Ever get the sense that the White House and Obama’s campaign to fool most of the people most of the time is unraveling? On the 100th anniversary (plus 2 days) of the sinking of the Titanic it’s the right question to ask.
Last week was supposed to be the week that the Obama campaign proved it was superior by dint of being quicker to attack and better at response than the Romney campaign. Last week was supposed to be the week that the Obama campaign put Mitt Romney in a deadly crossfire of attacks on ephemera such as the Buffett Rule. Last week was supposed to be the week that the Obama campaign savaged Mitt Romney while Barack Obama flew above the fray and off into the celestial choir realm of summitry.
However, as the War On Women surprise attack on Ann Romney (Happy Birthday Ann Romney!) and stay at home moms tallied Obama Dimocratic casualties and the Jorge Zimmerman case threatened a looming public relations race-baiting fiasco Big Media tried to rescue Barack Obama. The lead EMS team was Politico.
Politico tried to divert from the multiple dogs gnawing at Obama’s scrawny wrinkled ass-cheeks. Politico, on the very anniversary of Titanic hitting the iceberg declared smooth sailing for for the boob at the helm:
“But Obama’s weekend trip to Cartagena, Colombia, for the Summit of the Americas could be the rare election-year sojourn that’s almost all political upside for him and his reelection bid.
Here are five reasons why the whirlwind visit to Latin America could pay off for Obama:
A play for the Latino vote back home [snip]
Soak up Spanish-language media coverage [snip]
Swing-state fever: A bonus stop in Florida [snip]
Plugging the “Buffett Rule” theme [snip]
Maybe focusing on foreign policy isn’t so bad”
But then: Hookers on the port side and the S.S. Obama began to take on water. The great trip that was “all political upside” turned into National Enquirer heaven. Luck was not a lady.
Were drugs or the drug cartels a potential threat? Was it unperformed sexual kinkiness that angered Obama Secret Service agents to not pay the hookers. Wait. What? They didn’t pay the hookers? Yup at least one of the “working girls” did not get paid and she complained to the hotel security and Columbian police. It’s a war on women by not paying hard working sex workers.
The hard working, legal, sex workers of Columbia were not stay at home moms. If only they worked at home the hotel and police might not have gotten involved. They were not Barbra Streisand in For Pete’s Sake. In that film Barbra plays a loving wife who, in order to raise money to help her husband in a business deal becomes a part time stay at home hooker. Unfortunately, Barbra’s clients wind up either injured or dead and Barbra ends up riding cattle through New York City streets.
If only Barack Obama had been so lucky. He would have willingly allowed a bull to mount him if only to avoid the Romney plowing he got last week. As if Hookergate was not bad enough (it’s now up to 20 agents, some military men and no doubt a lot of angry stay working at home/working outside the home wives in D.C.) on Sunday David Axelrod hit the talk shows.
One iceberg hitting the S.S. Obama apparently was not enough. Titanic went down after one hit. S.S. Obama watched on Sunday as Hookers in Columbia became the focus. Then the S.S. Obama screamed, “David Axelrod Makes The Case For Mitt Romney“!:
“A great rapid response effort by the Mitt Romney team on this one … In an interview on Fox News Sunday this morning, David Axelrod said the 2012 election will come down to a choice: Do Americans want “an economy that produces a growing middle class and gives people a chance to get ahead and their kids a chance to get ahead?” Or do they want to continue down “the road we’re on”?“
Axelrod was not the only iceberg hitting the Obama dingy on Sunday. There was also Afghanistan and the big attacks by the Taliban [We won’t delve into the North Carolina sex scandal today]. Tax cheat and head of the Internal Revenue Service Tim Geithner also did his part. On the Sunday Big Media slums Geithner crowed about the remarkably successful Obamanomics that might not produce growth this spring.
“Access to the Obama White House is in direct correlation to the amount of money donated to the president’s reelection effort and the Democratic party, the New York Times reports today.
The Times reports: “those who donated the most to Mr. Obama and the Democratic Party since he started running for president were far more likely to visit the White House than others. Among donors who gave $30,000 or less, about 20 percent visited the White House, according to a New York Times analysis that matched names in the visitor logs with donor records. But among those who donated $100,000 or more, the figure rises to about 75 percent. Approximately two-thirds of the president’s top fund-raisers in the 2008 campaign visited the White House at least once, some of them numerous times.”
But the most explosive allegation in the news story comes from former Democratic congressman Patrick Kennedy, son of the late Ted Kenney, who calls what the Obama White House is doing “quid pro quo.”
HOOKERS AHOY! It’s pay to play.
Speaking of HOOKERS, wasn’t it Michelle Obama who said “if you can’t run your own house you can’t run the White House”? Observing the way the White House is run we must guess that that the inverse is true and Michelle and Barack can’t run their private house either.
HOOKERS! But these get paid. Patrick Kennedy is sure the Obama WH has a quid pro quo system for donors:
“The NYT’s Mike McIntyre and Michael Luo report that the Obama White House insists that they don’t take lobbyist money and don’t grant access to lobbyists — at least not directly. However, McIntyre and Luo describe how lobbyists do get into the White House. Call it the Lobbyist Buddy System, as they partner with big-time donors to become plus-ones to the West Wing:
Although Mr. Obama has made a point of not accepting contributions from registered lobbyists, a review of campaign donations and White House visitor logs shows that special interests have had little trouble making themselves heard. Many of the president’s biggest donors, while not lobbyists, took lobbyists with them to the White House, while others performed essentially the same function on their visits.
More broadly, the review showed that those who donated the most to Mr. Obama and the Democratic Party since he started running for president were far more likely to visit the White House than others. [snip]
One can argue that this isn’t all that much different than other Republican and Democratic administrations. The article recalls the infamous Lincoln Bedroom “rentals” of the Clinton administration, for instance. However, Clinton didn’t run for the office by demonizing lobbyists and wealthy donors and insisting that he would provide a New Purity to the Beltway, either. In 2008, that was almost the entire message from Obama, who had no executive, military, or foreign-relations experience before running for the one position that requires expertise in all three areas.”
The working women of the sex industry have more integrity than the Obama White House.
Speaking of hookers Barack Obama had another agenda as comparatively wealthy agents of the American government gypped hard working Columbian sex workers. For Barack Obama it was about another vacation. Yup, V-A-C-A-T-I-O-N:
“Just two days after President Barack Obama gave a sharply edged response to news anchor Larry Conners of KMOV in St. Louis after Conners had asked the president about Americans who “get frustrated and even angered when they see the first family jetting around [to] different vacations and so forth,” Obama told a panel at the Summit of the Americas in Cartagena, Colombia that part of his job there was to scout out locations for a future vacation with First Lady Michelle Obama.“
HOOKERS! The HOOKE$RS are in charge – and we don’t mean the honest working ones that walk the streets. These are Chicago HOOKERS. We have to get rid of the Chicago HOOKERS.