Open Chat... All Day, Every Day! Express Your Views, Debate, and Challenge the Views of Others!

In order to keep up with the nature of free, spirited debate, I wanted to place the chat feature at the top of the homepage. This ensures people can come here and share their views on anything they wish and not have it be related to any specific discussion. Here, people can share ideas, links, and views "unmoderated" and an their own pace. To me, this makes The Elephant in the Room blog truly a place for debate.

Wednesday, September 12, 2012

Barack Obama Should Take His Own Advice - 2008 DNC Speech

Maybe you've seen this video. Maybe you haven't. This isn't an economic analysis, and this isn't something I can take credit for. Keep in mind, I don't blog for accolades, and I don't blog for attention. I blog to spread information. I blog to share truth. I blog to share that I'm a 29 year old conservative in a liberal world, and most importantly, I blog to share WHY I'm a 29 year old conservative in a liberal world. Sometimes I give conclusions. Sometimes I don't... but if I'm going to give information and data, it's to help people learn something. In this case, watch the following video clip of then candidate Obama's 2008 Democratic National Convention speech and make your own conclusions:

Did you catch it? If you didn't, here is the most important part: 

     - "And that's to be expected, because if you don't have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics to scare voters. If you don't have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from. You make a big election about small things." (see the full transcript here:

"Scare tactics?" 

- Like claiming republicans want to push granny off a cliff?

- Like claiming a Romney/Ryan presidency will raise the middle class's taxes by $2,000? (see the ad within the post)

I could go on and on and on. But what about the next thing Obama said:

"You paint your opponent as someone you should run from?" Hmmm. Well, let's look at Mitt Romney, shall we? Let's see if this is someone we should run from.

- He has had no scandals. None. Period. Go ahead and find one. Good luck. 
- He is successful. He succeeded in college. He succeeded as governor of Massachusetts. He succeeded as the head of Bain Capital. He succeeded in turning around the Olympics. 
- He works well with democrats. 
- He stopped the show while at Bain Capital to help search for a partner's missing daughter.

He sounds like such a jerk, huh? Of course, I'm joking, and of course, I could go on and on and on. But I ask, "should we run from Mitt Romney?" I sure as heck don't think so. I have no idea why we should from from a scandal-free, executive experience-loaded, big hearted, go-getting, pious, successful, candidate. But that's not what Team Obama, the liberal media, and the Obama surrogates would have you believe. They want you to think: 

- He's greedy.
- He skirts paying taxes - (in 44 years of paying taxes, do you know how many times Mitt Romney has been flagged for tax violations? Zero.)
- He's dishonest. 

These are just a few examples. They truly try to paint Mitt Romney as this disgusting, devil-of-a-figure that is sleeping under your bed waiting to strike after you vote him in.

Moving on... let's not forget the last major quote from then-candidate Obama: 

"You make a big election about small issues."

All I have to say is "really?". You know... these are the most pressing, important issue of this election: 

- Paul Ryan's marathon time. 
- Etch-a-sketch (the most taken out of context quip to date).
- Mitt putting a dog on his roof.
- Ann Romney's therapeutic horses. 

And, of course, the big one: 

- Mitt Romney's tax returns. 

So what do you think? Is this video relevant? Should Obama take his own advice? Did I miss any key points here? Please share your thoughts below. Pass this on, and just remember: #Question


  1. Brilliant. Can't wait to hear some liberal responses to this.

  2. The funny thing about 0bama and his record is they have that boob Joe Biden running around saying, "GM is alive and Bin Laden is dead". The GM bailout began under Bush as well as the hunt for bin Laden. The rest of 0bama's record, that is all his, they conveniently omit. Why weren't they boasting of the Stimulus bill at their little convention?

    For those that may doubt me on the beginnings of the GM bailout, I refer you to the New York Times:

    Oh yeah, the Arab Spring, I believe 0bama was 100% behind that. How's that working out?

    1. And GM dissed the initial Bush deal, because it called for a total reorganization of the company, that included a re-working the UNION deal - which the UNION flatly refused to do. Congress put the kibosh on THAT so Bush, (who Obama and Biden constantly bash as 'fully willing to let GM fail') was forced go around them to snag HIS bailout from the FIRST 'stimulus' money.

      Personally, I DISagreed with ANY bailouts - but that's what REALLY happened.

      AND, IMO there might have been NO NEED for Bush or anyone else to 'hunt down Bin Laden' had CLINTON not sat on his hands the FIRST time the World Trade Center was attacked - by RADICAL MUSLIMS backed by Bin Laden and Al Quieda.

      Obama's 'baby' - the 'Arab Spring'? Well, as of yesterday it's produced two attacks on American Embassies (one burnt to the ground) and the deaths of four American citizens. The 'demonstrators' were reportedly chanting 'We're ALL Bin Laden.'

      'They' say it was all 'over a movie.' Cairo Embassy released a statement 'apologizing' and 'blaming' America's First Amendment right... Really? Maybe the 'movie' DID set those heathens off, but I find the timing (9-11) suspicious as h@ll!

    2. Slim/Dara - How is the Arab Spring "Obama's baby" and what does it mean for him to be 100% behind it?

      Dara - Please provide a link to the apology and/or the blaming of the 1st amendment.

      I don't see any connection, at all, to the Arab Spring and the events of last night. Sounds alot like baseless talking points but please inform me if I'm incorrect.

    3. The Arab Spring has been analyzed over and over, and it's generally agreed upon that a key to its start was the fervor generated from the posted video recording of a small store owner burning himself alive in protest of the government:

      None of which has anything, even remotely, to do with Obama.

    4. Whatsamattausa, good afternoon, long time no see.

      I can't speak for Dara and what she means by "0bama's baby" but I can clarify my comment. By "he was 100% behind it" I mean he supported it, he was in favor of it. In fact if you will recall he played a big part of Mubarak stepping down in Egypt and he had his little war on Libya to get Ghadhafi. Did you notice that Egypt and Libya? Where were those embassies? Egypt and Libya. What a coincidence.

      I'm sure if we had a Republican president this would be called Foreign Policy Epic Fail. Since it is 0bama, well the media will break their back to come up with a cover story.

      BTW, whatsamattausa, CBS is reporting that the Libyan soldiers that led our people to a "safer building" (from 0bama's statement this morning)also told the crowd where they were (conveniently not in 0bama's statement).

      "He (Wanis al-Sharef, a Libyan Interior Ministry official in Benghazi) said Stevens, 52, and other officials were moved to a second building - deemed safer - after the initial wave of protests at the consulate compound. According to al-Sharef, members of the Libyan security team seem to have indicated to the protesters the building to which the American officials had been relocated, and that building then came under attack."

      As for the link to the embassy apology:

      September 11, 2012

      The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.

    5. Thanks Slim, it has been a while. Between work, fall baseball and karate (the latter two are my kids' activities, I'm far too fat and lazy for that :)).

      As to your points, I too supported the Arab Spring as an avenue for people looking for a life with more freedom. I guess, by your example, I too am 100% to blame (though I didn't invade anyone)? I understand that Obama played a part in the liberation (maybe not the best word) of each country but does that mean Bush is to blame every time something goes awry in Iraq, Afghanistan and/or Pakistan? I wouldn't blame him (and I borderline hate the guy) and I don't hold Obama to a different standard. It sounds to me like this al-Sharef should be investigated though.

      I still don't see an apology. Can you just post the apology part.

      Yes, I am being a bit of a smart-ass. The reason is that this apology stuff is conjured up out of thin air and has been blindly adopted by the right. Do you ACTUALLY think that is an apology?

    6. Whatsamattausa, I guess you have a hard time seeing the forest too with all those trees blocking your view. Yes, it was an apology. We are sorry an American citizen exercised his right to free speech and called your prophet a pedophile. Please don't start burning stuff and killing people. That's the paraphrased version of it.

      Personally, I think it has more to do with the anniversary of 9/11 and the killing of bin Laden than the movie. The protesters in Egypt were chanting, ""Obama, Obama there are still a billion Osamas". However, they were carrying signs about the movie too. It's not like they ever miss a chance to be pissed off about something and burn crap and kill people. Hell, if they get mad enough they set their self on fire.

      Considering you didn't personally make a few speeches about it and give Hundreds of Millions of taxpayers dollars (or borrowed money more likely) to those countries, I will not blame you 100%-- maybe about 18%. No, just kidding, I don't blame you at all.

    7. I have now read the statement numerous times. I still don't see it as an apology but I do see how it could be construed that way. Frankly, after reading it many many times, I think what it says is much much worse than an apology could ever be. I think it is a clear rebuke of the First Amendment and, ultimately, the foundation of our society. Now, the latter may be a leap but the former is what the statement seems to be. I think that someone owes the American people an apology or at least an explanation.

      At first I read it as a message of understanding with the hope of pacifying the savage crowd. I'm not saying that's a preferable way to go but that's how I saw it. After reading it over and over, what I think it really says is quite disturbing.

  3. This elections takes the cake on small issues, from both sides. Pretty disheartening, really.

    The flip of what you mentioned would be:

    - Obama's birth certificate.
    - Obama's parents (father in particular) and heritage.
    - Obama's middle name.
    - Obama's time as a 'lolcommunityorganizer.'
    - Obama's college transcripts.
    - Obama ate dog as a kid.
    - Obama's vacation time/golf outings.
    - Obama's travel to other countries on 'taxpayer dollar.'
    - When/how/where Obama campaigns.
    - Michele Obama's 'let's move' campaign and her not being a good role model.
    - Obama taking credit/too much credit for Osama's death (because we all know the same doesn't happen when flipped, and that if the raid failed the POTUS would 100% be to blame as J. Carter was).

    Honestly, I actually see just as much if not more painting of Obama being someone to fear/run from than the opposing for Romney. I've seen Congressman formally accuse the other side of being actual Marxist/Communists, and ads ran promising "3,000 years of Darkness if Obama is re-elected" and that America as we know it will be destroyed, changed forever, etc. I don't see anything close to that far over-dramatic or fearful propaganda consistently on the right, of course feel free to debate that though.

    1. Correction: "propaganda consistently on the *left*, of course feel free to debate that though." Typo :(

    2. I have to admit, RKen, sometimes you make intelligent, strong, backed statements, but in this case, you're going down the path of "I know you are but what am I" this blog tends to stay away from. I hate to have to keep pointing these types of things out, but the original point was that Obama preaches one thing but does another. The fact that the GOP might do this and to what degree is 100% irrelevant. You danced away from the point that Obama said what he said, and HE should stick to it.

    3. I don't expect the same things that are of importance to me to be important to you MN 4 Rick, but to me the lack of fairly representing all viewpoints of an issue is a significant part of how our political system is failing. It's so incredibly easy to never do anything but argue against the extremists or straw man arguments of the other party, especially when the majority of our politicians tend to do that now.

      I'm sure you feel similarly when you see liberals accuse conservatives of 'hating the poor! Only caring about the rich! Hating Obama because he's black! Declaring war on woman!', etc.

      Not that LME does the conservative equivalent of that, and in fact he does better in writing concise, informed, and information/fact –backed points and analysis than most any blogs/websites I’ve seen (conservative and liberal alike), but even so I still try to supply the alternative viewpoints.

      You also seem to assume that anything I say should be or is an attempt to defend Obama, but it isn't (not even in this case). I'm again just supplying the counter viewpoint of this situation.

      I would also argue that my point is 100% relevant, not just because it’s an open forum and my point is completely related to the topic, but also because LME’s point in this post isn’t exclusively “Obama said this was bad, but also did it himself” but also the fact that these are shady/immoral election tactics that are being used. I’m sure you don’t believe that scare tactics, fear mongering, and blowing up the small issues are great morally responsible ways to run a campaign?

      That being the case, hypocrisy isn’t the only issue of importance in this post.

    4. That's fair. I completely understand that you do what you do to provide an alternate voice. And I respect that. I'm a conservative and I come to this blog because it's well written and people like you come here too. I'm just saying that, maybe while you're doing that, you address the topic that was discussed. It might help the message, I don't know. I wasn't being snotty. For example, you immediately started with:

      The flip of what you mentioned would be:

      - Obama's birth certificate.
      - Obama's parents (father in particular) and heritage.
      - Obama's middle name.

      Which seems to back what I say. By not acknowledging what LME even wrote, in my honest opinion, that comes off as "i know you are but what am I." You might not have meant it that way, but since you didn't address the original concept, that's what I took. It's just my two cents of how you write your stuff. Usually you're one of the more clearer "counter" voices here. You think through your responses well. But IMHO, just in this case, it seemed like you had dodged. Ususally you do a great job of addressing what was talked about before going into the counter position. Don't take it harshly, and if it came off that way, that's not what I meant.

    5. I can see where you're coming from, fair point as well. :)

      I know what you mean, and I sort of catch myself doing it too sometimes. I skip over some and/or main aspects of the main post and just go straight to my counter points, without agreeing/disagreeing/addressing the other aspects of the post. I don't mean to come across competitive/argumentative or ignoring it when I do that, but I certainly see how it can create that impression.

      I typically just do it because my responses are often a bit on the long-winded side :) and I try to be more concise in getting out the point I wish to make. That, and typically there are plenty of people already agreeing with the topic as is in many instances, so I feel like I'd just be repeating. But you make a fair point, and I’ll try to be more inclusive of that in the future.