Obama’s Final Argument: Republicans Are Poopheads

Now that President Obama is running behind that powerhouse candidate Generic Republican in polls by a margin of 42 to 46 percent, now that the President is issuing letters to his supporters pathetically claiming “We measure our success not in dollars but in people,” now that his supporters are openly talking about his shortcomings, he has brought out his most powerful weapon: he is calling conservatives poopheads.

Seriously.

“If we do not have revenues,” Obama said in arguing for raising taxes during a press conference on Wednesday, “that means there are a bunch of kids out there who do not have college scholarships … It means we might not be funding critical medical research.  It means food inspection might be compromised.  I’ve said to Republican leaders, ‘You go talk to your constituents an ask them, “Are you willing to compromise your kids’ safety so some corporate-jet owner can get a tax break?”’”

Obama mentioned jet ownership five more times during his press conference, as though those who own jets were some sort of sadists grinding up street urchins to serve as fuel.  “I think it would be hard for the Republicans to stand there and say that, ‘The tax break for corporate jets is sufficiently important that we’re not willing to come to the table,’” he said.  Then he followed up by saying that Republicans wanted to pay interest to China but didn’t want to “pay folks their Social Security checks.”

To make this exercise in absurdism even more ridiculous, Obama then called Republicans lazy Welfare queens.  “They took the vacation,” he said.  “They bought the car.  And now they’re saying, ‘Maybe we don’t have to pay’ … We’re the greatest nation on Earth and we can’t act that way.”

Excuse me? This is the same president who golfs every Sunday.  This is the same president who vacations on a regular basis at the world’s most expensive resorts.  This is the same man who says that American exceptionalism is the same as British or Greek exceptionalism.

And more than any of that, this is the man who has skyrocketed the debt and written checks America can’t pay.

But facts don’t matter anymore.  All that matters is the label.

This is why Republicans must run a candidate who is recognizable to the American people, someone with a defined record, someone who cannot be painted as mean and heartless and cruel.  Believe it or not, the tried and true Democratic “call ‘em poophead” strategy is surprisingly successful.  It worked in 2008, when Obama and Co. painted John McCain – heretofore the New York Times’ favorite Republican – as an old meanie who wanted to drop his fellow elderly into an alligator tank.  It worked in 1996, when Bill Clinton painted Bob Dole as a cruel man who sought to slice and dice those reliant on Welfare.

No Republican has won the presidency without significant name recognition entering primary season since Warren G. Harding in 1920.  That is because Republicans have to face down Democrats’ constant attacks on their personhood, attacks are made more effective because the Republican platform is supposed to be personal responsibility and aspirational performance standards, while the Democratic platform is handouts, pure and simple.  The only way for Republicans to win is to make it widely known to the American public prior to their demonization that they are good and decent human beings.

President Obama’s only hope, by contrast, is to personalize, polarize, and destroy.  It’s pure Alinsky, and it will work unless Republicans nominate someone so honest and eminently kind that Obama’s criticism seems as foolish as it clearly is.  The poophead strategy should fail, but only if Republicans get their heads out of their posteriors long enough to realize that they need to nominate someone known and loved rather than unknown and unloved.

Ben Shapiro is an attorney and writer and a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, and author of the upcoming book “Primetime Propaganda: The True Hollywood Story of How The Left Took Over Your TV” from Broadside Books, an imprint of HarperCollins.

  • Yossi Bar-Negev

    OK, Ben, but how about mentioning a few names! Who are we left with?

    • Daren

      A possible winning ticket -not necessarily the best conservative one – Romney / Bachman !

  • Rifleman

    "This is why Republicans must run a candidate who is recognizable to the American people, someone with a defined record, someone who cannot be painted as mean and heartless and cruel." – Ben Shapiro.

    It's nice to disagree with Mr Shapiro for a change, but NO. The GOP needs to run a clear conservative who isn't afraid to call the dp/msm on their bs strategy, and stand up for conservatism, which in the real world, is not only a lot nicer than lefism, it's also (unlike socialism) sensible and just. Ronald Reagan didn't hide from his conservatism, he stood up for it, and exposed the left for the "poopheads" they are.

    • kafirman

      Agreed. Don't concede to the poopyhead narrative. Explain how
      1. Demonizing jet owners kills the dreams of our children to be successful
      2. Wealth is created so that jet owners do not own jets because they have made others poor.
      3. Revenues are increased when tax rates come down the Laffer curve. Reagan doubled government revenues by decreasing taxes. Obama is increasing taxes, but reducing both GDP and government revenue.

      • Jim_C

        3. What Reagan also did was increase funds to, upgrade, and supercharge the IRS, making them far more adept at collecting those taxes even as he made speeches about those gov't hands in your pocket.

        1 & 2. I'd agree that "wealth envy" is no way to live life, but it can be potent political stew. A lot of people were hurt by this recession: rich people, on the other hand, not at all. It's not hard to see that wealth has concentrated at the top and the income gap has grown to the detriment of the middle class. You tell me how Republicans can spin this into a cute little by-the-bootstraps narrative.

        • kafirman

          That's the way raising taxes always works: the rich have the resources to redirect their savings from the nasty thefts of government. If necessary, the rich will go overseas and the left will have economic homogeneity. And, eventually, cannibalism.

          After the Reagan years, people in the lowest income quintile (i.e., lowest 20%) were more likely to advance to the highest quintile than to remain in the lowest quintile. That is as beautiful as it is unknown.

          High taxes=low economic mobility, low wealth creation.
          low taxes=high economic mobility, high wealth creation.

          But first we should fix the dollar to gold and open gold windows at a half dozen major cities. Eliminate the Fed.

          As Gilder proved, profit–in a free market–is a measure of altruism.

          • Jim_C

            But the markets aren't really "free;" the game has been rigged because those people have the resources to do so–and I'd argue that's had a more deleterious effect economically than the shibboleth of taxes. It's true the rich can move overseas, where they'll still have to pay for the roads, the infrastructure and the education of their third-world workers.

            "But all Property superfluous to [reproduction and survival] is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages (!!!) He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it." Benjamin Franklin

          • kafirman

            "people hav[ing] the resources" to rig the game does not constitute proof that the market is rigged.

            I don't doubt that "[you]'d argue [that the existence of rich people] had a more deleterious effect economically than the shibboleth of taxes," but until you do, I'm just listening to dribble. Just as I did with your evil quote.

          • Jim_C

            I think your argument against taxes is dribble. Historically, we've been successful/seen growth with much higher marginal rates. Taxes are not some be-all end-all predictor of success/failure.

            Conversely, all one has to do is look at Washington's revolving doors to see the collusion and dereliction of duty. And on the other side of those doors, we know there are a lot of people at the major firms who saw the writing on the wall and were told to stay quiet.

            It's helpful to look at these things without worrying about "evil" and just say, systemically, what needs to happen?

        • kafirman

          empowering the IRS to punish the black market AFTER lowering tax rates is civilized rule of law.

          Empowering the IRS after RAISING tax rates is to extinguish wealth creation with cannibalistic vigor.

    • http://CrossChek.wordpress.com D.D. Edwards

      Hear, Hear!

    • abderecho

      Agree!

  • http://http:/zillablog.marezilla.com zillaoftheresistance

    Sarah Palin may be the best one for the job then, there is nothing left for the haters to smear her with and after the dumpster diving email fiasco resulted in a big fat fail for JournOlistas, further attempts to demonize her will just make the haters look worse than they already do and will totally backfire.

  • a12iggymom

    I sort of disagree, people are sick to death of the 'same old, same old' washed up DC pols. Name recognition isn't quite so important anymore with the internet and new media…what is important is for these venues to counter the smears of the lamestream, old media and make them look as foolish as they are… just my opinion.

  • StephenD

    It can't be merely about name recognition. We are better than that! Why not clearly define the issues and take a stand. "…After having done all, stand." Fight the good fight, as it were. The facts are on our side. Present them! Historically, whenever taxes are raised it hurts a depressed economy. Say it loud! Socialized Medical Care does not work better than what we have now. SHOW IT! Pork barrel spending is still advocated. Look at the things Harry Reid fights for. Point them out! There hasn't been a budget offered by the Democrats in over 2 yrs. Make noise! Just putting someone out there because you think they are recognizable and "kind" is ridiculous.

    • Jim_C

      "Socialized medical care does not work better than what we have right now."

      "What we have right now" most of us will not be able to afford, soon enough. You want to talk about "rationing?" you ain't seen nothing yet. That's the problem. As for "socialized"…well if what the dems propose is socialized, this is some seriously watered down stuff.

      Eventually, what we do will look like what the rest of the world does, by necessity. I like the Swiss model. Private insurers sell a plan, everyone has to buy it. Government then pays anything over 7% of your income. Insurers can't profit on the basic plan, but they can sell supplemental products for profit.

      Consider: If the government subsidzes anything over 7%, that means that they've agreed on a goal that health care should essentially cost around 7% of GDP, which is on the HIGH side of per capita health care costs in most of the developed world.

      And HALF what our average is.

      Let's take care of this one, conservatives.

      • kafirman

        Insurance for "health care" is fundamentally a bad idea. The most economical sector of medicine is that sector for which there is no insurance: cosmetic surgery. Insurance=lawyers=fraud=someone else paying the bill. We all become so generous with our health budget in such a scenario. We lose incentive to take care of ourselves when $omeone el$e is doing so. Catastrophic health care insurance is sane. Any other insurance is nuts.

        • Jim_C

          Cosmetic surgery is expensive enough to be a luxury for those who can afford, though. I agree we should be responsible for our own health (which btw seems to be a factor in the European model), but living right is certainly no guarantor. People have families to take care of. Things happen. Not necessarily catastrophes.

          "Catastrophic health care insurance is sane. Any other insurance is nuts." Seems less logical than ideological, to me.

  • Jim_C

    While in theory I agree with a12iggymom, the big problem is the hurdle someone without name recognition has to go through money-wise. There's still time for the dark horse to emerge, but not everyone is as cute as Sarah Palin. OK, maybe Romney and Bachmann are almost as cute, and they right now look like the ticket, to me.

    I still think the true GOP "stars" of tomorrow are going to sit this one out.

  • Stephen_Brady

    As much as I like Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain, and so on, I simply must agree with Mr. Shapiro. Sarah Palin has been through the media-meatgrinder since 2008. They haven't been able to destroy her. In fact, she comes out looking better as a person and a candidate every time.

    From my vantage-point in the Tea Party, I don't want to spend the 490 days defending my candidate against the "accusation of the day". I want HER to be free to go onto the attack on a daily basis, and put the DEMs on the defensive. I want Sarah Palin to enter this race, and yesterday is not soon enough …

  • Mark

    Using Mr. Shapiro's criteria of most known and most loved (i.e., with the fewest negatives), the current GOP candidate who meets them best is Mitt Romney. I can certainly live with that!

  • Steeloak

    Two things are certain, First, Republicans won't win by running the media's favorite Republican of the day – we learned that in 2008. Second, they won't win by running a tired old man against a slick young charlatan – that was first proven in 1992 & 1996 and again in 2008.
    The Republican candidate needs to be young, dynamic, a solid conservative and should terrify the left (as measured by the hate & vitriol thrown by them).

  • kafirman

    For a male to call a woman a "poophead" is not so becoming.

  • Peter

    Run, Sarah, run! You have proven yourself by every single metric there is:
    1. Your track record as an incredibly successful governor (although in a shortened term).
    2. Your consistent principled conservatism.
    3. The utter hatred you inspire in the left.
    4. You would be the single most vetted person in presidential history – revealed in the email dump to be honest, hardworking, a very capable executive, and, perhaps most importantly, the exact same person both in front of the public as well as in private.
    5. I could go on and on but time doesn't permit.
    So, run Sarah, and please consider making Michele Bachmann your running mate.

  • elihew

    IMHO, the best way to ensure Obama another four years as POTUS is for the Republicans to nominate Romney to run against him…

    • Peter

      Exactly right! No more "me too" Republicans who don't have a firm philosophical grounding in, and a willingness (and ability) to explain constitutional conservatism and how these principles created the greatest society that has ever existed on this earth.

      • Jim_C

        Except that 1. conservatives do not have a monopoly on the Founding Fathers nor on Constitutional interpretation, and 2. that many of the things that have made this a great society were things like public education, social safety net, fair labor laws, open immigration, equal protection enforcement, civil rights, religious freedom, redistributive tax policy and all these other things conservatives don't really seem to like.

        In fact, I'm not exactly sure what conservatives actually LIKE about America, now that you mention it….

        • Foolster41

          "social safety net, fair labor laws" …. "redistributive tax policy" (Emphasis mine)
          You see, conservatives are bad and anti-american because their not socialists, and want to redistribute the wealth from the rich to the working man… oh wait.

          "open immigration"
          To Jim C, real Americans allow illegal immigrants into our country to commit crimes (that is, after committing the crime of illegal immigration, showing they don't care for laws.) for which they cannot be easily traced, and to get jobs while not paying taxes (benefits without responsibility)

          "religious freedom"
          Do you really want to go there, Jim? Who are the ones suing religous orginizations like the Boy Scouts? Wasn't that… the ACLU? The Orginization for the freedom from religion? Are they conservative now? I'm curious what you mean by this. Oh, you mean Islam, right? You mean honestly investigating the motives of muslims to commit violence, as quoted by themselves? Really?

          Pure dishonesty

          • Jim_C

            Yep, wealth redistribution. ALL SOCIETIES REDISTRIBUTE WEALTH.

            Every wave of immigration has been met with resistance from nativists. Guys like you think you're different, as if you're the only ones concerned about illegal immigration. But you don't care that we're still employing those illegals–it's why they're here! You just want to ship 'em home (at great taxpayer expense, of course).

            "Religious freedom"–yes, as in "Keep your creationism out of my kid's school curriculum."

            So what is it conservatives actually LIKE about this country, again? Can you name something that's not some mythical vision cut from an old Reagan speech?

          • Foolster41

            "ALL SOCIETIES REDISTRIBUTE WEALTH." This may be true, but that doesn't make it American. Where in the constitution does it talk about redistributing wealth?

            "But you don't care that we're still employing those illegals–it's why they're here! You just want to ship 'em home (at great taxpayer expense, of course)."
            ..And in the same breath saying we're not the only ones who care about enforcing immigration laws, you show how you don't care by making excuses why those laws shouldn't be enforced.

            "Religious freedom"–yes, as in "Keep your creationism out of my kid's school curriculum."
            Ah, I see. Wanting Schools to represent more than one point of view is suppressing religious freedom. At any rate, even if this were, you ignore the MANY more cases of harassment of religious groups (Boy scouts, etc.) by liberals (te UCLS, OFFR).

            What Conservatives like about America: limited government for the people, taxes that do what the people want and freedom of expression. (there's more, but I'm out of time)

          • Foolster41

            And what religion is being SUPRESSED by pushing for teaching ID/Creationism in school (regardless of whether it is right or not)? I think if anything, you have it backwards there. Unless your saying atheism is a religion?

    • AppleAnnie

      Absolutely right on and thank you!

  • kafirman

    Why are we even thinking about a strategy to run against Obama? We should simply investigate his Connecticut SSN. Then his selective service registration. Then his phony BC's. Then the Constitution's natural born requirement. Then his handling of the Fort Hood Massacre. Then his declarations that "the US is not and will never be at war with Islam," then investigate the murder of Obama's alleged homosexual paramours ….. Because of the media, the order/sequence of investigations is important.

    • elihew

      I agree with you; however, no one in this country seems to have the determination or wherewithal to drag him down. I've never seen anything quite like it before! He blatantly thumbs his nose at everyone and gets away with everything he does. He is truly destroying this nation. Another 1 1/2 years may be enough for him to complete the planned destruction…

      • kafirman

        The media's aggressive incuriousity of Obama's crimes reveal the preference for blacks over whites by leftist whites. Ironically all this so-called "racial sensitivity" has the effect of characterizing blacks as such moral inferiors that matters like SS fraud, Selective service registration fraud, fraudulent BC, excused fornication and sodomy and homosexuality and more are not relevant. The "racial sensitivity" people are at war with MLK.

        Maybe we should stop making Jim Crow laws illegal. The government's anti-Jim Crow laws perpetuate the plantationing of blacks and the cultivation of black conspiracy theories against whites. Take away the heavy hand of government and see the goodness of the American people. Let the 10th amendment come into play.

    • Jim_C

      I'm always amazed when I hear this sort of tripe. Do conservatives know no investigators / attorneys? Do you really believe no one has tried to find Obama's skeletons already?

      • kafirman

        Orly Taitz has more courage than the RNC. How else do you explain Obama having a CT SSN? Murder is one way to keep the skeletons down. Too bad the tripe-spouting birthers aren't as smart as you huh?

        • Jim_C

          It is too bad, I agree. I recommend taking off that tinfoil for a few minutes, I sense an otherwise intelligent person in there somewhere.

          What do you need the RNC for? You've got all sorts of people with immense resources….Oh wait. The reason they have immense resources may stem from too much sanity and intelligence; they lack the requisite "wacko factor" to pursue these investigations.

          Oh well. You can always blame "the media."

  • Jim_C

    Please please please run Sarah Palin.

  • 080

    Back in 1988 in the Wall Street Journal Milton Friedman thought that the large budget deficit was a blessing because it was the only thing constraining government spending. He was wrong about that. But he also noted that we should not allow the government to raise taxes to meet the deficit because all they do is increase spending. That is why it is not a good idea to raise taxes to cover the budget deficit.

  • Foolster41

    You know what he said just before the quote above? "I don't want to be a fear monger"(!)
    No, you didn't, Mr. President. All you implied was that children will starve and not get education because of those gredy jet owners… somehow. http://www.glennbeck.com/2011/06/30/obama-predict

    I don't think Palin would win. While I agree with alot of what she says, some of the things she says "I can see Russia from my house" is too damaging

    Sadly, I don't think Chris Christie would win if he ran, though I love everything I've heard so far friom him, and I think he'd make a great president. Rediculously unfair as it is, his weight would be too much of a barrier.

    • Foolster41

      (Cont'd)
      Frankly, I don't really like any of the canadites running so far. Maybe if Col. Allen West ran (Actually, he'd make an awesome secretary of state), or maybe S. E. Cupp (She's interesting, though honestly I don't know enough to know if she'd be a good president) I'd be more interested.

      I'm hoping someone will come out that will be more impressive in the next 6 months or so. (leaving enough time to get the ball rolling)

      As much as a lot of Bush hate is exagerated, there was pleanty enough he did wrong to trigger Obama's election in 2012. We have to do this right this time, or there will be another terrible penjelum swing in 2016. .

    • elihew

      Sarah Palin never said "I can see Russia from my house," Tina Fey did. Check it out…

      • Foolster41

        Ok, she didn't use those exact words, you are right (that was Tina Fey impersonating her), and that quote, and in some ways what Palin actually said is being unfairly used.

        She said in an interview:

        "They're our next door neighbors. And you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska." in response to a question about her abilities with foreign relations. In other words, because she lives in a state sort of near Russia, she believes that gives her credentials in foreign policy.

        In a later interview she talks about Alaska being a "gatekeeper" but I had thought the constitution forbids states from making treaties, and so whether or not she has experience in this is nonsensical in the first place.

        Like I said, I like some of what Palin says, and the few things she says that's kind of weird is harmless, but fair or unfair I doubt she'd win because of those few weird things.

    • cjlaw99

      She never said that by the way…. ……. Because the left hates her soooo much…….. just might work. and the email dump showed someone who goes across the lines to get something done if needed for the good of the people, not the good of the donor. She fights hard without over THINKING poll taking which way the wind blows BS

    • VegasLiberty

      Sarah did not say she could see Russia from her house. That was actually Tina Fey. Incredible that the lamestream media even took you (a supporter) in on that falsehood!