In the midst of some complaining about Obama, the conversation naturally turned to him becoming Gay for Pay, as phrase normally used for heterosexual young male hustlers who are willing to sleep with men if the price is right. Obama’s sudden support for gay marriage, and the fundraising-mania surrounding his confession, makes the phrase unfortunately apt for the Preezy of the United Steezy.
That said, we then wondered why Obama would really do it. We know he doesn’t give a damn about the issue, and oh sure, he’ll get a bit more cash from the left, but it really won’t even make a dent in what he wants to fund-raise or plans on spending. None of the swing-states at risk during the election were hanging by a thread on this issue (to say the least), and in fact this will likely hurt him in at least North Carolina and Virginia.
Then it dawned on me–Obama’s internal polls must show him losing to Romney, and handily. The latest Rasmussen certainly show the Golfer-in-Chief in trouble and behind the GOP nom. He must realize it’s over and is now simply looking to establish his “legacy,” while reinforcing leftist relationships he desperately wants to keep–like with Hollywood–after we kick his ass to the curb. For an obsessed, cynical and narcissistic president like Obama, he only makes moves that serve his agenda one way or another–and the only upside to this exists out of the White House. Liberal gays will vote for him anyway, and 1 in 6 of his top bundlers have already raised $500,000+ for him. I believe he’s frantic to not have his legacy be the truth–one of disaster brought by narcissism and incompetence, he hopes this sort of story, covers like Newsweek, will be the thing that allows him to walk away at least within his liberal/leftist base as not a complete pariah.
While we on the right have been fixated on whether Mitt Romney (unlike John McCain) fully understands the malignant nature of the Obama/Jake Lingle administration — the unholy Windy City offspring of a ’30s Capone ethos and an Alinskyite ’60s radicalism — and the horrifying prospect of four unfettered years of the Luciferian side (to adopt Alinsky’s own declaration of affinity), the bad guys have their own problems. Foremost of which is Obama’s stunning narcissism — the man honestly believes his own, Axelrod-dictated press clippings — coupled with his thin skin and his lack of true grit in the face of any kind of opposition or adversity.
As Ms. Bruce points out, the beating he’s been taking the past couple of weeks can’t have been good for his poll numbers. Inside the bien-pensant cocoon in which the Beltway media/Axelrod’s rolodex dwell, they actually think the string of disasters from the shaggy dog story (yum!), to the composite girlfriend, to the born-risible Life of Julia, to the out-of-the-closet “Forward” marching order, to the WaPo’s ludicrous “bullying” story, to the “historic” but somehow eminently predictable and entirely toothless endorsement of gay marriage was good for Obama. King Pyrrhus has nothing on Field Marshal Axelrod when it comes to unsustainable “victories.”
#more#Which raises this rude question: If faced with near-certain electoral defeat, is it possible that Obama could decide that the American people have failed him and that therefore he will step down and step up into a life of untold wealth and consummate ease rather than submit himself to their rejectionist will? As one of his fellow armchair socialists, Bert Brecht, famously said of the 1953 East German uprising against their Communist masters:
Nach dem Aufstand des 17. Juni
Ließ der Sekretär des Schriftstellerverbands
In der Stalinallee Flugblätter verteilen
Auf denen zu lesen war, daß das Volk
Das Vertrauen der Regierung verscherzt habe
Und es nur durch verdoppelte Arbeit
Zurückerobern könne. Wäre es da
Nicht doch einfacher, die Regierung
Löste das Volk auf und
Wählte ein anderes?
Or, to put the famous punchline in plain English, “Wouldn’t it be simpler for the regime to dissolve the people and elect another?”
Probably not, but still: What real difference to Obama would a Johnson-like recusal make? Now more than ever, becoming an ex-president is a ticket to financial security at the American public’s lifetime expense, the thanks of a grateful nation for four to eight years of “public service” should one choose to cash in. Obama’ll still be able to golf and vacation to his heart’s content, secure in his
lifetime ten years of Secret Service protection after he leaves office and, like President Clinton, pick up handsome speaking fees for, basically, waving the bloody shirt over and over again. His media and Hollywood pals will still love him, and a “principled” withdrawal will live on in the emotions of the Left for years. How do you say Dolchstoss in Austrian?
Tammy finishes her thought:
Obama’s now thinking legacy and a job, and who’s gonna pay for that Obama Library in Chicago. Hey, liberal Hollywood and establishment gays sure do have lots of money and shouldn’t they give it to the First Gay President as opposed to the First President Who Really Hated the Country?
Which is why Romney — or, more likely, his surrogates — needs to step up his game over the course of the next six months and frame this election as what it really is: not a business-as-usual tussle over “jobs” between the 40-yard lines, but an existential struggle between two different political systems, one of which masquerades as something it’s not. If you’ve enjoyed “I, Me, Mine” rule by unelected czars and executive orders, you’re going to love what’s coming next should Obama prevail.
For it’s not just Obama who needs to be defeated, but the Left itself. The Right should have learned its lesson from the second Reagan campaign: You can beat them in any given election, but they never stop, they never sleep, they never quit. Taking the long view, any given electoral defeat is merely a sleeping policeman, and even after a 1984-like thumping, they live to regroup another day. Because there’s always another generation of resentful suckers, itching to get something for nothing.
No, what has to be crushed in November is everything Obama and Axelrod (his real running mate) represent: statism, paternalism, centralized control of the economy, the loss of liberty and of personal autonomy in the name of the the collective. It’s not going to be easy. Alinsky’s Lucifer — the Lightbringer – is a seductive devil.
But, if not us, who? If not now, when?