Perhaps it is because we at Big Pink were alone for so long throughout all of 2007 that we see things today through Pink colored glasses. But what is it with all the stupid depression these days?
Perhaps it is because one month into our existence we were under direct attack from Peggy Noonan, and Tim Russert himself attacked us on his creepy Sunday show, and rigged emails were sent to us from Politico and TechPresident, and there was a ceaseless campaign to destroy this website with hacks and phony Patricia/Wonk websites dedicated solely to attack us and our commentors, and the creeps at DailyKooks demanded our destruction, and Donna Brazile was emailing Hillary to take us down – that we see things through Pink colored glasses.
As we approach yet another anniversary this April we see how much we have advanced. We have many Hillary websites with many viewpoints online now. Back in 2007 we were alone. Today, we have Republicans fighting sexism and misogyny even if it is in their own self-interest (the best politics). Back in 2007 we were alone, and Obama and his thugs, along with Republicans (exception from some like, oddly, Pat Buchanan) indulged in daily sexism and misogyny.
Today, an attack on Hillary Clinton or Sarah Palin or women gets a quick response from Hillary sites. Back in 2007, Youtube was an Obama attack machine against Hillary Clinton. Today, Youtube is an arsenal of explosives documenting Obama lies.
Back in 2007 we were alone in describing Obama as a thug and boob and a corrupt circus clown from Corrupt Chicago surrounded by corrupt circus clowns from Chicago. Today, all the narratives we created are routinely repeated.
Back in 2007 some Republicans bought into the Obama lies. Today, these Republicans are embarrassed if not yet totally Hopium free. Back in 2007 Dimocrats waited for the comet to join the celestial choirs and sing praises to Mess-iah Obama. Today, these Dimocrats at least suspect they were duped by the Dimocratic establishment into support for a stooge who makes George W. Bush look good. So what’s with the depression these days?
We’re not referring to the departed or the departing. People like our commentors “S” and “JanH” have family heartbreaks to deal with and they rightly need to take a leave from the battlefield in order to tend to the family fields. Even the most intrepid soldiers deserve, and need, a little R&R. There is no shame to recharge. There is not even shame in retreat (ask George Washington and Winston Churchill).
We are in Winter quarters waiting for the political Spring and the “muster” command. Waiting can be difficult. But let’s remember the mission. Puma Eyes has the eyes on the prize and remembers the mission:
Remember the mission. So what, if the cleanup job requires us to sweep out Dimocrats along with Republicans. Good riddance to all. There’s a job to be done.
We didn’t even get to enjoy the end of the Bush administration.
Another thing that has been bothering me is that I really wanted to be wrong about Obama but I wasn’t, and saying “I told you so” doesn’t make up for having my worst nightmares become true. If anything, he’s even worse than I feared.
But what really has me bummed out right now is the realization that there is no end in sight for the mess this country is in. The single biggest problem facing our nation is the illness in our political system. When I say “illness” I mean the equivalent of an inoperable cancer that has metastasized. If we fixed our political system then we would actually be able to do something about those other problems.
For most of my adult life I believed that the Democrats were the good guys so even when they were getting slapped around by the Republicans I could support them and hope that after the next election they would grow a pair and start standing up for the liberal ideals they campaigned on.
I finally realized that the majority of the Democrats who hold elected office are not only corrupt but they have the same agenda as the Republicans. Oh, the say they’re on our side, and when it’s time for them to represent us they might make some speeches andr play some parliamentary tricks but when the nitty meets the gritty they lose on purpose. Lots of times they don’t even bother to put on a dog and pony show anymore, they just vote to bail out Wall Street or take away our civil rights as if that’s what we wanted them to do.
Now as far back as I can remember the Republicans were corrupt and they tended to be pricks or assholes, and sometimes both, but they weren’t insane. Nowadays there’s a lot of GOPers that are crazy as shithouse rats. That not only includes the elected ones but the voters too. Then you got the tea baggers who don’t think the Republicans are crazy enough.
On the left side they’re getting just as bad, they’re just insane about different things. If you read both the left and right blogs on a regular basis you’d think think they inhabit completely different worlds. It’s almost like they don’t speak the same language.
Next fall we’re gonna have and election and right now it looks like the Republicans will gain seats in Congress, and maybe even get control of one or both houses. But no matter who wins, we lose. The same thing in November of 2012. – If either the Democrats or Republicans win, we’re screwed.
We’re not going to say “cheer up”. We are not even going to argue with the sentiments expressed even though we disagree with some of them and agree with some of them. What we will say is a Warholian “so what”? It’s a struggle, so what? It’s a mess, so what?
The boy and his sister had a tough day. They waited, organized, called out. They fought back in the only way they could.
We’re strapping on our Pink grenades every morning and getting into the fight. If we get depressed amid the lunacy, we’ll say “so what?” We’re in the middle of a fight not at the end of one. The time for hammock swings and Pink lemonade is not yet here.
We might not like it but we realize that the Tea Party people for now are allies. So we will not disparage them as “teabaggers”. Politics makes strange bedfellows and these are strange times. We have learned that we do need two parties in opposition to each other, and other parties to live and die in order to keep those two parties in check and to let the major opposition parties know our votes cannot be taken for granted.
We might not like it but we realize that there are two choices: live or die. We’re not going to die and go away. We’ll live to fight another day.
We might not like it but we realize we are not alone in our opposition now and will not be alone in attaining our goals later. Our partners will change but we are not alone any more.
We might not like it but we realize that we were correct all along about Obama and his thug machine and his situation comedy demographics coalition. The ones who should be in deep depression and shame are Obama supporters who allowed themselves to be duped by the Dimocratic establishment and elect a stooge.
As the clinicians say, “depression is anger turned inwards“. By that definition Obama supporters should be suicidally depressed. Good riddance.
Obama’s Michigan enablers are sent to jail (Monica Conyers sentenced to 37 months today) and more to go. Why should we be depressed? Let’s depress Obama supporters.
The Obama Dimocrats are forced to rabid tricks (such as the Slaughter Rule) to pass the Senate version of the Obama health scam, without a vote. It’s almost like the Democratic nomination – no vote is respected, mob rule Chicago rules.
The Eric Massa Naked Politics Scandals of Election 2010 will finish off Dimocrats this year. Eric Massa has told a vivid story about Rahm Emanuel naked in the congressional gym that rings with truth. The Eric Massa story is focusing the public attention in the same way that the Mark Foley scandal focused the public attention in 2006. Americans know that something is very very wrong.
At the end of the day, what’s most harmful to the White House is that Massa’s claim reinforces a very damaging narrative: that this Administration is run by a bunch of political thugs who do things “The Chicago Way;” that the White House and Democrats in Congress will do “whatever it takes” to pass this particular piece of health care legislation.
To have Massa ripping his party and the administration in such a public way right as they’re in the middle of trying to woo and cajole enough House Democrats to vote “yes” on the the health care bill is at the very least unhelpful and might possibly turn out to be a disaster.
In a move to counter Massa’s appearance on the Glenn Beck show and the Larry King show the Dimocrats are leaking allegations against Massa. The stories about Eric Massa have been circulating for months, if not years, and Dimocrats like Rahm Emanuel knew all the “rumors” about Eric Massa – for years. Only now, because Eric Massa is not bending to their will, are Dimocrats out to destroy Massa. We are not defending Massa (nor David Paterson) but we know a drive by shooting by Obama thugs when we see one.
23:23 “I’ve had union leaders tell me point blank ‘we are not going to contribute to your campaign unless you vote for this health care bill.’ Is that, or is that not a bribe?” 23:32
25:47 “I was set up for this from the very very beginning. If you think that somehow they didn’t come after me to get rid of me because my vote is the deciding vote on the health care bill – then ladies and gentleman, you live in a world that is so innocent, as not to understand what is going on in Washington, DC.”26:00 “The leadership of the Democratic Party have become exactly what they said they were running against.” 26:07
26:16 “The entire nation has said, ‘let’s rewrite the health care bill. Let’s find what we can agree on.’ ‘No, no, no, we’re gonna ram this down the throats of the American people and anyone who stands in the way of doing that is gonna be smeared and they’re going to be kicked out of Congress, and we’re gonna have people like Steny Hoyer lying in the press.’”20:33
69:49 “If they ram this health care bill through which apparently they’re going to do now, because I’m not going to be there to vote against it, then it’s going to rip this country to pieces” 69:54
Arrogance!, Incompetence!, Corruption!
————————————————————————————————————
Another breakthrough today. Eric Massa spoke. What Massa said we will discuss today. Eric Massa was not what our Part II was going to be about. We’ll post a Part III another day, in order to discuss Eric Massa today.
Let’s expand on that right-on-target update with three points. First of all, Rahm Emanuel – this is what Chicago Corruption Crime expert John Kass has written:
When the president installed Rahm as his chief of staff, the Washington media were turgid with respect, praising Rahm as a shrewd political alley fighter, a maestro of profanity, a former ballet dancer tough enough to send a dead fish to an enemy, just like a Hollywood gangster.
Naturally, the national media marveled that Obama selected a Clinton guy, Emanuel, to run things.
But Rahm is no Clinton guy. He’s a Daley guy.
Rahm Emanuel is a Daley guy. Second, Eric Massa. In our update we linked to a story discussing Eric Massa’s purported history of sexual interest in men. The history extends into Massa’s Navy days. The writer of the Eric Massa history, a confessed enemy of Massa, states he knew of allegations regarding Massa’s alleged attraction to men over three years ago. The Dimocratic House leadership acknowledges they were aware of “rumors” about Massa “for weeks” at the very least. More likely, whatever “rumors” about Massa existed were discovered during the vetting for his first run for congress.
Rahm Emanuel was in charge of the DCCC in 2006 when Eric Massa first ran for congress and Emanuel is not known to assist congressional first time candidates without thorough vetting. Whatever rumors about Massa existed in 2006, Rahm Emanuel knew them all before authorizing a single dollar to Eric Massa’s campaign (Massa was a special “Red to Blue” DCCC special candidate in 2006).
“Mine is now the deciding vote on the health care bill,” Massa, who on Friday announced his intention to resign, said during a long monologue on radio station WKPQ. “And this administration and this House leadership have said, quote-unquote, they will stop at nothing to pass this health care bill. And now they’ve gotten rid of me, and it will pass. You connect the dots.”
Massa, who voted against health care reform in November, accused Democratic leaders of driving him out of office in the cause of passing health care reform. “With the departure of Congressman Neil Abercrombie (D), who is running for the governorship of Hawaii, and with the tragic and very sad passing of my personal friend Jack Murtha (D-Pa.), mine is now the deciding vote on the health care bill and this administration and this House leadership have said, quote-unquote, they will stop at nothing to pass this health care bill. And now they’ve gotten rid of me and it will pass. You connect the dots.”
The comment that landed Massa in hot water, he claimed, was a sexual proposition he made in jest at a table full of drunken male staffers at a wedding reception on New Year’s Eve. He also said that the complainant was not the man he allegedly harassed, but an offended third party who witnessed the incident.
According to Eric Massa, “his chief of staff informed him in early February” of the charges filed against him. Early February, but only with every single vote a make or break vote, is the push on to get rid of Massa. Indeed, the “rumors” about Eric Massa were circulating “for months” but only now is there action.
Again, we do not defend Massa’s actions (or David Paterson’s actions). Eric Massa should stay in the House, not resign, and fight it out. But, if any of the allegations against him are true in any way, it would come out in an investigation by the House. Eric Massa has a lose/lose situation before him: stay and fight and be destroyed personally or quit and be called a “drama queen” (this “drama queen” anti-gay slur appears to be how the Dimocrats and stupid Republicans will respond to the latest Obama Drama because it avoids substantive responses and because “she’s crazy” or “he’s crazy” is what Obama thugs usually say).
Massa voted against health care legislation in Nov., and he has not been a reliable vote for Dem leadership. That, he said, has put a target on his back.
“When I voted against the cap and trade bill, the phone rang and it was the chief of staff to the president of the United States of America, Rahm Emanuel, and he started swearing at me in terms and words that I hadn’t heard since that crossing the line ceremony on the USS New Jersey in 1983,” Massa said. “And I gave it right back to him, in terms and words that I know are physically impossible.”
“If Rahm Emanuel wants to come after me, maybe he ought to hold himself to the same standards I’m holding myself to and he should resign,” Massa said.
“Rahm Emanuel is son of the devil’s spawn, Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY) said. “He is an individual who would sell his mother to get a vote. He would strap his children to the front end of a steam locomotive.”
Rep. Massa describes a confrontation with Emanuel in a shower: “I am showering, naked as a jaybird, and here comes Rahm Emanuel, not even with a towel wrapped around his tush, poking his finger in my chest, yelling at me.”
“There is not a single member of the Democratic freshman class whi (sic) is going to vote against this health care bill now that they’ve got me,” he said. “Eric Massa’s probably not going to go back to Congress, because the only way I would go back there would be as an independent. A pox on both parties.”
We hope Eric Massa does not resign. Eric Massa today should think about what is best for the American people. Eric Massa should vote “NO” and then if necessary quit. Eric Massa should also leave the Dimocratic Party of Arrogance! Incompetence! Corruption!
Let’s talk, not in order: (1) Michelle Malkin, (2) Election 2006, (3) Election 2010, (4) Obama’s health scam.
First, let’s look at where the twig was bent. The Democratic myth of Election 2006 is that the election was about Iraq. We have always disagreed with that analysis. We believe Election 2006 was about arrogance (and incompetence and corruption). In 2006 Americans saw the same type of arrogance, incompetence, and corruption, from Republicans that Americans see in 2010 from Barack Obama and his corrupt Dimocrats.
In 2006 the Nutroots decided to run Joe Lieberman out of the U.S. Senate for his many outspoken deviations from Democratic orthodoxy. Rich self-funding Ned Lamont ran against Lieberman and won the primary. Lamont ran as an anti Iraq war candidate with the support of anti Iraq war Democrats and Nutroot websites eager to capitalize on Lamont’s self-funded campaign. Since the Lamont primary victory the Nutroots have twisted the narrative of Election 2006 to their benefit and declared Election 2006 was a referendum on the Iraq war and the need for Democrats to follow their line of thought or be defeated. But of course, Joe Lieberman won reelection though not on the Democratic Party line.
Without getting into the weeds (today) of whether or not Joe Lieberman should have been removed and the many Iraq war arguments – we do not believe that Election 2006 was specifically about the Iraq war. Frustration and anger with the floundering, incompetently run Iraq war was important, but that is not what was determinative. For example, there are little to no electoral results that year which are directly attributable to the Iraq war as the issue which swung any election. A few Iraq war veterans won election but even they did not focus their elections solely on Iraq (compare with Carolyn McCarthy when she won strictly on gun control). The exit polls confirm our view that Iraq was important but not determinative. What was determinative? We believe it was the arrogance and incompetence and corruption of the party in power.
The narrative pushed from the Democratic Left is that Election 2006 was about Iraq. This misguided analysis of Election 2006 has had deleterious effects on the Democratic Party and must be corrected. Americans will be patient with stupid wars and dumb policies but Americans will bristle and rear when hypocrisy and arrogance slap them in the face. That’s what happened in 2006 and that is what is happening now. What we are saying might be too subtle for many, but it is important. Again, Iraq was important to the results of 2006 but it was the Bush W. arrogance about Iraq which infuriated the electorate sufficiently to “throw the bums out.”
“We’ve got the basic strategy right,” Cheney told George Stephanopoulos in an interview to be broadcast Sunday on “This Week.”
October was one of the deadliest months in Iraq for U.S. troops. Cheney said that while the administration’s policy may not be popular, “This is the right thing for us to be doing.”
In the most recent ABC News/Washington Post poll, 57 percent of Americans said that the war was not worth fighting. The poll also showed President Bush’s job approval rating dropped to 37 percent, the second-lowest mark of his presidency.
Cheney said that even with pollsters predicting that Democrats would likely make gains in both houses of Congress Tuesday, voter sentiment would not influence Bush’s Iraq policy.
“It may not be popular with the public — it doesn’t matter in the sense that we have to continue the mission and do what we think is right. And that’s exactly what we’re doing,” Cheney said. “We’re not running for office. We’re doing what we think is right.”
“It doesn’t matter…what WE think is right… We’re doing what we think is right.” Faced with such arrogance, Americans said, ‘No, you must go because you are not listening to us.’ Americans will put up with a great deal, but don’t tell Americans you will ignore them.
In the same TV show interview, then Vice President Dick Cheney reacted to a Vanity Fair article which reported that “two of the Pentagon’s strongest supporters of the war, Richard Perle and Ken Adelman, now say they would not have supported the invasion if they had known how incompetently the administration would handle it.” This is how Cheny responded to the incompetence charge:
“Cheney said, “I haven’t seen the piece I’m not going to comment on it. I think there is no question that it is a tough war, but it is also the right thing to do,” he said. “And it is very important that we complete the mission.”
Dick Cheney did not offer any acknowledgment that things were “on the wrong track” in the country generally and in the Iraq war specifically. There was no explanation or engagement of the substantive disagreements, just an occasional publicity stunt. All Dick Cheney offered was ‘we are right and we will continue to do what we want to do and we will even ignore our own friends who criticize us.‘ Who does that sound like in 2010?
In 2006 Americans were frustrated that they were not being listened too. The Dick Cheney Republican arguments did not start four days before the election. This was an all year refusal to listen to American voters and simply keep on repeating the same arguments at publicity stunts. The secrecy and arrogance from Republicans in 2006, along with incompetence, was suffocating the American people. The American people on many policy issues (Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, secret surveillance programs, secrecy, terrorism, oil, Darfur, budget cuts) were confused if not angry and frustrated and George W. Bush appeared not to be listening. The American people smacked George W. on the head and yelled ‘LISTEN to us.’
“Voters across the nation said they disapprove of the job President Bush is doing and many said their vote for Congress was to express opposition to him. A clear majority said they disapprove of the war in Iraq, and most said they do not believe it has improved the long-term security of the country.”
The Iraq policy issue was a point of contention but what voters voted on was opposition to George W. Bush. It was the arrogance of power.
“President Bush played a large role in today’s voting, as a majority of voters said he was a factor in their decision: One in five voters (22 percent) said their vote was to show support for Bush, while 36 percent said it was to express opposition. [snip]
In addition, the number of voters who said they are angry with the Bush administration has increased to 29 percent today – up from 23 percent in 2004. Another 30 percent said they were “dissatisfied but not angry,” while at the other end of the spectrum 27 percent felt “satisfied, but not enthusiastic,” and about one in 10 felt “enthusiastic.”
Over half of voters (55 percent) said the country is headed in the wrong direction and 41 percent said it is going in the right direction. Those saying the country is on the right track broke for the Republican candidates by over 50 points, while those saying the country is going in the wrong direction went solidly for the Democratic candidate in their district about 60 points.”
The exit poll numbers confirm our analysis (this one from CNN) that Iraq was not the main factor in Election 2006. It was arrogance. In 2006 voters were emotionally angry. The visceral reaction at the polls, we believe, was due to the arrogance of George W. Bush and Republicans who would not listen but thought they knew better and did not have to explain or change policy simply because the American public did not agree with them.
“When deciding which candidate to support, more voters today said political corruption (41 percent) was extremely important to their vote than said the economy (39 percent), the issue of terrorism (39 percent), the war in Iraq (36 percent), values issues (36 percent) or illegal immigration (30 percent) was extremely important.
Those saying corruption was extremely important to their vote backed the Democratic candidate in their House district by a 60 to 38 percent margin.
Economy voters favored the Democrats by 20 percentage points, and Iraq war voters backed the Democrats by over 20 points.
Republicans were favored by terrorism voters (+ 7 points) and immigration voters (+ 6 points). The largest margin comes from values voters, and this group backed the Republican candidate by 18 points.
The 2006 Election was about Arrogance!, Incompetence!, Corruption! The 2010 elections will be about Arrogance!, Incompetence!, Corruption!
Arrogance!, Incompetence!, Corruption! doomed the Republicans in Election 2006. Arrogance!, Incompetence!, Corruption! will doom the Obama Dimocrats in 2010.
Celebrity Barack Obama and his Obama Dimocrats have already outpaced George W. Bush Republicans in the arrogance race. The argument on health care is a Cheneyesque ‘Once we pass health care Americans will love it even though they hate it now, because we know better than stupid Americans and the Tea Party activists we once derided as ‘teabaggers’ but once they whupped us at the polls we have to pretend we don’t hate them and want to snub them, and anyway we are going to ignore everyone and do what we want to do and pass whatever we want to do because we have to transfer taxpayer dollars to Big Insurance and Big PhaRma just like we transferred trillions to our Wall Street friends.’
We borrowed the title “Arrogance, Incompetence, Corruption” from tomorrow’s thrill packed article here on Big Pink. You will be reading that phrase a lot during 2010 election season.
Today we will allow ourselves to be distracted by the dreary health scam distraction. Regular readers will recall we believe Obama Dimocrats are in a lose/lose situation on the health scam. If the health scam becomes law, the American people will revolt and throw Dimocrats into the trash heap for arrogance and corruption. If the health scam does not become law, the American people will throw Dimocrats into the trash heap for incompetence and arrogance and corruption. [More on all this tomorrow.]
“Barack Obama does not know what to do to strengthen the American economy. Barack Obama does not know what to do to help the private sector create jobs. That’s why Obama distracts with schemes which will reward his friends and donors with massive transfers of wealth from the American taxpayer pocket.”
The Dimocratic lose/lose is a Republican win/win. If the massive Dimocratic majorities in the House and Senate produce nothing but the “stimulus” flood of money to the guilty, rank and file true blue Democrats will realize the Obama Dimocrats are too incompetent to govern and will therefore stay home and not vote. Republicans will run on a repeal or de-fund the Obama health scam if something passes.
It’s an Obama disaster. Barack Obama is Poison.
* * * * * *
Barack Obama finally realizes that he has to do something other than publicity stunts. Obama wants to have something anything pass the congress that he can tout as an unprecedented historic transformative earthshaking celestial choirs singing Obamagasm. To that Obamagasm end, Obama is flim-flaming once again – this time it’s House Dimocrats as targets.
Obama pretends that if the House Dimocrats pass the Senate Obamination health scam, which transfers money and people to Big Insurance companies and protects the deal Obama worked with Big PhaRma to protect Big PhaRma, he will work for an additional bill passed via “reconciliation” to “fix” the Senate bill. As if! Obama doesn’t work for anything which does not benefit him personally. House Dimocrats if they are fools can pass the Senate bill and then Obama will have an Obamagasm publicity stunt and forget about the additional “reconciliation” bill. It will be a flim-flam-flip-flop-bamboozlepaloooza-Obamagasm.
“The plan, as it comes from the Senate, hangs out every Democrat who’s running for office to dry — including the president, in 2012, because it makes him defend a plan that isn’t in effect essentially yet,” Dean said during an appearance on the liberal Bill Press Radio Show.
Dean, who has clashed publicly with the White House over the healthcare proposals favored by the administration, said that by passing the bills under consideration, Democrats would essentially be conceding defeat to Republicans.
“It’s easy to campaign on repealing something if no one knows what the something is,” Dean said. “And fundamentally people don’t understand what the president’s healthcare plan is.”
“And if it passes next week and get’s signed into law the week after, we’re not going to be able to explain it to people over the din of Fox News and the Republicans,” the former Democratic party chairman added.
Oh, dear. We are in trouble when Howard Dean’s peepers are opening and he begins to agree with Big Pink. But Obama corruption and the Obamagasm goes on.
Tonight, Barack Obama will host ten House Democrats who voted against the health care bill in November at the White House; he’s obviously trying to persuade them to switch their votes to yes. One of the ten is Jim Matheson of Utah. The White House just sent out a press release announcing that today President Obama nominated Matheson’s brother Scott M. Matheson, Jr. to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
National Repubicans are planning to unleash a huge wave of robocalls tomorrow targeting dozens of House Dems and warning their constituents that Obama and Nancy Pelosi are plotting to “ram” their “dangerous” health reform plans through Congress.
The robocalls — the first paid media by the NRCC’s new “code red” program, which targets Dems on health care — comes after Obama told Congress to pass reform via reconciliation.
The calls are meant to spook House Dems right at the moment when the White House and Dem leaders are about to undertake a grueling effort to round up support for what’s expected to be a hair-raisingly close vote. It warns constituents that the targeted House Dem risks supporting this “dangerous” move.
“Even though a majority of the country wants them to scrap it, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and President Obama are planning to ram their dangerous, out-of-control health care spending bill through Congress anyway,” the call says, according to a script provided by a GOP official.
The version targeting Dem Rep Frank Kratovil of Maryland continues:
What’s worse, Congressman Frank Kratovil might vote for it. Frank Kratovil votes with Nancy Pelosi 84% of the time and may follow her orders on this bill too. Frank Kratovil might vote for a bill that will kill jobs, raise the costs of health care, and increase taxes. Frank Kratovil should be focusing on creating jobs, yet he might be the deciding vote that causes this massive new spending bill to pass.
The calls are targeting 25 House Dimocrats who voted for Obama’s health scam the first time, along with 11 who voted “no” and four others from open seats. There are already results:
Okay, a bit more bad news for the prospects of passing the Senate bill out of the House.
Rep Frank Kratovil of Maryland, a previous No vote who was now said to be undecided, will vote No on the Senate health reform proposal, his spokesman confirms.
“He would vote against it,” the spokesman, Kevin Lawlor, says. Crucially, Kratovil would vote against the Senate bill even if there’s some kind of verbal guarantee that it would be fixed via reconciliation later, Lawlor says.
The only way Kratovil — one of the targets of a barrage of NRCC robocalls hammering the reform proposals as “dangerous” — could support the Senate bill is if it’s fixed first via reconciliation, before the House votes on it. But no one expects this to happen.
Separately, Dem Rep Kurt Schrader, a freshman in Oregon who voted Yes last time, is now unwilling to commit to supporting the Senate bill, reports The Oregonian. Schrader, too, is getting bludgeoned by the NRCC robocalls.
So where does that leave us? The math is too in flux to make any pronouncements. Bottom line: Every Dem who flips from Yes to No (as Schrader may do) must be made up for by flipping a No to Yes (as Kratovil almost certainly won’t do). Long road ahead.
Given that the proposed use of reconciliation is an illegitimate use of the procedure, the Senate GOP ought to be preparing to counter the jam down with a flood of amendments, each one of which requires an up or down vote. The prospect of thousand, or tens of thousands, or perhaps even a million amendments and the resulting spectacle of a Senate paralyzed by endless roll call counts should worry Democrats much more than Republicans as the American public doesn’t want Obamacare, and a last ditch stand to stop it via a blizzard of amendments will put the spotlight on the bill and its many flaws. It will also show a Republican leadership willing to fight to stop this radical rewrite of the rules of American medicine,
But where to get thousands and thousands of draft amendments? This is the joy of the internet. If the NRSC is on its toes, it will already be setting up a site where visitors can draft and submit their own amendments for use in the process. (The NRSC website is already accepting input on the topic.) Some of the draft amendments will be inspired and informed as experts weigh in. Some will be absurd. Some no doubt will be vulgar or obscene as trolls invade.
But the vast bulk of them would come from ordinary Americans with ideas on how to reform health care.
We need to launch a massive, coast-to-coast effort to identify and pressure the Democrats’ LARGE DONORS to put a stop to this madness.
Large political donors are vulnerable because they are people the public doesn’t know. They are business men and women. Socialites. Wealthy people who fund political campaigns largely, in most cases, because it’s fun and something to do, and they like getting pictures with presidents and senators.
The Senate’s healthcare bill would lose 12 Democratic votes in the House, Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) said Wednesday.
Stupak, the sponsor of an amendment to the House healthcare bill which barred federal subsidies for health plans covering abortion, said that 12 lawmakers who had previously supported healthcare reform legislation in the House.
“It’s accurate to say there are at least 12 of us who voted for healthcare that have indicated to the speaker and others that unless you change this language, we will vote against it,” Stupak said during an appearance on MSNBC.
In order to accommodate Stupak the Dimocrats would have to pass yet another bill:
“It would have to be a separate bill, you could sidebar it to the final bill,” he said. “One bill doesn’t pass without the other. They walk down the aisle together.”
America is placing a 911 call to Hillary Clinton. We know it’s time to sober up. It’s time to put away the Hopium, the wine and the roses. It’s time for Americans to send Obama cartons of cigarettes – he’s fired up and ready to go – go away.
As we noted yesterday, Hillary Clinton understands the disaster of record U.S. budget deficits – which lead to bigger U.S. debt – which lead to bigger interest payments. To Hillary this deficit and debt are “a matter of national security” not just economics. To Hillary Clinton the financial irresponsibility and the increased reliance for Hopium dollars from nations like China are a danger and “The moment of reckoning cannot be put off forever.”
The Tea Party movement, once derided by Dimocrats, is now seen as a powerful force – even by delusional Dimocrats like Nancy Pelosi. What fuels the Tea Party movement, is what fueled the 1990s Ross Perot movement – fiscal irresponsibility by the U.S. government. Bill Clinton seized that moment (his last four budgets were in balance or in surplus) and made the Democratic Party the party of fiscal responsibility. Now Hillary Clinton is poised to do the exact same seize-fortune-by-the-forelock moment.
Republicans under George W. Bush were fiscal madmen. Barack Obama’s Dimocratic Party Obamination is likewise a party of crazed spenders. Hillary Clinton’s focus on the need to “turn the clock back” is the way to the future. Hillary Clinton, in last week’s critique of “this deficit and debt”, is saying “It’s The Economy, Stupid!”
In 2012 no political party will be able to run with the promise of new programs or new spending proposals. There is simply no money left. When interest rates begin to rise significantly, as they surely will having already started to slightly rise, interest payments on the debt will balloon and make that part of the budget a cancer that feeds on the nation. Dimocrats will not only be deprived of a promise based election but they will also be deprived of a “stay the course, we are competent” election run.
The fire next time will not be promises of new programs or new spending proposals but of change back to competence and experience and vision. The fire next time will be fiscal sanity, paying the bills, the American economy, and jobs, jobs, jobs.
Hillary Clinton is fiscally responsible but that does not mean what must be done won’t be done. Hillary fights. When the health care legislation failed to pass in the 1990s, Hillary Clinton did not give up. Hillary continued to work on health care issues and legislation was passed which provided health care to children. Ted Kennedy and Barack Obama attacked Hillary. In 2008 the Chappaquiddick Chauffeur tried to drive Hillary off the bridge with lies. Here’s Fact Check:
“One of Clinton’s signature claims has come under fire from political foes, quoted by the Boston Globe, who say she doesn’t deserve credit for expanding federal health insurance for millions of children.
We review the record and conclude that she deserves plenty of credit, both for the passage of the SCHIP legislation and for pushing outreach efforts to translate the law into reality. [snip]
The newspaper also said that “privately, some lawmakers and staff members are fuming” over Clinton’s claim but didn’t name any of them. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, who cosponsored the 1997 legislation that eventually led to the creation of SCHIP, was asked whether Clinton was exaggerating her role. The Globe said he wouldn’t criticize Clinton “directly” but said: “Facts are stubborn things … I think we ought to stay with the facts.”
Kennedy, of course, is now backing Clinton’s rival, Barack Obama, for the nomination. But last year, before that endorsement, he was quoted by the Associated Press as saying something quite different, which the Globe did not note in its story:
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Oct. 6, 2007: The children’s health program wouldn’t be in existence today if we didn’t have Hillary pushing for it from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue.
In that same story, The AP’s Beth Fouhy concluded, “While Kennedy is widely viewed as the driving force behind the program, by all accounts the former first lady’s pressure was crucial.” She quoted Nick Littlefield, who had been a senior health adviser to Kennedy, as saying, “we relied on her, worked with her and she was pivotal in encouraging the White House to do it.”
The AP’s assessment is backed up by others we consulted. [snip]
One of the co-authors of the plan, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, credited Mrs. Clinton for her “invaluable help, both in the fashioning and the shaping of the program.”
Years later, when Clinton was first running for the Senate, Kennedy’s aide Littlefield was still giving her credit. The New York Times quoted him as saying, ”She was a one-woman army inside the White House to get this done.” [snip]
Moreover, Hillary Clinton took a major role in translating the new law into action. [snip]
Our conclusion: Clinton is right on this one.”
Hillary Clinton fights to do what is necessary. This does not mean Hillary will be fiscally irresponsible. Hillary will get the job done and the job is jobs. Hillary Clinton doesn’t get the job done with wistful wishing and dreaming. Barack Obama must go, and Hillary Clinton has to answer the 911 call from the American people.
It’s The Economy (and Jobs), Stupid!
Hillary has a history of fighting to invest precious taxpayer dollars wisely. Yet, Hillary Clinton knows the job of the president must be to create jobs and to get the engine of American power, the economy, back to sanity. Her non-candidate message is, “It breaks my heart that 10 years ago we had a balanced budget, that we were on the way of paying down the debt of the United States of America.”
Fiscal sanity versus fiscal madness will be what elections for the foreseeable future will be fought over. The pompous Obama endorser Dan Gerstein gets some things right today:
The Democrats considered the $787 billion recovery package not just an essential step for saving the economy from depression, but also a first strike in White House’s “big bang” strategy. It would, by their way of thinking, build political momentum for a range of other major Obama agenda items like climate change. But for much of the public, the poorly conceived and marketed stimulus plan was the last straw in the unsettling explosion of government and debt that began with the bipartisan bailout bonanza in the waning days of the Bush administration.
Ever since that dividing line was crossed, the Democrats have seemed to be operating in a hermetically sealed political vacuum, impervious to the public’s changing post-crash priorities and diminishing tolerance for big government solutions. The complex, sector-remaking cap-and-trade bill is a perfect example. That plan may have been a tough but closeable sell in a stable economy, given the short-term sacrifices we would have to make to secure the long-term rewards. But it was a dead letter in a near-depressed economy with a mistrustful electorate prone to believe the most damning attacks about higher taxes and lost jobs. Yet the Democrats plowed ahead with a bill in the House and only stopped when Senate moderates bolted.
That was nothing, though, compared to the multi-pronged Democratic disconnect on health care. It was clear early on that the public wanted the president and Congress to focus on the economy, especially after the evidence mounted that the stimulus, whatever its disaster-preventing benefits, was not going to spur job growth any time soon. Yet the Democrats went ahead and devoted most of the last year to health care reform, which only reinforced the growing perception that Washington was still as arrogant and unresponsive as ever and that the Democrats, like their predecessors, were still out for themselves and their political aims.
It’s the economy, but Obama and his Dimocrats think it’s about Mess-iah’s diminishing cult of personality and the acolyte Dimocrats. But it’s about the economy and the voters. The damage Obama and his Dimocrats do now will last for “years to come” if not generations to come.
Most voters are impressionistic, especially independents and moderates of both parties. They look at the whole of what you have done and the how of what you have done. If Democrats ram through an unpopular trillion-dollar health care bill in this climate, with Congress’ approval rating at 15%, they may well cement their image as the worst of Washington and sever their claim on the public’s trust for years to come. Even if ObamaCare delivers over time–and if it avoids the substantial premium increases that the Massachusetts universal care system has produced–it most likely will be too little too late.
Again, consider the context. Trust in government–which has been trending substantially downward since the crash of 2008–is in tipping-point territory right now. A recent New York Times poll showed that 70% of Americans are angry or dissatisfied with how Washington is handling the people’s business; 80% said that members of Congress are more interested in pandering to special interest groups than in serving the needs of people who elected them; and 81% said members of Congress across the board deserve to be thrown out. A new CNN poll out this week goes a step further and shows that 56% of Americans now think the federal government poses a threat to their rights, with even 37% of Democrats sharing that view.
Those numbers beg the question: Would the Democrats actually be better off if their comprehensive health care bill does not pass? I tend to think so, though as I argued last week, the best course for Democrats would be to skip the all-or-nothing trap and pass a center-out bill that contains the 80% of insurance reforms on which both sides already agree. But that’s a moot point: The Democrats are going for broke (in more ways than one). The more salient question is when will the Democrats start connecting the dots–and recognize that the American people are not going to accept a government that is not willing to heed their doubts.
What happened to “jobs, jobs, jobs”? The High Church of Barack Obama, the New York Times is scratching it’s head:
By the time March arrived, President Obama was supposed to be entering his third month of the year talking about three things: jobs, jobs, jobs.
That was the plan of the White House — and the plea from many Democrats — as the unemployment rate remained frozen near 10 percent and the economy showed only hints of brightening. The administration created a “White House to Main Street” tour, giving Mr. Obama a forum to see and feel America’s pain, and offer his plan for relief.
So whatever happened to that shift from health care to the economy?
Have a cigarette, Barack. Eat some greasy food, Barack.
Democrats on midterm election ballots feel a growing sense of worry that the year is quickly ticking away. If the next chapter of the health care debate consumes the month of March, will there be time to pursue other legislation before campaigning begins in earnest?
The trip was Mr. Obama’s first to Georgia since campaigning against Hillary Rodham Clinton nearly two years ago in the presidential race. He was greeted by an editorial in The Savannah Morning News, with a headline declaring: “Welcome Mr. President: It’s about jobs.”
With Barack Obama it’s always words, words, words and now the words are “jobs, jobs, jobs”. But Obama’s words do not match Obama’s actions.
“When it comes to domestic policy, I have no more important job as president than seeing to it that every American who wants to work, and is able to work, can find a job, and a job that pays a living wage,” Mr. Obama said. “That was my focus last year, and that is my focus this year.”
If we take Obama’s word that “jobs’ was last year’s “focus” and this years “focus”, the conclusion must be that a focused Obama is still not getting the “job” done. Where are the jobs? Today Obama will try again to force through the massive transfer of wealth from taxpayers to a system that is acknowledged by most to be broken. Obama says he is focused on “jobs” but in reality is focus is on bringing more people into a system that is broken and forcing taxpayers to pay for the punishment.
He intended to move forward whether they joined him or not, aides said, so the White House could return to its originally scheduled message of jobs, jobs, jobs.
Where are the jobs?
* * * * * *
Where’s the economy?
Judd Gregg, the Republican Barack Obama wanted for Commerce Secretary, was interviewed recently by Ed Luce (the reporter who recently rocked Washington with a “blame the staff” article on Barack Obama’s collapsing White House) believes the U.S. is near a “financial meltdown”:
“The US is heading for a debt-driven “financial meltdown” within five to seven years, according to Judd Gregg, the outgoing Republican senator for New Hampshire. [snip]
“We have had China say that they are looking for other places to put their reserves and that is probably a smart decision on their part,” said Mr Gregg, who will not seek re-election in November. “So the warning signs are pretty clear and the path is unsustainable and, at this point, unless we take different actions, unavoidable.”
But the senator, who was the most high-profile Republican invited by Barack Obama, the president, to join his administration last year, an offer Mr Gregg accepted and then turned down, said he doubted that the two parties would get together to tackle it.”
Thus far, Gregg is right that the two parties are unable or unwilling to tackle the problems the American economy faces. The American economy has 8 million manufacturing jobs and an economy with 150 million workers. Jobs, jobs, jobs.
“The Great Recession may be over, but this era of high joblessness is probably just beginning. Before it ends, it will likely change the life course and character of a generation of young adults. It will leave an indelible imprint on many blue-collar men. It could cripple marriage as an institution in many communities. It may already be plunging many inner cities into a despair not seen for decades. Ultimately, it is likely to warp our politics, our culture, and the character of our society for years to come.
In 2012, the Republicans will blame Barack Obama and his self-alleged “focus on jobs” failed policies for continued joblessness. At best Barack Obama will be able to respond “I am a boob” in his own defense. The defense will be valid, but the situation will be dire.
According to the liberal Atlantic magazine, even by 2014 unemployment will only decline “a little”; average duration of unemployment last year surpassed six months; the jobless and those that have given up looking for work reached 17.4% in October; teenager unemployment reached 27%; unemployment “may already be plunging many inner cities into a kind of despair and dysfunction not seen for decades.”
Whatever alleged benefits of the Obama stimulus scam, they have come and gone (according to Obama’s economic adviser chair Christina Romer, the Federal Reserve, and Goldman Sachs). “The economy now sits in a hole more than 10 million jobs deep—that’s the number required to get back to 5 percent unemployment, the rate we had before the recession started, and one that’s been more or less typical for a generation.” Due to population growth the economy must produce about 1.5 million new jobs a year “just to keep from sinking deeper.”
“Even if the economy were to immediately begin producing 600,000 jobs a month—more than double the pace of the mid-to-late 1990s, when job growth was strong—it would take roughly two years to dig ourselves out of the hole we’re in. [snip]
The construction and finance industries, bloated by a decade-long housing bubble, are unlikely to regain their former share of the economy, and as a result many out-of-work finance professionals and construction workers won’t be able to simply pick up where they left off when growth returns—they’ll need to retrain and find new careers. (For different reasons, the same might be said of many media professionals and auto workers.)”
The bad news is long and ugly. For the Barack Obama addled young, a large chunk of that demographic, the bad news is “fun”. Stories of “funemployment” abound among the Hopium guzzler Obama young.
Many of today’s young adults seem temperamentally unprepared for the circumstances in which they now find themselves. Jean Twenge, an associate professor of psychology at San Diego State University, has carefully compared the attitudes of today’s young adults to those of previous generations when they were the same age. Using national survey data, she’s found that to an unprecedented degree, people who graduated from high school in the 2000s dislike the idea of work for work’s sake, and expect jobs and career to be tailored to their interests and lifestyle. Yet they also have much higher material expectations than previous generations, and believe financial success is extremely important. “There’s this idea that, ‘Yeah, I don’t want to work, but I’m still going to get all the stuff I want,’” Twenge told me. “It’s a generation in which every kid has been told, ‘You can be anything you want. You’re special.’”
Barack youth will have a rude wake up call. Many African-Americans will have a tough time too. The Atlantic relates these facts:
“In June 1999, the journalist Ellis Cose wrote in Newsweek that it was then “the best time ever” to be black in America. He ticked through the reasons: employment was up, murders and out-of-wedlock births down; educational attainment was rising, and poverty less common than at any time since 1967. Middle-class black couples were slowly returning to gentrifying inner-city neighborhoods. “Even for some of the most persistently unfortunate—uneducated black men between 16 and 24—jobs are opening up,” Cose wrote.”
“The best time ever to be black in America” was when “racist” Bill Clinton was in the White House. Another tough wake up call. In the age of Mess-iah Obama the White House is a bleak house:
“But many of those gains are now imperiled. Late last year, unemployment among black teens ages 16 to 19 was nearly 50 percent, and the unemployment rate for black men age 20 or older was almost 17 percent. With so few jobs available, Wilson told me, “many black males will give up and drop out of the labor market, and turn more to the underground economy. And it will be very difficult for these people”—especially those who acquire criminal records—“to reenter the labor market in any significant way.” Glen Elder, the sociologist at the University of North Carolina, who’s done field work in Baltimore, said, “At a lower level of skill, if you lose a job and don’t have fathers or brothers with jobs—if you don’t have a good social network—you get drawn back into the street. There’s a sense in the kids I’ve studied that they lost everything they had, and can’t get it back.
In New York City, 18 percent of low-income blacks and 26 percent of low-income Hispanics reported having lost their job as a result of the recession in a July survey by the Community Service Society. More still had had their hours or wages reduced. About one in seven low-income New Yorkers often skipped meals in 2009 to save money, and one in five had had the gas, electricity, or telephone turned off. Wilson argues that once neighborhoods become socially dysfunctional, it takes a long period of unbroken good times to undo the damage—and they can backslide very quickly and steeply. “One problem that has plagued the black community over the years is resignation,” Wilson said—a self-defeating “set of beliefs about what to expect from life and how to respond,” passed from parent to child. “And I think there was sort of a feeling that norms of resignation would weaken somewhat with the Obama election. But these hard economic times could reinforce some of these norms.”
A year ago, in “Who Obama Hurts Most” we wrote Obama would most hurt those who voted for him – his own deluded supporters. Those deluded supporters are the one now most in need of – Hillary Clinton.
We never worshiped Hillary Clinton. We don’t drink Hopium, even if it is Pink. It was never about Hillary. It is about us, the American people.
The American people in 2012 will dial 911. Hillary Clinton must answer. She’s our only hope.
Elect a boob, expect boobery. This time, “Try Experience – For A Real Change.”
After George W. and Barack Obama, experience might finally come back in vogue on the presidential candidate resumé. Experience could be the Hillary Clinton 2012 campaign theme yet again. But there is a deadly Barack Obama caused problem, and opportunity.
* * * * * *
When President Bill Clinton left office, with approval ratings in the mid-60s, the economy was purring and the deficit lion tamed. The debt carnivore too was in retreat. Then… we’ll let Hillary Clinton explain:
“Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Thursday said “outrageous” advice from former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan helped create record U.S. budget deficits that put national security at risk.
Appearing before congressional panels to defend the State Department’s $52.8 billion budget request for 2011, Clinton said the massive U.S. foreign debt had sapped U.S. strength around the world.
“It breaks my heart that 10 years ago we had a balanced budget, that we were on the way of paying down the debt of the United States of America,” Clinton said.
“I served on the budget committee in the Senate, and I remember as vividly as if it were yesterday when we had a hearing in which Alan Greenspan came and justified increasing spending and cutting taxes, saying that we didn’t really need to pay down the debt — outrageous in my view,” she said.”
George W. Bush signed into law “a massive tax cut while spending billions on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and sponsoring a major expansion of the Medicare health program for seniors.” Experienced Hillary “urged lawmakers to tackle the federal budget deficit, which reached a record $1.4 trillion for the fiscal year that ended last September.”
“We have to address this deficit and the debt of the United States as a matter of national security not only as a matter of economics,” Clinton said. “I do not like to be in a position where the United States is a debtor nation to the extent that we are.”
Having to rely on foreign creditors hit “our ability to protect our security, to manage difficult problems and to show the leadership that we deserve,” she said.
“The moment of reckoning cannot be put off forever,” she said. “I really honestly wish I could turn the clock back.”
Unease and outright distrust of the Federal government by a furious public due to runaway debt and deficits are the Barack Obama caused problem and opportunity. For the foreseeable future candidates for president are not going to be able to run on campaign promises which require the expenditure of vast sums of money. Barack Obama drained what little was left in the Treasury. This campaign limitation will not particularly hurt Republicans. But for anyone running with a “D” after their name the problem will be insurmountable – but not for Hillary.
* * * * * *
This morning (8:45 a.m. EST) Lynn Forester de Rothschild will appear on Fox And Friends. The discussion will center on her latest published article which ends with the following:
“Our central problem is that the combination of his grandiloquence and the September 2008 financial crisis led to his election. Now, the only way to stop him in the next three years is through voter pressure on Congress. One course is to follow Massachusetts and just elect any Republican. But both parties lack courageous leaders who will fight for the values and policies of the middle. We need a movement of the militant middle; millions of voters who support the sensible policies from both parties. This would give Democrats political cover to stand up to Obama, Pelosi, and Reid and Republicans the backbone to acknowledge that the country must progress in order to be strong. Most Americans see a false choice between a smaller government and a progressive country. We must have both. It is our only hope.”
We at Big Pink believe that in November 2010 Dimocrats must suffer devastating defeat and doom – it is the only way to wake them up to the massive Mistake In ‘08 and the need to return to the FDR/Hillary Clinton Coalition. We agree with Lynn Forester that in 2012, once Obama is out of the picture, a reassertion of responsibility and fiscal common sense must be returned to the national government on a bipartisan basis.
American power, prestige, influence and our way of life are predicated on a strong economy. For a strong economy we need jobs for Americans in America. Barack Obama does not know what to do to strengthen the American economy. Barack Obama does not know what to do to help the private sector create jobs. That’s why Obama distracts with schemes which will reward his friends and donors with massive transfers of wealth from the American taxpayer pocket.
In 2012 the issue will be the economy. Other than President Bill Clinton himself, no one better understands “It’s the economy, stupid!” than Hillary Clinton.
The Republicans know the economy will be the issue in 2012. Mitch Daniels who won a big Indiana victory in 2008 when Democrats won big just about everywhere, is the latest favorite flavor of the day for Republicans. Mitch Daniels will run on the economy:
“If the country has soured on a charismatic orator who brought glamour but little executive experience to the presidency, the thinking goes, then Daniels could provide the antidote.
“Do we want a president that’s pretty, or do we want one who can get the job done?” is how Anne Hathaway, a former Republican National Committee chief of staff who is now back in her native Indiana, puts it.
At 60, Daniels’s résumé is exhaustive: He’s a Princeton-educated former Senate chief of staff-turned political operative-turned think tank chief-turned Fortune 500 executive-turned White House budget director-turned two-term governor. [snip]
He has cut spending, cut taxes, leased the state’s toll road to a private company for billions and expanded health insurance and prescription drug access in a market-friendly way. The result is an approval rating of 70 percent, according to one recent survey, placing him among the country’s most popular governors. [snip]
Top party strategists say that characteristic would enable Daniels to fill at least three spaces in the Republican primary.
First, there’s the obvious: He’s the charismatically challenged opposite of Obama. And recent presidential history reveals an electorate that tends to elect presidents with the traits contrary to the outgoing chief executive.
But because of his record and background, he would offer more substantive contrasts, too.
“He’s a budget deficit hawk, but he’s also the interesting reformer,” said one of the Republican Party’s most influential officials, who insisted on anonymity to avoid being seen as taking sides.
Supporters think Daniels can appeal to voters who are fed up with what they see as excessive government spending as well as those who want a candidate who has actually delivered policy results that extend beyond reducing red ink.”
Whether it is Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, Mitch Daniels, or Mike Huckabee, in 2012 there is only one real and true Democrat who can win – Hillary Clinton. Barack Obama is poison already and after November Obama will be poison unbottled. Barack Obama must be driven out of the race so competence and experience can make a return and so that Democrats realize we must return to the winning FDR/Hillary Clinton coalition.
* * * * * *
March is National Women’s History Month. “The overarching theme for March 2010 is Writing Women Back into History.” Barack Obama and the Democratic “leadership” along with a colluding Big Media tried to write Hillary Clinton out of history. Instead, Hillary Clinton supporters will write Obama, the Democratic “leadership”, and Big Media a ticket to oblivion.
Big Media deserves a punishing death as miserable as Dimocratic death is deserved this November. For both, Death appears to be sharpening the scythe. As noted yesterday, Keith Olbermann is close to a well deserved demise. Doom, Death, and Destruction cannot come too soon for these creeps as far as we are concerned.
In 2008 we witnessed thatBig Media has become a self-interested political party in all but name (we’ll have more on this tomorrow in our Hillary Clinton 2012 article). In 2007’s Big Media Party we discussed why we refer to “mainstream media” as “Big Media” and in November 1, 2007’s The Real Danger we wrote this about the debate in which Barack Obama, John Edwards, and Tim Russert joined in a concerted attack on Hillary Clinton:
The real danger for Hillary Clinton, the Hillary Team and Hillary supporters is that after Tuesday night’s debate there is now a template for attacking Hillary. Big Media, the debate “moderators” – Russert in particular, and other candidates for the Democratic Party nomination attacked Hillary in a united probably coordinated manner.
Our counterattack has to be clearheaded and aware that the announced primary campaign opponents are not the only nor the most dangerous opponents. Any doubts in the Clinton campaign or the Hillary Team or among Hillary supporters that Big Media (Russert and Matthews in particular) and/or Big Blogs are our friends or allies or fair must be rejected. Any question that Obama and Edwards’ personal attacks against Hillary are anything but personal attacks have to be quickly rejected. (Edwards and Obama are not questioning Hillary policies, they are questioning her honesty. Further the silly attacks on electability from candidates polling less than half of what Hillary is polling is ridiculous.)
By the time of that debate John Edwards had already reached out for a deal to Obama so the attacks were, if not completely coordinated, at the very least part of a “gentleman’s agreement”.
As Obama’s boobery becomes manifest even to his Big Media acolytes, as Obama’s boobery threatens the very existence of Obama’s acolytes, Big Media outlets are trying to wiggle out of the hole Big Media put us all in. Only now as we approach Spring 2010 does Big Media question its role in election coverage. The truth is much worse however. Big Media Party interests were protected by Big Media coverage during the presidential campaigns of 2007/2008.
Big Media will only grudgingly concede there was a problem and dips a toe in the water with a discussion of John Edwards:
“Over the past few weeks, the world has learned quite enough about John Edwards – from the lies he told in trying to cover up an adulterous affair to the compulsive vanity that left some people close to him questioning his judgment and even his grip on reality.
Democrats who seriously considered making Edwards the party’s 2008 presidential nominee could be forgiven for asking: Now you tell us?
The revelations about Edwards, contained in two best-selling books, have undermined one of the favorite conceits of political journalism, that the intensive scrutiny given candidates by reporters during a presidential campaign is an excellent filter to determine who is fit for the White House.
While the media “usually does well” in vetting candidates, said presidential historian Michael Beschloss, “Edwards is a good case” in which it didn’t.”
Other than rare instances (such as this one) Big Media wanted stooge Barack Obama elected – and succeeded in getting the boob the job. Big Media purposely failed to vet Barack Obama and the excuses now ring hollow:
“And that failure is worrisome in a changed political world where politicians – be they Barack Obama or Sarah Palin – can burst upon the national stage and seemingly overnight become candidates for higher office.
The media, according to Beschloss, now has “a much bigger responsibility than it used to.” In the past, he said, the political establishment “would usually have known the candidate for a long time, and if there were big problems, they probably would have known about those, and tried to make sure those people wouldn’t be nominated.”
That did not happen with Edwards, even though as a Senator he had run for president once before, in 2004, ended up on the Democratic ticket as John Kerry’s running mate, and was a known quantity to many top Democrats.
The Politico article has many excuses as to why Big Media failed to vet John Edwards, most notably the publication of the book “Game Change”. Edwards’ staffers are blamed for not carrying out threats to leak the truth about Edwards to Big Media outlets. The stories about John Edwards published by the National Enquirer were ignored by Big Media. Now Big Media blowhards (Marc Ambinder comes to mind) want to dump the blame on self-interested staffers for not telling the truth.
“The failure to follow up aggressively on the reporting by the National Enquirer, which has nominated itself for a Pulitzer Prize for its Edwards coverage, has served as fodder for conservatives and others convinced the media has a double standard when it comes to vetting Democrats and Republicans.
“I feel sorry for the liberals who were duped by Edwards,” said Cliff Kincaid editor of the right-leaning watchdog organization Accuracy in Media. “They were the real victims of the failure to vet Edwards.”
Kincaid’s comment assists Big Media by limiting the critique to a left versus right continuum. Big Media targeted Hillary Clinton with much more venom than Big Media former favorite John McCain. Only Sarah Palin received Hillary Clinton style rapist coverage.
The Edwards sex scandal was not the story. The real Edwards scandals were his repeated and hypocritical “I was wrong” excuses. Hypocrite Edwards was a Big Media favorite so he was allowed to rewrite history with impunity. Sex was not the story, but it is the excuse Big Media uses to confuse.
Big Media focused on haircut stories (which we correctly reported at the time were planted by Obama slime agents) and hedge fund stories, but ignored the “I was wrong” hypocrisies. Now Big Media is focused on “blame the staff”.
Big Media will distort the truth. The truth is Big Media is a political party in all but name and the Big Media Party is a sexist and misogynist bunch – just like the Democratic Left.
Yesterday, Jamie Stiehm discussed the real story of 2008. Big Media and the Democratic establishment wanted their stooge elected and they all worked together to get “the girl” out:
“Hold on, thought I, before shelving two early 2010 books about the 2008 presidential election. There’s something to be read and said in the pages of “Game Change” by John Heilemann and Mark Halperin that somehow got lost in translation, even by the authors themselves.
And in “Notes From the Cracked Ceiling,” author Anne E. Kornblut makes the case that the national electorate isn’t ready for a woman president, judging by her own coverage of Hillary Clinton’s campaign for The Washington Post.”
“Actually, it may be the Washington elected class that’s most resistant to a gender game change — meaning in the 2008 drama, Clinton’s own fellow senators. In “Game Change,” the U.S. Senate comes across as the highest glass ceiling of all. The boys club — or gentlemen’s club — that Clinton worked hard to join essentially turned on her early in the game and may have blackballed her chances. The same key members within the club befriended and encouraged Sen. Barack Obama, giving his candidacy a tremendous back-channel boost in the beginning.
The Democratic Party establishment along with Big Media wanted to not only deny Hillary Clinton the nomination, but to destroy her as a political force, forever.
As we wrote, Big Media covered up the obvious. For instance:
Junior Senator John Kerry would not have privately endorsed Obama before the Iowa vote without the approval of Ted Kennedy. We have previously written about Ted Kennedy’s motivations for endorsing Obama. We pegged Ted Kennedy as the Barzini of the Obama campaign. All the talk about Kennedy being angry at Hillary for crediting Lyndon Johnson, not JFK, for civil rights laws, is just a bunch of lies. Ted and Barack wanted to destroy Bill and Hillary and they wanted to do so by calling them racists to remove them as an electoral political force – forever.
“A simple truth lies in plain view, like Poe’s purloined letter, across these two tomes. To wit, let’s not assume it’s the national electorate that’s so unready for a female president. A fired-up Clinton was catching on pretty good toward the end, winning major primaries in states like Pennsylvania, Ohio and Texas. But the upper echelons of the political establishment, which she had reason to believe were on her side, had other ideas. “They” decided she was too divisive, even as she competed well in the field.
To a man, many of Clinton’s friends and allies in the Senate reached out to the talented but untested freshman senator from Illinois, urging Barack Obama to run for president. Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer of New York was one of these; so was Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. Highly respected Tom Daschle, a former majority leader, urged Obama to seize the moment and promised to advise him. For the most part, these conversations were held in private in “a conspiracy of whispers,” as Heilemann and Halperin put it. When the late Sen. Edward Kennedy went public with a full-throated roar of endorsement, then the extent of Obama’s support by the clubby Senate Democrats became clear.”
That’s old news to Big Pink readers, but the Hopium guzzlers, some of them still lighting incense and making excuses for Barack Obama, will find it a shock that they are shock troops for the corrupt establishment of a corrupt party.
“For Obama, that was almost as sweet as winning the Iowa caucuses. But for Clinton, it was finding out that “friends” can make the most insidious foes of all.
Was it a betrayal, as the authors call it, by Clinton’s Senate colleagues? Perhaps, but it wasn’t just politics as usual.
It sure wasn’t politics as usual – is was sexism and misogyny and the Big Media and Big Money power leveraged to elect a stooge.
Once respected, E.J. Dionne now thinks Obama should apologize to Hillary Clinton. But E.J. Dionne is a Big Media creep who does not apologize to Hillary Clinton for his attacks on her and his praise of stooge Obama and Obama’s lies and distortions of Hillary policy positions. Dionne and his Big Media colleagues won’t apologize to Hillary Clinton because they succeeded in their mission. Now Dionne wants an Obama apology to Hillary without accepting his share of the blame:
“A suggestion to the president: Tonight, please call Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and apologize for all the bad things you said about her mandate proposal during the campaign. She was right about this issue. You should tell her so.”
And we cannot discuss Big Media without discussing the dumb cousin, Hollywood. As Deadenders reminds us, the “creative clueless” were busy fluffing Obama and discussing dinosaurs during the election season. Now the “creative clueless are “disappointed” with establishment stooge Obama.
Damn them all. Death to Big Media! Death to the “creative clueless”. Damn them all.
The coastal South American country of Chile suffered an earthquake in the early morning hours today. As usual Hillary Clinton is on the job. Actually Hillary was on South American patrol way before the earthquake. Yesterday, before the quake struck this report appeared:
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will visit five Latin American nations next week, seeking to foster relationships with some newly elected leaders and cement ties with others.
Hillary Clinton was scheduled to visit Uruguay, Argentina (they have a woman President), then Chile.
Clinton will bid farewell to President Michelle Bachelet, Chile’s popular leader who will be leaving with high approval ratings for steering her country through the global economic downturn and promoting progressive social reforms. Under Chile’s constitutional term limits, a president cannot run for a second consecutive term.
Oh right, Chile has a woman President too. After Chile, it’s on to Brazil, Costa Rica (”which elected its first female president this month”), and the final stop in Guatemala. South America, maligned as having a “macho culture”, elects women throughout the continent. What does the electoral history of South America say about the big neighbor to the North, us?
* * * * * *
Remember in early April 2007 when Don Imus on MSNBC attacked some young women basketball players with his “nappy headed hos” comment? The attack on women was quickly turned into a mostly racist remark. All the women on the basketball team were women. Not all the women on the basketball team were black. But it became a racial issue, not so much a sexist and misogyny issue.
Jackson: “It’s not just Imus making a statement but when people like you appear on the show and Tim Russert and, and, and McCain and Harold Ford, you give, you’ve given credence to the show.“
Jackson then went in for the kill:
Gregory: “I’m sorry, Reverend Jackson, I just have to interrupt you here. I’m sorry, be very precise in what you are saying.”
Jackson: “All right.”
Gregory: “You are saying from, what, 3:00 to 12, because we do have African Americans who work at this company who are on MSNBC and NBC and I don’t want to detract from your point because you are entitled to make it, but I think you need to be accurate.”
Jackson: “All right. Name- Name- Name- Name- Name me a host of an MSNBC show.”
Gregory: “We’ve gone through this before. We did this a few days ago on the air. Alison Stewart is an African American host on MSNBC.”
Jackson: “So, does she host, does she host between 3:00 and 12?
Alison who?
After Imus was fired MSNBC promised reform. Joe Scarborough took over the time slot and for a short while there was a black sidekick by the name of John Ridley. Ridley has long been gone.
We mention this history because the Tea Party movement has long been under attack, just like Hillary supporters, as being racists. The Tea Party people hit back. They hit back with a video invitation to a meeting in Dallas today:
A tea party group is criticizing Keith Olbermann for suggesting the conservative grassroots organizations lack diversity, challenging the MSNBC host to attend an anti-tax rally on Saturday.
A 90-second web video posted on Monday by the Dallas Tea Party rebuts the liberal “Countdown” host’s attacks on the groups during his show.
“Let me ask all of you who attend these things, how many black faces do you see at these events?” Olbermann says during a clip highlighted in the video.
“Well, Keith, we see a whole lot more at our events than we see at MSNBC,” a narrator responds, as the video cuts to an image of the network’s mostly white lineup.
What happened to the black faces on MSNBC promise? It’s gone the way of all MSNBC apologies – like David Shuster’s Bald Spot.
Joe Scarborough is often praised as “Hillary friendly”. But woman friendly? Think again.
SCARBOROUGH: Have you seen Fred Thompson’s wife?
CRAWFORD: Oh, yeah.
SCARBOROUGH: You think she, you think she works the pole?
Not a good moment for the generally reliable good guy Craig Crawford either.
MATTHEWS: But isn’t that a challenge, because when it comes down to that final decision to vote for president, a woman president, a woman commander in chief, will be an historic decision for people. Not just men, but women as well. Elisabeth, you’re always thinking about these things.
BUMILLER: It’s Golda Meir, it’s Margaret Thatcher. I mean, we all remember these women. I, you know, I think we can get there.
MATTHEWS: But we’ve got Patton and John Wayne on our side
And of course there was the day when old Imus met the the latest Imus and discussed the “horny monster”:
IMUS: Can she be elected president?
MATTHEWS: You know, somewhere out in the Atlantic Ocean, I think there might be a giant, green, ugly, horny monster. A gigantic, gigantic monster of anti-Hillary, an anti-woman Hillary, anti-liberal woman Hillary, some real ferocious beast out there that says no matter what happens between now and Election Day, they’re not going to let her win. There’s men, some women, are just not going to let this woman, this woman win the presidency. I don’t know whether that monster’s out there. All men I meet are afraid to talk like that. You only hear criticism of Hillary from smart, college-educated women. They’re the ones that always have a problem with her now.
But something tells me this country hasn’t changed that dramatically. You know, a friend of mine pointed out the other day that we let African-Americans vote starting in the 1860s, at least under the law. It took us until the 1920s to let women vote. It’s easier for men to accept a black guy as president than a woman president, I think, historically.
So why’s everybody so happy about Hillary? Have we changed overnight? And that’s what I can’t get in my head. If we have changed overnight, that’s a big development. If we haven’t, we haven’t talked about it yet. But there’s something out there about having a woman president – it’s huge — and nobody wants to talk about it. Just the idea of a woman president. And nobody’s argued it. It’s always — it’s all this politically correct, careful discussion. And yet it’s there, and nobody’s debating it.
MSNBC and NBC eventually went to war against Hillary Clinton and the very idea of a woman president. South America’s “macho” men have elected women and the “horny” monster tsunami did not appear. It is in America, at NBC and MSNBC that the horny monster reigns. The horny green monster is in technicolor. It is on MSNBC.
Something important happened yesterday in the Hillary Clinton For President 2012 campaign. But that development will have to wait to be discussed (maybe tomorrow, maybe Sunday, for sure next week). Today is Friday and Friday is news dump day and get the garbage out day. The Friday news dump and get-out-the-garbage day this week started on Thursday. Under cover of the Barack Obama Health Summit Publicity Stunt, lots of dirty deeds started the Friday Dump Day Follies – on Thursday.
* * * * * *
Remember when we Democrats used to wear those cute buttons that said things like “This is not a Patriot Act”? We wore those to protest George W. Bush and the passage of the Patriot Act. Many of our compatriots at the time demonstrated passionately against the Patriot Act.We Democrats were angry and protested on issues such as privacy rights. Democratic leaders denounced George W. Bush and the Republicans and their “tyrannies”. Oh how we Democrats protested and stomped our feet and swore never ending hatred of what we denounced as the improperly named “Patriot Act”.
Yesterday, by a voice vote (which requires unanimous consent, meaning not a single Dimocrat objected to approve without having to record the vote so Senators could be held accountable) the overwhelmingly Dimocratic U.S. Senate voted to extend the Patriot Act.
In agreeing to pass the bill, Senate Democrats retreated from adding new privacy protections to the USA Patriot Act. The Senate approved the bill on a voice vote with no debate. It now goes to the House.
We must have missed the outraged protests from organizations such as Move-On and the defense bar of lawyers who yelled when it was Republicans passing the Patriot Act. Next time anyone, including Hillary supporters, says we must vote for those that are “with us” on the issues, tell them to stick it up their Patriot Act.
Let’s take a few moments today to laugh, mock, and fully deride Gay fools. Here at Big Pink we support civil rights for Gay-Americans. We wrote many, many articles warning Gay Americans about Barack Obama. But, just as with Black people and White people, some Gay people are the lowest of the low. We won’t “mince” our words in politically correct language. We will denounce, mock, totally spew disgust at Gay fools. And there are many Gay fools (just as their are many straight fools, black fools, white fools and fools everywhere. There are even “April Fools” every month of the year.). We won’t conduct a therapy session for Gay fools here, we intend to slap them awake.
We wrote “Women, Gays, Jews: Wake Up!” in June 2009. We quoted James Pietrangelo II, a Gay man who is no fool. Pietrangelo is worthy of respect, not only as a human being (everyone deserves that level of respect, even fools and gay fools) but because he understands the problem and is not afraid to tell the truth to Gay fools (via Time magazine):
“He’s a coward, a bigot and a pathological liar,” Pietrangelo said in an interview with TIME shortly after the high court declined to hear his appeal. “This is a guy who spent more time picking out his dog, Bo, and playing with him on the White House lawn than he has working for equality for gay people,” he added. “If there were millions of black people as second-class citizens, or millions of Jews or Irish, he would have acted immediately” upon taking office to begin working to lift “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” Pietrangelo fought in Iraq in 1991 as an infantryman, and returned as a JAG officer for the second Iraq War, before being booted out in 2004 for declaring he was gay as he was readying for a third combat tour. He was representing himself before the high court.
Gay-Americans are the targets of a particular hatred from Obama. That hatred is sometimes passive-aggressive. That hatred is sometimes disguised with sweet words. That hatred is sometimes overt. Because the hatred at times has been so overt Gay-Americans are the among the first to wake up from their Hopium addled state.
Last night Obama delivered a degenerate campaign speech. Consider the idiot Gay-Americans who voted for Obama and continue to give the boob and his Dimocrats money. When it is to squeeze money from Gay-Americans Obama employs direct, declarative language: “I will end ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’.”
Last night however, Gay-Americans got this campaign promise kinda, sorta: “This year I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are.”
That was it. Gay-Americans who foolishly trust Obama to actually repeal the law they hate, better get to parsing Obama’s words. Obama is not going to do anything you Gay fools. Obama, one year in, will possibly “work” with Congress/military to, in a thousand years, repeal the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law. “Work” to Obama means the speech he gave last night. His efforts are already over. Keep giving him money you fools.
Gay people who trust Obama are fools deserving of all the misery he delivers. Straight people who trust Obama are fools deserving of all the misery he delivers. Ditto, black people, ditto white people, ditto all colors of people and all mixtures of people. All genders, all ages, all religions, all political affiliations, all geographies – you are fools deserving of all the misery delivered to you by Obama if you trust Obama.
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.
The chiefs of the US Army and Air Force also expressed doubts about lifting the ban at congressional hearings this week, saying they were concerned about putting the military under further strain in the midst of two wars.
But Conway went further, making it clear he opposed lifting the ban that requires gay service members to keep quiet about their sexual orientation or face expulsion from the military.
Gay fools will pray to Gay hater Barack Obama and sing “Someday My Prince Will Come” or the plaintive gay hopes anthem “Somewhere” from West Side Story. Gay fools will have plenty of time to sing because Obama is not going to do anything for them.
Sally Quinn’s column of finger bowls will no longer be printed in the Washington Post but will be pixeled online. Quinn holds a special place here at Big Pink and we have discussed her manymanymany times.
Obama loving Newsweeklost $28.1 million last year. The Obama love does not sell – at any price. Newsweek’s troubles might be an one time accounting problem, after all, the nation’s bird cages still need papering.
Obama will focus on pushing his health scam because he does not know what to do about the economy and how to bring back jobs. That’s why Obama distracts. Distraction is the flim-flam man’s stock in trade. “Watch the birdee!’ fools, while Obama picks your pockets.
Born into slavery as one of the youngest of thirteen children of James and Elizabeth in Ulster County, New York, in 1797, Sojourner Truth’s given name was Isabella Baumfree. As almost all of her brothers and sisters had been sold to other slave owners, some of her earliest memories were of her parents’ stories of the cruel loss of their other children. [snip]
In 1843, she changed her name to Sojourner Truth – her name for a traveling preacher, one who speaks the truth – and left New York. She traveled throughout New England, where she met and worked with abolitionists such as William Lloyd Garrison, and Frederick Douglass. Her life story, The Narrative of Sojourner Truth: A Northern Slave, written with the help of friend Olive Gilbert, was published in 1850.
While traveling and speaking in states across the country, Sojourner Truth met many women abolitionists and noticed that although women could be part of the leadership in the abolitionist movement, they could neither vote nor hold public office. It was this realization that led Sojourner to become an outspoken supporter of women’s rights.
In 1851, she addressed the Women’s Rights Convention in Akron, Ohio, delivering her famous speech “Ain’t I a Woman?” The applause she received that day has been described as “deafening.” From that time on, she became known as a leading advocate for the rights of women. She became one of the nineteenth century’s most eloquent voices for the cause of anti-slavery and women’s rights.
Because we want to share our ideas and experiences, our common goals, and nonpartisan solutions to the challenges that we face - and there are no limits to what we can achieve when we do.
And because we want to keep working for a better future for every child, from every family – a world in which no limits is not just our goal, but a reality!
NoLimits.org will "keep you up to date with news about issues on which Hillary took a lead and we know you care so much about," group President Ann Lewis said in an e-mail to as many as 2 million people culled from the Clinton campaign database.
Because No Limits is a registered nonprofit, "it cannot do anything political. It has to be nonpartisan," said Lewis, a longtime senior adviser to Clinton.
In Clinton's job as secretary of state for President Obama, her political dealings are highly restricted.
For example, she shut down her political action committee.
Some, like Democratic consultant and former Bill Clinton aide Chris Lehane, dismiss talk that the group could be a springboard for Clinton to try again for the White House in, say, 2016.
"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar," Lehane said. "I think this is just [a] group of folks who developed relationships in an intense [electoral] environment and want to stay together."
But the University of Virginia's Larry Sabato countered: "Whenever a group like this says it's not a political organization, you just know it is."
"Maybe [this] is Hillary's answer to Obama's new 'change' group that controls his golden mailing list. Maybe it's a way for Secretary of State Clinton to mobilize backing for her objectives at the State Department," he said. "And maybe [it's] a standby committee of supporters in case Hillary decides to get back into elective politics."
Democratic consultant Hank Sheinkopf said NoLimits.org is "one way to make sure that she - and/or the former President - still have political leverage."
Hillary World-Wide January 26, 2009
Secretary of State Hillary R. Clinton Meets Afghan Women Lawyers. Secretary of State Hillary R. Clinton met today at the State Department with fourteen prominent Afghan women judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys. These jurists were in Washington to participate in a training program arranged by the Department’s Public-Private Partnership for Justice Reform in Afghanistan. Secretary Clinton told them: "Your American friends greatly admire your bravery and courage. It is your work in the tough environment of Afghanistan for women lawyers that will bring real reform and the rule of law to the Afghan people. As President Obama made clear yesterday in his first foreign policy announcement, we are committed to supporting your efforts to bring security and stability to your country."
Naked Politics - Rahm Emanuel Pokes Eric Massa Who Runs To Glenn Beck
The Mark Foley Sex Scandals of Election 2006 finished off Republican chances in that year’s election. We began to explain what happened in election 2006 in the article Arrogance! Incompetence! Corruption!: Election 2006 And Dimocrat Obama’s Culture Of Corruption Election 2010, Part I. It was arrogance at the heart of the Republican problems in 2006 and when the Mark Foley sex scandal hit the headlines, it focused the public onto the fact that something was very wrong.
The Eric Massa Naked Politics Scandals of Election 2010 will finish off Dimocrats this year. Eric Massa has told a vivid story about Rahm Emanuel naked in the congressional gym that rings with truth. The Eric Massa story is focusing the public attention in the same way that the Mark Foley scandal focused the public attention in 2006. Americans know that something is very very wrong.
At conservative Hot Air they quote Tom Bevan who echoes Big Pink:
Some conservatives are looking a gift horse (that tells the truth) in the mouth, with caveats that are mostly irrelevant at this point. Glenn Beck is not looking the gift horse in the mouth but instead is hosting Eric Massa for the full hour today. Larry King will also host Massa.
In a move to counter Massa’s appearance on the Glenn Beck show and the Larry King show the Dimocrats are leaking allegations against Massa. The stories about Eric Massa have been circulating for months, if not years, and Dimocrats like Rahm Emanuel knew all the “rumors” about Eric Massa – for years. Only now, because Eric Massa is not bending to their will, are Dimocrats out to destroy Massa. We are not defending Massa (nor David Paterson) but we know a drive by shooting by Obama thugs when we see one.
Today, it’s Eric Massa on Glenn Beck’s show. Lot’s of people watching today as will we here at Big Pink.
We’ll return Arrogance! Incompetence! Corruption!: Election 2006 And Dimocrat Obama’s Culture Of Corruption Election 2010, Part III tomorrow.