Obama’s Three Achilles’ Heels

Pages: 1 2

As the Republican field heads into the decisive stretch of primaries, the eventual nominee needs to begin focusing his message. The past several weeks have seen top GOP candidates waste time and energy on a range of secondary issues, launch friendly fire at one another and get mired in minutia. Governor Romney, for instance, famously has a 59-point plan on the economy. Speaker Gingrich’s blessing and curse is his fount of endless ideas, innovations, plans and proposals. And Senator Santorum has been drawn deep into the weeds by the president’s surrogates and Big Media allies over the Affordable Care Act’s brute-force mandate requiring religious employers to cover certain forms of contraception in violation of their faith. Along the way, the president and his allies have changed the terms of debate from the real issue—religious liberty, a debate the president loses—to what kinds of contraception are alright, a debate the president wins.

These are not winning strategies against President Obama. Instead, it’s time to make—and keep—the message simple by focusing on three lines of attack.

 

Energy

On Inauguration Day, a gallon of gas cost $1.81. Today, the AAA national average is $3.70 per gallon. Industry experts predict $5-per-gallon gas in the near future.

Since the stuff that will power the U.S. economy after oil is simply not yet ready to shoulder the burden, the two-track goal should be maximum development of domestic oil reserves to enable America to reconfigure its supply base in the near term, and investments today in tomorrow’s “post-petro economy.”

Yet there’s been little more than talk from the president about jumpstarting nuclear energy, and an ocean of domestic oil remains untapped because of the president’s politics.

For instance, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) estimates that the Arctic may hold 90 billion barrels of oil. About a third of the oil is in Alaskan territory. But the EPA is using its power over air permits to block new drilling in Alaska. (The president’s EPA also handed down a regulation requiring coal plants in 27 states to cut emissions. The result is a tax on coal.) RAND estimates that Colorado, Utah and Wyoming sit atop a goldmine of oil-shale deposits. These states hold between 500 billion and 1.1 trillion recoverable barrels—the equivalent of three times the amount of oil in Saudi Arabia, according to an AP report. Already, the Canadian province of Alberta is converting its oil sands into 1.31 million barrels of oil per day. But the environmental lobby is staunchly opposed to oil sands and oil shale, which helps explain why the president opposed the Keystone XL pipeline extension (it would have carried oil derived from oil sands in Canada) and why his administration has reduced the acreage set aside for oil-shale development in the U.S. from 2 million to 462,000.

The GOP nominee should press this case and let voters decide if they want to join the president in chasing after a mirage of sun-powered cars and windmill-powered houses, or if they want more oil from the U.S. and Canada—and cheaper energy as a result.

Spending

As The Wall Street Journal recently reported, President Obama’s term includes the highest spending years since 1946. During President Obama’s term, Washington has added $5 trillion in debt. The federal government has spent more than 24 percent of GDP in each of President Obama’s years in the White House, far above the historic average of 20 percent. And each and every year he has been in office, President Obama has carried a deficit above $1 trillion—an unprecedented feat.

To achieve that dubious record, the president wasted $862 billion on a stimulus that stimulated nothing but the government sector. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the stimulus package “increased the number of people employed by between 1.2 million and 2.8 million.” At $862 billion, 2.8 million jobs is not a very good return on investment.

The president spawned a $1-trillion healthcare behemoth that will surely grow bigger than his actuaries predict. Even in good economic times, even for a country with its fiscal house in order, launching such a large-scale program would be a dicey proposition. But to do so in the midst of the worst economy in 30 years—a year after adding an unprecedented $1.4 trillion in deficit spending to an already-massive national debt—was downright dangerous.

The drag ObamaCare will place on the economy is only now coming into focus. The CBO projects that the IRS will need 17,000 new employees to enforce elements of the healthcare law. The president’s healthcare takeover creates 159 new sub-agencies, committees, bureaus and commissions, each with a regulatory role. All told, according to a Washington Post analysis, between 100,000 and 250,000 new government employees are needed to meet the growing demands of President Obama’s supersized government.

Given that Washington found a way to grow by 25 percent during the Age of Obama, a simple, straightforward proposal by the GOP nominee to return spending to 2008 levels would make good economic sense and would seem eminently sensible to most voters.

Another idea the GOP nominee should explore is embracing the recommendations of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, which was created by President Obama. After the blue-ribbon panel offered several solutions to Washington’s fiscal crisis, the president promptly tossed them in the circular file. One is left to wonder why the president wasted time and political capital appointing the commission in the first place. That’s a question the GOP nominee should ask—and ask often. Imagine this line of attack: “The president ignored his own commission’s recommendations to rein in spending. I will turn those recommendations into law and turn our nation’s disastrous fiscal situation around. Barack Obama talked about our fiscal crisis. I will do something about it.”

While on the subject of fiscal responsibility, the nominee should point out how reckless the president has been about defense spending. The reality is that the Armed Forces are not to blame for the budget-deficit mess. As then-Defense Secretary Gates warned in one of his last addresses, “I have long believed—and I still do—that the defense budget, however large it may be, is not the cause of this country’s fiscal woes….When President Eisenhower warned of the ‘Military Industrial Complex’ in 1961, defense consumed more than half the federal budget, and the portion of the nation’s economic output devoted to the military was about 9 percent. By comparison, this year’s base defense budget…represents less than 15 percent of all federal spending and equates to roughly three and a half percent of GDP.”

Pages: 1 2

  • http://www.resonoelusono.com/NaturalBornCitizen.htm Alexander Gofen

    The author just keeps on the obfuscation and misrepresentation of the real extent of the criminality of Obama. And keeps doing it even now, when the ugly truth surfaces up everywhere.

    Indeed, Obama/Soetoro has much more than Three Achilles' Heels. The list of his actions bordering with treason is more than a page long (the NDAA martial law act cancelling the due process for American citizens on American soil being the most recent). Yet the so called designated "opposition party" (formerly known as GOP) shuns to mention even one of those treasonous acts.

    Indeed, "this is not winning strategies against pResident Obama".

    But why should they be? In order to defeat the opponent the first thing one needs is … TO WISH TO DEFEAT THE OPPONENT (rather than to settle with him on 8 years you, 8 years me in the treasonous deal of 2008)…

    And in order to defeat any opponent one must expose his criminality in the first place (unless one is not an accomplice indeed). And how much more criminality you need if your opponent is …

    - A thief, an identity THIEF with fake SS#!

    - A fraud who had produced a cheap audacious forgery of his birth certificate! This has compromised the entire institute of American presidency more than anything in the entire history!

    - A not US natural born citizen, therefore not qualified because of this alone!

    And then – the numerous acts of treason, such as killing the project of Canadian oil pipeline – in order to placate his "green energy" cronies and islamic owners. And not a peep from any of the "front runners" in the so called opposition party, which is watching with approval how the states enter into the ballots the name of the impostor, thief and fraud the SECOND TIME!

    Alas, the article covers up rather than exposes the true Achilles' heel of the opponent…

    • Keith Smirh

      I don't think that the illegal "president" even needs to be impeached. He just needs to arrested for breaking all the laws he has broken. He is an ordtnary criminal. It must be from his "Chcago experiance".

  • poptoy

    Very well said. Great Article.

  • StephenD

    For him to be even in consideration for re-election exposes how unbalanced we in America are as a whole.

  • F. Swemson

    Re: Obama's 3 Achilles Heels:

    ENERGY: The author makes it sound as if Obama merely differs with rational thinking and honestly believes solar and wind power can replace fossil fuels. NOT true! He knows it's a lie because his goal isn't to solve our energy problem, his goal is to destroy America, i.e. his energy policy is a lie!

    SPENDING: The author wonder's why Obama wasted time and political capital appointing the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform in the first place if he was going to ignore their recommendations. BUT WE KNOW WHY HE DID IT! He did it to cover his real intentions, which is to spend us into oblivion… i.e., it was a lie!

    U.S. LEADERSHIP: Obama does NOT deserve credit for getting Bin Laden. In fact he tried to wuss out on it not wanting to take any political risks. What he did was leave the actual "go / no go" decision up to Panetta, so that if the mission failed, he could weasel out and blame it on Panetta. If Panetta and the Navy commanders on the scene had not put their careers at risk and took the chance it never could have happened. Now Obama portrays himself as the fearless warrior who got Bin Laden, and just as it is in EVERYTHING else he's said & done, he's LYING.

    Mr. Gofen's comment above is correct. The list of Obama's crimes is endless. What I want to know is why do so many who know better keep pretending that he's actually trying to do the right thing, when in fact he's been very effectively and efficiently doing exactly what he set out to do, destroy our country.

    Why are we letting this happen?

    fs

    • sedoanman

      The problem the author has is that he thinks voters vote issues. They don't. They vote in a manner that makes them feel good about themselves. I personally know that some of øbama’s most committed supporters are CATHOLICS who voted for him in 2008. Attacking øbama is to deprive them of that feeling. This leads me to conclude that there is NOTHING øbama can do to get himself un-elected.

    • WilliamJamesWard

      Nice to see you back………………..William

  • BLJ

    Make the cretan run on his record as POTUS. Keep the message simple and keep hammering away no matter what type of distractions the Dems put out there. Do not respond to any race card baits.

    If the Republican nominee can stay disciplined and keep the focus on the Obama referendum he can be defeated. It will not be easy since the MSM is on his side and there are still far too many simpletons who will vote for him. Howvever this strategy ha a decent chance of working.

    Should it fail I would suggest stocking up on the food basics and plenty of buckshot.

    • Jim_C

      You aren't really a student of politics, are you? I mean, you know what you like–but you don't know how it works.

      Obama has a decent record as POTUS. The economy could be better; outside that, Obama's been very measured and reasonable–or at least, gives the appearance of reasonability. He killed bin Ladin, he helped stave off a Depression, he actually did something about health care.

      The more anyone attacks him for his alleged "radicalism," the better he looks. And he's a proven campaigner–there's no one in the current GOP crop comes close. Basically, by insisting on unreasonable qualifications of what is a "conservative," you guys have blown your chance at an electable candidate. If you wanted a real (not pop) conservative, you'd have picked Ron Paul long ago. If you wanted someone with a chance against Obama, you'd have picked Huntsman–a non-plastic version of Romney.

      • Wideband

        Pot, meet kettle.

        Obama has a poor record as POTUS. The economy could be better? That's like saying Chaz Bono could lose a few pounds. Reasonable? Have you heard the guy talk lately? He just tried to blame George W. Bush for slavery, rap music, and tooth decay. You give him credit for the death of Bin Laden? Anybody would have made that call, as a matter of fact; it was the kind of decision Obama is best suited for – a no-brainer. Sure, he actually did something about health care, made it more expensive, less available, and more bureaucratic, all with the same unconstitutional program.

        So forgive conservatives if we don’t take your advise on who to vote for, it didn’t work out so great last time.

      • BLJ

        You are really good at twisting words there Jimbo. I never stated to attack him personally. I said focus on his record as President.

        To say he has a decent record as POTUS is a load of crap. Staved off a depression? Are you serious? He also did not kill Bin Laden. The Navy SEALS did and they chase to get him started with President Bush.

        I guess until Obama and his cohorts steal more of our liberties will someone like you finally wake up and smell the coffee. The problem is it will be too late.

        • Jim_C

          I've smelled the coffee, brother. It smells like 5 more years of Obama. Didn't say you were getting personal; said calling him "radical" is bad politics.

          The current field of candidates you guys have–we all know it's about as weak as it gets. There's two reasons for that. 1. Unrealistic expectations for what a "conservative" candidate should be, ginned up by your own media mouthpieces, most of whom never spent time in government; and 2. Your actual smart GOP candidates deciding "2012 doesn't look good for us. We'll sit this one out and take our chances in 2016." Now, if 2012 doesn't look good to them, that's not because Obama's made of teflon. It's because his record's not nearly as bad as you portray. You are welcome to think so, obviously, but he can campaign on it, and win.

          Pretty sure you guys will have a decent, palatable candidate in 2016, but not until then, and not unless conservative rhetoric "softens" up. See the problem with most voters–they don't understand what governing and legislating is all about. So I actually sympathize with Romney and Santorum when they get attacked, and attack each other for essentially…doing their jobs.

          • BLJ

            I agree that what the Repubs have going right now isn't their first string. The problem is wating until 2016 may be too late for us all. I really sincerely believe that Obama is evil and hates America.

            The tea leafs out there just all add up to this conclusion for me. Obama has the MSM in pocket and sadly there are far too many people in this country that vote who have no clue. I just want to see the Repub nominee make this guy actually sweat this time around.

            I think if the pressure gets to great the Dear Leader may just lose his cool and the Wizard of Oz curtain will come down. Then maybe, just maybe, enough people can see him for what he really is.

  • Anamah

    The man is a fraud.

  • WilliamJamesWard

    The salient point in the election is that Americans will or will not vote for a liar and Obama is the biggest
    liar ever to set foot on the World Stage. Does America wish to continue to be lied to every time this
    man opens his mouth, has America sunk so low as to laud the liar in thief and continue with the
    biggest con in world history? Anyone that votes for this man is either brain dead or evil and vile.
    William

    • Jim_C

      What a drama queen you are. Take your meds.

      • WilliamJamesWard

        "Red Queen—–Off with your head"……………..William

  • Jim_C

    It's a pretty good article, you guys should listen to it. There's not much chance to beat Obama, but if there were, I'd take these tacks.