May 18th, 2015
Today we recall the rotted corpse of Elizabeth Edwards. We all remember Elizabeth don’t we? In the 2008 election cycle we rarely wrote about the John Edwards campaign other than to toss compliments to Mrs. John Edwards. We lived to realize how wrong we had been in our compliments to Elizabeth Edwards. We lived to begin to understand how toxic a schemer Elizabeth
Warren Edwards was. We learned that few schemers and scam artists match Mr. and Mrs. John Edwards.
But in 2008 there were many idiots who loved John Edwards. Years earlier we had attended some John Edwards speeches so we realized how charming a weasel he was in person. Even as we admired Edwards for his suave personality we knew there was something very wrong with him and we fled.
But in 2008 many people were taken in by John Edwards and listened to the testimony on his behalf by his wife Elizabeth Edwards. Eventually as the Edwards campaign collapsed (we provided the reasons for that collapse in our analysis from years ago) most of those supporters ran into the lying arms of Barack Obama. Some fools will never learn.
But in 2008 many people believed and trusted Mr. and Mrs. John Edwards. The toxic waste dump called Elizabeth Edwards used her disease and the public sympathy caused by her situation to attack Hillary Clinton in the most personal terms. The shameless Elizabeth Edwards who was aware of her hubby’s wandering penis even dared say that her marriage was happier than the Clinton marriage.
Whether the Edwards marriage was or was not as happy as the Clinton marriage it certainly was not as long lasting. We don’t particularly care about the happiness level of married couples or what goes on in the private life of others. If Elizabeth Edwards had restricted her public comments to delusions about her husbands fidelity we would not be writing about her sordid life today. But toxic Elizabeth Edwards had much more to say:
Elizabeth Edwards offers sharp critique of Hillary
John Edwards would be a better women’s President than Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Edwards said yesterday, trashing the New York senator as too quiet on feminist issues and too muddled on abortion.
Edwards, the cancer-stricken wife of White House hopeful John Edwards, took her shots at Clinton in an interview yesterday before she, Clinton and another 2008 competitor, Sen. Barack Obama, spoke to a Planned Parenthood convention.
“Keeping [the] door open to women is actually more a policy of John’s than Hillary’s,” Elizabeth Edwards, a lawyer, told Salon.com.
But she said she was sympathetic to Clinton and understood, from her own dealings with male lawyers, why Clinton might not focus on women’s issues.
“You want to reassure them you’re as good as a man. And sometimes you feel you have to behave as a man and not talk about women’s issues,” Edwards said.
Edwards, who is fighting terminal breast cancer, said that Clinton, aside from being a woman, has offered no reason for people to vote for her.
“When she announced her candidacy she said, ‘I’m in it to win it.’ What is that? That’s not a rationale,” Edwards said.
She also slapped Clinton for what the senator does say on women’s issues, particularly on abortion. Clinton has tried to soothe religious voters by focusing on preventing unwanted pregnancies and describing her stance as keeping abortion “safe, legal and rare.”
“I don’t think we should muddle the language,” Edwards said. “The wiggle room in what she says makes me feel uncomfortable.”
The Clinton campaign declined to comment, although Clinton herself promised during her campaign rollout that she’d “deck” any opponent who attacked her. She also has declined to counter Rudy Giuliani and Obama. [snip]
Obama, who campaigns on the theme of change, suggested the country has moved beyond the “culture wars” that dominated politics in the Clinton years.
“I am absolutely convinced that the cuture [sic] wars are just so ’90s,” he said. “It is time to turn the page. We want a new day here in America.”
Obama’s promise to “turn the page” is certainly a laugh today but when we mocked his “turn the page” crap then it was we who were mocked. Likewise the Clinton campaign refusal to attack Obama with the vigor we suggested is lamentable when viewed from today. Hillary’s rational voice in 2008 as compared to the Obama style nonsense emitted today is a head scratcher which will be paid for in blood during the general election. But the most startling of all the statements from that 2007 article belong to Elizabeth Edwards.
Today, something called Quinn Mulholland puts on Elizabeth Edwards’ dusty dress, and in Harvard Political Review asks Why Not Martin O’Malley?:
Both reflect a deep concern that all Americans don’t have an equal shot at prosperity. Both demonstrate a growing opposition to the centrist Democratic policies of the Clinton era—the trade policies and the welfare reform—that seemed to mostly benefit the wealthiest Americans.
Yet it is Martin O’Malley, not Elizabeth Warren, who has a proven record of accomplishing real progress on these issues on a state level. It is Martin O’Malley, not Elizabeth Warren, who became the first major Democratic politician to endorse a national $15 minimum wage at the Institute of Politics on Thursday. And it is Martin O’Malley, not Elizabeth Warren, who is seriously considering challenging Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination for president in 2016.
So why have political pundits come to the consensus that Elizabeth Warren is the only one who could give Hillary a run for her money in the Democratic primary? Perhaps it is O’Malley’s lack of name recognition. He is currently polling at around 0.3 percent in the Iowa Democratic Caucus, compared to Clinton’s 58 percent, and Warren’s 17 percent. But that number is increasing, and O’Malley received a warm reception in recent trips to New Hampshire and Iowa.
Not content to only wear Elizabeth Edwards’ old dresses, this Mulholland character puts on her lipstick and makeup as well. As if a fowl-like transvestite character from the film Psycho Mulholland speaks the words in the voice of Mrs. John Edwards:
Perhaps it is because O’Malley is not a woman. While a first female president would certainly be a symbolic victory for women, it is unclear that a Clinton presidency would produce many tangible benefits for women. In fact, in terms of policy, O’Malley seems to have proposed just as many, if not more, policies to help women as Clinton has. At the Harvard Institute of Politics, O’Malley declared, “We must recognize that policies that are good for women and families, like paid leave and safe and affordable child care, are also good for our national economy, and for economic growth, because when women succeed, our American economy also succeeds.”
O’Malley also proclaimed his support for a federal $15 minimum wage, which would give a much-needed raise to the 3 million Americans who work at or below minimum wage, 62 percent of whom are women. Clinton has voiced her support for fast food workers striking for a higher wage, but she has yet to establish how much of an increase in the minimum wage she would support. Despite his gender, O’Malley could be the candidate that would make the biggest difference for women. [snip]
Clinton will be nowhere near as “inevitable” in the general presidential election as she was in the Democratic primary, assuming—perhaps prematurely—that she wins it. She will have to face voters on the left concerned with her ties to Wall Street and her flip-flopping on gay marriage and immigration, as well as voters on the right who will have been inundated with anti-Hillary attacks for months. Perhaps America is ready for a genuinely populist Martin O’Malley campaign. O’Malley certainly appears to be ready.
Martin O’Malley is scheduled to announce he is running for president at the end of this month. Thus far Martin O’Malley has made two contributions to the 2016 debate.
The first Martin O’Malley contribution to the 2016 discussion has been to dredge up every horrible consequence of left wing kook control of America’s cities. We call him “Baltimore O’Malley” as those initial letters befit O’Malley’s Barack Obama style boobery.
A different type of boobery is Martin O’Malley’s second “achievement” this early in the 2016 campaign cycle. Martin O’Malley can’t seem to keep his shirt on.
Barack Obama showed America his flabby man-boobs while dirtying up the waters of Hawaii late in 2008. Martin O’Malley has taken pec pictures to a new low. Doesn’t he own a shirt?
Baltimore O’Malley will do to America what he did to Baltimore. As to those man-boobs, at least John Edwards never inflicted America with man-boob pictures.
May 15th, 2015
Killer Boston Bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was sentenced to death today. The great B.B. King died today. This week there was a train derailment in Pennsylvania. Next week something will happen. The next month something else will happen. The month after that there will likely be more Obama disasters because you can always bet that incompetent and treacherous boob Barack Obama will always boob it up. The month after that there will be more Obama disasters and more news. About all these events Hillary should shut her mouth.
Every kook on the left wants Hillary to open her mouth and opine on what they want her to opine. Every smart Republican, every smart conservative wants Hillary to open her mouth and opine on anything. As the old proverb has it, the tongue is the enemy of the neck.
We strongly advised Hillary not to announce until July at the earliest. Our advice was not taken. So we won’t whine when we hear attacks against Hillary. In one real sense she deserves the attacks because her early announcement was strategically and tactically stupid.
To her credit though Hillary attenuated her foolish early announcement by mostly keeping her mouth shut, avoiding Big Media interviews, and otherwise conducting a “listening tour” in which she pretends to listen to voters and shakes her head up and down in acknowledgement of the noise emitted by the participants in these listening tour events. If anything we think Hillary should nod her head more and move her jaw less.
Every time Hillary keeps her mouth shut in this her too early campaign an angel gets his/her wings. It’s like the bell that rings in that Christmas movie with Clarence the angel.
Every time Hillary keeps her mouth shut in this her too early campaign the hearts of her political opponents, on the left and the right, break a little bit.
On the left Hillary’s closed mouth elicits Monica Lewinsky jokes. The left kooks can’t help it. The kook left sees their Cambridge Cherokee, Lie-a-watha, Fauxcahontas, Wig-Wam Warren, afraid thus far to declare herself as the next Mess-iah. Without Warren the left has nothing left. There is only beanie Sanders. Soon Baltimore O’Malley will enter the lists but, well… he’s just another B.O. The left has the freedom of, to quote Janis, nothing left to lose. The last hero of the kooks has proved to be a treacherous boob who has destroyed the party from top to bottom.
For those on the right, Republicans and conservatives, the tactic of trying to get Hillary to slit her own throat has some costs. Actually, there are considerable costs.
Republicans and conservatives have a big, varied, field of candidates who will run for president. There might be two dozen presidential candidates on the Republican side. There are so many Republican candidates for president that once all of them declare officially it will be a problem for any of them to get attention.
Republican candidates for president will hold their first debate in August. Who will be invited to participate in this and later debates? Will all of them be invited? Will there be a limited number invited to participate?
All Republican candidates have a right to be heard and to participate in at least the initial debates. But there are so many candidates that Big Media will be tempted to winnow the field without benefit of the voters.
So think about this: there are tons of Republican candidates for president but Big Media outlets and Republican/conservative websites are too busy mocking Hillary (so badly they mock themselves) they do GOP candidates a disservice. Every time Megyn Kelly amps up the volume on Hillary in order to beat Bill O’Reilly to the first interview with Hillary and/or get attention/ratings for herself, Megyn hurts Republican candidates who want to get some attention.
We here at public service conscious Big Pink are making the supreme effort of giving every candidate their due on the day they announce. Our Amazonian resolve to examine every announcee will be tested when Rick Santorum, our Lady of the Sweaters, announces but we will make the effort. It’s more than Republican/conservative websites are doing, eh?
One of the Republican/conservative websites we enjoy reading is run by a jammie wearing fool. Lately, their devotion is to goad Hillary into talk. Every day they so kindly advise Hillary to speak up “for her own good” of course:
‘Hide Hillary’ Strategy Backfiring as Reclusive Granny Clinton Trailing in Six Battleground States
Perhaps poll numbers that are sagging more than her face will eventually smoke out Grandma Clinton and force her to actually face the media one of these months. But it’s a GOP poll, so she’ll just shrug it off like she did the dead in Benghazi. [snip]
Meanwhile, her favorables have plummeted in a new Fox poll. [snip]
Team Grandma should be alarmed by the drop among independents, so maybe it’s time for some more staged events where the fading Clinton can pretend she’s listening to voters. GOP candidates are enjoying poking the bumbling Clinton over her evasiveness. [snip]
Watch for some orchestrated media appearances once her minions digest the bad news. Problem is she may not be able to recover.
Gee fellas, thanks for the advice. We don’t think you’d make good courthouse lawyers but your kindhearted attempts to rescue Hillary2016 from oblivion is appreciated.
At Republican/conservative HotAir the advice comes via the Washington Post and the Hillary Haters who wrote that 2008 campaign recap “game change” book which argued Obama was the Mess-iah and Hillary was never to be heard from again. How did that “game change” analysis turn out? So now these Big Media losers are back with more bad suggestions.
Gee, the Hillary Haters at the Washington Post and Bloomberg news who so loved Obama in 2008 now can’t get enough of Hillary. H&H want Hillary to hang herself with her own tongue. For them that would be a game changer for Warren for sure.
So what should
Jesus Hillary do? Should she follow the advice of the right and the left and opine on issues of the day? Or should Hillary, after not taking our advice, listen to good ol’ Big Pink and keep her mouth shut? We’ll quote from the Republican/conservative Weekly Standard:
Why Are Hillary Clinton’s Numbers So Good?
Quick: When was the last time Hillary Clinton had a “good” week? I don’t remember either.
The last big media stories about Clinton have been:
1.) She runs a shady foundation that burns a lot of money and doesn’t do much real-world good.
2.) She had exchanges that looked like pay-for-play while acting as secretary of state.
3.) Because of these problems, she’s been ducking the media like crazy.
4.) And don’t forget there’s that private email server that she shouldn’t have been running that would have totally exonerated her about everything if she hadn’t nuked it.
As Jack Reacher would say, not good.
And yet, in the face of what has been three solid months of bad news, Clinton’s poll numbers aren’t bad. Not bad at all.
Among Iowa Democrats, for instance, she’s in basically the same place she was in late February: 60 percent support today compared to 61 percent back then. Nationally, things aren’t quite as good. A New York Times poll last week showed her favorability numbers holding reasonably steady_35 favorable/36 unfavorable, compared to 37/26 in March.
What interests me most is what’s going on underneath the top-line numbers. An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll asked respondents several questions about Clinton’s character. The number most people paid attention to was “honest and straightforward”-where only 25 percent of respondents said they believed she was honest (versus 50 percent who said she wasn’t).
That sounds pretty grim and Nixonian. But here’s the thing: A couple questions before that, people were asked if Clinton was “effective” at “getting things done”-here the split was 44-34 in her favor. Is she “easygoing and likable”? People said yes by a margin of 41-37. The craziest response: Does she “have high moral standards that set the proper moral tone for the country?” Forty-three percent say yes versus only 39 percent who say no.
Think about that for a minute. By a margin of -25 points, people say they don’t trust Hillary Clinton, but by a margin of +4 points they say she has “high moral standards.”
Jonathan Last is a smart Republican/conservative who understands a bit of history. Anyone remember 1992? Bill Clinton was accused of just about everything except incest. Bill at a crucial moment in the campaign had a woman come forth to talk about sex with Bill all the while a clown from the Howard Stern show pickled the proceedings with inquiries as to whether the mostly unknown candidate Bill Clinton wore a condom while copulating with said piano bar singer even as charges of being a Soviet spy, a draft dodger, a pot smoker, a cocaine cowboy with an airport at Mena, a lesbian wife, undeclared black children with odd drug addled women and, and, and, um, Bill Clinton won. Yeah, he also lost crucial primaries and didn’t even participate in Iowa caucuses but Bill won.
Jonathan Last unhappily gets the problem Republicans have with Hillary:
There are only two possible conclusions from this: Either (1) Voters are idiots. Or (2) As a political commodity, Hillary Clinton’s appeal is based on something other than trustworthiness.
Whichever the case, the big lesson from the last few months is that it will be very difficult for a Republican to beat Hillary Clinton by getting voters to turn against her. The Clinton cake is so thoroughly baked that there’s no new evidence that’s going to make people decide that suddenly, after 20 years, the scales have fallen from their eyes and they realize she’s something other than what they think she is.
Instead, the Republican nominee is going to have to make a positive case for something better. It won’t be enough to try to disqualify Clinton. He or she is going to have to offer a more attractive alternative vision.
(And whatever you do, don’t think too hard about the fact that one out of every four Americans still thinks Clinton is “honest” and “straightforward.” It’s just too depressing.)
Republicans/conservatives have somehow forgotten this is the primary season. This is the time to sort through the menu of candidates and issues and come up with a direction they wish to take as a party. Fixations on Hillary and “prep the landscape” tactics only distract from the decisions they have to make.
As to Hillary, there are tough questions she will have to answer. We thought the time for her to make the tough statements and to separate herself from Barack Obama were back in 2013. But that’s blood under the bridge. For now Hillary should keep her mouth shut.
The time for Hillary to answer legitimate questions such as why there was no preparation for 9/11 anniversary attacks such as occurred in Benghazi will come. What did Hillary do at the State Department that merits elevation to the White House? (we’ll answer that one at the right time too) will also require a substantive response. What does she really think about boob Obama and his treacherous policies that so endanger the world? All those questions will have to be answered – but not now. Let the attention addicts in Iowa and New Hampshire stew.
For Hillary the time to watch and listen is now. For Hillary the time to keep her mouth shut tight is now.
May 12th, 2015
Hey, remember Austan Goolsbee in 2008? As Obama tries to lie his way to a TPP trade deal it is useful to recall Austan Goolsbee and Barack Obama in 2008 on NAFTA:
Despite repeated requests, Barack Obama’s campaign is still neither verifying nor denying a CTV report that a senior member of the team made contact with the Canadian government — via the Chicago consulate general — regarding comments Obama made about NAFTA. [snip]
On Wednesday, CTV reported that a senior member of Obama’s campaign called the Canadian government within the last month — saying that when Senator Obama talks about opting out of the free trade deal, the Canadian government shouldn’t worry. The operative said it was just campaign rhetoric not to be taken seriously.
The Obama campaign told CTV late Thursday night that no message was passed to the Canadian government that suggests that Obama does not mean what he says about opting out of NAFTA if it is not renegotiated.
However, the Obama camp did not respond to repeated questions from CTV on reports that a conversation on this matter was held between Obama’s senior economic adviser — Austan Goolsbee — and the Canadian Consulate General in Chicago.
Earlier Thursday, the Obama campaign insisted that no conversations have taken place with any of its senior ranks and representatives of the Canadian government on the NAFTA issue. On Thursday night, CTV spoke with Goolsbee, but he refused to say whether he had such a conversation with the Canadian government office in Chicago. He also said he has been told to direct any questions to the campaign headquarters. [snip]
Sources at the highest levels of the Canadian government — who first told CTV that a call was made from the Obama camp — have reconfirmed their position.
In 2008 Obama lied to friends and foes about the trade deal called the NAFTA. Now Obama is upset that some of his closest friends do not believe him on his latest talk in defense of the TPP trade deal. In 2008 candidate Obama promised to renegotiate NAFTA or opt out of the deal. After 2008 Obama did not renegotiate anything and certainly made no noise about opting out of the NAFTA.
Now Obama has reassembled the best liars from his 2008 campaign team to create new lies in order to pass the TPP trade deal Obama wants as his legacy. Obama lied repeatedly about NAFTA in 2008.
Change “NAFTA” to “TPP” and the picture is complete. That’s why Barack Obama is now attacking his kookiest Kooks:
Obama continued his war on Warren through the weekend, reminding Democrats that she doesn’t walk on water, that she’s a politician. Warren, he insists, is fighting an old fight going back to NAFTA, a free trade agreement signed by President Clinton in 1994. [snip]
Warren punched back in an interview with NPR airing Tuesday pointing out that American courts would not be the deciders, that “private corporate lawyers who get paid by big corporations to sit and decide” would be the arbiters. “And let’s be clear, once those private corporate lawyers make a decision, there is no appeal.”
Try and understand the level of Obama hypocrisy on TPP. Obama is accusing TPP critics of fighting the NAFTA fight all over again. Somehow Obama forgot Austan Goolsbee and Obama supporters won’t bring Goolsbeen into the debate because the memories of how they race-baited and lied for Obama in 2008 and 2012 is too painful for them in light of Obama’s latest stabs in the back:
The vast majority of lawmakers in his own party oppose him on trade legislation. Yet rather than accept that they have a legitimate beef, he shows public contempt for them — as he did in an interview with Matt Bai of Yahoo News released over the weekend.
“Their arguments are based on fears, or they’re fighting NAFTA, the trade deal that was passed 25 years ago — or 20 years ago,” he said with a laugh. Sighing, he added, “I understand the emotions behind it, but when you break down the logic of their arguments, I’ve got to say that there’s not much there there.”
He said one of his Democratic critics’ arguments “doesn’t make any sense,” another is “pure speculation,” and others are “made up” or unrealistic. “There’s no logic that I think a progressive should embrace that would make you opposed to this deal,” he said, accusing those who disagree of taking the “not smart” position of trying to “ignore the fact that a global economy is here to stay” and of acting to “shrink the overall economic pie just because we’re mad about some things that have happened in the past.” [snip]
If Obama loses on trade, blame should go to the twin pillars of detachment that have underpinned his presidency: insularity and secrecy.
Where is Austan Goolsbee these days?
‘Obama attacks strongest Obama supporters’ type headlines are no surprise to us. For so long we have written the obvious:
Obama simply cannot be trusted. Obama cannot be trusted on any issue. Obama cannot be trusted by his friends. Obama cannot be trusted by his enemies. Obama cannot be trusted.
In short: Obama cannot be trusted neither by friend nor foe.
Pity fat Ed Schultz. Not only is Schultz on a loser network, Schultzie is only now realizing the monumental mistake he and his fellow Kooks committed when they worshiped the Mess-iah:
“I supported you big time. I was the first liberal talker to support you. I’ve carried your water big time when it comes to health care, I’ve carried your water on the economy and defending your move on the automobile industry, but Mr. President, you can take shots at this network, but I guarantee you, you are wrong on this and you cannot prove to the American people,” Schultz said.
“American workers will suffer if this deal goes through, and Mr. President, your recovery of the economy, the automobile industry and health care will not be your legacy. It will be what you’re doing to the very people who put you in office, had you not had the unions, you would never beat John McCain, had you not had the unions, you would have never beat Mitt Romney and now turning your back on these people trying to convince them that they have to do this phony trade deal that’s going to ship jobs overseas. I’d love to talk to you face to face, Mr. President,” Schultz declared.
Alice Palmer, Ed. Alice Palmer. Obama will stab friend and foe in the back to advance himself.
Schultzie is not the only one who is whining about the knife Obama stuck in his back.
Barack Obama stabbed Israel in the back. In 2008 at the Cairo speech Obama stabbed Jews and Israel firmly in the back. Obama bowed and scraped to the Arab potentates as he stabbed Israel in the back. Now, Obama is stabs the Arab leaders at the behest of his radical pals.
Israel and many Arab countries are now learning the lesson:
Obama simply cannot be trusted. Obama cannot be trusted on any issue. Obama cannot be trusted by his friends. Obama cannot be trusted by his enemies. Obama cannot be trusted.
In short: Obama cannot be trusted neither by friend nor foe.
Arab leaders, like Israel before, realize now that Obama cannot be trusted and they are on letting the world in on the lesson:
Ever since he decided to chase the mirage of a “Grand Bargain” with Iran, President Obama has pretended that the only opposition comes from Israeli premier Benjamin Netanyahu and “hardline” Republicans in the Congress.
He was to highlight that claim by hosting a summit for “key Arab allies” at Camp David this week.
Yet the exercise has instead shown the failure of Obama to sell his narrative to “key Arab allies” even before the first round of orange juice is served at Camp David.
Of the six heads of the members of the Gulf Cooperation Council, only two, the emirs of Kuwait and Qatar, will attend.
Even the offer by Obama of a separate tete-a-tete in Washington could not persuade Saudi Arabia’s King Salman to attend what Riyadh sources describe as “a photo-op” aimed at hoodwinking the American public.
Obam’s snubs turn into Obama snubbed:
First Obama stabbed Israel and the Jews in the back. Then Netanyahu fought against Obama and won reelection. Now the Arabs realize they are stabbed in the back by Obama at the behest of the Persians. So the Arabs fight back in the first phase of their long war:
The goal is to reassure the king of Saudi Arabia—along with the emirs and princes of Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman and the United Arab Emirates—that the U.S. will continue to support them despite the nuclear deal with Iran. [snip]
But at the last minute the senior Arab leaders are finding excuses not to make the trip. New Saudi King Salman pulled out on the weekend only days after confirming his attendance, and he will send lower-level officials instead. Bahrain’s king has also bowed out. These rejections can only be described as political snubs rooted in distrust of President Obama and his diplomacy. [snip]
The White House will now have to scramble to rescue its policy, and one thing we can expect is a new round of arms sales to the Gulf. The region is already awash in new weapons, including a recent announcement that Qatar will purchase $7 billion in French fighter jets. The signature U.S. contribution will probably be the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense System (Thaad), which can shoot down Scuds and other ballistic missiles fielded by Iran.
There’s nothing inherently destabilizing about arms sales. But the pace of Arab purchases, up 50% in the last year alone to $18 billion, along with the types of weapons they are buying, says something about their assessment of the threat they face. Why buy the multibillion Thaad system if diplomacy neutralizes the Iranian nuclear threat? What’s the sense of fielding brand new air squadrons if they are confident in traditional U.S. defense guarantees?
Mr. Obama also hopes to dissuade the Arab states, particularly the Saudis, from seeking their own nuclear weapons. [snip]
Arab leaders have already shown how little trust they put in Mr. Obama’s assurances.
Whether in the Pacific, the Atlantic, the Indian, the Arctic or the Antarctic, oceans – Obama cannot be trusted. In Africa, Antarctica, Asia, Australia/Oceania, Europe, North America, or South America – Obama cannot be trusted.
Obama cannot be trusted by “friend” nor foe.
May 8th, 2015
Update: O’Reilly: You know who wouldn’t have held a Mohammed cartoon contest? Jesus, that’s who. Disgusting. Wrong. Self-censoring appeasement is not a wise tactic to defeat Islamic nuts and jihadists. Assassins’ Veto as we wrote below.
Fortunately Megyn Kelly is on the job and she goes directly after Obama softie O’Reilly without specifically naming him:
Kelly did a good job with Eugene Volokh too in defense of free speech (Kelly slaps Chris Cuomo who does not understand free speech applies to hate speech):
There is value in an act of defiance.
Think things are crazy now with the Obama race-baiting? It’s going to get worse as the Obama ballyhooed demographic changes take place or don’t take place in America.
The left is going nuts (nuttier?) on Twitter today because it is “White Appreciation Day”. If you’re white you can get a 10% discount at some BBQ place no one ever heard of before and therefore the left has gone as nutty as a squirrel who munched on a hallucinogenic acorn.
To be accurate, today is not “White Appreciation Day” today is more “Hate White Appreciation Day”. “White Appreciation Day” will be on June 11 at the aforementioned BBQ emporium no one heard of before today. So, as if needed, here is the rationale for “White Appreciation Day”:
White patrons who visit Rubbin Buttz BBQ in Milliken, Colorado, on June 11 will receive a 10 percent discount on their orders as part of “White Appreciation Day.”
While they realize the move might anger some people, the Hispanic owners, Edgar Antillon and Miguel Jimenez, are standing by their decision.
“White Appreciation Day! June 11th. Because All Americans Should Be Celebrated,” the sign posted outside the restaurant reads.
“We have a whole month for Black History Month; we have a whole month for Hispanic heritage month, so we thought the least we could do was offer one day to appreciate white Americans,” Antillon told KUSA-TV.
The restaurant is already experiencing some backlash.
Civil rights activist Ricardo Romero called the discount a “perpetuation of racism,” while a spokeswoman with the Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies said the decision could result in lawsuits if customers “felt like they were being discriminated against.”
If you celebrate White Appreciation Day you might get a lawsuit as punishment. Even if you live in a predominantly non-white area of the country you can’t celebrate “White Appreciation Day” even though as a white person you might be the minority. And if the ObamaRoid dream of a minority majority country ever comes to pass will White Appreciation Day be a civil right or a civil rights lawsuit waiting to happen?
What about the United Negro College Fund? What about “historically black colleges”? What about “BlackPeopleMeet”?
Is BlackPeopleMeet racist? Is there a WhitePeopleMeet website? Why can you have a BlackPeopleMeet website but not a WhitePeopleMeet?
As the ObamaRoid nightmare of race-baiting becomes an everyday occurrence the full horrors of identity politics become apparent. Can you picture a White Appreciation Day in majority black Baltimore without riots and lawsuits?
Is there institutional racism in the United States? Not against blacks. Any time the “racist!” charge is merely heard the government along with all the institutions of power jumps right in to fight against the accused racist no matter how frivolous the charge or the accuser.
Is there institutional racism in the United States? To an extraordinary extent institutional racism is in favor of blacks. Think we exaggerate? Did you hear the one about the phony black man?:
Mindy Kaling’s Brother Reveals He Pretended to Be Black to Get into Medical School
In a new website-slash-pitch for a memoir, Vijay Chokal-Ingam, the brother of comedian Mindy Kaling, reveals that he gamed the system and managed to get into medical school by claiming he was African-American.
Chokal-Ingam, who graduated from the University of Chicago with a meager 3.1 GPA, says that his ploy began after the self-described party boy saw his fellow Asian Indian-Americans, many of whom had higher grades, fail to get into medical school. “I shaved my head, trimmed my long Indian eyelashes, and applied to medical school as a black man,” he wrote on his website, AlmostBlack.com. [snip]
With this, “Jojo” managed to get into the selective Saint Louis University School of Medicine with the exact same application he used as an Indian man. As a fake black man, he allegedly secured interviews at nine highly selective medical schools, including Harvard, Columbia, and the University of Pennsylvania. As he told The New York Post:
“I disclosed that I grew up in one of the wealthiest towns in Massachusetts, that my mother was a doctor, and that my father was an architect,” he said Saturday, describing his med-school applications.
“I disclosed that I didn’t receive financial aid from the University of Chicago, and that I had a nice car,” he said. “I was the campus rich kid, let’s just put it on the table. And yet they considered me an affirmative-action applicant.”
Well but that is just one weird example right? Certainly no proof of institutional racism on behalf of black people, right? For such an extraordinary claim there must be extraordinary proof. Here is the proof of outrageous institutional racism on behalf of blacks:
In a windowless classroom at an Arcadia tutoring center, parents crammed into child-sized desks and dug through their pockets and purses for pens as Ann Lee launches a PowerPoint presentation.
Her primer on college admissions begins with the basics: application deadlines, the relative virtues of the SAT versus the ACT and how many Advanced Placement tests to take.
Then she eases into a potentially incendiary topic — one that many counselors like her have learned they cannot avoid.
“Let’s talk about Asians,” she says.
Lee’s next slide shows three columns of numbers from a Princeton University study that tried to measure how race and ethnicity affect admissions by using SAT scores as a benchmark. It uses the term “bonus” to describe how many extra SAT points an applicant’s race is worth. She points to the first column.
African Americans received a “bonus” of 230 points, Lee says.
She points to the second column.
“Hispanics received a bonus of 185 points.”
The last column draws gasps.
Asian Americans, Lee says, are penalized by 50 points — in other words, they had to do that much better to win admission.
“Do Asians need higher test scores? Is it harder for Asians to get into college? The answer is yes,” Lee says.
“Zenme keyi,” one mother hisses in Chinese. How can this be possible?
That is racist institutional bias against Asians on behalf of blacks (and Latinos). Yet this racism is institutionally tolerated and encouraged by the institutions of power in the country.
Such is the depravity at the center of power that race-baiting presentations against “white privilege” are now forced indoctrination at the U.S. Army.
None of this vile “identity politics” stink is why the world went to war in the 1940s. Today we celebrate the triumph of the forces of the Western enlightenment against the forces of pagan totalitarianism in Europe. It is 70 years ago that the West celebrated victory after we went to war in defense of Western civilization and values. It was on a day like today 70 years ago that freedom won over the forces of totalitarianism.
Yet now, after that great victory over totalitarianisms of every stripe, after a great triumph for the values of the West, the leader of the West is in Obama led retreat. The values of free speech are the first casualty in the new war against totalitarianism:
There’s a war on free speech — and radical Islam is winning [snip]
Radical Muslims are succeeding in eroding fundamental American values, but the reality is more nuanced. Through a combination of fear, intimidation and exploitation of the liberal reflex to sympathize with supposedly marginalized groups, radicals have been steadily eroding our long-standing conception of free speech.
In the most recent example in Garland, Texas, two men with body armor and assault rifles shot up a community center that was holding a cartoon contest to draw the Muslim Prophet Muhammad. Luckily, they were shot dead by police before they could harm anybody.
Yet, in a horrendous case of mass victim-blaming, media figures across the political spectrum have been pointing fingers at the contest organizers — and worse, suggesting limits on offensive speech.
The New York Times ran an editorial distinguishing between “free speech” and “hate speech” writing that the event “was not really about free speech. It was an exercise in bigotry and hatred posing as a blow for freedom.” CNN’s Chris Cuomo wrote on Twitter that “hate speech is excluded from protection,” later claiming it was a “clumsy tweet.” Fox’s Bill O’Reilly got into the act, saying the organizers of the event “spurred a violent incident.”
Alia Salem, executive director of the Dallas and Fort Worth chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, floated restrictions on the First Amendment freedoms, stating, according to the New York Times, that, “The discussion we have to have is: When does free speech become hate speech, and when does hate speech become incitement to violence?”
Powerlineblog gets it correctly on the question of free speech and “hate speech”:
Free Speech vs. Hate Speech?
I wrote in Blaming Pamela Geller that many liberals are more critical of Ms. Geller than of the Muslim extremists who tried to murder her at the Muhammad Art Exhibit and Contest in Texas. Of course, for over-the-top leftism, you can’t beat the New York Times editorial board. They weighed in on the relative merits of Pamela Geller and the Islamic terrorists yesterday in an editorial titled “Free Speech vs. Hate Speech.”
Which is an error right off the bat. Hate speech is free speech. That is, with narrow exceptions that do not apply to Geller’s art exhibit, hate speech is constitutionally protected. The editorialists start off on the right foot:
There is no question that images ridiculing religion, however offensive they may be to believers, qualify as protected free speech in the United States and most Western democracies. There is also no question that however offensive the images, they do not justify murder, and that it is incumbent on leaders of all religious faiths to make this clear to their followers.
If they had quit there, it would have been their shortest and best editorial in a long time. Unfortunately, they continued:
You want to be disgusted by Pamela Geller, go right ahead, be disgusted all you want – but Geller has a right to be heard without threats against her life. Years ago when so-called Nazis marched through the streets of Skokie, Illinois, many of the Holocaust survivor residents of Skokie as well as many Americans were disgusted. But the Nazis marched – all the while protected by the glorious First Amendment and the values of the West – which defeated the Nazi pagan religion 70 years ago today.
The American left as exemplified by the Obama Dimocrat Party is become the totalitarian left of a bygone era. Even some on the left, Obama acolytes, begin to realize the monster of totalitarianism comes from the left:
Jonathan Chait suddenly realizes that what he calls “political correctness” — i.e., the radical Left’s need to demonize, denounce, ban, shut down, and exile anyone who offends them with a contrary thought, a.k.a., “rage-whiners” — is a threat to good progressives like himself:
But it would be a mistake to categorize today’s p.c. culture as only an academic phenomenon. Political correctness is a style of politics in which the more radical members of the left attempt to regulate political discourse by defining opposing views as bigoted and illegitimate. Two decades ago, the only communities where the left could exert such hegemonic control lay within academia, which gave it an influence on intellectual life far out of proportion to its numeric size. Today’s political correctness flourishes most consequentially on social media, where it enjoys a frisson of cool and vast new cultural reach. And since social media is also now the milieu that hosts most political debate, the new p.c. has attained an influence over mainstream journalism and commentary beyond that of the old.
In a short period of time, the p.c. movement has assumed a towering presence in the psychic space of politically active people in general and the left in particular. “All over social media, there dwell armies of unpaid but widely read commentators, ready to launch hashtag campaigns and circulate Change.org petitions in response to the slightest of identity-politics missteps,” Rebecca Traister wrote recently in The New Republic.
Recently, students from a frat house sang clearly racist songs. Due process and the First Amendment were immediately discarded by the school authorities. Under the guise of fighting racism, the University of Oklahoma became a totalitarian force against free speech rights.
The most offensive speech should be protected by the government. This does not mean that we as a website have to publish pro-Obama propaganda. This does not mean that a Jewish organization must publish good wishes to Hitler on his birthday. This does mean the government and government institutions shall not infringe on the free speech of Americans:
1. First, racist speech is constitutionally protected, just as is expression of other contemptible ideas; and universities may not discipline students based on their speech. That has been the unanimous view of courts that have considered campus speech codes and other campus speech restrictions — see here for some citations. The same, of course, is true for fraternity speech, racist or otherwise; see Iota Xi Chapter of Sigma Chi Fraternity v. George Mason University (4th Cir. 1993). [snip]
UPDATE: The university president wrote that the students are being expelled for “your leadership role in leading a racist and exclusionary chant which has created a hostile educational environment for others.” But there is no First Amendment exception for racist speech, or exclusionary speech, or — as the cases I mentioned above — for speech by university students that “has created a hostile educational environment for others.”
2. Likewise, speech doesn’t lose its constitutional protection just because it refers to violence — “You can hang him from a tree,” “the capitalists will be the first ones up against the wall when the revolution comes,” “by any means necessary” with pictures of guns, “apostates from Islam should be killed.”
3. To be sure, in specific situations, such speech might fall within a First Amendment exception. One example is if it is likely to be perceived as a “true threat” of violence (e.g., saying “apostates from Islam will be killed” or “we’ll hang you from a tree” to a particular person who will likely perceive it as expressing the speaker’s intention to kill him); but that’s not the situation here, where the speech wouldn’t have been taken by any listener as a threat against him or her. Another is if it intended to solicit a criminal act, or to create a conspiracy to commit a criminal act, but, vile as the “hang him from a tree” is, neither of these exceptions are applicable here, either.
4. [UPDATE: Given the president’s letter, it’s clear that the students are being expelled solely for their speech, and not for the reason discussed in the following paragraphs.]
At the leftist The Atlantic instead of a celebration of the First Amendment we read an attack on the First Amendment for tolerating free speech the author does not like. Presumably if the writer was alive at the time of Martin Luther King the fact that King’s speech was reprehensible to the majority would have been sufficient cause to repress the free speech rights of Dr. King.
The enemies of Western civilization and the enlightenment values of the West are everywhere these days. Usually they have great rationalizations to justify their worship of Big Brother.
DEATH TO BIG BROTHER!
The thought police and the enemies of freedom are everywhere and making progress. But they are doomed to failure. Suppression of thought will not work.
In Great Britain suppression of thought attempted to wipe out racism. This attempt at suppression of thought by the leftist totalitarians was a monumental error and a monumental failure. The failure was documented by the former “equality chief”:
We were wrong to try to ban racism out of existence, says former equality chief
Trevor Phillips was head of the Equality and Human Rights Commission
Branded his ten years working to end racial discrimination as ‘wrong’
Anti-racism doctrine has encouraged abuse and endangered lives, he says
A former equality chief has branded his years working to stamp out racial discrimination as ‘utterly wrong’.
Writer and broadcaster Trevor Phillips said efforts made under the Blair government turned anti-racism into an ‘ugly new doctrine’.
Mr Phillips is the former chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission and has waged a 30-year campaign to tackle issues around discrimination and equality.
In an upcoming Channel 4 documentary, called Things We Won’t Say About Race That Are True, he says attempts to stop prejudice instead encouraged abuse and endangered lives as well as contributed to the rise of parties like Ukip.
In the 75-minute documentary, he delves into Britain’s racial tensions and stereotypes as well as hostilities towards immigrants.
He explains: ‘It was my job to to make sure that different racial and religious groups got on.
‘Campaigners like me seriously believed that if we could prevent people expressing prejudiced ideas then eventually they would stop thinking them.
‘But now I’m convinced we were utterly wrong.’
Mr Phillips, a Labour party member, says anti-racism began with good intentions but turned into ‘thought control’.
He says the London 2005 bombing by British Muslims, forced him to do rethink his views.
Now, he insists that only a willingness to talk more openly about race, despite risk of causing offence, will help those in need.
After the Charlie Hebbdo assassinations in France there was much nonsense written about theories against free speech that amounted to legitimization of the “assassins veto”:
The Assassin’s Veto
USA Today finds a deadly common ground.
“Common ground” is vastly overrated as a political virtue, and USA Today demonstrates why. In a pair of the paper’s recent op-eds one finds common ground between an Islamic supremacist and the dean of an American journalism school. Both men agree that free speech should be severely curtailed in a way that would empower violent extremists. [snip]
But what can one say about this week’s column by DeWayne Wickham, dean of Morgan State University’s School of Global Journalism and Communication in Baltimore? Choudary and Wickham make nearly identical arguments. Their columns are titled, respectively, “People Know the Consequences” and “ ‘Charlie Hebdo’ Crosses the Line.” Neither man expressly endorses the terrorists’ actions, but both strongly imply the victims had it coming because they offended their killers’ religious sensibilities.
Choudary: “Because the honor of the Prophet is something which all Muslims want to defend, many will take the law into their own hands, as we often see. Within liberal democracies, freedom of expression has curtailments, such as laws against incitement and hatred. . . . So why in this case did the French government allow the magazine Charlie Hebdo to continue to provoke Muslims, thereby placing the sanctity [sic] of its citizens at risk?”
Wickham: “If Charlie Hebdo’s irreverent portrayal of Mohammed before the Jan. 7 attack wasn’t thought to constitute fighting words, or a clear and present danger, there should be no doubt now that the newspaper’s continued mocking of the Islamic prophet incites violence. And it pushes Charlie Hebdo’s free speech claim beyond the limits of the endurable.”
Oddly, Wickham frames his argument in terms of First Amendment law, which, as he acknowledges, doesn’t apply in France. “Given the possible ripple effects of Charlie Hebdo’s mistreatment of Islam’s most sacred religious figure,” he writes, “at least people in this country should understand the limits America’s highest court has placed on free speech.”
To which one might add: especially people in this country who take it upon themselves to educate their fellow citizens, whether on campus or in the pages of a national newspaper. Wickham knows something about First Amendment law—but only enough to make an embarrassing show of how much he doesn’t know.
Wickham’s argument rests on two doctrines from early-20th-century First Amendment law: “clear and present danger” (Schenck v. U.S., 1919) and “fighting words” (Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 1942). It is ludicrous to suggest that either doctrine would justify censoring a magazine’s irreverent depictions of Muhammad.
It is doubtful that Schenck is even good law anymore. “The Supreme Court hasn’t used the ‘clear and present danger’ test for First Amendment cases in decades,” notes HotAir.com blogger “AllahPundit”:
The test now for inflammatory speech is the Brandenburg test, a strciter [sic] standard that allows the state to criminalize incitement only in narrow circumstances—when the speaker intends to incite violence and violence is likely to quickly result. Charlie Hebdo’s Mohammed cartoons may have met the “likely” prong of that test but they sure didn’t meet the “intent” part. [snip]
Brandenburg dealt with speech that advocated violence, something Charlie Hebdo has never to our knowledge done. And the incitement whose prospects the justices weighed and dismissed was of violence by supporters of the speaker—in Brandenburg, a Ku Klux Klan leader—not of an angry or violent reaction from opponents of his viewpoint.
The fighting-words doctrine, which is still good law, would be inapplicable for overlapping reasons. Fighting words have in common with incitement that a necessary element of their definition is the instantaneity of their effect. In Chaplinsky, Justice Frank Murphy defined fighting words as “those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.” The key words here are “utterance” and “immediate.” To put it in laymen’s terms, if you encounter a stranger on the street and insult him—in Chaplinsky’s case by shouting, “You are a goddamned racketeer!”—you can’t escape prosecution by claiming you were just exercising your right to free speech and he started it by throwing the first punch.
One can imagine a case in which a Charlie Hebdo caricature would constitute fighting words (albeit of a symbolic nature): if, say, a latter-day Chaplinsky taunted a Muslim on the street by waving a copy of the magazine and a fight ensued, both men could be booked for a breach of the peace. But the publication of offensive words or images is not fighting words. [snip]
In this case, if Choudary and Wickham had their way the terrorists really would win—which is to say that they would succeed in their goal of suppressing by force criticism of or irreverence toward Islam.
Call it the assassin’s veto.
That article above is quite comprehensive and well worth the read for those that want to acquaint or refresh their memories of Justice Holmes, the clear-and-present-danger doctrine, and earlier fights over the First Amendment and protected speech.
Yes, there is a “freedom to hate” and a “case against outlawing vile speech” that must be made and deserves to be not only heard but practiced.
So it is Friday, not quite White Appreciation Day and Victory in Europe Day seventy years on. We’ll celebrate Free Speech in our own Friday music spectacular way.
We’ll celebrate free speech and the First Amendment with a “racist” album cover:
We’ll celebrate freedom and free speech via the First Amendment with a song that was ironically banned because of its title even if it was a commentary on George Orwell and his anti-totalitarianism masterpiece 1984:
We’ll celebrate freedom of speech and the First Amendment with a song that was banned – because you are not allowed to be a racist but you can be a misogynist.
We can’t post “Innocence of Muslims” because that is still banned.
We hate “Hate speech” laws.
We are intolerant of those who are “intolerant of intolerance”.
Stop the bullying under the guise of “anti-bully” “campaigns”.
Death to Big Brother!
May 5th, 2015
Yeah – NBC/WSJ poll: Democrats still supporting the one realistic choice they have, or something. So, Hillary’s still way ahead. Bill Press takes Beanie Sanders seriously (seriously?) but few others think Bernie Sanders is anything but a leftist niche Kook. No surprise there.
No surprise either that more Republicans are in announcement mode. We promised ourselves we would write an article per candidate announcement but here we are in early May and we are already pooped. Today it was Mike Huckabee who announced he was a candidate for president.
Mike Huckabee announced in Hope, Arkansas. Huckabee sells himself as the man that took on the Clinton machine repeatedly, in Arkansas even, and beat Bill Clinton. Mike Huckabee of course never ran against Bill Clinton let alone beat Bill.
We don’t think Mike Huckabee is a serious candidate. Huckabee is a niche candidate for certain social conservatives who “like Mike” and… well… not much else. Mike Huckabee’s social conservative credentials are what make him and what break him.
For Republicans who want to nominate Mike Huckabee we have two words of warning: Todd Akins.
In 2012 Barack Obama enabler Claire MaCaskill was enemy #1 and should have been defeated. McCaskill wanted the weakest opponent so she helped Republican Todd Akin become her opponent. Soon enough McCaskill’s ploy turned profitable when Todd Akin made some stupid comments about women and rape.
Just about every Republicans demanded Todd Akin withdraw from the race. Karl Rove pulled ad support. Ron Johnson, Scott Brown, John Cornyn (of the National Republican Senate campaign committee) all demanded Todd Akin withdraw so that McCaskill cloud be defeated. There was one Republican who demanded Todd Akin stay in:
Now Mike Huckabee says ‘forcible rapes’ create ‘extraordinary’ people as he comes to Todd Akin’s defense
Mike Huckabee has added to the furore Rep. Todd Akin unleashed with his ‘legitimate rape’ comments by pointing out that ‘extraordinary’ people can be born out of ‘forcible rape’.
The one-time presidential candidate made the claim, which will no doubt stoke the fires of outrage, on his radio show on Thursday as he gave the beleaguered Akin a platform to explain his comments.
‘Ethel Waters, for example, was the result of a forcible rape,’ Huckabee said of the late singer, as reported in the Los Angeles Times. [snip]
Akin, a Republican who is running for Senate in Missouri, stunned Americans when he explained his opposition to abortion for pregnancies caused by rape on KTVI-TV in St. Louis at the weekend.
‘It seems to me, first of all, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare,’ he said. ‘If it’s a legitimate rape the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.’
If Republicans want the 2016 election against Hillary Clinton to be about rape, please do nominate Mike Huckabee:
Former Arkansas governor and radio personality, Mike Huckabee, appeared on Fox News Channel with Neil Cavuto on Friday to defend Missouri Senate candidate Todd Akin. Huckabee said that the party is being unfair to the Missouri Congressman. He also said the GOP is squandering an opportunity to frame Akin’s comments as a battle over right to life issues, which he believes the party can win on as easily as they can on economic issues.
Huckabee said that Akin apologized for his remarks and he should be forgiven for them. He went on to say that, on abortion issues, the nation is closer to Akin’s position than then are to President Barack Obama and Akin’s opponent, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO).
Huckabee went on to say that it’s difficult to ask a candidate who has spent the past two years fighting to win a primary to drop out right after victory.
“Do you think the party has been unfair to him,” asked Cavuto.
“I do,” replied Huckabee. “This can be a teachable moment. It’s not that this is unrecoverable.” He advised the party to make abortion issues a central point in the Missouri Senate race.
Mike Huckabee got his wish in 2012. Todd Akin stayed in the race. Senator Claire McCaskill reelected.
If Republicans want to see Hillary Clinton reelected in a massive landslide (we don’t usually talk landslide for Hillary or anybody because American elections tend to be close) nominate Mike Huckabee for president.
Huckabee has other problems. We don’t think he is a serious candidate because there are better versions of candidates who espouse socially conservative views. Also, Huckabee sort of shifted away from social conservatives in his first ad of the season as he expanded his girth to better include economic issues. The days when Mike Huckabee could do well in Iowa and become a real contender for the nomination are long gone. Oh, and did you know that Mike Huckabee is under attack for being a liberal? A tax and spend kind of glutton?
Yeah, Huckabee is going nowhere.
A more interesting candidate who’s chances are just as dim as Huckabee’s is the decent Dr,. Ben Carson. Carson is a good man with a remarkable story to tell. We wrote about him back in February 2012 and why he is going nowhere in a presidential run:
Asked about his life story and the possibility of a run for public office the good doctor said there was nothing in his personal life that could come back to haunt him and “de-legitimize” him (at the 35 minute mark on the video). The doctor said he had a “clean” life. Poor deluded creature.
This is Ben Carson’s first run for political office. He will be eaten alive. As we wrote at the time, his religion will be used against him. His life story will be smeared. Every public utterance will be examined and used against him. Every “gaffe” as he speaks off the cuff will be enlarged to gargantuan size.
Ben Carson is a decent man. He is also a black man. We are happy to see Ben Carson run because it is important to see a decent black man run for president. But Ben Carson will not be the Republican nominee.
Another niche candidate is Carly Fiorina. Fiorina is a niche candidate but she is much more than that. Fiorina might be running for vice president. Fiorina is the anti-Hillary.
Carly Fiorina has a great story to tell. She started out going to law school but dropped out after one semester when she discovered that was not what she wanted to do. Fiorina became a temp worker and worked as a secretary.
Carly Fiorina received graduate business degrees from Maryland and from M.I.T. Carly Fiorina married a tow truck driver who went on to become an executive at AT&T. Fiorina went on to become the CEO of Hewlett Packard.
In 2009 doctors told Carly Fiorina she had breast cancer. Carly Fiorina underwent a double mastectomy.
Almost immediately, in 2010, Carly Fiorina ran for senate against Senator Barbra Boxer of California. Boxer was reelected.
None of the above facts really matter in the race for the Republican nomination as far as Carly Fiorina is concerned. Carly Fiorina is the woman candidate in the Republican race and that is what matters.
Carly Fiorina will run as the Hillary attacker.
As a woman Carly Fiorina will be able to continue her attacks against Hillary with less harm to herself than if those attacks came from a man. It did not do Fiorina much good in her election against Boxer but that was in deep blue California. Maybe in less blue states her attacks will resonate. Maybe.
Carly Fiorina is a very articulate woman. Fiorina’s attack against Hillary have “bite” and a tough snap.
As a business leader who has run a major corporation Fiorina’s critiques of the economy and taxes have credibility.
Carly Fiorina’s background in business might be the ticket for a country tired of politicians. Maybe. We doubt it. Combined with her one failed run for statewide office Carly Fiorina has assets that someone like Ben Carson does not.
We are almost sure that Carly Fiorina will not get the Republican nomination for president. What about vice president?
Carly Fiorina is the sole woman running for president on the Republican side. But in a race for Vice President the Republicans have many women to choose from. There are women governors like Indian-American Nikki Haley of South Carolina and Susanna Martinez of New Mexico. Martinez in particular might be an asset in key states such as Colorado with its large Latino population as well as in all the southwest states.
But neither Martinez nor Haley have the “bite” that Carly Fiorina’s attacks on Hillary display. This might be good or bad depending on what will be needed in 2016 against Hillary. Carly Fiorina might have too much “bite” to be vice president but that is what a vice presidential candidate should have. Paul Ryan was too nice to be a candidate for VP in 2012. In 2016 Republicans might want an “attack dog” to support their nominee.
Carly Fiorina is a good fit as an “attack dog” for whomever the Republicans nominate as their candidate. We can be sure that that Republican nominee will not be one of the niche candidates that announced their presidential runs this week.