The Obama Diaries

by Laura Ingraham

APRIL 11, 2010

  THIS NOT WORKING FOR A LIVING THING IS GREAT! JUST GOT BACK FROM CHINA. IT WAS A GREAT VISIT— THE PRESIDENT DIDN’T EVEN MAKE ME TAKE LARRY SUMMERS. AND I DID JUST FINE WITHOUT HIM. THE CHINESE EXPLAINED EVERYTHING VERY CLEARLY. THEY’RE VERY INTELLIGENT PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, SO OF COURSE, THERE WAS A LOT OF MATH AND FORMULAS (FORMULAE? FORMULAI?—MAYBE I SHOULD ASK LARRY), BUT THEY SAID I DIDN’T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT UNDERSTANDING ALL THAT STUFF. ALL I NEEDED TO KNOW IS THAT A WHOLE BUNCH OF AMERICAN JOBS DEPEND ON ECONOMIC GROWTH IN CHINA, AND THAT CHINA IS DOING EVERYTHING IT CAN TO GROW AS FAST AS POSSIBLE. AFTER ALL, YOU CAN’T MAKE A—SOMETHING— WITHOUT BREAKING A FEW—OF SOMETHING ELSE. (APPLES? PEACHES? I KNOW IT’S SOME TYPE OF FOOD.)

  AND THEY SAID WE DIDN’T EVEN HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT ALL THAT U.S. DEBT THEY HOLD—THEY SAID THAT COULD BE WORKED OUT AT SOME “MORE CONVENIENT” TIME. SO THAT’S ALL GOOD.

  I’VE ALSO BEEN TALKING TO SOME PRETTY IMPRESSIVE AMERICANS—THEY WORK WITH CHINA . . . OR MAYBE THEY SAID THEY WORKED FOR CHINA, I’M NOT SURE, BUT THEY WERE VERY IMPRESSIVE. ANYWAY, THEY HAD A WHOLE BUNCH OF REASONS WHY IT WAS IMPORTANT TO COOPERATE WITH CHINA—THERE WAS SOMETHING ABOUT SYNERGY, AND CROSS-BORDER SOMETHING, AND HIGHEST-VALUE SOMETHING—IT WAS ALL VERY IMPRESSIVE, EVEN THOUGH I CAN’T REMEMBER IT IN DETAIL RIGHT NOW. (MAYBE I COULD HAVE THEM TELL IT TO LARRY, AND THEN HE COULD GO OVER IT AGAIN WITH ME.)

  Despair

  Many people who would never fall for the happy talk associated with acceptance are vulnerable to the darker attitude of despair. I hear from such people all the time. They tell me that there’s no big difference between Democrats and Republicans; that neither party is serious about addressing our problems; that Washington is hopelessly corrupt; that you can’t trust anyone with power.

  It’s impossible to argue with such people, because how could you ever prove them wrong? In any government, no matter how transparent, there will always be secrets. There will always be some cooperation across parties. There will always be some incompetent or indifferent people in positions of authority. But the notion that there’s no significant difference between Republicans and Democrats is simply absurd.

  Yes, the Republicans lost their way and spent too much money from 2001 to 2006, but if the Republicans were in charge of Congress, Obama-Care would not now be the law of the land. If the Republicans were in charge of Congress, Nancy Pelosi would not be able to thumb her perfectly sculpted nose at the American people while ramming through unpopular initiatives. If the Republicans were in charge of Congress, we could get some serious oversight into the activities of the Obama administration. If the parties were fungible, Barack Obama would not be devoting precious time and resources flying around the country to raise money for the DNC, so he can help elect Democrat candidates.

  THE DIARY OF WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF RAHM EMANUEL

  THE WEST WING

  April 9, 2010

  F*#k! That f*#king Stupak has now decided he’s too scared to run for reelection. The f*#king hayseeds in his district might say mean things to him. “Waaaaahh! Waaahhh! I’m Congressman Stupak. I’m afraid of my own constituents.”

  What a f*#king disaster. I called Nancy and I said, “What the f*#k kind of sh*t is going on up there? You told me this guy would stand firm.” Of course, she wouldn’t take any responsibility. She’s all, “You guys told us that once we pushed health care through, Obama would move the polls; and you said he would give us political cover!”

  I wanted to take that giant gavel of hers and-F

  Forget that, I gotta start thinking more seriously about this f*#cking election-right now, it looks like this could be a conservative tidal f*#king wave. Plouffe tells me that we could even lose Boxer’s seat! Sh*t, if the GOP can make a comeback in Cali, Barack can kiss his second-term agenda good-bye. I sure as hell hope to be long gone by then, building my own political future. But hell, I have to motivate our f*#king base—get the women, blacks, and Latinos all whipped into a frenzy so they’ll turn out in November. I’ll make sure Favreau writes a speech about how we can’t “turn back the clock” on all the progress we’ve made so far. F*#king brilliant.

  If the Neanderthals are going to win this thing, I’m not sure Washington is the best place for me. I can’t deal with a whole f*#cking backwater Congress. “Hey there, Mr. Speaker, I’m Congressman Dumbsh*t. I propose that we rename the Capitol building after Ronald Reagan because he knew how to kick commie @ss!”

  I don’t know if I can deal with those f*#kers.

  The notion that the problems facing the United States are too big to be solved—that we have nothing to look forward to but decline and decay—is simply ludicrous. Imagine that a time machine brought together Americans from many different periods of history, and it was your job to convince them that we are doomed. Consider how ridiculous you would sound:

  American from 1776: “We had to fight the world’s largest empire with an all-volunteer army.”

  American from 1814: “We had to watch the British burn down the president’s house.”

  American from 1865: “We had to survive a Civil War that killed more than six hundred thousand Americans.”

  American from 1880: “We had to settle a vast continent—to build towns and railroads where none had existed before.”

  American from 1900: “We had to figure out how to assimilate a vast population of immigrants, most of whom did not speak English.”

  American from 1917: “We were dragged into the first truly global war.”

  American from 1932: “We had to survive the worst economic catastrophe in U.S. history.”

  American from 1945: “We had to fight Nazi Germany and the Empire of Japan.”

  American from 1951: “We had to roll back the Communist invasion of South Korea.”

  American from 1979: “We had to deal with stagflation at home and an aggressive Soviet Union abroad.”

  American from 2010: “We had to deal with . . . Barack Obama! And Joe Biden! And Nancy Pelosi! It was . . . horrible!”

  Somehow, I don’t think your fellow Americans would take you all that seriously. In the grand sweep of human history, the problems we face are not exactly overwhelming. We can bring our fiscal situation under control—if we have the discipline to recognize that at some point, we can’t keep living beyond our means. We can grow our economy again—if we make certain that our economic system rewards hard work and innovation. We can continue to lead the world—if we refuse to settle for second-best.

  Finally, what does despair accomplish? It certainly doesn’t make things better—if anything, an attitude of despair and hopelessness simply makes it easier for the other side to prevail. The Democrats are counting on the fact that the anger many Americans felt about the passage of ObamaCare will fade over time. Any conservative who falls into despair is simply doing the Democrats’ work for them.

  Bipartisanship

  Bipartisanship is often advanced as a tactic—a means that will supposedly help conservatives accomplish their goals.

  In a culture where liberalism dominates the media, universities, Hollywood, and many other areas of elite opinion, it is not always easy for conservative ideas to get a fair hearing. If we muddy the waters by entering into negotiations about how best to implement liberal priorities, we will find it increasingly difficult to educate Americans in the basic principles that underlie our vision. How can you teach Americans about the importance of free markets when you are helping the Democrats take over the medical profession? How can you teach Americans about the importance of enforcing our laws when you are helping the Democrats give amnesty to illegal immigrants?

  Since elites in this country are almost uniformly hostile to conservatism, our movement must necessarily be populist in tone. By its very nature, a populist movement must arouse the people—must call them to vote, to organize, to pressure the elites. Bipartisanship, on the other hand, is all about deal-making among inside-the-Beltway types. Such deal-making is poison to populism because it makes it impossible for the pe
ople to know exactly where key players stand on important issues.

  Let me give you an example: Soon after health-care reform was passed, Bart Stupak (a Democratic congressman from Michigan) announced that he would not be running for reelection. Representative Stupak’s House career was effectively ended by his decision to break with his pro-life supporters— and his own pro-life rhetoric—by voting for a health-care bill that will use government funds to pay for abortions. He betrayed his supporters, and that has cost him his political career. But we know about Representative Stupak’s treachery only because the Republicans refused to cut a deal with the Democrats on health care. If Nancy Pelosi could have picked up a few GOP votes for the bill, Representative Stupak could have voted no—and the bill still would have passed. Indeed, he could have campaigned as an opponent of the bill—and probably would have been reelected. In fact, as we now know, Representative Stupak was not opposed to using federal money to pay for abortions. He only claimed that he was. And if health care had been passed through some bipartisan deal, he would have gotten away with it.

  To be blunt, I have very little faith in the ability of most Republican politicians to cut deals with Democrats that would truly advance conservative goals. I was a young staffer in the Reagan administration when President Reagan was meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to discuss U.S.Soviet relations. While I was leery of any treaty between the United States and the Soviet Union, at least I knew that President Reagan had devoted his career to conservative ideals and that he had a long record of success. By contrast, the current generation of Republican leaders did very little to advance conservative goals when they were in power—and they were massacred in the 2006 and 2008 elections. Given this history, it is wise to keep the current GOP leadership on a shorter leash until they’ve proven they can achieve significant results.

  Pandering

  We are constantly hearing that conservatism appeals only to old, white people—that other groups (the young, gays, Hispanics, African-Americans) are inherently hostile to conservatism, and that as these groups continue to grow, conservatism will inevitably recede. Accordingly, we are told, conservatives have no choice but to reach out to such groups. South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham, for example, uses an argument of this type to justify his support for climate-change legislation:

  I have been to enough college campuses to know if you are thirty or younger, this climate issue is not a debate. It’s a value. These young people grew up with recycling and a sensitivity to the environment—and the world will be better off for it. They are not brainwashed. . . . From a Republican point of view, we should buy into it and embrace it and not belittle them. You can have a genuine debate about the science of climate change, but when you say that those who believe it are buying a hoax and are wacky people, you are putting at risk your party’s future with younger people.

  You will hear similar arguments in other contexts—we should support amnesty for illegal aliens to attract Hispanic voters, we should be more tolerant of abortion in order to attract young women, et cetera.

  THE DIARY OF FIRST LADY MICHELLE OBAMA

  THE WHITE HOUSE

  April 20, 2010

  Honestly, this is the last straw. I have tried and tried to work with Joe Biden, but I am really starting to lose my patience. I don’t see how any Democrat could need so much consciousness raising.

  Today, we were at a meeting to discuss some of the key interest groups in this year’s election. Joe kept talking about the “LGTB’s” over and over. Finally, I couldn’t take it anymore. “Joe,” I said, “the term is ‘LGBT.’ It stands for ‘lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender.’ ”

  He gets this goofy expression on his face. “What was that?” he says. “LBLT? Is that some new deli sandwich I should know about?” So I went over it again. “Oh, transgender!” he says. “Like people who are changing from one sex to another? Are there even enough of them to be a group?”

  I let him have it. I explained that it’s not the size of the group that matters, but the principle that we should respect those persons who have gender issues. And besides, I asked him, what did you think “LGTB” stood for?

  I swear he said: “I’ve never been quite sure. I thought it was ‘Leading Gays to Barack.’ ”

  THE DIARY OF VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN

  U.S. NAVAL OBSERVATORY

  April 20, 2010

  Had a great talk with Michelle today about the whole, you know, different sex group issue. (Turns out there are more groups than I realized. Not that there’s anything wrong with that!) Anyway, I think it went really well. She was very impressed with my sensitivity.

  There are three basic problems with a conservative strategy of pandering to specific groups. The first is that it won’t work. No matter what we promise, the Democrats can always promise more. How can we hope to out-promise liberals when it comes to helping illegal immigrants, or supporting abortion rights, or limiting carbon emissions? In fact, by making our own promises in such areas, we simply discourage our own supporters and make it easier for Democrats to promote a more radical agenda.

  The most important reason to oppose pandering is that it is fundamentally dishonest. Any political movement has a moral obligation to promote the policies and practices that it believes are best suited to helping the country. For decades, conservatives have insisted—and I believe correctly—that it is a mistake to treat the American people as a group of special interests, each of which deserves its own special privileges. Instead, policies should be based on what will be best for the country as a whole.

  SOME FINAL ADVICE

  For those of you who have made it this far in the book, thank you. For those of you who skipped to the end—that’s fine, but you still have to go back and read the other parts. And for those of you who are simply flipping through this book at the store—proceed to the checkout counter at once.

  Now you should understand—if you didn’t before—that President Obama and the Democrats in Congress are advancing a radical agenda at odds with the best traditions of America. You know that if the Democrats continue to win elections, their policies will continue to weaken our country and threaten our prosperity. It is clear that the elections in 2010 and 2012 represent a golden opportunity for conservatives to thwart the Obama agenda and reinvigorate free enterprise and entrepreneurship. We have both the power and the responsibility to take advantage of that opportunity.

  THE DIARY OF PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA

  THE WHITE HOUSE

  May 5, 2010

  “On the road again. Just can’t wait to get on the road again.”

  Well, I think I’ve figured out why I seem to have lost some ground in these tracking polls. It’s simple: the people haven’t heard enough from me! I must remember that the voters love seeing Barack Obama in full campaign mode—jacket and tie off, pacing the stage, mixing it up with the crowd. “Yes we can! Yes we can!” Those chants make me feel all warm inside. My people need to hear more from me—they need face time! Gotta get Plouffe to do whatever’s necessary to line up friendly audiences in key congressional districts. Most fellow Democrats are too considerate to ask me to campaign for them, but I’ll tell them: Never fear—the Hope and Change is here, again!

  Rahm, Gibbs, Jarrett, and Axe are all running around like chickens with their heads cut off. Miche says they’re trying to lower my expectations. Rahm says we could lose several Senate seats and lose our majority in the House. Lose the House?! What kind of tobacco is that man smoking?! I told him, “You want a bold prediction? The president predicts that on November second, we’ll hold the House and gain three seats in the Senate.” How many times do I have to prove the doubters wrong?

  They didn’t think I could beat Hillary. But I did.

  They didn’t think I could beat McCain and Palin. But I did.

  They didn’t think I could get health care passed. But I did.

  Now they’re worried about these elections. Not me. I’m looking forward to it. I’ve
seen this movie over and over and over, and it always ends the same: I win; they lose.

  After all, who’s going to stop me?

  THE WINNING WAY

  This book was designed to open your eyes to the true agenda and motives of Team Obama. For those of you who haven’t gotten the joke yet, these diaries were my way of pulling back the curtain on Barack Obama’s Theater of the Politically Absurd. My musings—raw and uncensored—are informed by actual events and, on many occasions, by the main characters’ own words.

  Lord Byron was on to something when he wrote: “I’ll publish, right or wrong: / Fools are my theme, let satire be my song.” Let’s face it—there is only so much a person can learn about the president of the United States by reading news accounts, hearing his speeches, or listening to the analysis of political commentators. But here, in The Obama Diaries, the characters in this power play come to life. Their “performances” are far more thought provoking—and certainly more entertaining—than are their highly choreographed media appearances and White House daily press briefings. Is the truth stranger than fiction or vice versa? Only time will tell.

  What you do with the insights in this true and fictional account of the historic presidency of Barack Obama is up to you. Certainly these are not easy times. But history does not contain very many easy times. Years from now, we will look back on this moment—when we worked to reclaim our country—and our children will ask us how we contributed to this mighty undertaking. Our story should be one of a patriotic people who beat back the onslaught of radicalism with courage and commitment.

  We should be grateful, we the happy warriors, to take on this challenge. Let us be glad that we are called to defend the traditions of our nation and reject the tired old lies spouted by Obama and his minions. With joyful hearts, let us show future generations an example of how free people can defend their interests and preserve their country.