constant conflict with the words he utters. That is why he hesitates. He is watching every word lest he slip and expose yet another dictatorial predilection.

That is not stupidity; instead it indicates his conflicted emotions running headlong into themselves. He hopes to continue to fool the people.

He lies and prevaricates and it is only when he is angry that you see the real Obama emerge. Then when he realizes that he may have gone too far, he removes himself from the fray. He blames others hoping that no one will actually catch on.

It would be a colossal mistake to simply describe Obama as stupid or merely attribute his actions to inexperience; he is crafty and is intent upon crushing and punishing this nation even if it costs him a second term.

The American people are feeling the noose tighten around them, yet, many still refuse to have their illusions shattered. Repeatedly, the pundits warn about the ever-worsening economic disaster, the weakening of military defenses, the deflation of American leadership standing in the world, and the not-so-subtle dislike for American values by this president. Though the writing on the wall becomes darker by the day, there are still those who are in denial.

And, yet, if the American people continue to engage in a suspension of reason, can we blame Obama for doing exactly what he promised he would do? It is we who would be "stupid" if we keep rationalizing that "the president's policies [are] innocent missteps of a man who is 'in over his head.' The president is not in over his head; he knows precisely what he is doing: rushing America down the path toward socialism."

But we can still build an arsenal of productive power and once again become masters of our destiny as long as we do not underestimate this wily 44th President of the United States.

Eileen can be reached at middlemarch18@gmail.com.



3c)There are those who assert Obama is the most intelligent president in modern history. If one cedes the point then the destructive changes this 'brilliant' president has already wrought and intends can only deemed purposeful.

If one were out to wreck America's economy by piling on crushing debt in pursuit of goals antitethical to our Constitution then Obama's policies are purposeful.

If one were to pit American against American in the hope that class warfare would divide our nation at a critical juncture in its history in order to gain political leverage then Obama's policies are purposeful.

If an American president was to pacify those whose long term objective is our nation's destruction then Obama's appeasement of Iran, Syria and acceptance of The Muslim Brotherhood must be questioned as being in our nation's best interest.

As the first American president to distance himself from our nation's exceptional history and rooted Western orientation then the radical change Obama seeks can only be deemed purposeful.

America's withdrawal from space, Obama's continued obeisance to education unions which have left our children ignorant of our nation's history and unable to compete in science etc., can only viewed through the prism of one willing to perpetuate America's inability to compete long term simply for buying votes.

If the first American president to propose Israel should defend shrunken boarders at the risk of its survival is based on intelligent reasoning then I urge deluded Jewish voters to question Obama's motives.

LTE space limitations cause me to stop but the list of purposefuls is endless.

My own purposeful message is simple and brief - re-elect Obama at our peril.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)Egypt's 5,000 troops take on 2,000 al Qaeda in Sinai. Three officers kidnapped


Egyptian forces descended on the Sinai Peninsula Sunday, Aug. 14, for their first post-Mubarak operation to retake control of the territory from lawless and terrorist elements rampant there since the Egyptian revolution and responsible for sabotaging the Egyptian gas pipeline to Israel, Jordan and Syria.

Monday, three Egyptian army brigades of 1,700 men backed by tanks, an equal number of special policemen and 3,400 security personnel drove into the northern towns of El Arish, Sheikh Zuweid and Rafah, which is divided between Egypt and the Gaza Strip. In their first clashes with Islamic Liberation Army gunmen, they killed one and detained 11, four of them Palestinians, he Egyptian military communiqué reported.

Three Egyptian officers were kidnapped in the clash – whether they were killed or held as hostages is unknown.

For two years, counter-terror sources have been reporting on the burgeoning concentration of al Qaeda cells and affiliates in Sinai and the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip. The 2,200 Egyptian troops maintained there after Feb. 14 to maintain order and guard the Egyptian natural gas pipeline to Israel, Jordan and Syria were easily overpowered The facility was sabotaged five times and supplies remain cut off.

Restoring a semblance of law and order to northern Sinai will be the easy part of the Egyptian military mission – for which Cairo obtained prior Israeli permission as mandated under their peace accord

The hard part is ahead when in the coming weeks the units head south to flush out the Islamist invaders holed up in the central Sinai mountains to which they withdrew last week after being tipped off that large-scale Egyptian forces were coming.

On the narrow mountain trails, the soldiers will have their work cut out to contend with 2,000 well-organized and heavily armed Islamist gunmen.

The forbidding central Sinai range of precipitous peaks, from 1,000 to 2,642 meters tall, covers 21,000 square kilometers. The terrain has deep wadis, dense shrubbery, abundant natural water and plenty of animals for food.

Judged in terms of the war in Afghanistan, a Taliban force this size in control of a region twice the area of the Taliban stronghold of North Waziristan would pose a prohibitive challenge even to a full-scale NATO army.

Egyptian forces have fought for control of these mountains several times but failed, ending up with accommodations of sorts with the 350,000 Bedouin tribes sheltering the Islamists and sharing in their smuggling trade. The tribes always came out of these deals in control of the region.

Military sources therefore expect this first wave of Egyptian armored forces into Sinai to be followed by more - if Cairo's rulers seriously intend to recapture the strategic peninsula and expunge the al Qaeda presence.

There is no way this can be accomplished, according to our military experts, without air might. The terrorists' hideouts will have to be bombed from the air and combat helicopters provide cover for armored units moving along the isolated Sinai trails; drones will be needed to gather intelligence on enemy movements.

Cairo will have to apply to Jerusalem for permission to deploy air might in Sinai for the first time since the territory was demilitarized under their peace accord.
debkafile's military sources report that the Islamic Liberation Army - which has declared its objective as the seizure of all of Sinai and its transformation into a Muslim Caliphate - is a conglomerate of five terrorist groups:

1. Indigenous Bedouin tribes who have a score to settle with the Egyptian army;

2. Palestinians from the Gaza Strip drawn into extremist Salafi sects which are integral parts of al Qaeda.

3. Hundreds of adherents of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad and the murderous Jamaa al-Islamiya who escaped Egyptian prisons on January 29 at the peak of the popular revolution which overthrew Hosni Mubarak. The former jailbirds made a beeline for Sinai and today constitute the hard operational core of the movement.

4. Al Qaeda adherents, who made their way to Sinai after violent careers in Afghanistan and Pakistan in the late 1990s and early 2000s.

5. Followers of various Egyptian Sufi and dervish orders.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5)Bushehr nuclear plant inauguration postponed to December

"personnel should not focus on such marginal issues as the accurate date of
commissioning at the cost of ignoring importance to taking main safety
measures"

1st phase of Bushehr NPP to be operational by end of Ramadan

Head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization (IAEO), Fereydoun Abbasi, said here on Sunday that the first phase of Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) will be commissioned by the end of the fasting month of Ramadan (August 2-31).

Abbasi noted that since the plant will be commissioned in various stages
after necessary tests, the personnel should not focus on such marginal
issues as the accurate date of commissioning at the cost of ignoring
importance to taking main safety measures.

The official stressed the need to observe high standard safety measures,
mainly because of the incidents that happened in Fukushima Power Plant
already.

If the tests are completed, the power plant will surely become operational
by the end of Ramadan, Abbasi said.

Abbasi projected that the plant will be inaugurated later November or
December.

He further noted that the commissioning was time-consuming in view of
observing even the slightest international standards on the project.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has always been monitoring
various stages of the project, he said, noting that the plant will have no
pollution and the reactors have been designed so carefully that the people
can approach them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6) ObamaBus is an effort for prez to test rhetoric on everyday Americans
By Lesley Clark

President Barack Obama leaves the White House today for a three-day bus trip, talking job creation at small towns across the Midwest in hopes of distancing himself from the "partisan brinksmanship" he says has poisoned the economy.

The trip isn't likely to be without bumps.

Obama appears to be trying out a campaign theme by blaming Congress — without a direction mention of Republicans — for the bitterness that led to an eleventh-hour debt limit agreement, and White House spokesman Josh Earnest said the president was expecting to hear more anger on the road.

Polls find that the partisan feud over raising the debt ceiling, the stock market gyrations and a stubborn unemployment rate have left Americans more pessimistic about the economy and their future than at any time this year. Republicans already have accused Obama of mixing policy with politics by barnstorming in the battleground region — at taxpayer expense.

But White House advisers said it was a chance for the president — who spent most of last month trapped in Washington with lawmakers blaming each other for the debt impasse — to hit the reset button and connect with ordinary Americans in a bus that could roll into small towns, rather than Air Force One.

"Democrats, independents and Republicans expect to see their president of the United States outside of Washington, D.C., out from behind the podium, spending time talking to the American people in their communities," Earnest said.

"The president does anticipate that he'll detect a little frustration about the dysfunction in Congress, and the strident position of some in Congress to put their partisan affiliation ahead of the country," he said.

Obama will be traveling to Minnesota, Iowa and Illinois, three states he won in 2008 but that saw Republican gains last year. He needs the states in his column next year, and White House officials acknowledged that the president is likely to get an earful over his role in the debt ceiling deal, with some progressives accusing him of caving to Republicans.

"I anticipate that there will be some people who are supporters of the president, who voted for him last time, who will have some questions for him about the compromises that he was willing to make," Earnest said. "But that is something that the president believes is an important part of leadership … moving off our maximalist positions and demonstrating a willingness to compromise."

A poll conducted for McClatchy Newspapers suggests that voters don't blame Obama for the economy, but his favorability rating has plummeted to the lowest levels of his term in other polls. The trip outside the capital gives him an opportunity to reject some of the toxicity that Washington now represents, said Lee Miringoff, the director of the Marist College Institute for Public Opinion in New York, which conducted the survey for McClatchy.

"He wants to demonstrate in a very clear way that he is outside of Washington and is trying to turn the page on the unpleasantness of what has gone on," Miringoff said. "To go community by community is his way of trying to reconnect with voters who may feel he's become part of the loss of confidence people have in government."

Touring a high-tech battery manufacturer in Michigan on Thursday, Obama suggested that Congress should follow his lead: "Go back home, listen to people's frustrations with all the gridlock. … And if they're listening hard enough, maybe they'll come back to Washington ready to compromise."

But the trip may only further antagonize Republicans, who accuse Obama of failing to deliver new ideas for jobs. House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, on Thursday called the president's promise of rolling out new proposals for job creation "political grandstanding" and called on him to "outline his own recommendations to rein in the massive deficits and debt that are undermining job creation in our country."

But White House officials say they don't expect Obama, who met Friday at the White House with business leaders, to roll out any new plans or deliver a major economic policy speech on the trip.

"He views it as his responsibility to be on the hunt for new ideas all the time, " Earnest said. "It's certainly something that he'll talk about with small-business owners and other folks that he meets along the trail of the bus tour."

The unemployment levels in the three states are at or below the national average and Obama is in relatively good standing, said David Schultz, a business professor at Hamline University in St. Paul, Minn. He suggests that Obama is looking to launch a pre-emptive strike — solidify his support in the states — as well as get some favorable media treatment.

"Minnesota, for one, doesn't look like a state that he's in danger," Schultz said. "But if he's here now, he doesn't need to come back next year and can focus on worry states, like Ohio,"

And Schultz suggests that a president who's been battered around in Washington is looking for some positive news coverage.

"I think he's also looking for some camera time, some enthusiastic, ordinary people in the heartland standing behind him," he said.

The bus trip falls just days after Republican presidential hopefuls square off at a straw poll in Iowa, the first step on the 2012 presidential campaign, but White House officials said the Iowa visit had nothing to do with the presidential campaign.

Still, on a conference call with reporters, White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer acknowledged that the president and his administration feel a "special connection" to Iowa.

In January 2008, then-candidate Obama decisively won Iowa's presidential caucus and went on to clinch the Democratic nomination and the White House.



6a)Obama Tries to Reclaim Momentum With Midwest Bus Tour
By MARK LANDLER


CANNON FALLS, Minn. — For most of this summer, President Obama has been under siege in the White House. On Monday, he became a road warrior, kicking off a three-day bus tour of the Midwest that provided him campaign-style opportunities to go after Republicans in a region vital to his re-election.


Traveling in a black bus with tinted windows and flashing red and blue lights that looked like something out of a “Mad Max” movie, the president urged an audience in Minnesota to tell their elected officials that they will no longer tolerate the partisan stalemate on display in the recent debt-ceiling dispute.

“You’ve got to send a message to Washington that it is time for the games to stop,” he said to a friendly crowd of 500 people under a canopy of elm and black walnut trees.

“It’s time to put country first,” he said, echoing a line used by his Republican opponent in 2008, Senator John McCain of Arizona.

In his appearance here Mr. Obama continued to strike themes intended to appeal to moderate and independent voters even as he drew sharp contrasts with Republicans.

Declaring that he wanted to enlist the audience in a battle “for the future of our country,” Mr. Obama called on them to demand political leaders who choose “the next generation over the next election.” He said that when Congress reconvened next month, he hoped it would move forward to address the nation’s economic ills.

The swing, which will include stops in rural Illinois as well as Iowa and Minnesota, is an effort by Mr. Obama to reclaim the initiative, after a dismal summer in which he was stymied by Congress on the debt talks, and then rebuked with a downgrade of America’s credit rating.

The trip is also putting Mr. Obama on stage in places where the Republican campaign for the presidency is heating up, at a time when his own approval ratings have sunk to the lowest levels of his presidency. Ames, Iowa, held a straw poll on Saturday that was won by Representative Michelle Bachmann of Minnesota, while Gov. Rick Perry of Texas was stumping in Iowa on Monday, two days after announcing his candidacy.

The president did not hesitate to thrust himself into the Republican contest, noting with an incredulous tone that not one of the candidates, when asked at a recent Republican debate, said they would support a deficit-reduction package that contained a 10-to-1 ratio of spending cuts to tax revenue increases.

“That’s just not common sense,” Mr. Obama said, noting that Ronald Reagan, the elder George Bush, and Bill Clinton all supported some revenue increases as part of a plan to whittle the budget deficit.

Mr. Obama also obliquely criticized Mitt Romney, noting that some Republicans had supported health-care plans that contained individual mandates — as Mr. Romney did as governor of Massachusetts, and as Mr. Obama’s health care plan does — only to disavow them later in what he described as a bout of “amnesia.”

The president’s itinerary is giving him a homespun backdrop for his hard-edged message, taking him past family farms and through fly-speck towns with names like Alpha, Ill. (population, 671). In Cannon Falls, a riverside town in southern Minnesota, Mr. Obama spoke at a town-hall-style meeting in a park.

Other stops include a visit to Seed Savers, a group in Decorah, Iowa, that preserves and trades heirloom seeds; a rural economic forum in Peosta, Iowa; and two more town-hall-style meetings in Alpha and Atkinson, Ill.

Mr. Obama got a warm reception from the crowd of mostly Democrats and independents, though there were some skeptics, particularly among those who had suffered the effects of the economic downtown.

“It seems to me he could get more directly involved,” said Dennis Maloney, 55, who was laid off in the last year from his job as a technician working on electromagnetic compatibility issues. “It seems that he sits back.”

In the debate over the debt ceiling, Mr. Maloney said, “You don’t see his face; you see Republican faces.”

Robyn Betsinger, a 47-year-old telecommunications executive who described herself as a political independent, said of the president: “He’s doing his best, but he inherited a big mess. Right now, everyone is dissatisfied with the economy.”

6b)Obama takes shots at GOP field
By Sam Youngman

President Obama kicked off his Midwestern bus tour on Monday blasting his would-be opponents in a campaign-style event in Minnesota.

While White House officials have repeatedly insisted that Obama's trip is official business — a claim disputed by Republicans — the president clearly had politics on his mind, taking a thinly veiled shot at Mitt Romney and bringing up last week's Republican debate in Iowa.

Making his first stop in Minnesota, Obama brought up Romney's one-time endorsement of a individual health insurance mandate, and he seized on Republican presidential candidates saying last week that they would not accept a deal that included $10 in spending cuts for every $1 in increased revenues.

"None of them," Obama said. "None of them would take it. Think about that. I mean, that's just not common sense."

The president, wearing no tie and with his shirt sleeves rolled up, did not face much criticism from a crowd that appeared to be supportive of his efforts.

Instead, the questions provided Obama with a platform from which to launch an attack on Republicans that he previewed at a stop last week in Michigan, blasting the GOP Congress.


The president said that he hopes "when [Congress] gets back in September, they're going to have a new attitude."

Criticizing gridlock and Republican intransigence, Obama told the crowd that he was there "to enlist you in a fight."

"We are fighting for the future of this country," Obama said. "And that's a fight we are going to win."

Obama even went as far as to use the exact words his one-time Republican rival Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) did during the 2008 campaign, telling the crowd "it's time to put country first."

But as much as the president criticized politics for impeding progress on the economy, Obama offered a defense of the U.S. government, saying that government includes teachers, police officers and soldiers.

"As frustrated as you are about politics, don't buy into this notion that somehow government is what's holding us back," Obama said.

The president said that if government is "oppressive," then "that's a problem."

But he defended his healthcare law, seizing on the pejorative term "ObamaCare."

"I have no problem with folks saying Obama cares," the president said. "I do care."

The White House was adamant in the lead-up to the trip that the president was not campaigning, but doing his job by going out into the country.

"To suggest that any time the president leaves Washington it’s a political trip would mean that presidents could never leave unless they were physically campaigning on their own behalf, and he’s not; he’s out here doing his job and meeting with the American people," White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters on Air Force One.

Before leveling his attack on the Republicans, Obama said, "I know it's not election season yet."

That is not the case in Iowa, where Obama was traveling later Monday.

In the Hawkeye State, the Obama name has been savaged in recent weeks, with the GOP presidential nominating contest hitting a fever pitch over the weekend with the Ames straw poll.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------