Shocking Obama

Via Real Clear Politics, Obama on the stump today in Florida, talking about skyrocketing gas prices:

"Some politicians, they see this as a political opportunity. I know you're shocked by that. Last week the lead story in one newspaper said, 'Gasoline prices are on the rise and Republicans are licking their chops.' That's a quote. That's the lead. Licking their chops. Only in politics do people root for bad news. They greet bad news so enthusiastically," Obama said.

I wouldn't be shocked if there are some Republican political operatives whose lips are moist from their own tongue, any more than it would surprise me to hear that certain Democrats felt the same way in the fall of 2008.

What would be shocking is if actual Senators licked their chops -- not behind closed doors and not about gas prices -- but about the deaths of U.S. troops, openly to reporters.

Make that what was shocking. Because it happened in 2007:

As Democratic leaders in Congress brace for a showdown with President Bush on Iraq war funding, they issued a blunt threat to GOP colleagues: Challenge the White House strategy or be wiped out in 2008.

"We're going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war," Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) told reporters yesterday. "Senator Schumer has shown me numbers that are compelling and astounding."

Harry Reid gave his chops that particular dab of saliva in front of reporters on Friday, April 13, 2007. Not satisfied with just a prediction of political opportunity, he then began practically drooling in eager anticipation of turning the prediction into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Thursday, April 19, 2007:

"I believe ... that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything"

Tuesday, April 24, 2007:

CNN Interviewer: "General Petraeus is going to come to the Hill...and make it clear to you that there is progress going on in Iraq...will you believe him?"

Reid: "No. I won't believe him because it isn't happening."

The Democrats saw escalating violence in Iraq as a political opportunity. They licked their chops. They not only rooted for bad news, they worked to bring it about.

In Barack Obama's America

Via Ace of Spades, we get this inspirational moment from President Obama:

What Obama describes as the American Dream can seem a spare, fundamental aspiration, tailored for a campaign that looks to be fought over who is best equipped to safeguard the interests of middle-class Americans. ...

"That's all most people want," he said. "Folks don't have unrealistic ambitions. They do believe that if they work hard they should be able to achieve that small measure of an American Dream."

It would be easy to draw the contrast between Obama's 2008 lofty rhetoric, as Ace does, by alluding to Obama's "...this was the moment when...the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal."

You know what else we could do?

[TheVIMH: Quote Michelle Obama from 2008 for the third post in a week?]
Ok, if you insist.

Michelle Obama's words back during the last campaign sound eerily similar to President Obama's now:

Most Americans, she said, don't want much.

"They don't want the whole pie," she told the women. ...

"There are some who do, but most Americans feel blessed just being able to thrive a little bit."

Birds of a feather, those two. But here's the kicker. Michelle knew back in 2008 what would have to happen if America were to implement the policies of her husband.  Eerily prescient:

"The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more."

In Barack Obama's America, the American Dream is smaller than ever.  And you can trust Michelle when she tells you it's probably going to need to get smaller still.  The government's ambition to control ever larger aspects of your life comes at the expense of your personal ambitions.

It's for your own good.

Free Dumb

From Jim Geraghty's Morning Jolt:

4. Addendum

Hmmm: "According to Planned Parenthood, birth control pills cost between $15 to $50 a month, depending on health insurance coverage and type of pill. On an annual basis, that means the Pill costs between $160 to $600."

The federal government absolutely believes that it must step in to ensure no citizen pays that fee herself. Seriously?

Yes. Last week in announcing his compromise attempt to blur his march toward a benevolent tyranny*, Obama said:

“Let me repeat: These employers will not have to pay for, or provide, contraceptive services. But women who work at these institutions will have access to free contraceptive services, just like other women, and they'll no longer have to pay hundreds of dollars a year that could go towards paying the rent or buying groceries.”

Rent and groceries? As if President Food Stamps doesn't already view it as a universal "right" to have your rent and groceries (what is more fundamental than food and shelter!) paid for by the federal government.

Well. It was just a couple of days ago that I pulled out the old 2008 quote from Michelle Obama. Since we're dealing with $600 here, let's go back to that well:

[If the government forced your insurance company to pay for your contraception...] "You’re getting $600. ... Not to be ungrateful or anything. But maybe it pays down a bill for your contraception, but it doesn’t pay down every bill every month.

And speaking of Michelle from 2008, she told us back then where President Obama would go to pay for handing out more free stuff. Pie.

"The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care ... then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more."

Giving up a piece of the pie you worked hard to earn in order to give it to someone else who did nothing (because the government told him it was his right to receive it without working for it) is what is considered Obama-fairness. And if you are not willing to give it up, it will be taken from you. By force if necessary.

It's for your own good.

That's Just Our Joe

K-Lo at NRO quotes an email from Amy Holmes regarding the current impasse over the Senate choosing to neglect its constitutional duties in passing a budget:

One point, though, that seems to have been overlooked by the Beltway media is that the position of president of the Senate is held by the Vice President of the United States. And currently that man happens to be former Senator Joe Biden, a man who up until 2009 served in the greatest deliberative body for almost the entirety of his adult life.

While occupants of the vice presidency have typically only alighted on their Constitutionally prescribed Senate perch to cast tie breaking votes, as Senate.gov notes the position of vice president (itself created only as a vague notion) has one explicit duty: to serve as of president of the Senate: “The framers also devoted scant attention to the vice president’s duties, providing only that he ‘shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be evenly divided’ (Article I, section 3).”

Interesting angle! But, remember the Biden-Palin debate in 2008? Biden rejected the idea that the Vice President could have any role in the US Senate unless it was to cast a tie-breaking vote.

The idea [Cheney] doesn't realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States, that's the Executive Branch. He works in the Executive Branch. He should understand that. Everyone should understand that.

And the primary role of the vice president of the United States of America is to support the president of the United States of America, give that president his or her best judgment when sought, and as vice president, to preside over the Senate, only in a time when in fact there's a tie vote. The Constitution is explicit.

Biden was wrong, of course. Article I deals exclusively with the Legislative branch, and that is where the role of President of the Senate is defined for the Vice President. The Executive branch is only found in Article II. And as to when the Vice President actually presides over the Senate, we'll turn to Wikipedia for this:

The presiding officer may be the President of the Senate, who under Article One of the United States Constitution is the Vice President of the United States and may vote when the Senate is "equally divided" - that is, when a tie occurs. While some early Vice Presidents regularly presided over the Senate, in modern times the Vice President has only actively presided over the chamber when it is anticipated that he may be able to use his casting vote to break a tie, or on ceremonial occasions, such as the counting of electoral votes following a presidential election and the swearing-in of new members.

We'll give Biden partial credit in terms of what the modern practice of Vice Presidential involvement has been in the Senate, to which Holmes also refers. But Biden's notion that "as vice president, to preside over the Senate, only in a time when in fact there's a tie vote. The Constitution is explicit" is simply inaccurate. But that's just our Joe.

Holmes' continues:

So, why has the White House declined to dispatch such an able lieutenant to corral the troops and deliver the 51 votes needed for legislative victory? The answer certainly can’t be lack of “access.”

Perhaps the answer is that Biden is Constitutionally illiterate. That's just our Joe.

Who Wouldn't Want an Extra $40 in Their Paycheck?

Via Hot Air, Obama really wants to press his payroll tax extension.

President Barack Obama again pushed Congress Tuesday to extend payroll tax cut legislation “without drama and without delay.”
...
“I’m asking the American people to keep their stories coming. Tell us what $40 means to you,” Obama said. He has repeatedly said that losing the payroll tax cut would mean 40 dollars less in the average pay check. “Call, tweet, write your congressmen, write your senators, tell them, do not let up until this job gets done,” he said.

One citizen talked about what an extra $40 per paycheck meant when viewed of a span of several months:

"You’re getting $600. What can you do with that? Not to be ungrateful or anything. But maybe it pays down a bill, but it doesn’t pay down every bill every month.

“Barack’s approach is that the short-term quick fix kinda stuff sounds good. And it may even feel good that first [few] months when you get that [extra $40 in your] check. And then you go out and you buy a pair of earrings.”

That was Michelle Obama in 2008. It could not be confirmed whether she tweeted it to her congressmen. Perhaps it will come up over dinner?

Online Poker, Increase Website Traffic, Online Drugs, Free TV, Lose Weight and More!

Introducing a new TheVIMH feature!

My tiny, little-traveled blog still gets spam comments. Not too many, but a handful each week. Blogger collects these in a folder for me to review. I typically just delete the comments every so often.

I would like to share them with you. I'm a giver like that. I will, however, redact any links and urls. I'm also a take-awayer.

[url=http://xxx]online casino[/url]
By Anonymous on He Deems, She Deems, They All Deem so He Can Redeem on 2/10/12

great to meet you thevimh.blogspot.com admin found your website via search engine but it was hard to find and I see you could have more visitors because there are not so many comments yet. I have discovered website which offer to dramatically increase traffic to your website http://xxx they claim they managed to get close to 1000 visitors/day using their services you could also get lot more targeted traffic from search engines as you have now. I used their services and got significantly more visitors to my website. Hope this helps :) They offer most cost effective backlink service Take care. Jason
By Anonymous on Let's Not Make A False Pretense on 2/9/12

These days, it is simply impossible to find someone who did not take responsibility for down your vigorousness [url=http://xxx]buy percocet without prescription[/url], because it is so important. And so I have a query how you can unfold your duration and still feel like in 20 years?
By Anonymous on Stifiling dissent is the highest form of patronization on 2/9/12

[url=http://xxx]Poker[/url] is going to be fully licenced and legit in the USA by the end of 2012. This change will allow more than 20 million potential players to play poker daily I believe xxx the best source for [url=http://xxx]online poker[/url] information, updated and bonuses. Enjoy!
By Anonymous on Listening to Peter Bocking on 2/9/12

Everybodu know that intwernet is now a harder place where to enjoy of our favorites tv shows and love. But if you need, you can watch tv online on [url=http://xxx]tv online[/url]
By Anonymous on Listening to Peter Bocking on 2/8/12

[url=http://xxx[/url]
[url=http://xxx[/url]
[url=http://xxx[/url]
[url=http://xxx[/url]
[url=http://xxx[/url]
[url=http://xxx[/url]
[url=http://xxx[/url]
By Anonymous on Remembering Dean Barnett on 2/7/12

Assist you lose 3-5 pounds of bodyweight out of your body each week by just getting one supplement a day Within the the research into virtually 80 ladies, prickly pear draw out was discovered to lessen metabolic process dilemma within more than 40 % of these females compared to under 10 % improve amidst those who failed to utilize it So there's nothing like xxx unwanted side effects Having its efficiency being purchased really fast, xxx has persuaded lots of curiosity with a lot of folks seeking to get his or her hands on xxx and also benefit from the idea Sugars and also fat will be the main reasons for fat gain [url=http://xxx/]xxx customer reviews[/url] They are exotic draw out, chili peppers acquire,darkish seaweed extract in addition prickly pear acquire For a few these types of just continue to be since dreams as a result of their particular excess weight In these instances, it's very simple to lose your own enthusiasm, but there are See more... possibilities that may help you xxx can be tested of burning 278 far more calorie consumption every day It's been demonstrated that every the 4 tier technique performs with no unwanted effects as well as establishes to result in a secure weight loss It can be dangerous since cholesterol levels by way of example hurts if you are trim or even heavy Thus there's nothing quite like xxx negative effects xxx can aid increase the fee that one could burn off fat -- Using xxx can enable you to melt away an extra 12x the amount of calories from fat you'd probably over a normal evening [url=http://xxx] side effects[/url] Each and every component is capable of doing weight loss alone, which means that regardless of whether two of the ingredients fail to decrease your weight, another two will almost always be exists for anyone slim down risk-free and fast That they run through liberating an organic fiber intricate inside the stomach which in turn binds alone to be able to molecules It helps your shape to remove these extra few pounds by gaining better shape?azines genuine features This kind of weight loss product intends to reduce causes of obesity as well as provides obese individuals full independence to use something they really want xxx has to be congratulated by way of a regular along with well balanced diet plan It's 100% pure with no dangerous negative effects Your capsule has become analyzed technically to ensure that your particular aspects safe as well as together give the results which are fascinating Every one of these elements have been scientifically validated to reduce extra weight without the negative effects If you wish to minimize kilos in a natural way next own it right away Together with helpful determine drawn in the actual route associated with decreasing fat, Being overweight are often controlled successfully [url=http://xxx]where to buy[/url] The actual dark brown seaweed draw out cuts down the use of carbohydrates through 82% Most of people need to use trendy garments and to look nice
By Anonymous on Obama speech: summary on 2/6/12

How to free xxx?? Send me URL please!!! It is the best program for mass posting on forums! xxx can break most types of captchas!
By Anonymous on President Goldman Sachs on 2/6/12

I find the lack of sexual enhancement spam disappointing.

On This Date in 2008

A few days ago came word that David Axelrod decided to drag Obama's former pastor and spiritual mentor Reverand Jeremiah Wright into a speech. From BigGovernment:

David Axelrod, chief political strategist for President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign and former White House political adviser, defended Jeremiah Wright on Tuesday evening in a speech in Thousand Oaks, CA.

Axelrod described the initial news reports in 2008 on Obama’s long-time family pastor and mentor as “ninety seconds of vitriol plucked from thirty years of sermons by some enterprising opposition researcher.”

The link in the quote above takes you to a March report from ABC.

However, even earlier than the ABC report, the Baltimore Sun reported on a Reverand Wright sermon . . . on this date in 2008:

Man should not put limits on what God can do, but that's what people always do, [Reverand Wright] told the crowd. Just as God made five loaves and two fishes feed thousands, God has provided liberators for blacks in the past - from Nat Turner to the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., and now Barack Obama. But, Wright said, there were always reasons not to follow them.

Some argue that blacks should vote for Clinton "because her husband was good to us," he continued.

"That's not true," he thundered. "He did the same thing to us that he did to Monica Lewinsky."

It was 61 days from the Baltimore Sun report until Obama gave his Major Speech on Race in America -- the speech where he confidently declared, "I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother." It was then an additional 42 days from that historic speech to Obama disowning his former pastor and spiritual mentor out of political necessity.

Barackadoodledoo!

Via Hot Air Headlines, here is Mitt Romney at the January 7 Republican debate in New Hampshire:

“The president is going to try to take responsibility for things getting better. It’s like the rooster trying to take responsibility for the sun rising.”

Well. Maybe someone on Team Romney has read this, a piece I wrote at American Thinker comparing Obama to Chantecler -- the rooster who believed he made the sun rise.

Perhaps it's time to revive my efforts to get "Barackadoodledoo" added to the political lexicon.

Mitt, call me!

Goodbye 2011, Hello 2012

I'm jumping the gun and making my black eyed peas today.

And since I'm not one for false modesty, let me just say that they are my world famous Beer Eyed Black Eyed Peas.

I mean, they've been featured at my favoritest sister in law's blog here, as well as at craftbeer.com here.

World famous, baby.

This year, Shiner Bock was the beer of choice in the recipe -- 12-packs were harmed in the making of this dish:

Happy New Year!

What Newt Learned On His Summer Vacation

Via Hot Air headlines:

Political Wire

Gingrich: I took that vacation to Greece because I needed to see the fiscal crisis up close

This is small potatoes in the primary, really. I have no reason to dwell on Gingrich's June vacation.

But I can't not have a little fun with it, to poke at the utter convenience of coming up with that story now.

I mean, where have we heard an ex post facto politically convenient reason for a previous politically uncomfortable decision before? Oh, wait, I remember now: John Edwards saying he went to work at a hedge fund to "to learn about the relationship between making a fistful of dollars and poverty".

Christmas Vacation

We flew into Jackson Hole on Sunday. My wife snapped this pic with her cell phone as we got off the plane:

That is Buck Mountain in the background. The Grand Teton is to the right, blocked by the tail of the airplane or just out of the frame. It's hard to make out from this angle, but there is a peak just below and to the left of Buck Mountain. I climbed that peak back when I was 20. That's been a few years.

UPDATE: My parents picked us up at the airport. Having arrived early, they headed toward Grand Teton National Park to kill some time. When returning to the airport my mom spotted our plane coming in for its landing -- and snapped these shots:

In that second photo, you can see Jackson Hole Ski Resort above the plane at about 1 o'clock.

Two Days, 180 Degrees

Or is it 1080 degrees? Looks to me like Obama goes for the triple salchow.

Sunday, December 11, 2011, 60 Minutes:

Kroft: Did you overpromise? Did you underestimate how difficult this was gonna be?

Obama: I didn't overpromise. And I didn't underestimate how tough this was gonna be.

Tuesday, December 13, 2011, interview on KIRO in Seattle
(h/t Hot Air headlines):

President Barack Obama said Tuesday he wishes he knew the full extent of the economic crisis when he took office, if only so he could have let Americans know just how tough the coming years would be.

"I think we understood that it was bad, but we didn’t know how bad it was,” Obama said in an interview with KIRO in Seattle.

Obama sticks the landing. And his foot in his mouth. Let's hope he took the skates off first.

Romney's Media Strategy Is A Lot Like...

Back in November, William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection had a post in which he asked the question, Will we ever get around to vetting Mitt Romney?

Mitt Romney has stayed away from situations where he can be questioned. As reported by The Boston Globe:

Mitt Romney has not appeared on a Sunday news program in 20 months. He has held only a handful of events in recent weeks at which the public was allowed to ask questions….

While Romney has participated in nine presidential debates and nearly 20 town hall meetings, he has stayed away from traditional campaign settings such as Sunday talk shows and avoided extended interviews with much of the national media. Instead, the campaign has sought to control its message and reach targeted audiences by using social media tools such as Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook. The strategy is designed in part to lower the odds that Romney will make the kind of gaffes that have subsumed the campaigns of other candidates.

Had any other presidential candidate pulled Romney’s hiding act, that candidate would be skewered.

Although not explicitly stated, I think it safe to assume Professor Jacobson meant any other Republican presidential candidate. Because . . . well, we'll get to that in a moment.

Today, Greg Pollowitz at NRO's Media Blog has a post entitled, Romney’s Self-Imposed Media Bubble:

Mitt Romney really needs to lighten-up with the press. If he can’t deal with Bret Baier or a behind-the-scenes reporter for the New York Times, he’s not ready for prime time. Via the New York Times:

Backstage can be something of an inner sanctum at a presidential debate: even though they are appearing on live television before millions of Americans, the candidates are used to having their clubhouse hermetically sealed from the public before and after they take the stage.
…
Mitt Romney’s campaign stood out by going into defensive mode immediately, insisting that the reporter stay far away.
…
Mr. Romney’s campaign has sought to carefully control his interactions with the news media this year as it has tried to keep a grip on front-runner status.

Sounds eerily familiar. Who in recent presidential campaign memory implemented a hide from the media strategy?

Here are a few snippets of a piece I wrote about the 2008 Obama. The thrust of the piece was how Obama would talk a big game about wanting a national dialogue -- but his real aim was to shut down debate and silence his critics. But a sizable portion of the piece dealt with how the Obama campaign was designed to limit unscripted interaction with the media -- much like Romney's is now.

The Obama Way of Ending Divisiveness

Obama's strategy has been to orient the campaign around his greatest strength and advantage -- who could deliver the best speech -- and away from his greatest weakness -- his poor ability to answer questions about how he would deliver on any of its promises.
...
Obama understands that the primary means of limiting the questions for which he would otherwise be forced to answer is to create a media environment in which those questions are not asked.

Liberals, including the media have repeatedly attacked President Bush for making himself unavailable to the media in press conferences and other Q&A formats. Yet as Howard Kurtz described back in January, the Obama campaign has been "unusually insulated":

One moment of absurdity came Tuesday, when reporters on the press bus were asked to dial into a conference call in which Obama announced a congressman's endorsement -- even though the candidate was nearby and just as easily could have delivered the news in person to the bus captives. Obama answered a few questions, but reporters are generally placed on mute after they speak so there can be no follow-up.

Obama learned the wisdom of this strategy, or rather the folly of its absence, when he made himself available to reporters to answer questions about his relationship with Antonin Rezko, who is currently on trial for corruption. Irritated with the questions and unable to satisfy persistent reporters, Obama cut the news conference short, walking out and proclaiming, "'Guys, I mean come on. I just answered like eight questions." Obama more recently went on a 10 day stretch in which he held no press conferences. Frustrated with the lack of availability, a reporter tried to break Obama's silence by asking a question while he was eating breakfast. Obama again deployed the "chagrin defense", this time somewhat fomously, "Why can't I just eat my waffle?"

Romney copying Obama’s 2008 avoid the media strategy?

Well.

It was a successful strategy for Obama. Perhaps we can credit Romney for learning from the 2008 Obama.

Mitt Romney 2012
Just As Smart As Barack Obama

Because there's no way the media might treat a Republican presidential candidate one way in the Republican primary and then differently once he has all but wrapped up the nomination and his opponent becomes the Democratic nominee. Right John McCain?

Mitt Romney 2012
Just As Smart As John McCain

It's all so reassuring

UPDATE: Yes, of course. Team Romney decided the day after I ran this post would be a good day to announce the candidate would make his first appearance on a Sunday news program since the dawn of this decade. Professor Jacobson has the details.

It's November 30

It's November 30, and I have to put something up to have put something up in November.

Well. I don't have to. But I've never gone an entire month without a post, so here goes, courtesy of my dad:

FROM THE WAYBACK MACHINE: You know who likes moose? Both Obama and Palin like moose, that's who.

You Can't Spell Goldman Sachs Without a "D"

As much fun as we've been having with President Goldman Sachs, let's not let Obama hog all the spotlight.

Goldman Sachs doesn't just love Obama -- they love Democrats on the whole.

From a post in April of last year:

At NRO, Robert Costa runs down the Democrats' relationship with Goldman. "An impressionistic study in cronyism", indeed. Costa concludes his piece:

Close up, it looks disconnected and blurred, but if you step back, the shape of it all falls into focus: Democrats hoard Goldman cash, Goldman hoards Democrats, and the American people lose.

You can't spell Goldman Sachs without a "D".

If Occupy Wall Street was a genuine grassroots movement genuinely outraged by the idea that banksters own the government, then they would never vote for a Democrat again.

President Goldman Sachs

A special word of thanks to Instapundit for the six (so far!) times he's linked this post from 2008:

Goldman Sachs Loves Obama

That post in 2008 was based on the reporting of Sharyl Attkisson (now of Fast and Furious reporting fame) detailing how Obama was raking in more money from Wall Street, especially Goldman Sachs, than was John McCain. And it was where this logo was birthed:

The point being now -- if Occupy Wall Street was a genuine grassroots movement genuinely outraged by the idea that banksters own the government, then they would be marching on the Obama White House.

You can see all the President Goldman Sachs posts by Instapundit here.

--------------
UPDATE: Seven!

On This Date At This Point In 2007

To hear some talk about it -- the next speech, debate, poll, controversy, hit piece, campaign ad, press release or gaffe will decide the entire GOP primary.
Let's take a look back to the 2008 election cycle -- specifically this timeframe during that cycle.

We should vote for a candidate based on his electability!

From November 2007 through January 2008 -- McCain was the most electable Republican against the eventual Democratic nominee. How'd that work out?

The thing is -- McCain was way back in the pack at this point in 2007.

So-and-so is the frontrunner in [insert early primary state here]! And what's-his-name is toast!

Iowa, RCP Poll Average, November 1, 2007:

At this point in the 2008 cycle, Romney's lead in Iowa was double that of eventual winner Mike Huckabee, 28% - 14.5%. McCain, who didn't put a lot of emphasis on Iowa, was at 8%. By the time the caucus votes were tallied, Huckabee more than doubled his Nov 1 poll percentage.

New Hampshire, RCP Poll Average, November 1, 2007:

At this point in the 2008 cycle, Romney's lead in New Hampshire was nearly double that of eventual winner John McCain, 29% - 16.4%. By the time the primary votes were actually cast, McCain nearly doubled his Nov 1 poll percentage, and Rudy Giuliani, who was second in the Nov 1 poll, had his percentage more than halved.

South Carolina, RCP Poll Average, November 1, 2007:

At this point in the 2008 cycle, Romney's lead in South Carolina was 7 points over eventual winner John McCain, 19.3% - 12.3%. At this point, eventual 2nd place finisher Mike Huckabee was at 6.0%. By the time the primary votes were actually cast, McCain more than doubled his Nov 1 poll percentage, and Huckabee more than quadrupled his.

But this time it's different!

Sure, and the last time was different. Except it wasn't. And the next time will be different too! Except it won't be. But this time......blah, blah, blah.

Trying to be the first one to call the race is exciting punditry, and can probably garner a person attention and hits for being provocative. But as for pundits, polls and the press being reliably predictive at this point? Blah, blah, blah.

The List of Dick Durbin's Donors Dictates Which Big Banks Get Berated

So. About Dick Durbin's rant about BoA charging $5 a month for customers using a debit card...

Holding up a plastic debit card on the Senate floor this afternoon, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., had some advice for Bank of America customers angry about the new $5 monthly fee: leave.

“Bank of America customers, vote with your feet, get the heck out of that bank,” Durbin said on the Senate floor. “Find yourself a bank or credit union that won’t gouge you for $5 a month and still will give you a debit card that you can use every single day. What Bank of America has done is an outrage.”

Via Protein Wisdom, I notice that Citi announced changes to its fees today:

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- The fees keep coming. Citi is the latest big bank to slap customers with a round of fee hikes. This time, on its checking accounts.

Starting in December, customers who hold its mid-level Citibank Account will be charged $20 a month if they fail to maintain a minimum balance of $15,000 in their combined accounts. Previously, account holders had to carry a minimum balance of $6,000.

At the same time, customers who have the bank's EZ Checking account will start being charged $15 a month if they don't carry a minimum balance of $6,000.

...

Citibank said it chose not to charge a debit card fee because its customers did not want it. "There's a reason why we structured it this way," said Catherine Pulley, spokeswoman for Citi.

Now, unlike Bank of America, Citi is not raising fees directly for debit card use. But they are raising fees, and the timing is undoubtedly related to the Durbin Amendment going into effect. In some ways you might say they are trying to obscure the connection.

Which is perhaps unsurprising. Citigroup Inc is the third largest contributor to Dick Durbin's campaign committee.

Also not surprising will be Dick Durbin's presumed silence about Citi as compared to his ravings about Bank of America . . . who is number 58 on the list of Dick Durbin donors.

On This Date in 2007

Four years ago today, a reporter observed Obama without the traditional flag pin worn by just about every politician in America. When asked about it, Obama gave this answer:

"You know, the truth is that right after 9/11, I had a pin," Obama said. "Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we're talking about the Iraq War, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security, I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest."

The following summer (as noted in the last post) Obama gave a Major Speech on Patriotism, in large part to defend against the idea that he wasn't sufficiently patriotic. Of course, in the fashion of a true cheap political stunt he gave the speech in Independence, MO - days before the 4th of July!

And speaking of fashion, Obama was wearing a flag pin.

The Political Conveniece of Cynical Hypocrisy

From Ed Morrissey’s Obamateurism of the Day at Hot Air, Obama presumes to lecture Republican candiates:

“You want to be commander-in-chief? You can start by standing up for the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States, even when it’s not politically convenient,” the president told the crowd in reference to a recent Republican debate.

Ed uses Obama’s time in Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s church as an example of Obama not standing up for what is right when it’s not convenient. He also notes that the booing was no more than a few of people out of a few thousand in attendance, not to mention that it is unlikely the candidates would have even heard the boos anyway.

Well. A little bit closer to the topic at hand – standing up for those who wear the uniform when it’s not politically convenient -- let us revisit the ”General Betray Us” episode:

When Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) cancelled a campaign trip to Rock Hill, S.C., his web site said it was “due to crucial votes in the Senate concerning the ongoing war in Iraq.”

So, why did Obama miss a key vote denouncing MoveOn.org’s recent advertisement about Gen. David Petraeus? The ad stirred outrage nationally for suggesting Petraeus was a lackey for the White House and disloyal to the country. “General Petraeus or General Betray Us?” it asked.
…
Aides to Obama had no immediate response to queries about why the senator took a pass on the Cornyn vote, but the senator made his objections clear.

"The focus of the United States Senate should be on ending this war, not on criticizing newspaper advertisements,'' Obama said. "This amendment was a stunt designed only to score cheap political points while what we should be doing is focusing on the deadly serious challenge we face in Iraq."

So Obama chose not to stand up for General Petraeus when it was politically inconvenient – Obama was in a hotly contested Democratic primary in which Moveon.org and the left/liberal faction of the party they represent was key to his prospects.

But hey, it’s not like Obama never stood up for Petraeus. Because he did. At a . . . wait for it . . . politically convenient time – during the general election:

Barack Obama yesterday landed a right hook on one of his biggest left-wing supporters yesterday - blasting MoveOn.org for labeling Gen. David Petraeus "General Betray Us."

Obama, in a patriotism speech in Independence, Mo., hit the Web site for taking out an ad in The New York Times last year that targeted Petraeus, then the top US commander in Iraq.

While not naming names, the Democratic presidential candidate - who had been heavily supported by the Web site in his primary race - said, "A general providing his best counsel on how to move forward in Iraq was accused of betrayal.

"We can no longer afford these sorts of divisions."

Many of Obama's Senate colleagues already felt the same way - and had expressed their anger at the ad back in September, when they voted to "strongly condemn personal attacks on the honor and integrity of" Petraeus.

Obama skipped the vote.

The Betray Us ad was September of 2007, Obama’s speech denouncing moveon.org was July 1, 2008.

It is classic Obama – leading from behind.

And Obama self-righteously lecturing Republicans on standing up for men and women who wear the uniform when it's not politically convenient, even as his own history shows that it is something he himself is not willing to do is another bit of classic Obama – cynical hypocrisy.

It’s who he is, it’s what he does.