Fun With Rasmussen

Rasmussen Reports is the site of pollster Scott Rasmussen. Rasmussen has created a Presidential Approval Index that measures the difference between Strongly Approve and Strongly Disapprove poll results.

Let's have some fun with the numbers.

Obama has seen three straight days of being minus 22 on the Rasmussen index. In fact, all three days were exactly the same on all measures (Srongly Approve 23%, Strongly Disappove 45%, Total Approve 44%, Total Disapprove 54%).

Today marks the ninth time that Obama has been at minus 22 or lower on three or more consecutive days, and the first time in 2012. The rest occurred in 2011. The record is 8 days, which took place once each in August, September and October of last year.

11/29-12/3 - 4 days
11/2-11/4 - 3 days
10/21-10/23 - 3 days
10/16-10/19 - 4 days
10/2-10/9 - 8 days
9/4-9/11 - 8 days
8/30-9/2 - 4 days
8/21-8/25 - 5 days
8/11-8/18 - 8 days

Today also marks the third consecutive day in which Obama's Strongly Disapprove is higher than his Total Approve - the eighth time that has happened, the first time in 2012, and only the second time since 2010. Obama has exceeded three days with his Strongly Disapprove commanding a higher number than his Total Approve only once, almost exactly two years ago when it was five days in June of 2010.

10/5-10/7/2011 - 3 days
9/9-9/11/2010 - 3 days
10/14-10/16/2010 - 3 days
9/9-9/11/2010 - 3 days
9/4-9/6/2010 - 3 days
7/23-7/25/2010 - 3 days
6/16-6/20/2010 - 5 days

Today is Obama's 1,251st day in office.

Obama has spent 10.2% of his presidency at minus 20 or lower

Obama has spent 73.3% of his presidency at minus 10 or lower.

Obama has spent 84.2% of his presidency underwater on the Rasmussen index.

Obama Owns Hollywood

And Hollywood owns Obama.

So Obama enjoyed the Devil who wears Prada/Carrie Bradshaw fundraiser last week. That's Anna Wintour, editor of Vogue and Sarah Jessica Parker of Sex in the City, just to be clear.

There sure does seem to be a lot of attention being paid to that fundraiser. I have been doing an On This Date In 2008 series here. Fun stuff. But here's a date I didn't include: On June 17, 2008 - Michelle Obama attended a fundraiser and $10K per plate dinner co-hosted by Calvin Klein and . . . Anna Wintour to support Barack's campaign.

It was the first of two fundraisers co-hosted by Wintour in the 2008 election - the second coupled the fundraiser with a fashion show on September 9 in New York City. That affair was co-hosted with . . . Sarah Jessica Parker.

I remember distinctly the Obama as celebrity meme in 2008. And yet, I have seen very little attention paid to the fact that the Wintour/Parker gala is not new.

Oh well.

Now some are worrying that Obama's obsessive Hollywoood fixation just might be going overboard.

Some of the president's most ardent entertainment industry supporters quietly tell The Hollywood Reporter that while they realize he needs to deploy all of his weapons to compete with deep-pocketed Republican super PACs, they fear the increasing reliance on stars and celebrity contests could backfire with swing voters and mobilize the right.

Forget it. Obama can no more disown Hollywood than he can his own typically white grandmother or his spiritual mentor and racist ex-pastor. Obama owns Hollywood. And Hollywood owns Obama.

Try Not To Think Of A Fishing Expedition

In Jay Carney's press briefing yesterday, he claimed that Republican attempts to get Attorney General Eric Holder to turn over all documents related to Fast and Furious was a "fishing expedition".

Five times:

1: "Republicans are focused on this politically motivated, taxpayer-funded, election-year fishing expedition."

2: "its efforts to work with Congress to provide it the information that was required under legitimate oversight needs, an assertion was made -- because this has become a political fishing expedition."

3: "They do not expect Congress to waste time on politically motivated fishing expeditions, which this has clearly become."

4: "I cannot divine the motivations behind what I think I've clearly suggested is something we believe has become a fishing expedition that’s unnecessary and unworthy of Congress at this time"

5: "I would refer you to my comments about partisan fishing expeditions and political theater, and one of the causes and consequences of the Congress with the lowest recorded approval ratings in history."

A day before, after the House Oversight Committee voted Attorney General Holder to be in contempt, White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer responded:

"Instead of creating jobs or strengthening the middle class, congressional Republicans are spending their time on a politically motivated, taxpayer-funded election-year fishing expedition."

Good to see Pfeiffer and Carney have coordinated the talking point down to the exact wording. And it is evident that the White House has settled in on the catchphrase they want to use to characterize the efforts of the Republicans. So, step one is decide on a catchphrase, and begin using it prolifically.

What's step two? Step two is get the media on board.

Enter Washington Post's Eugene Robinson:

The House wants to go fishing in a vast sea of documents, some of which relate to ongoing investigations. As a believer in sunshine and disclosure, I don’t much care for questionable claims of executive privilege. But I like the politically motivated sideshow the GOP is staging even less.

Eugene Robinson, an extension of the public relations function of the White House, obligingly carries the water.

On This Date In 2008

Four years ago today, Obama debuted the Great Seal of the Obama Campaign of 2008 (unofficial title), complete with its Latin slogan, "Vero Possumus", which roughly translated to "Yes We Can".

Met with widespread derision at the audacious display of arrogance, even from his own side of the aisle, the seal was hushed away three days later, never to be seen again.

On This Date In 2008

On June 19, 2008 Obama announced his decision to break the promise of accepting public funding for his campaign. The announcement also confirmed the breaking of his promise to negotiate with John McCain on the issue of campaign funding.

Senator Barack Obama's announcement Thursday that he would finance his campaign with private contributions was the final step of a slow walk away from public financing that began almost as soon as his campaign started 17 months ago.

Obama said he'd pursue public financing "aggressively." He committed to it in a written questionnaire. He even said, repeatedly, that he would meet personally with Senator John McCain to discuss a deal.

Instead, his campaign never even asked the Republican's aides for a meeting on the subject. And Obama, both campaigns said, never asked for a face-to-face meeting with McCain.

Obama made this decision -- becoming the first major party presidential candidate to do so since public funding was instituted -- because he knew he could raise more money outside of the system than in it, and that the money he could raise would dwarf that of McCain.

The Obama fundraising juggernaut led me to a post a couple months later, introudcing the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Windfall Profits Tax Reform Act of 2008.

In the 2012 campaign, the Obama campaign's fundraising has begun to lag that of Republican opponent Mitt Romney.

So we can expect to hear anew the calls about the evils of money in politics that were suspended in 2008.

The Private Sector Is Doing Fine

My take on Instapundit's "iconic photo from the early days of hope-and-change"

Baghdad Barack:

And Chip Diller Obama:

Obama Can't Jump

More from Instapundit:

A NEW CAMPAIGN SCANDAL: Obama Secretly Sucks At Basketball.

From the linked article:

One apparent weakness: his jump. "In fact, [coach Chris] McLachlin coined a phrase for the phenomenon: Barry Obama, famous for his no-jump jump shot!"

Well.

That Obama can't jump is only a secret for the billions of people who never saw my work from 2009:

Instaquoted

That's me in the ANOTHER UPDATE part this post on Instapundit.

CBC: Michelle Obama Uses Racial Language About Her Husband

Via the Washington Examiner, we find out that calling Obama "cool" is racist, according to the Congressional Black Caucus:

Angela Rye, Executive Director of the Congressional Black Caucus, argued that President Obama has struggled during his first term due to racially-motivated opposition from conservatives who dislike having a black president
...
"There's an ad, talking about [how] the president is too cool, [asking] is he too cool? And there's this music that reminds me of, you know, some of the blaxploitation films from the 70s playing in the background, him with his sunglasses," Rye said. "And to me it was just very racially-charged. They weren't asking if Bush was too cool, but, yet, people say that that's the number one person they'd love to have a beer with. So, if that's not cool I dont know what is.

She added that "even 'cool,' the term 'cool,' could in some ways be deemed racial [in this instance]."

Got it. Cool is out. Unless you're a racist.

Via the Tatler, quoting a campaign email from the First Lady, we find out that Michelle Obama is a racist:

Friend –

From coaching basketball to knowing how many Jonas brothers there are, Barack is a pretty cool dad.

I would never in a million years have thought that Michelle Obama would traffic in racialist language in describing her husband. And yet, because I would never think the executive director of the Congressional Black Caucus didn't know what she was talking about in such matters, it must be true.

For shame Michelle. For shame.

On This Date In 2008

Four years ago today yesterday, Hillary Clinton ended her historic bid to become the Democratic nominee for president.

Hillary then:

After Obama won the 2008 election, he tapped Clinton to become his secretary of state.

Hilary now:

Or another way to look at it...

Hillary then:

Hillary now:

Yahoo Wants You To Know That Romney Is Very Threatening

On Yahoo's home page right now the top news item is a link to a story about Romney slamming Obama:

Look at that pic of Romney (you can click to enlarge). Romney's practically frothing at the mouth. Why, he might even be contemplating physically slamming Obama.

Let's zoom in on just the pic for grins (not Romney's, he's snarling):

Grrrrrr. Very threatening.

HUH: I had no idea I was putting Kim Kardashian on my blog.

Obama Gets The Message That We're Out Of Money But He Keeps Spending Anyway

Via Instapundit, here's Nick Gillespie of Reason on the message in the aftermath of Wisconsin:

The short version: Voters everywhere are finally starting to realize that municipalities, states, and (here's hoping) the federal government are out of money. That's the real message of the major contests last night.

Indeed. It's as if voters listened to this guy back in 2009, and have been voting in increasing measure as if they understood the message since:

INTERVIEWER: At what point do we run out of money?

OBAMA: Well, we're out of money now.

From the gubernatorial elections in Virginia and New Jersey in 2009, to Scott Brown's election in January of 2010, to the historic shellacking in the congressional elections in 2010, to the just concluded triumph of Walker over the recall attempt, voters seem to be getting the message: we're out of money.

Of course, President Obama -- even though he conceded three years ago that "we are out of money now" -- doesn't get the message of that message even to this day, continuing to spend like there will always be tomorrows.

Back to Gillespie:

Last night's results - and moves by other Democratic governors such as New York's Andrew Cuomo - suggest that the voting public is finally getting the message that we can't keep spending far more than we take in at every level of government and that we can't keep promising more and more expensive benefits for public workers who are already earning more in salary than their private-sector counterparts.

Sounds like voters listened to that second guy in the video above as well.

In the end, the message of the message (we can't keep spending) of the message (because we're out of money) is that the voting public is far ahead of President Obama in understanding basic math.

Wisconsin Recall Election Postmortem

After Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker's resounding victory in the Democrats' failed recall attempt last night, especialy given the ramifications to both Democrats and public sector unions nationally, perhaps no reaction better summarizes the left's response than this one:

I don’t think I’ve ever seen such a look of misery and dejection on the face of my daughter as I just did a moment ago. She just couldn’t understand how the out of state special interests could have just bought an election in Wisconsin -- Wisconsin! -- when so many good and decent people live in this state. “Do we even have a Democracy anymore?” she asked pitifully.

I sat down with her on the sofa and (as calmly as I could) tried to explain to her why the our country seems to be dying. “Honey, I think the Koch Brothers sent Mr. Walker all that money in order to keep out of prison. You see, they weren't sure if he was going to be arrested today or not, and so they planned Governor Walker's phony recall victory just in case…”

I tried to keep my voice steady, but it became increasingly difficult – the rage and feelings of helplessness were just too much. I think my daughter could tell something was wrong. I found myself at such a loss for words – nothing made any sense; nothing makes sense anymore. I finally had to admit, “Honey, I just don’t know – I don’t know what’s going on in this country anymore…”

When I finished her lower lip started to tremble and her eyes began to fill with tears, “Daddy” she said, “why are the Republicans doing this to the country?” Well, that was it for me: I finally fell apart. She just fell into my arms and we both began sobbing for several minutes.

For once she had to comfort me and get me back on my feet. Sometimes I just think it’s too much, but seeing the strength in my young daughter’s voice helped me to get through.

Found here.

Maybe Both First Read And Obama Don't Know North From South Carolina?

Via Jonah Goldberg, here is First Read's list of the top 10 tv political ad markets for the week:

*** 10 hottest TV markets: Here’s our latest installment of the 10 hottest TV markets in the presidential contest (for the week of June 4 to June 10). Some quick notes compared with last week: Norfolk, VA remains the top market; just four states (VA, OH, IA, and NC) are on this top-10 list; Columbus, OH goes from No.4 to No.2; Cedar Rapids, IA goes from No.7 to No.3; Charlotte goes from No.8 to No.5; and Colorado Springs, CO dropped out, meaning no CO markets are on this list.

Hottest Markets for this week 6/4-6/10 and in terms of advertising points:

1. Norfolk-Portsmouth, VA (Romney/1500, Obama/825, Crossroads/630, Priorities/400)

2. Columbus, OH (Romney/1500, Obama/815, Crossroads/600, Priorities/350)

3. Cedar Rapids, IA (Obama/1600, Romney/850, Crossroads/600, Priorities/350)

4. Roanoke-Lynchburg, VA (Romney/1500, Obama/815, Crossroads/750)

5. Charlotte, NC (Romney/1500, Obama/750, Crossroads/600)

6. Richmond, VA (Romney/1200, Obama/575, Crossroads/450, Priorities/350)

7. Greensboro-High Point, NC (Romney/1000, Obama/700, Crossroads/675)

8. Cincinnati, OH (Romney/1200, Obama/600, Crossroads/550)

9. Des Moines, IA (Romney/850, Obama/550, Priorities/500, Crossroads/350)

10. Greenville-Spartanburg, NC (Crossroads/1200, Obama/950)

11. Raleigh-Durham, NC (Romney/900, Crossroads/700, Obama/575)

Yay, we're number 7! Good thing I don't watch much TV.

But take another look at number 10:

10. Greenville-Spartanburg, NC (Crossroads/1200, Obama/950)

And take a look again at this phrase in their lead:

...just four states (VA, OH, IA, and NC) are on this top-10 list

Then take a look at a map. Of South Carolina.

But it does raise the question . . . South Carolina? That is certainly not on anybody's list of battleground states. I notice that Greenville-Spartanburg is easily Crossroads' hottest market in terms of advertising points at 1200; and it's Obama's second hottest market behind Cedar Rapids. And Romney fails to register there.

Well, there's a June 12 primary for state races that has had a share of controversy over candidates being thrown off the ballot over improperly filed paperwork -- so it's easy to see why Crossroads would be investing in that market.

But Obama?

Maybe he relied on First Read and thought Greenville-Spartanburg was in North Carolina?

Or maybe the Obama campaign is spending money about as wisely as we have come to expect and as frugally as the Obama administration spends federal dollars.

Jay Carney's Focus Pocus; Obama's Focus Locus

Via Bridget Johnson at the Tatler, we have Press Secretary Jay Carney saying that Obama cares less about his re-election than he does jobs.

Carney was asked at today’s press briefing about Democrats’ rumblings of concern that the economy could hurt not only Obama’s re-election chances, but the party’s chances in the House and Senate.

“The president is focused far less on his job than on the jobs of the American people,” Carney said. “That’s what he works on every day. That is what drives all of the economic proposals that he has put forward. That is what has driven him from the beginning — from the time he decided to run for the Senate and run for the presidency.”

Carney said Obama “takes a long view on all of these things.”

“Is it good or bad for any candidate’s prospects in November? That’s — that’s not why he got into this.”

It would appear Carney managed to say all that with a straight face.

But seriously, is there anyone who believes him? Even Obama provides evidence that it's not true.

Flashback: President Obama, asked about rising gas prices, immediately answers that he cares about how it affects Americans' wallets his re-election chances:

Ed Henry, FOX News: Your critics will say on Capitol Hill that you want gas prices to go higher because you have said before that will wean the American people off fossil fuels onto renewable fuels. How do you respond to that?

President Obama: Ed, just from a political perspective, do you think the President of the United States going into re-election wants gas prices to go up higher? Is that -- is there anybody here who thinks that makes a lot of sense?

On This Date in 2008

Four years ago today, Barack Obama declared victory in the Democratic primaries in a speech given in St. Paul, Minnesota. Most notably, that Jun 3rd speech included these words:

The journey will be difficult. The road will be long. I face this challenge with profound humility, and knowledge of my own limitations. But I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people. Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth. This was the moment – this was the time – when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves, and our highest ideals.

Most people who follow politics remember those words, although in many cases in order to mock them. Four years is quite a bit less time than "generations", but I doubt anyone is looking back and telling their children that at that moment any of those things happened.

But I can't be sure of that. So I make that claim with profound humility and limitless faith.

Have I told you how awesome my humility is? How incredible is my faith? I really have a limitless faith in the profundity of my humility.

On This Date In 2008

A Romney-backing Super-PAC recently made news when it was reported that it was considering running ads about Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Obama's pastor and spiritual mentor. In 2008, Reverend Wright became infamous when videos of his sermons became public, ultimately leading to Obama disowning him in a press conference.

On this date in 2008, Barack Obama resigned from Trinity United Church of Christ, the church at which Reverend Wright had served as pastor for decades:

(CNN) -- Sen. Barack Obama said Saturday that he has resigned from the church where controversial sermons by his former pastor and other ministers created political headaches for his campaign.

"We don't want to have to answer for everything that's stated in the church," the Democratic front-runner said. "We also don't want the church subjected to the scrutiny that a presidential campaign legitimately undergoes."

Obama said he was resigning "with some sadness."

"This is not a decision I come to lightly," he said.

Obama has not become a member of any church since.

Obama's Razor: We Can't Stop Them. We Can Only Hope They Can't Contain Themselves

So President Obama has been faring poorly for a sitting President running for reelection in recent primaries. He got a run for his money in West Virginia when a Texas prisoner received 41% of the vote. In North Carolina, 21% of primary voters elected to select "No Preference" rather than Obama. In Kentucky, "Uncommitted" received 42% of the vote. And in Arkansas, John Wolfe -- a Tennessee attorney -- received 41% of the votes.

Naturally, the Democrats apply the most logical spin on the reason for such a dismal showing. Take it away Ace:

Democrats Pretty Sure They Know Why Obama Lost 40% of the Vote In Kentucky and Arkansas

Oh, I hope that didn't leave you guessing. If so, then let Bryan Preston clear things up for you:

I Told You They Would Blame Obama’s Awful Kentucky and Arkansas Results on Race

I'm not sure there's a name for this yet, but there should be. It's the Democrats' corollary to Hanlon's Razor:

Never attribute to Democratic incompetence that which can be blamed on RACISM!!!!!

Yes, the all caps are a necessary component of this cri de cour of the Democratic Party. And while the sentiment existed long, long before President Obama was a national figure, he seems to have brought it into almost daily use.

So let's just call it Obama's Razor for now. Or maybe Obama's Racer. Not sure which is better. Someone else can decide.

But is it true? Well, if the Democrats insist on racism as the cause of Obama's woes in these primaries, then they have to admit they are a party of racists, since these are Democratic primaries. They can make that case if they like. It should bode well for them in the general election -- and not just in the Presidential race -- to be telling members of their own party that they consider them racists. Go for it!

Interesting, though, is that the numbers line up fairly consistently. Let's take a look at the difference in the Not Obama votes by Democrats in the 2008 election (based on exit polling) versus the 2012 primaries.


Percent of Democrats Not Voting for Obama
North Carolina
2008 General Election: 10%
2012 Democratic Primary: 21%
Difference: -11%

Kentucky
2008 General Election: 31%
2012 Democratic Primary: 42%
Difference: -11%

West Virginia
2008 General Election: 31%
2012 Democratic Primary: 41%
Difference: -10%

Arkansas
2008 General Election: 23%
2012 Democratic Primary: 42%
Difference: -19%

In Kentucky, West Virginia and North Carolina, Obama faced no real opposition (NC and KY there was no one else on the ballot, in WV that person was a convicted felon behind bars in a Texas prison). In these states he lost between 10-11% of his 2008 support among Democrats. In Arkansas, Obama had opposition in the form of a little known, but non-felon attorney, and he lost 19% of his 2008 support.

Democrats will attribute this to racism, rather than Obama's incompetence. It's not Obama's policies or record, the terrible economy and millions out of work. Nope, it's the color of his skin. The fact that there are among these Not Obama voters thousands upon thousands who voted for Obama in 2008 can go completely unnoticed because . . . RACISM!!!

We couldn't stop them if we wanted to. I'm convinced we shouldn't want them to even if we could in this election.

"A Cult Of Personality That Tolerates No Dissent" Is Not A Recent Development For Team Obama

Democratic Mayor of Newark Cory Booker has stirred up quite the kerfuffle in the presidential campaign. On Sunday he went on Meet the Press and had this to say about Team Obama's treatment of Mitt Romney's experience at Bain Capital:

I'm not about to sit here and indict private equity. To me, it's just this--we're getting to a ridiculous point in America, especially that I know. I live in a state where pension funds, unions and other people are investing in companies like Bain Capital. If you look at the totality of Bain Capital's record, it ain't--they've done a lot to support businesses, to grow businesses, And this, to me, I'm very uncomfortable with.
...
But the last point I'll make is this kind of stuff is nauseating to me on both sides. It's nauseating to the American public. Enough is enough. Stop attacking private equity, stop attacking Jeremiah Wright. This stuff has got to stop because what it does is it undermines, to me, what this country should be focused on. It's a distraction from the real issues. It's either going to be a small campaign about this crap or it's going to be a big campaign, in my opinion, about the issues that the American public cares about.

To Cory Booker, attacking Romney for Bain Capital is the equivalent to Republicans attacking Obama for toxic former pastor Rev. Wright.

Once Republicans seized on Booker's remarks to make trouble for Obama, Booker followed up with a video trying to backtrack on those remarks. Some referred to this video as a hostage tape, with Jim Geraghty specifically claiming that it is Booker's conscience being held hostage:

"Analysts note that in his hostage tape, Booker blinks in Morse code, ‘MY CITY STILL NEEDS A THRIVING FINANCIAL SECTOR.’ … A figure with ties to both the Obama camp and high finance, like Jon Corzine, may be permitted to visit Booker’s conscience in captivity…"

So, did the Obama campaign lean on Booker to get him to backpedal? Seems obvious. Team Obama is denying it, but no one really believes that.

Now, via Hot Air Headlines, former Democratic Congressman from Georgia Artur Davis gives his opinion on the Booker bicker:

It's hard to imagine a more instructive couple of days for those who want to know where the Democratic Party's head is at: its only high-profile African American moderate just got a brushback pitch for leaning in too close to the Independent thought zone; the Obama camp looks ominously like a cult of personality that tolerates no dissent

The Obama campaign not tolerating dissent? That's a far cry from the hope and change of 2008, isn't it?

Well, no, it isn't. I covered this almost exactly four years ago in this post: Stifiling dissent is the highest form of patronization.

At that time we had competing views into the Obama campaign. First, from Newsweek, it was the No Drama Obama Narrative:

“If you haven’t said anything, he’ll call on you,” says Strautmanis. “He’s never said it, but he usually thinks if somebody is very quiet it’s because they disagree with what everybody is saying … so Barack will call on you and say, ‘You’ve been awfully quiet’.” There are no screamers on Team Obama; one senior Obama aide says he’s heard him yell only twice in four years. Obama was explicit from the beginning: there was to be “no drama,” he told his aides. “I don’t want elbowing or finger-pointing. We’re going to rise or fall together.” Obama wanted steady, calm, focused leadership; he wanted to keep out the grandstanders and make sure the quiet dissenters spoke up.

Then, from the Washington Post, there was a different version of how Obama ran his meetings. Of course the WaPo being WaPo the portrayal was in service to the narrative of Obama the Great and Confident Leader (and though they would never admit it, it almost resembled an effort to make Obama an almost Bushian-like "Decider"), but it was certainly a contrast to the Newsweek version, and cast Obama as disfavoring discussion or dissent:

"It wasn't like 'Let's have a discussion.' It was 'One, two, three, four, here's what we're going to do,' "a staffer said. "When things don't go well, [Obama] doesn't yell and scream. He's very prescriptive. Everybody understands this isn't about having a discussion. He's got 99 percent of the voting shares. There's no point in taking a vote."

In trying to make sense of it all I ended with this:

Does Obama actively court quiet dissenters in the exercise of the highest form of patriotism, or does he only pretend to encourage dissent, so that he can more effectively stifle it in the benevolent dictatorship of his campaign?

I think Artur Davis and others are coming around to my way of thinking. Although perhaps I was too kind four years ago to throw in "benevolent" in my description for their tastes (but then again, it only took one day for me to retract "benevolent" because Mr. 99 percent of the voting shares had a nasty habit of blaming staffers when things went wrong).

If You're Going To Hit Obama For His "Change", Quote Him Saying "That Change Has Been Painful"

Via Jim Geraghty, here's the latest Crossroads GPS ad:

Geraghty titles his post using a quote from the ad in which a mom is lamenting that her grown kids are forced to live at home because they can't find jobs:

‘He Promised Change… But Things Changed For the Worse.’

That's disappointing. Not so much the Geraghty post -- but that the ad didn't use the quote Geraghty caught in this old post from June of last year:

Obama: ‘For a lot of our friends and neighbors, that change has been painful.’

Geraghty even surmised in that post:

Somehow I suspect President Obama provided his opponents with more video fodder with this comment at Cree Inc., in Durham, North Carolina.

I think Crossroads could have deftly worked that quote into their ad to great effect. They should have listened to Geraghty.

I did:

But it of course is by no means a professional campaign ad.