Top Menu

Follow Taylor on Twitter

The 1% President to Accept Nomination at Bank of America Stadium

Official White House Photo: Jan. 20, 2009, “President-elect Barack Obama was about to walk out to take the oath of office. Backstage at the U.S. Capitol, he took one last look at his appearance in the mirror.”

and you get a skybox… and you get a skybox… and you get a skybox!

How perfect and what optics.

But since the leader of the Democratic Party has already chosen the right-to-work message in North Carolina, looking to his own swing state desperation over unions, an institution that made the middle class, if anyone’s shocked by Obama being cozy with BofA they deserve a dunce cap and the corner.

If the likely Republican nominee Mitt Romney did such a thing, which would be as predictable, he’d be tarred and feathered by the national media, with partisan political writers on the left squealing like the Geiko pig.

From the Charlotte Observer:

The move to the Carolina Panthers’ 74,000-seat stadium would replicate the 2008 convention, where Obama accepted the nomination at a packed Invesco Field in Denver.

The move, which would open the speech to the public, is designed to help mobilize voters in North Carolina, a key swing state. It could also serve as a perk to donors, who could be rewarded with skybox seats.

It’s not the big stadium, because I was at Invesco Field in Denver, which was incredible, the Roman column egotism notwithstanding. We’re talking about Bank of America here. It’s only a symbol, but it’s powerful, because it’s the foundation of what ails us all.

It’s all so reminiscent of the Oprah, you’re The One era, when Barack Obama flew in on his magic carpet of positive press, a fawning public and an anticipatory world. Except today the press isn’t so positive, the public is long past fawning and the world has learned Pres. Obama is just another politician.

…while inside the Obama bubble he’s still The One.

Andrew Sullivan, who enjoyed a classic Chris Matthews fluffing last night that I couldn’t watch because it set off my gag reflex, is now joined by the esteemed Jared Bernstein, someone I read daily, in trying to explain how they see Pres. Obama’s record, wondering why credit isn’t being given. One reason is that there is a potent counter case that is more believable. What people like Sullivan, but also Berstein, don’t get is that giving credit to any president requires an emotional connection and caring from people about how he’s seen. When a politician doesn’t connect emotionally with we the people & he/she is remote & uninvolved in the people’s daily struggles they are uninterested in the president’s plight.

Choosing Bank of America Stadium just confirms what people have come to believe about Barack Obama.

It’s part of why Ron Paul has become so popular, someone who has tapped into the anti-war, anti-Bank of America sentiments and is riding them, regardless of other parts of his Libertarianism that have to be ignored to stomach.

Pres. Obama has never developed a relationship with we the people that reveals any understanding at all about what’s going on in your average middle class life. The decision to present himself for nomination at the Bank of American Stadium just drives what so many people have come to feel about him home.

It looks like the American electorate is facing two 1% presidential candidates. It’s the contest I was hoping would manifest, because it’s the match up that most perfectly represents the rot in our political system.

40 Responses to The 1% President to Accept Nomination at Bank of America Stadium

  1. RAJensen January 17, 2012 at 11:47 am #

    Andrew Sullivan has point by point revealed why  President Obama will win, what his record of acheivement really is and why his detractors in the professional  Progressive chattering class have deluded themselves:

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/01/15/andrew-sullivan-how-obama-s-long-game-will-outsmart-his-critics.html

    • jjamele January 17, 2012 at 8:49 pm #

      Wow, thanks for that episode of Non Sequitor Theater, RAJensen.  “He’s not a progressive, he’s a total corporate sellout, but here’s why he’s going to win…”

      “Progressive chattering class.”  What contempt you have for people who believe in something other than winning.  I really feel sorry for you.  It must be weird, being so hollow.

      • Solo January 19, 2012 at 8:52 am #

        Only a fool thinks there is something noble in losing. Tell me would we have Social Security right now if FDR had lost the 1932 Presidential election? Would we have Medicare if LBJ had lost in 1964?

  2. Taylor Marsh January 17, 2012 at 12:03 pm #

    Andrew Sullivan is a conservative Reagan Republican, so the irony is rich that Democrats who refuse to accept Pres. Obama’s conservatism are applauding him.

    As I’ve written and said innumerable times, this election will be won on the margins, so with two 1% candidates it will be close.  Obama is beatable, but his winning would come as no surprise. As I wrote yesterday, here’s why:

    Mitt Romney is a one-percenter in an Occupy era who can’t even close with Republicans.

    Sure he’s the best candidate among the field, but what does that even mean this year? Better than Rick Perry, who can’t remember three bullet points of his own philosophy? Better than big government conservative Rick Santorum who doesn’t believe in birth control, thinks gays are worse for children than an orphanage, neither stance embraceable by independents, and is a “pro-life” politician who has a blood lust for war? Jon Hunstman, the smartest man in the field– Oh, right. A better choice than the hypocritical Newt Gingrich, an ethics challenged, multi-married opportunistic, tantrum prone priss who would rather take his party down by challenging their core foundation with gas bag rhetoric based on lies to get it done?

    Obama’s ace in the hole is the American electorate, who feels trapped in the “lesser of two evils” voting model. It’s the wild card coupled with turnout.

    • RAJensen January 17, 2012 at 2:28 pm #

      FDR was a 1% candidate and so was JFK. Both were considered ‘class’ traitors by Wall Street and by the Progressive left..

      • Taylor Marsh January 17, 2012 at 2:34 pm #

        FDR came from the 1%, but he didn’t govern from the 1%.

        JFK also came from the 1%, but took on Big Steel.

        Both FDR & JFK walked head-on into confrontation and weren’t afraid to make waves.

        FDR connected with the people like few presidents since.  JFK didn’t live long enough, but his connection to the American people and helping them dream is unquestioned and resounds today.

  3. guyski January 17, 2012 at 1:01 pm #

    Very seldom is it possible to recreate a ‘moment’

    • Taylor Marsh January 17, 2012 at 1:25 pm #

      When you think about it a politician or president shouldn’t have to try or be reduced to this.

      It ties in with there being no slogan for Obama reelect this year.

       

      • RAJensen January 17, 2012 at 2:32 pm #

        Obama’s slogan this year is on a bumper sticker I have on my car:

        Obama/Biden 2012: Saved GM/ Killed BinLaden

        • Taylor Marsh January 17, 2012 at 2:39 pm #

          Not bad.

          At least that would have at least been something IF they’d used some form of it.  But that had to come from outside efforts.

          The official Obama-Biden store offers nothing as edgy or emphatic.

        • jinbaltimore January 18, 2012 at 4:46 am #

          this one’s a little “Truthier”:

          Obama/Biden 2012: Saved Wall Street/ Killed Middle Class/ Destroyed Human Rights

          • RAJensen January 18, 2012 at 7:29 am #

            Good one. That’s the bumper sticker being sold at Newsmax isn’t it? Politics make strange bedfellows.

  4. Lake Lady January 17, 2012 at 1:16 pm #

    The corporate naming of stadiums and other venues is so gross. I don’t even know what anybody in St. Louis is talking about anymore. It takes all the character out of places that used to define a city or region. Once upon a time important places were named for important people or families who left their mark on a place. Usually by doing good work and contributing years of service or money to a community. It just adds to the disconnection people are feeling in their lives.

    I just happend to be turning on television when I heard Tweety call Sullivan a genius??? Oh, good grief. I consider him the male version of McDo both mentally unbalanced writers who view the world through their own screwed up sexuality ( that is not a homophobic comment, gays can be just as screwed up as straights in that department). Why either has a job or gets any respect is a total mystery to me. Made me turn right over to PBS for the evening.

    • Taylor Marsh January 17, 2012 at 1:24 pm #

      I rarely watch Matthews, but I’d heard Sullivan was to be on. I didn’t make it through the segment.

    • rickroberts January 17, 2012 at 1:35 pm #

      LL, the corporate everything these last years is gross. And I highly recommend keeping it on PBS. You will have less stress and be better informed. :)

    • RAJensen January 18, 2012 at 7:36 am #

      Sierra Club Stadium, Greenpeace Stadium, Move on.org Stadium, United for Peace Stadium, People for the American Way Stadium, Campaign for Americas Future Stadium…. Don’t hold your breath, money still talks.

    • RAJensen January 18, 2012 at 7:37 am #

      Sure, thats not a homophobic comment any more than Reagans ‘Black welfare mothers driving around in Cadillacs’ was a racist comment.

  5. Art Pronin January 17, 2012 at 1:30 pm #

    hope yall are watch pbs this week. tavis smiley’s forum on poverty, ows etc is being aired for 3 nights. its also on the cspan page. ive never seen such a public discussion on obama with people of all creeds. one critical and often with tears. tears bc of all the suffering going on. too many tears for a nation of this wealth.

  6. rickroberts January 17, 2012 at 1:33 pm #

    Gag reflex indeed … all around. The symbolism of the BofA stadium is bad enough, but the mere fact that he is doing another of these gigantic love me extravaganzas is galling when so many have figured out he was all talk back then and even more so today.

    Watching that sickening, race-baiting Republican, cheering, red-meat display last night was almost enough to make me understand those who are telling me to vote BO because the alternative is so much worse, but not quite. I refuse to go that route again. I will pick a third option, write-in a fantasy candidate, or just skip that checkbox.

    Since I’m all over the map on this one, who wants to predict Republicans go the way of the Whigs if they lose this next election?

  7. Solo January 17, 2012 at 1:34 pm #

    Taylor your so full of it! All of these modern stadiums are named after corporations, the LA Lakers play in the Staples Center, The NY Giants play in Metlife Stadium, The Detroit Tigers play in Comerica Park! PLZ! Your deranged hatred of President has hit a new level of absurdity! Trying to paint President Obama as of and for the 1% given his personal history is probably the most laughable thing you have ever posted. In the 2012 election I see a repeat of what happened in 2000! The loony left saying President Obama and Romney are exactly the same just like they said there was no difference between Al Gore and George Bush. Look what that kinda thinking got us. Liberals like you and your followers like losing so every cycle you pick some left wing purist with no hope of actually winning anything. Twelve years ago it was Ralph Nadar this time around it’s Rocky Anderson.

    • rickroberts January 17, 2012 at 1:37 pm #

      Solo, this particular stadium is named after Bank of America, the poster child of evil and Barack’s failure to hold the banks accountable. Symbols matter. This president better than most knows that. Oh, and since we are talking about gag reflexes, doesn’t the never-ending fellatio make you tired?

      • Solo January 17, 2012 at 2:17 pm #

        The poster child of evil? Wow! You people actually are crazy!

        • rickroberts January 17, 2012 at 2:21 pm #

          Then you approve of BofA’s behavior over the last several years?

    • Taylor Marsh January 17, 2012 at 2:26 pm #

      solo – Weeks after your unhinged charge, I’m still waiting for you to prove your fantasy rant lying about me writing daily that Pres. Obama will lose reelection, which you can’t prove because I’ve never said it or written it.  At least you could concede that point.

      However, considering it’s coming from a conservative Democrat touting a conservative Ron Paul endorsing Reagan Republican to make Pres. Obama’s case I’m not surprised.

      Comparing Rocky Anderson to Ralph Nadar reveals your lack of historical knowledge and that you can’t tell a gnat from a wasp, though both men at least have principles, which Pres. Obama has proven conclusively he does not.

      • rickroberts January 17, 2012 at 2:32 pm #

        So, Solo, answer the charge in the first paragraph. No more obfuscating.

    • Cujo359 January 17, 2012 at 4:14 pm #

      Trying to paint President Obama as of and for the 1% given his personal history is probably the most laughable thing you have ever posted.

      Whether he was born into the class or not, Obama is a creature of the financial elites. Bill Black summed up why in two sentences:

      “We [the FTC and DoJ during the Savings And Loans Crisis] put more than 1,000 elite bankers in jail…[the current financial crisis] was driven by an even bigger wave of fraud.”

      So far, not one person has even been tried for the fraud perpetrated in the current crisis. It’s been nearly four years now since the collapse. With all the foreclosure fraud, securities fraud, and other frauds that have gone on, not a single individual has been prosecuted by the federal government.

      If Obama isn’t controlled by the financial elites, then he’s the laziest and dumbest guy who ever occupied the office he now holds.

      I don’t think he’s either dumb or lazy.

  8. RAJensen January 17, 2012 at 3:06 pm #

    The takeaway from last nights debate is Romney agreeing to maybe, I might, sometime perhaps, release his income tax records. He’ll do everything possible to not release the entire tax report releasing perhaps only a white washed summary. He is in  great danger should the entire tax report be released. As he said after the debate, he ‘probabably’ paid ‘around 15%’ since his income was all reflected from capital gains derived from his Bain’s holdings and about 375K from speeches.

    There is no record of his holding a salaried position since leaving as Governor of Massachusetts  and  all his income is derived from his Bains Capital capital gains income which is taxed at the 15% rate, less any other substantial deductions written into the tax law to protect the wealthiest tax payers. Even  more problematic is that capital gains income is exempt from social security and FICA taxes. It will not go down well with the blue collar, working class, middle class or the poorest class who are  struggling to get buy on minimum wages and whose wages deduct social security and Medicare taxes from the first dollar earned to find out that Mitt may not have contributed a dime to social security or Medicare since leaving office after his term as governor had expired..

    Prediction: He won’t release the full return as all other Presidents and Presidential candidats have done and no one in the media will ask him if he paid any social security or Medicare taxes since his last salaried postion as Governor of Massachussetts.

    He also made another unforced error in invoking  ‘envy’ as the cause of the growing unequal distribution of wealth. Class Warfare was a much better Republican slogan and acceptable Republican talking point and middle class taxpayers being accused of envy will not go down very well.

     

    • Taylor Marsh January 17, 2012 at 7:58 pm #

      Re: Mitt’s tax returns, I’ll believe it when it actually happens.

      Romney is in for a rough week.  His answer today on paying 15% was torturous.

  9. Solo January 17, 2012 at 4:15 pm #

    TM NOTE: Parts of this comment were deleted because it veered off topic. Consider this a warning. Next time the entire comment will be deleted.

    I am not conceding a damn thing. Your writings have this clear anti-Obama bent. You minimize his accomplishments and emphasize the trivial. You did it today your Bank of America BS. You harp on Gallup’s daily tracking poll because the President’s numbers are the lowest with that particular polling outfit. When I pointed to a Rasmussen poll that was more favorable to the President you dismissed it claiming you had a problem with the way Scott conducts his polling operations. This is a fee country just because you call yourself a liberal doesn’t mean your required to support all Dems everywhere but your constant trashing of the President has become a little grating. What I find particularly galling about your posts is the fact that while hacking away at the President for not being sufficiently progressive you simultaneously praise another Dem politician who is at least as conservative as he is! Hillary Clinton! The only daylight between those two Dems is that one supported the war in Iraq and the other didn’t. On just about every other issue Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama are politically identical. Listening to you push disaffected Dems to go third party because of a perceived rightward shift of the Democratic Party is curious given the fact that the two people most directly responsible for that shift includes the person you admire the most, again Hillary Clinton. If there is a con bent to the modern Dem Party it’s because Bill and Hillary Clinton took the party in that direction. Barrack Obama is governing the exact same style Bill Clinton did when he was President and how Hillary Clinton would be if she was the President. What you call Obama’s lack of principal is what others like the Clinton’s would call compromise. No one gets everything they want even if the come out ahead in an election. Purist like Rocky Anderson and Ralph Nader never win they just feed the unrealistic unattainable fantasies.

    • jinbaltimore January 17, 2012 at 6:43 pm #

      I must have missed Taylor’s reference to Clinton(s) – either one – in this post?

      Nope. Not seeing it.  Got a better distraction?

    • Taylor Marsh January 17, 2012 at 7:09 pm #

      I am not conceding a damn thing. Your writings have this clear anti-Obama bent. 

      That’s not what you wrote. You wrote specifically that I offered analysis that said Pres. Obama would lose the November elections. This is false.

      That your ego won’t allow you to admit when you are wrong is fitting.

      You are dishonorable.

      • Solo January 17, 2012 at 9:05 pm #

        Back at Ya!

        • jinbaltimore January 18, 2012 at 4:48 am #

          Ouch!

          “Back at ya!”  right up there with, ‘Oh, yeah!”

          • Taylor Marsh January 19, 2012 at 2:48 pm #

            There’s no defense for solo refusing to admit he made a false and untrue charge.

    • secularhumanizinevoluter January 18, 2012 at 5:39 am #

      “but your constant trashing of the President has become a little grating.”

      Your constant fluffing for Obama and constant trashing of anyone that doesn’t think the sun pops outta his mouth and disappears up his ass has become a little grating.

    • jjamele January 18, 2012 at 9:27 pm #

      And Solo, you’re pathological insistence on defending the President from anyone who has the gall to criticize him is downright scary.  Seriously, it’s clear that what you read on this blog upsets you to no end and is bad for your blood pressure.  You act like a teenaged girl reading criticism of Justin Bieber.

      If you find discussion of Obama’s failings “grating,” please, move on.  There are plenty of Obama Worship sites where you can hang out and commiserate with like-minded friends who will never, ever dare say anything bad about your hero.  Please stop trying to tell us what to do, what to think, and how irrelevant we are.  You clearly don’t get the concept of having principles which are more important than electoral victories.  I suggest you give up on us and remove the bookmark.  This is not healthy.

  10. mrpister January 17, 2012 at 6:10 pm #

    Purists may not win, but unfortunately the nation keeps losing no matter who is in office.  And that includes congressional “representatives” also.

    What led me to start following this website was Ms. Marsh’s keen perception in articulating the strong dissatisfation (and sense of betrayel) that I’ve felt since before Pres. Obama even took office.  Yes, I voted for him, because like many others I perceived this nation to be at the brink of collapse unless someone turned the direction of events to start including the great unwashed.

    Sadly, it has been 3 years proving the point that Pres. Obama either doesn’t have what it takes, or is so obsessed with his own perceived perfection that he’s lost sight of what he was saying in 2008.    What we are being presented with in 2012 is this: “I’m the best of a bad lot.”

    Sorry, that is not good enough.  Mediocre doesn’t make history; it rides it like a parasite.  I don’t  understand after all of his “accomplishments” that Pres. Obama is STILL wanting to be anointed.  The BofA locale is simply appropriate.  No one agrees fully with everyone, and this is especially true on this site.  The contributors make many valid points and can force the reader into that painful conditon known as thinking. 

    I WANTED Pres. Obama to succeed.  I had enormous faith but that has evaporated, and the White House is the entity that caused that.  Many decades ago there was an opponent to FDR, and his positions were so close to the president’s that he was called the “me,too” candidate.  Look at the destructive, selfish, and childish agenda of the Republicans and then at Obama’s positions, and on the most critical economic policies, he is also a “me,too” candidate.

    It is obvious to me that those of my demographic doesn’t even exist any more in the minds of the elite.  However, it is less than pointless to approach an aging disabled veteran with “Are You In?”  Mr. Obama has made it perfectly clear who is “in.”

  11. Taylor Marsh January 17, 2012 at 7:13 pm #

    People of principle are often called “purists.” I’m sure Messrs. Anderson and Nader wear the label as a badge of honor.

  12. TPAZ January 17, 2012 at 8:13 pm #

    When I learned Obama, second generation Harvard and gate-keeper of the statue quo, was cousins to Dick Cheney, I knew Obama would turn out to be a disappointment.

.... a writer is someone who takes the universal whore of language
and turns her into a virgin again.  ~ erica jong