Obama"s appeals to the gutter

  In hind sight, it does not seem logical to run a campaign the way the Obama campaign has. While his campaign is guilty of many offenses, one of the most puzzling is the decision to practice the repeated use of insult, injury and vulgarity to win a tight race.
  Why insult Americans for being rich, crowing that they do not pay enough and that they are greedy?
  Why insult the entrepreneurs who are willing to dare create new businesses?
  Why insult religious people who have moral standards by claiming their candidate is a murderer, a felon?
  Why insult the hard workers of this country by encouraging poverty, handing out money like candy at Halloween?
  Why insult older people with smutty campaign ads that flaunt sexuality, comparing a first vote to losing virginity?
  Why intentionally insult those with conservative values, bidding children and young people to label conservatives as killers unconcerned about humanity?
  When Obama claimed the "police acted stupidly," we thought it was the sign of a newly elected official who'd better get control of his message. Perhaps his insult to police was an innocent slip of the tongue.
  Or perhaps his claim that Treyvon Martin looked like his own son was a touching moment that revealed his heart for the disadvantaged and not an effort to throw up racial roadblocks.
  In fact, the Obama campaign is one of great offense, spreading divisiveness and hatred. In retrospect, these incidents were intended to aggrieve.
  Is this any way to win? Other examples:

• The silly "war on women"
• Threatening business owners
• Women deserve free contraception
• "You didn't build that."
• a commercial with a young woman oozing about voting for Barack
• a commercial with children singing "We blame you" to their parents, claiming Republicans will poison the air and other various evil deeds if they get into office
• The repeated use of vulgarities to make a point. Van Jones using the "f" word. Biden using the "f" word. An Obama official claiming "Let's win this mother-------!"
• "Let's get revenge!" (Obama)
• "If they bring a knife, you bring a gun!" (Obama)
• Supporting the Occupy movement.
• Biden's vulgar comment to a grieving father.
• Romney's a "bullsh*****er"

   Leftists love this behavior; the Republican Party excoriates and boots people who behave like this or even who use this kind of invective to win.
  Indeed, the press is party to booting those kinds of individuals from public life under the pretext that those politicians who claim to have values but do not live them deserve to be exposed and removed from office.
  It becomes obvious that it is more advantageous to be a Leftist who has no values whatsoever and thus no fear of falling short of anything.
   Several suggestions have been posited by thinkers around the web regarding the rationale of running such a nasty campaign. Michael Ledeen:

I think he’s cracking, and the inner nastiness and vulgarity are on display.  He’s losing, and he’s angry, and he can no longer sustain the pretense of elegance and coolness. 

Nobody ever said he was disciplined, did they? 

Moreover, he is the victim of his own myth, the “I have a special gift” legend that is the core doctrine of his powerful narcissism.   He thinks he is so charismatic, and so wonderful, that if we see him in all his splendor, we will love him as he so loves himself.

  Keith Koffler at White House Dossier:

The desecration of the presidency under Obama has been methodical and obvious. 

We’ve watched Obama literally – not figuratively – bow to foreign leaders, chew gum at the ASEAN Summit and elsewhere, inhabit the Oval Office in Casual Friday outfits, put his feet up on every piece of furniture in sight – historic or not – host entertainers in the Situation Room, and wonder aloud “whose ass to kick.” 

Meanwhile, his wife stages potato sack races in the East Room and his vice president suggests Republicans will put African Americans back in chains and giggles through his debate with GOP vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan. 

  Koffler goes on to lament the young girl's sexual ad run by Obama's campaign, labeling the death of propriety in the Obama White House.
  Yes, Obama's cracking and yes, Obama's demeaning the country intentionally by his behavior. 
  If you can't see that he does not value this country the way many of us do, then you're blind; Obama does not share traditional American ideals nor does he want this country to prosper, though he hauls out his old memes of hope and change occasionally when his poll numbers get really low.
  I think at the core of his behavior and the decision to use vulgarities and insult to win is a more cynical motive, best expressed in a post at NRO by Stanley Kurtz, the mild mannered scholar who's exposed Obama's enrollment in the radical New Party, whose goal was to transform America into a permanent Leftist European style socialist state. This entire piece is worth reading at NRO:

The president’s campaign may look small, yet its ambitions are large. That is the BFD that voters had best understand before Election Day. 

The binder thing looks desperate, of course, and in part it is. The Obama campaign can only hype a war on women with the materials Romney and the Republicans provide. The pickings so far have been slim, but don’t let Obama’s tactical failures distract you from the vaulting ambition of his strategy. Obama isn’t just going for a win. He’s shooting for a “realignment.” Obama is trying to shape a new kind of electorate, creating a long-term Democratic majority that would allow him and his successors to stop catering to the center and finally govern decisively from the left. 

We heard a lot about a left-leaning electoral realignment in 2008. That talk seemed to stop after the tea-party shellacking of 2010. Yet the truth is, Obama and his advisors never abandoned their quest to shape a permanent leftist majority, a coalition that would forever put an end to Clintonian triangulation and usher in unfettered leftist Obamaism instead. Obama’s frantic efforts to gin up the women’s vote and the youth vote aren’t only desperate attempts to secure his base. They flow from a deliberate decision not to fight for the center, but to build an independent majority on what is supposedly the “demographically ascendent” left.

  To achieve these goals, Obama is using division and resentment to build a coalition of people who generally reject traditional values voters and their values. He believes that "he can win with a coalition of the “demographically ascendent,” African Americans, Hispanics, women, and young people." 
  So it tears the country apart to drive barriers between people. 
  So what? 
  This is not a concern for Obama because his goals do not include bringing the country together, but rather destroying it through eliminating values and establishing a permanent Leftist majority who value their own power rather than prosperity.
  That majority includes a decision to shift power and resources from the suburbs toward the cities; Obama wants everybody crammed into city apartments, walking to work and paying their "fare share" to the chronically unemployed.
  Rush has said about Kurtz's book "Spreading the Wealth: How Obama is robbing the suburbs to pay for the cities":

They blame suburbia and suburbanites for what's happening in places like Detroit, for example, and other big cities that are in the midst of this decay. It is because people have moved out, and they have moved out to places where they can hang out together and be amongst people like them. 

  So the man initially presents himself with promises, a loving "post partisan" president who will be fiscally responsible and bring people together, who would work together with folks to create new jobs and build coalitions that would bring America together.
   What he's done is the opposite, except his coalition is made up of, as Rush calls it, morons.
  The type who all want free Obamaphones and the type who want to be in charge of handing out those Obamaphones.
  Obama appeals to the gutter, where he'd be pleased to see most of us because then we'd all be looking up, begging him and his ilk for a handout.
  In contrast, Romney has pushed bi-partisanship, talking about real change, not the unicorn hope and change type.
  Looking at that huge 30,000 person turnout in Columbus, Ohio, yesterday for Romney, I don't think it's going to work.