Iran

Ahmadinejad Outpolling Obama "Believable" to Iran Media, Chavez Endorses Obama

Unlikely "anybody but Obama" would actually include Ahmadinejad

|

you said it couldn't be worse than obama-romney?

Last week Iran's state news agency FARS plagiarized an article from The Onion on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad outpolling Barack Obama among rural whites, and in their official apology (which included a history of news agencies duped by the Onion and other media muck ups) the English Service editor-in-chief (unnamed!) also noted the satirical news item's believability:

"Although it does not justify our mistake, we do believe that if a free opinion poll is conducted in the US, a majority of Americans would prefer anyone outside the US political system to President Barack Obama and American statesmen," he added. 

Ahmadinejad's sometimes friend in Latin America, Hugo Chavez, meanwhile, facing his most serious opposition yet in an election set for this weekend, said he'd vote for Obama if he were from the United States. Perhaps he's become less popular than the U.S. president there.

i know you from tv!

During the 2008 primaries, then-Senator Obama said at one of the 2007 debates that he'd meet with leaders of rogue nations without precondition, a line his opponents jumped on. The rhetoric's proven just that. When he's not helping kill "rogue leaders", the president's largely ignored them. He said as much in June, pointing out Hugo Chavez had little impact on the U.S., but that nevertheless Iranian influence on the country had to be monitored. The comments drew criticism from Mitt Romney, who would presumably favor the axis-of-evil specie of the Bush-Obama doctrine.

North Korea, of course, remains a hermetical totalitarian state that threatens thermonuclear war when it's not rejecting supplies for its chronically famished people. Kim Jong Il died last year and his son is still consolidating power, so he's unlikely to stick his finger into U.S. politics the way Chavez or Iran's state news service did, but just as in Iran and Venezuela, anti-Americanism is used to maintain power and personality cults.

NEXT: Public Unions Battle CA Cities' Efforts To Escape Labor Rules

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. If the ACLU gets their way in the voter ID cases, Chavez could very well vote for Obama in the election.

    1. You really are the worst person alive, aren’t you?

      1. I’m sorry that you feel that way.

      2. Well, I laughed.

    2. Are you expecting him to die in the next month?

      1. Come on tumor!

  2. “Hugo Chavez, meanwhile, facing his most serious opposition yet in an election set for this weekend, said he’d vote for Obama if he were from the United States. Perhaps he’s become less popular than the U.S. president there.”

    Why wouldn’t Chavez support Obama?

    Obama’s nationalization of AIG and GM were both Hugo Chavez moves!

    Obama brought a medical system to the U.S. that was pioneered by Chavez’s hero, Castro…

    Why wouldn’t Chavez support Obama?

    Obama has transformed the Democratic Party from a party of issues into a personality cult, just like Chavez has done…

    Of course Chavez would vote for Obama. The interesting question is whether Obama, if he were Venezuelan, would vote for Chavez.

    I bet he would.

    1. You dumbass. Bushy-Boy nationalized AIG and GM before Obama could get sworn in. Of course Obama never objected.

      1. Intrade has 50:1 odds in favor of you being full of shit.

      2. Bush gave the automakers about $14 billion, Obama nationalized GM and Chrysler, or at least manipulated a crony bankruptcy that cheated the rightful owners of their rights and provided a windfall for the UAW.

        1. The “rightful owners” were GM shareholders who lost out when GM filed ch. 11 as they had to eventually do.

          Bondholders agreed to a fair settlement which is around 20-25% of the new GM. They loved the settlement.

          It was the old 1990-2007 bondholders that got reamed by selling early before the new bondholders cashed in.

          1. Bondholders agreed to a fair settlement which is around 20-25% of the new GM. They loved the settlement.

            That is absolute bullshit.

            Horseshit!

            “While the Obama administration has been playing hardball with bondholders, it has been more than happy to play nice with the United Auto Workers. How else to explain why a retiree health-care fund controlled by the UAW is slated to get a 39 percent equity stake in GM for its remaining $10 billion in claims while bondholders are being pressured to take a 10 percent stake for their $27 billion?”

            —-Washington Post, May 26, 2009

            http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..02135.html

            You’re just making this shit up as you go along, Shrike!

            And the amazing thing is that you came in guns blazing–challenging me on the facts?!

          2. Funny how Mr. Free-market Shrike tries so desperately to defend bailing out failed companies

            1. I forgot to add, if it was a TEAM RED president who did what he did, you would have a hissy fit

          3. You’re pricless, Palin’s Buttplug.

            On what fucking planet do you come from? Where do you find the balls to asset this? Especially considering some among us actually worked in finance and investments?

            What the President did was shamefull, bull shit politics. Bondholders were screwed over.

            “We’re in this together” my bleeping ass.

            http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-50…..03983.html

            1. Ugh. Make that: “Priceless” “Assert” and drop the “on.”

      3. You dumbass. Bushy-Boy nationalized AIG and GM before Obama could get sworn in. Of course Obama never objected.

        I’ve never seen anybody jump into the middle of battle without any ammunition like you. It would be almost funny if you hadn’t been called out on this very same point so many times before!

        “July 10, 2009: A new company financed by the United States Treasury, “NGMCO Inc”[1] purchased the most of the assets, and the trademarks of the General Motors Corporation. Vehicle Acquisition Holdings LLC then changed its name to “General Motors Company”. The General Motors Corporation (old GM) in turn changed its name to “Motors Liquidation Company” and it continued in bankruptcy proceedings to settle with its bondholders, and on other liabilities. The new GM company, after the purchase of most of the assets of “old GM” is not a participant in the continuing bankruptcy proceedings of Motors Liquidation Company (Old GM). The “new GM” is mostly owned by the United States Government.[48][57][85][86]

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G…..ganization

        On July 10, 2009, the U.S. government nationalized GM in order to bail out the UAW–with TARP money.

        Barack Obama took office on January 20, 2009 .

        January 20, 2009 is…um…before January 20, 2009. It always has been. It always will be.

        1. *EDIT*

          January 20, 2009 is…um…before July 10, 2009…

          I swear there’s a small donation for you, Hit Run, once you fix the preview button.

          1. On July 10, 2009, the U.S. government nationalized GM in order to bail out the UAW–with TARP money.

            TARP was Bush all the way — passed in Oct 2008. Of course Obama spent the money once appropriated. They all do.

            The bondholders got bailed out too. GM was worth nothing if not for its restructuring.

            1. Of course Obama spent the money once appropriated. They all do.

              Yes, they both decided to use TARP money on purposes it wasn’t supposed to be used for. Obama used some to nationalize GM and AIG, which is the exact opposite of what you claimed:

              Bushy-Boy nationalized AIG and GM before Obama could get sworn in.

              Caught in a bald-faced lie, you try to pretend you never claimed this.

            2. TARP was Bush all the way — passed in Oct 2008. Of course Obama spent the money once appropriated. They all do.

              Actually, you’ve been called out on this before, too!

              Here’s the right-wing Huffington Post:

              “TARP Vote: Obama Wins, Senate Effectively Approves $350 Billion”

              ‘Six Republicans joined with 45 Democrats and one Joe Lieberman to defeat a resolution that would have blocked the release of $350 billion in financial-industry bailout funds Thursday. The Senate action — or lack of it — paves the way for the dispersal of the money regardless of any action taken by the House of Representatives.

              The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) is structured so that the president has access to the money unless Congress actively prevents its release. Only 42 senators — seven Democrats, 34 Republicans and one Bernie Sanders — voted to block the money.

              In practical terms, Obama only needed enough votes to sustain a veto of the resolution, which he had promised when he met with Democrats on Tuesday. The vote today frees Obama of the politically costly task of vetoing a disapproval resolution.’

              http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..58292.html

              That’s from February 15 of 2009. Practically the first thing Barack Obama did when he got into office was fight to get his hands on the $350 billion that hadn’t been spent out of TARP.

              It was TARP money he used to bail out GM (along with multiple investment banks, AIG, and others)…

              1. That’s right, the first thing Obama did when he got into office was he squandered a chunk of the future paychecks of working class Americans on bailing out Wall Street investors and nationalizing GM!

                He’s a scumbag, who treats working taxpayers–who aren’t UAW workers–like garbage. But that doesn’t matter to most of his supporters, most of whom are acting like they’re in a personality cult and don’t care about the issues…

                Apparently, to them, it doesn’t matter what Barack Obama does–it only matters that Barack Obama is the one who does it.

                That’s the way Chavez rolls, too.

                It’s getting scary.

        2. On the evening of September 16, 2008, the Federal Reserve Bank’s Board of Governors announced that the Federal Reserve Bank of New York had been authorized to create a 24-month credit-liquidity facility from which AIG could draw up to $85 billion. The loan was collateralized by the assets of AIG, including its non-regulated subsidiaries and the stock of “substantially all” of its regulated subsidiaries, and with an interest rate of 850 basis points over the three-month London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) (i.e., LIBOR plus 8.5%). In exchange for the credit facility, the U.S. government received warrants for a 79.9 percent equity stake in AIG, with the right to suspend the payment of dividends to AIG common and preferred shareholders.[

          Maurice Greenberg, former CEO of AIG, on September 17, 2008, characterized the bailout as a nationalization of AIG. He also stated that he was “bewildered” by the situation and was at a loss over how the entire situation got out of control as it did.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A…..ve_bailout

          1. Well, thank God Senator Obama at least fought against that bailout…

            Oh wait! That’s right…he didn’t fight against it–at all.

            And, incidentally, despite what people like Shrike are doing, this isn’t really about pretending past events only happened in ways that are flattering to Obama.

            I was pointing out that Obama nationalizing companies was a Chavez move–and it is! Chavez has done the same thing with numerous companies that Obama did with GM. He’s very much like Chavez that way. I’m not sure what they disagree on.

    2. The most interesting part of Chavez’ comment is that when he hypothetically places Obama in Venezuela he does it entirely based on his racial makeup… he imagines him as a resident of a poor coastal town that apparently has a lot of Africans. I’m guessing that Obama has almost nothing in common with those people.

      1. …and I’ll just do it to myself.

        “Those people?!?!!!!”

        1. WHAT??? WHAT??? WHAT????? *Bobs head forward several times.* WHAT???

          RACIS WHITEY!

  3. We’re voting for competent leadership, it’s not a popularity contest. Ha! Just kidding.

    Speaking of Chavez, whatever happened to Sean Penn, Cindy Sheehan and cancer?

  4. Chavez is on to something, I think. Too protect your property… better vote Romney.

    1. Oh yeah, I feel my property’s perfectly safe with a guy who supports/ed TARP, Romneycare, the vast majority of spending programs the federal government engages in, spending even more money on the military, starting a war with Iran, etc etc. And of course he’s also ok with warrantless spying and indefinite detention and assassination without due process. Gee, if only there was some guy running who actually wanted to shrink government …

      1. Gee, if only there was some guy running who actually wanted to shrink government

        GayJay wants to shrink it by instituting a 30% national sales tax and sending a monthly gubmint check to every household in America!

        We are truly fucked.

        1. He’s proposed a 43% cut to the budget. Real cuts. Not pussy Paul Ryan fake cuts that really increases. The Fair Tax may not be perfect, but it would be an improvement on the clusterfuck that our tax code currently is, and I’d honestly prefer the Fair Tax prebate to the welfare state we currently have

      2. I wouldn’t leave Obama alone with my property. Romney I’d trust. I’d trust Paul Ryan even more. And I would totally trust Rand Paul.

        You should get on the inside and try to make the Republicans more libertarian. There is no other hope if our lifetime.

        1. I wouldn’t trust Obama but I sure as hell wouldn’t trust slimeballs like Romney or Ryan either. The Republican Party is never going to become libertarian if libertarians blindly vote for the candidate, regardless of how terrible and unlibertarian he is

          1. No, the Republican Party won’t ever be fully libertarian, but it could be prodded into adopting pieces of a Libertarian plank. This is just how it works in America and how it will be working way long after you’re dead.

            1. How exactly does us voting for them encourage them to adopt pieces of the libertarian plank? I think you’ve got it backwards.

  5. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is at least as conservative as Rick Santorum. Of course he would win among rural white Appalachian Americans.

    1. But would he win among hysterical sockpuppets on the internet?

      1. Look, the Middle East is very conservative. You cannot deny that fact.

        Fuck, put my ass in Sweden any day.

        Most here would love Saudi Arabia instead.

        1. I thought it was Somalia that we were supposed to love.

        2. Funny how your team sympathizes when a religious leader is depicted negatively and you go on a big apology spree for that Religion’s followers who commit violence, genocide and atrocities and yet any likewise the negative depiction of any Conservative leader or movement here does not product the same wanton destruction, murders and chaos there is nothing but crickets from “you people”. Hypocrisy in it’s ultimate form.

          1. I hate all religious leaders. You have confused me for another.

            And Islam is the worst.

            1. And Islam is the worst.

              Except we must never insult it, because that would hurt their feelings.

            2. Re: Palin’s Buttwipe,

              And Islam is the worst.

              You have no future!

              Barry said so.

        3. I thought we were supposed to be Conservative? Seems to me the Liberals and their insurrectionist OWM would fit in more with the violent, rabidly incoherent reactionary response of their mere feelings be “hurt”. I guess people here did not accept Communism and blanket statements of 99% and the people getting everything they wanted on their Wishlist?

    2. True, true. For all their Muslim bashing, SoCons have far more in common with the mullahs, ayatollas and Sharia lawmakers in the Middle East than any other group of Americans.

      1. Yes, the essence of classic liberalism is that societies are plural and evolve into things that destroy the past.

        Conservatives clutch to tradition and the past.

        The two are polar opposites.

        1. Re: Palin’s Buttwipe,

          Yes, the essence of classic liberalism is that societies are plural and evolve into things that destroy the past.

          Which tells me you really have no idea what is the essence of classical liberalism. It has NOTHING to do with societies, plural or otherwise, but with individual freedom.

          Conservatives clutch to tradition and the past.

          That explains the reactionary nature of socialists.

          Oh, they’re quite reactionary!

        2. Modern liberals are far closer to what you call conservatives than they are to classic liberals. And yet you support them just because they stole the name

        3. “Conservatives clutch to tradition and the past.”

          Yet, Modern Liberalism seems to consist largely of clinging to anachronistic, failed policies simply because FDR was all about them.

      2. Bullshit. Let me know when American sociocons come anywhere near calling for the death penalty for blasphemy or homosexual behavior.

        1. But see, that’s how these monkeys think. Yet the world cannot “Progress” to those that denigrate Islam? Seems to me people, or lack of it entirely are the real Middle Eastern, Ahmadinejad supporting Liberals here in America.

        2. Read what he wrote. He didn’t say American SoCons are close to the mullahs, etc. He said they’re closer to them than any other group of Americans is. And that’s true

          1. Which means fuckall.

    3. Ahmad… that Iranian guy may not be popular among rural whites, but compared to Obama?

      The Onion piece is not far off the mark.

  6. Uh, so Bernie Eccelstone said something that may make sense.
    The world is going mad!

    1. Next you’ll be telling me Max Moseley’s dressing up like a Nazi.

      1. If Max wants to employ a group of acquaintances to partake in an amateur costume production with a historic Germanic military theme, then it is no-one else’s business and he’ll sue the living daylights out of anyone who demands details of his sexual perversions.

  7. Obama has bombed more people than Ahmadinejad.

  8. Top Secret Obama 2012 World War 3 Illuminati Antichrist Conspiracy!

      1. You mock, but only because you’d rather go home to the family and have a beer, watch the game then know the Truth.

        1. This one is better and more accurate

        2. So you disagree that Whitney Houston was SACRIFICED by the ILLUMINATI for the Jubliee of the Queen Elizabeth?

          What about the fact that Nicki Minaj is a demonically possessed ILLUMINATI Lizard Person?

          1. This wakeup guy is a pawn of the NWO trying to distract us all from the real conspiracy of our Lizard overlords. He must be stopped

            1. you failed to mention the Rand Corporation, Scientology, and reverse vampires

              1. We’re through the looking glass here, people.

    1. For a few seconds I thought it was a video for a hilariously-named song. I was then disappointed.

      1. If you have time, watch the whole video. It has a HERCULE-esque beauty to it.

  9. Chavez Endorses Obama

    Takes one [pompous ass] to know one.

  10. Q: Who is Tony Romo’s favorite receiver?
    A: The Opposition

  11. “…the English Service editor-in-chief (unnamed!) also noted the satirical news item’s believability:

    “Although it does not justify our mistake, we do believe that if a free opinion poll is conducted in the US, a majority of Americans would prefer anyone outside the US political system to President Barack Obama and American statesmen,” he added. ”

    So Dan “Fake but Accurate” Rather has found employment. Good for him!

  12. The Chavez personality cult is everywhere in Venezuela. One of the first things you notice upon arrival is a huge mural of Chavez in the airport. Most of his followers have no idea, nor do they really care, about any of his ideas, mostly because he has none. His ideas are nearly identical to OWS, which means not really ideas, but feelings of entitlements and class warfare.

    What actually kind of offends me about Obama is similar in spirit. For example, on Facebook, Michelle Obama asks for people to “sign Barack’s birthday card.” Or we are asked to sign some card congratulating Michelle and Barack on their anniversary. WTF? So much of the democrat campaign strategy concentrates on how much Barack and Michelle CARE about “all of us”. They “understand”. And Mitt is a buffoon who DOESN’T care. Or doesn’t get it. Their policies are nearly identical, yet there is a personal contempt showered on Romney, and a personal love and loyalty directed towards Obama. Idiots.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.