April 24th, 2014
“He just is not a natural leader.”
Sideshow Bob, a.k.a. Barack Obama is gallivanting around the globe again, stepping on one rake after another. When there is work to do, Barack Obama hops on a plane.
When Obama wants to go on vacation, which is frequently the case, he goes on vacation no matter what is happening in Washington. Obama acolytes and Obama himself defend these constant trips with declarations that Obama can work from anywhere because of all these new technologies. Of course these new technologies also allow Obama to get work done internationally with video conferencing equipment yet stay in Washington to get work done. But Barack always opts for trips in which he gets to hear applause and the banter of mutual masturbatory praise.
This week Obama is wasting taxpayer money in Asia in order to avoid the hard work that needs to be done. Work? Hey, the oceans are not receding and world peace has not broken out as promised by Obama in 2008. Indeed, today the Obama/Kerry Mideast boobery exploded like rotten eggs in a Michelle Obama imposed high school lunch. Don’t blame Bibi, although Obama undoubtedly will.
What is going on with Barack and why is he wasting taxpayer dollars on another vacation trip? Usually an Obama apologist, Dana Milbank does the honors:
Overseas, President Obama projects a whole lot of nothing
President Obama landed in Japan on Wednesday night and delivered an important message on behalf of the American people.
“That’s some good sushi right there,” he said.
That sushi starts at $300.00. We hope Barack loaded up on the expensive treat if the Japanese are paying. An Obama fed on someone else’s dime (if you don’t count the tens of millions in taxpayer money this trip will cost) might be the only good news from the entire trip.
This is another taxpayer paid Obama vacation just like Mooch Obama’s taxpayer paid China vacation. This trip is so important Mooch decided to stay home and away from stinky Barack. For Barack it is a double vacation away from Michelle and away from work:
The seven-day, four-country Asian tour promises to be an excellent adventure for the president. He’ll visit the Meiji Shrine in Japan and dine with the emperor. He’ll visit Gyeongbokgung Palace in South Korea and lay a wreath at the National War Memorial. In Malaysia, he will attend a “royal audience” and visit the National Mosque in Kuala Lumpur. And in the Philippines, he’ll check out an electric vehicle, place another wreath and enjoy his third state dinner.
But one thing is missing from the president’s otherwise exciting itinerary: making news. The one hope for a breakthrough on the trip — an announcement of a trade deal called the Trans-Pacific Partnership — fell through.
Dusting off the myriad defenses of Obama so often applied, like manure to crops, Milbank manages a bit of truth: “He’s seeing the sights, getting some good pics and moving along — more tourist than architect of world affairs.” Tourist Obama.
At the Obama misogynist acolyte owned New Republic Leon Wieseltier amuses himself by reading the New York Times’s discussion of the tourist-in-chief:
At a press conference the other day he was being interrogated about Ukraine when a reporter asked a question about health care. Obama was delighted. As the excellent Peter Baker reported in The New York Times, “Mr. Obama seems intent on not letting Russia dominate his presidency.” This is not the first time the president has attempted to resist such intrusions upon his idea of how the world ought to be. He has been trying to escape the Middle East for years and “pivot” to Asia, as if the United States can ever not be almost everywhere, leading and influencing, supporting or opposing, in one fashion or another. [snip]
What is this strange choice, this retiring either / or calculation? Only small powers think this way. Can the United States ever have “top priorities” only in one place, even if it is a place as big as Asia? Are our “security interests” not also broached by the failure of the Syrian state, or our “core values” not also invoked by its slaughter without end?
The tiresome futurism of Obama, his dogmatic views about what this ritualistically ballyhooed century will be like and what it will not be like, are only a part of what lowers his vision. The bigger problem is that the president feels inconvenienced by history. It refuses to follow his program for it. It regularly exasperates him and regularly disappoints him. It flows when he wants it to ebb and it ebbs when he wants it flow. Like Mr. Incredible, the president is flummoxed that the world won’t stay saved, or agree to be saved at all. After all, he came to save it. And so the world has only itself to blame if Obama is sick of it and going home.
Obama has concluded, according to Baker, that he “will never have a constructive relationship with Mr. Putin,” and so he has decided that he “will spend his final two and a half years in office trying to minimize the disruption Mr. Putin can cause, preserve whatever marginal cooperation can be saved and otherwise ignore the master of the Kremlin.” Ignoring the master, of course, has the consequence of ignoring the master’s victims: the Obama administration abandons to their fates one people after another, who pay the price for the president’s impatience with large historical struggles. The Ukrainians, the Syrians, the Iranians, the Israelis, the Palestinians, the Egyptians, the Saudis, the Moldovans, the Poles, the Czechs, the Japanese, the Taiwanese, the Baltic populations: they are all living with the jitters, and some of them on the cusp of despair, because the United States seems no longer reliable in emergencies, which it prefers to meet with meals ready to eat. No wonder that so much of our diplomacy consists in tendering reassurances. The United States now responds to oppressed and threatened peoples by making them more lonely and afraid—a sentimental objection, I know, and one that is unlikely to trouble Henry Kissinger’s epigone in the White House.
Obama’s impatience with history has left him patient with evil. It is not a pretty sight; but his broken foreign policy is riddled with such ironies. Here is another one: Baker reports that the president has elected to revise his Russia policy into “an updated version of the Cold War strategy of containment.” How twentieth century!
Wieseltier writes: The only country that American containment is containing is America.
We recently asked “Is it still 2007?” Wieseltier also sees today’s problems firmly rooted in the lies of 2007 and the mistake of ’08:
Obama’s surprisability about history, which is why he is always (as almost everyone now recognizes) “playing catch-up,” is owed to certain sanguine and unknowledgeable expectations that he brought with him to the presidency. There was no reason to expect that the Ayatollah Khamenei would take Obama’s “extended hand,” but every reason to expect that he would crack down barbarically on stirrings of democracy in his society. There was no reason to expect that Assad would go because he “must go,” but every reason to expect him to savage his country and thereby create an ethnic-religious war and a headquarters for jihadist anti-Western terrorists. There was no reason to expect Putin to surrender his profound historical bitterness at the reduced post-Soviet realities of Russia and leave its “near abroad” alone. There was no reason to expect that the Taliban in Afghanistan would behave as anything but a murderous theocratic conspiracy aspiring to a return to power. And so on. Who, really, has been the realist here?
Hillary Clinton called Obama “naive” about the world in 2008 and she was promptly denounced as a racist in the editorial pages of the New York Times by a Harvard sociology professor.
We’ve been called racists too for pointing out the obvious. We noted that world leaders think of Obama as a “SUCKER” who will give them what they want in return for compliments and applause in staged settings. Yes indeed Obama is A Boob Abroad – A Dangerous Narcissist Lost At Sea.
In 2009 we wrote that world leaders thought of Obama as a “SUCKER” and now the idea is discussed in the pages of the Wall Street Journal:
The Dissing of the President
The world is treating Obama like another failed American leader.
I’ve never liked the word diss—not as a verb, much less as a noun. But watching the Obama administration get the diss treatment the world over, week-in, week-out, I’m beginning to see its uses.
Diss: On Sunday, Bloomberg reported that Hasan Rouhani named Hamid Aboutalebi to serve as the ambassador to the United Nations. Mr. Rouhani is the Iranian president the West keeps insisting is a “moderate,” mounting evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. Mr. Aboutalebi was one of the students who seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in 1979. [snip]
Diss: On Friday, Vladimir Putin called President Obama to discuss a resolution to the crisis in Ukraine. The Russian president “drew Barack Obama’s attention to continued rampage of extremists who are committing acts of intimidation towards peaceful residents,” according to the Kremlin, which, as in Soviet days, no longer bothers distinguishing diplomatic communiqués from crass propaganda.
Mr. Kerry was immediately dispatched to Paris to meet with Sergei Lavrov, his Russian counterpart. Mr. Lavrov—who knows a one-for-me, one-for-you, one-for-me deal when he sees it—is hinting that Russia will graciously not invade Ukraine provided Washington and Moscow shove “constitutional reforms” favorable to the Kremlin down Kiev’s throat. And regarding the invasion that brought the crisis about: “Mr. Kerry on Sunday didn’t mention Crimea during his remarks,” reports The Wall Street Journal, “giving the impression that the U.S. has largely given up reversing the region’s absorption into Russia.”
Diss: “If your image is feebleness, it doesn’t pay in the world,” Moshe Ya’alon, Israel’s defense minister, said last month at Tel Aviv University. “At some stage, the United States entered into negotiations with them [the Iranians], and unhappily, when it comes to negotiating at a Persian bazaar, the Iranians were better.” [snip]
Diss: “It seems to me that some kind of joker wrote the U.S. president’s order “. That was what Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin tweeted after learning last month that the Obama administration had sanctioned him for his role in the invasion of Ukraine.
Gotta love the ” “.
Diss: In March, Iranian Gen. Masoud Jazayeri offered his view of Mr. Obama’s threat to use military force against Iran if negotiations fail. “The low-IQ U.S. President and his country’s Secretary of State John Kerry speak of the effectiveness of ‘the U.S. options on the table’ on Iran while this phrase is mocked at and has become a joke among the Iranian nation, especially the children.“
It’s a painful read of insult after insult. Unfortunately they are deserved mockery of a boob who thinks he is bright. A clown stepping on rakes who thinks he is tip toeing through tulips.
More mockery came from Iran when Obama threatened vetoes if Congress dared impose sanctions on Iran. Iran thanked Obama by placing a wreath at the memorial to the mastermind of the 1983 bombing in Beirut, the 1985 hijacking of TWA 847 and other terrorist acts.
No surprise then when Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, began his attacks against the American Ambassador in order to distract from a corruption scandal that threatens to remove him from power. Obama had previously stated how much he favored Erdogan and followed that love note up with psalms about the “bonds of trust” he had with Erdogan.
The Wall Street Journal‘s Stephens catalogs only the most recent examples of insults directed towards the boob in the White House. The most alarming of these insults was the very public mocking in a New York Times editorial op-ed by the Saudi Arabian ambassador to the United Kingdom.
Ron Fournier at the National Journal cites the Peter Baker article in the New York Times then proceeds to wrap the entire stinking foreign and domestic Obaminations up, like a Michelle Obama “outfit”, in one stinking, hideous bow:
Baker reports on a debate inside the administration about how to contain Putin: [snip]
The more hawkish faction in the State and Defense departments has grown increasingly frustrated, privately worrying that Mr. Obama has come across as weak and unintentionally sent the message that he has written off Crimea after Russia’s annexation. They have pressed for faster and more expansive sanctions, only to wait while memos sit in the White House without action. Mr. Obama has not even imposed sanctions on a list of Russian human-rights violators waiting for approval since last winter.
That last paragraph reminds me of Democrats who privately gripe about Obama’s lack of engagement with Congress, his unwillingness to build meaningful relationships, his allegiance to polls and focus groups, and his cautious nature that, in their minds, holds him back from greatness. “He can’t handle Putin. He can’t handle Republicans,” said a veteran Democratic consultant and part-time adviser to both of Obama’s presidential campaigns. Speaking on condition of anonymity, the Democrat told me, “He just is not a natural leader.”
No, he is not a natural leader. He’s not any kind of a leader other than self-interested in his self-interests. He’s a boob. A Boob in America. A Boob in Europe. A Boob domestically. A Boob abroad. This week he is a Boob in Asia.
April 19th, 2014
April 19, 2007 was the date we first published. In one sense much has changed. Now much of our analysis is indisputable. Can Obama be trusted? Most Americans agree with us that Obama cannot be trusted. Is Barack Obama a boob too? Even his most ardent acolytes realize that Barack has botched his presidency. Barack’s big majorities in congress have been devoured. Barack’s assertions of being a world historical leader are exposed as the delusions of a clanking miniature clod. Barack’s promises of receding oceans have drowned in tsunami seas of troubles.
Hillary Clinton? In 2007 the claim from Obama Hopium guzzlers in her own party was that Hillary was a racist dynasty corporatist neo-con war-monger ugly old witch vagina third way Mcauliffe has-been evil monster loser who should be taken into a back room and beaten with a 2×4 until she disappeared forever and ever. Now? The same DailyKooks and party apparatchiks who thought or said such things see Hillary as their salvation and the only tool they have to save the memory of their once and future Messiah.
But much has not changed at all since 2007. There is still the crazy. Consider the recent shoe thrown at Hillary. Hillary handled the episode very well, to the point of amazingly well. Hillary ducked, then amusingly asked if that flying object was a bat. From there on Hillary, like a super talented jazz musician improvising new riffs and melodies on a popular tune, asked if it was all part of a stray Las Vegas act that had escaped from the strip. Hillary ended with a home run by declaring that the shoe thrower missed her mark because she did not possess the training Hillary acquired as a youthful softball player. That last remark was aggressive, mocking, endearing, and boastful, all at once.
The shoe incident should have come as no surprise to anyone. Hillary has some adversaries that want to throw shoes at her. No surprise. Hillary has been giving speeches for generations to hostile and friendly audiences so no surprise that Hillary can handle just about anything. It’s called experience. But we were back to 2007 real quick as callers to Rush Limbaugh (and others who should know better) could not accept Hillary’s grace under fire and quick wit responses:
“Her theory was based on the fact that Mrs. Clinton looked like she knew it was coming. She didn’t look that shocked. She had too many really cute, pat answers just ready to go. And then this woman said the Clintons, they stage things, the Democrats stage things and I said, “You know, I hadn’t thought about it.”
From there Limbaugh educated his audience with more Monica Lewinsky stories.
Limbaugh was not as bad or stupid as the DailyKooks with their conspiracy stories, but if Republicans want to know why they lose to the Clintons the whole episode is a good lesson. Why not accept that Hillary has a lot of experience handling hecklers and critics? Why not accept that Hillary is very good at interactions with audiences, whether hostile or friendly? No, instead it all had to be staged because that delusion emotionally satisfies more than the obvious truth that Hillary is a force to be reckoned with.
It’s back to 2007 for Rush Limbaugh and the E/I Republicans/conservatives. It’s also back to 2007 for Obama Dimocrats:
“Democrats hark back to the politics of race
So now it’s out there. After five years of studied reticence (unless they were talking privately to one another or their supporters), Democratic leaders in Washington finally went public last week with what they really think is motivating Republican opposition to Barack Obama. As Steve Israel, one of the top Democrats in Congress, told CNN’s Candy Crowley, the Republican base, “to a significant extent,” is “animated by racism.” [snip]
But it’s not the reaction of Republicans that Democrats should probably have some concern about. It’s the way American voters, and a lot of younger voters in particular, may view a return to the polarizing racial debate that existed before Obama was ever elected.
Coming in an election year, and in the wake of sporadic campaigns to solidify support among women and gay voters, the sudden Democratic focus on race felt like an orchestrated talking point.[snip]
As far as I can tell, though, this eruption on race actually wasn’t born in the kind of strategy session where consultants lay out which issues will move which voters. What seems to have happened was something rarer: Washington Democrats, unable to suppress their frustration for a minute longer, simply blurted out what they have always believed to be true but had been reluctant to say. One catharsis emboldened the next.
As a unifying explanation for the abject dysfunction of our political system, latent racism seems unsatisfying, at least by itself.”
That article is written by Matt Bai. It is a silly circa 2007 article which tries to convince that the race-baiting to help Obama is not planned but somehow organic or excusable at some level. We read the same crap in 2007.
In 2007 the race-baiting by Obama supporters was masked by talk of a new coalition, ascendant and on the march. Any one who opposed this new coalition and thought the winning coalition was the FDR/Kennedy/Clinton coalition was deemed a racist. This race-baiting strategy was and is by design.
Hillary had experience. Barack Obama had little to no experience outside of his “community organizer” efforts. But to say this was deemed “racist”. Anything said on behalf of Hillary Clinton, or later John McCain, was deemed racist and “old” by these race-baiting “ageists”. Yet Matt Bai dares to publish an article that claims the race-baiting is not by design, not planned, not a filthy scheme to win elections.
Matt Bai’s article is a warning to Obama Dimocrats that the race-baiting of 2014 exposes as a lie the racial unity promises of 2007. Matt Bai is wasting his time. Obama Dimocrats have won with race-baiting and they will race-bait again and again.
In 2007 Hillary Clinton and Hillary Clinton supporters were the targets of the race-baiters. In 2007 we saw the threat and saw there were no websites defending Hillary Clinton against the race-baiters. So we began to publish in April 19, 2007. We’ve been on the job ever since.
We’ve changed a lot since 2007. Experience changed us. On issue after issue experience changed us. We think it was for the better.
In 2007 we wrote what we believed. In 2008 we wrote what we believed. When Barack Obama took the nomination in Denver that year we had a choice. We could accept the truth of what we had written and declare we could not support a treacherous boob like Barack Obama. Or we could do what many of our compatriots did and say “whatever, delete everything we wrote, we’ll endorse Barack Obama.”
Our problem in 2008 was we had written the truth about Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton as we knew it. We decided to follow the truth as we saw it. We could never support Barack Obama nor his abominable acts. We continue to write the truth as we see it as painful as it is at times.
Some who wrote the truth about Barack Obama chose to ignore the truth of what they had written and put a political party above the nation’s interests. They now live in a Hell of their own making.
For Hillary Clinton 2016 as in 2007 the enemy remains the same. For Hillary Clinton the enemy is still Barack Obama:
“Hillary Clinton’s top 2016 worry is ‘Obama’s economy
If Hillary Clinton runs for president, she’ll be getting a lot of help from Wall Street. But her friends and confidants there tell me she truly hasn’t decided yet.
So why is she hesitating? The big reason, according to these sources, has to do with the dude who occupies the Oval Office now.
Barack Obama’s rapidly disintegrating presidency — and the chance it will get even worse — is Clinton’s top worry these days as she weighs whether she’ll run, and can win, in 2016, these folks say.”
As in 2007 Hillary Clinton’s opponent in 2016 will be Barack Obama. Very few outside the world of Kookdom will want to vote for an Obama third term. Barack Obama has been a disaster and an obamination and like a radioactive Ebola transmitting parasite Barack Obama threatens to continue to destroy:
“She knows economic recoveries (even ones as weak as the one Obama fomented with ObamaCare, higher taxes and his attacks on business) run in cycles, which often last about seven years. In other words, it could turn sharply down just in time to leave her holding the bag.
“If you ask Hillary what she really fears, it’s that in a year or so, when she’s running, that Obama will be so unpopular that no one wants any Democrat as president,” said one Wall Street executive who knows the former first lady. “That doesn’t mean she won’t run — she’s human and when so many people urge you to do something, you often do it. But that doesn’t mean she will win.”
Hillary’s fear of being stained by Obamanomics isn’t just her own; it reflects a broad-based critique of the Obama presidency you hear muttered at Washington and New York cocktail parties where liberal elites (i.e., her Wall Street supporters) often congregate.
On the other hand, Republicans have a way of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory; who knows who they’ll nominate in 2016.
And time is on Hillary’s side as long as the economy doesn’t crater. She has a formidable campaign and fund-raising apparatus ready at a moment’s notice — money will be there and her celebrity isn’t going away.
One test she’ll be looking at, I’m told, is how her new memoir, due out in June, gets received. If the book tour goes well, she’s even more likely to jump in.
But count me as skeptical that she will run — and even more skeptical that, if she does run, she wins. Because, based on everything she’s telling people about the problems of inheriting the Democratic Party from President Obama, even she’s skeptical of her chances.“
In 2007 we began to publish because we saw treacherous Barack Obama as the destroyer of the Democratic Party and the single biggest threat to a successful Hillary Clinton presidential campaign. In 2007 we urged Hillary Clinton and Hillary Clinton supporters to realize that Barack Obama was the greatest threat to America, Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party.
Is it still 2007?
April 15th, 2014
Update: On a daily basis the evidence mounts of rule by gangster government. The latest evidence? A Freedom Of Information Act release reveals that Lois Lerner, DoJ discussed criminal prosecution of tax-exempt applicants.
A corrupt Department of Justice which is a nest for injustice. An executive branch of government whose agencies and departments wield power to oppress the citizenry. There are constitutional remedies as we detail below.
Can executive branch gangster government be brought to justice? Is the American constitutional system of government too outdated, too badly designed, too irrelevant to modern day reality to fight back against a corrupt executive branch that employs all the vast powers of the president and the departments and agencies of government? Is “consent of the governed” no longer required as long as the executive branch, allied with a corrupt Big Media, occupies the west wing of the White House?
The American system of government can survive gangster government. The constitutional system of government instituted by the Founding Fathers and Mothers anticipated just such a corrupt system as we face today.
It is true that a corrupt Barack Obama assisted by the corrupt Attorney General Eric Holder is protected from ordinary legal process. Impeachment likewise is always a threat but that is not a viable possibility yet because there are still sufficient votes in the U.S. Senate to protect Barack Obama from justice and a penitentiary cell.
The same does not hold true for Barack Obama’s henchmen and thugs. Obama’s gangland is vulnerable to the rule of law. Exit the Department of Justice. Enter the inherent contempt power of the American Congress.
The contempt power wielded by Congress was popular amongst our own when the target was George W. Bush:
“Congress’s Power To Compel
It seems that the House Judiciary Committee is considering seeking help from the Justice Department to enforce contempt citations against Bush administration officials such as Joshua Bolten who refuse to respond to congressional inquiries into alleged White House wrongdoing. That would be a mistake.
Such a strategy leaves Congress beholden to hostile executive branch officials to enforce its prerogatives on exactly the type of charges that the administration said this week it would not allow officials to pursue. This strategy also would allow the president to pardon his underlings should they ever be indicted and convicted.”
What we advocated against George W. Bush we support against Barack Obama. The Congress can bypass the corrupt Department of Justice and bring back accountability:
“Yet under historic and undisturbed law, Congress can enforce its own orders against recalcitrant witnesses without involving the executive branch and without leaving open the possibility of presidential pardon.
And a Supreme Court majority would find it hard to object in the face of two entrenched legal principles.
First is the inherent power of Congress to require testimony on matters within its legislative oversight jurisdiction.
So long as Congress is investigating issues over which it has the power to legislate, it can compel witnesses to appear and respond to questions. That power has been affirmed over and over in prosecutions for contempt. [snip]
This power of Congress to punish contemptuous behavior itself was reinforced in 1934. In Jurney v. McCracken, the Supreme Court denied a writ of habeas corpus to a petitioner who had been taken into custody by the Senate sergeant-at-arms for allegedly destroying documents requested in a Senate subpoena.
The limitation on the president’s pardon power was most comprehensively discussed in a 1925 opinion by Chief Justice (and former president) William Howard Taft in the case of Ex Parte Grossman. [snip]
Thus, the congressional alternative. Instead of referring a contempt citation to the U.S. attorney, a house of Congress can order the sergeant-at-arms to take recalcitrant witnesses into custody and have them held until they agree to cooperate — i.e., an order of civil contempt. Technically, the witness could be imprisoned somewhere in the bowels of the Capitol, but historically the sergeant-at-arms has turned defendants over to the custody of the warden of the D.C. jail.”
To summarize what must be done by Congress in 2014 or in 2015:
“So, far from being defenseless against the president’s refusal to prosecute or the threat of presidential pardon, Congress could take into its own custody defiant administration officials who refuse to cooperate with legitimate inquiries into executive malfeasance. Those targets would have the right to seek writs of habeas corpus from the federal courts, but as long as Congress could show a legitimate need for the information it was seeking pursuant to its legislative oversight functions, it would be standing on solid legal ground.“
Congress should get on solid legal ground and prosecute its need for information by bypassing the corruption at the White House and the Department of Justice.
We thought so in 2007. We think so now. Hells bells, this New York Times editorial page commentary agreed with us in 2007 when the target was George W. Bush:
“Congress Has a Way of Making Witnesses Speak: Its Own Jail [snip]
If the Justice Department refuses to enforce the subpoenas, as seems likely, Congress will have to decide whether to do so. Washington lawyers are dusting off an old but apparently sturdy doctrine called “inherent contempt” that gives Congress the power to bring the recalcitrant witnesses in — by force, if necessary. [snip]
This is where inherent contempt comes in. From the Republic’s earliest days, Congress has had the right to hold recalcitrant witnesses in contempt — and even imprison them — all by itself. In 1795, shortly after the Constitution was ratified, the House ordered its sergeant at arms to arrest and detain two men accused of trying to bribe members of Congress. The House held a trial and convicted one of them.
In 1821, the Supreme Court upheld Congress’s right to hold people in contempt and imprison them. Without this power, the court ruled, Congress would “be exposed to every indignity and interruption, that rudeness, caprice, or even conspiracy, may mediate against it.” Later, in a 1927 case arising from the Teapot Dome scandal, the court upheld the Senate’s arrest of the brother of a former attorney general — carried out in Ohio by the deputy sergeant at arms — for ignoring a subpoena to testify.
The Congressional Research Service issued a report in July that confirmed Congress’s inherent contempt powers. It explained how they work: “The individual is brought before the House or Senate by the sergeant at arms, tried at the bar of the body, and can be imprisoned in the Capitol jail.” Congress can do this, the report concluded, to compel them to testify or to punish them for their refusal to do so.
The Bush administration has been acting as if only the executive branch matters. [snip]
This country has seen far too much of this sort of dismissal of Congress’s authority.”
IRS Lois Lerner should be the first to feel the inherent power of contempt of congress and be subjected to a full examination by the full House of Representatives. The hypocrites at the New York Times agreed with us when it was George W. Bush at target range. Now the hypocrites will protect “unitary executive” Barack Obama where once they deplored executive overreach and corruption.
Barack Obama changes laws at will, decides what laws to enforce, yet Big Media protects him. Big Media and Obama Dimocrats will not enforce the law. Will Congress?:
“House Republicans won’t rule out arresting Lois Lerner if Justice Department doesn’t
House Ways and Means Committee Republicans aren’t ruling out the use of the chamber’s “inherent contempt” authority if Attorney General Eric Holder refuses to act on the panel’s accusations against former IRS official Lois Lerner. [snip]
Among those tools is the House’s “inherent contempt” authority under the Constitution, which was initially exercised in 1795 during the First Congress and on multiple occasions thereafter. Lerner could be held until January 2015 when a new Congress is seated, which could issue another subpoena and throw her in the clink again if she still balks at testifying.“
How exactly would the exercise of the inherent power of Congress work?:
“If Congress wants to hold someone in contempt for failure to comply with a subpoena, they can do several things:
(1) Hold congressional contempt proceedings. These are quasi-judicial proceedings, rooted in the constitutional investigatory and legislative power of Congress, in which the members of Congress themselves act as judges, juries, and prosecutors. It is very important to note that this is not a judicial process. The chamber of Congress in question has the power to direct the Sergeant at Arms to arrest someone, bring them before the chamber, and put them in jail, all without seeing the inside of a courtroom.
See McGrain v. Daugherty, for an example of this upheld by the Supreme Court. The Court held that such powers were “necessary and proper” for Congress to carry out its legislative function.
This is the “historical” method by which a chamber of Congress has enforced its subpoenas. It was employed some dozen or more times up until 1934 but it was deemed too time consuming because it required the attention of the whole chamber, sometimes for more than a week. In the 1850s an alternative procedure was hotly debated and eventually created. But this method still exists. And this is the source of what is referred to as the “inherent contempt” proceeding.
For completness’ sake I should mention that individuals imprisoned under this procedure may petition for habeas relief from federal courts. They therefore will have some opportunity (though likely limited) to raise defenses (for example, Fifth Amendment or executive privilege) and challenge the validity of the contempt finding. On the other hand, there is general consensus that this type of imprisonment is not a criminal penalty and therefore is not subject to the presidential pardon power.“
The third option discussed at that post becomes relevant if Republican win the Senate in November. For now the House of Representatives should make it very clear that the corrupt, insolent officialdom at the White House and the Department of Justice as well as the Internal Revenue Service cannot rely on the presidential pardon power or the corruption of the laws by Obama henchmen.
As we warned in November/December of 2008 the “multi-headed Hydra which is the Obama Chicago Culture Of Corruption is growing another head in Washington, D.C.” Years later a groggy acknowledgement from Watergater Bob Woodward: There’s obviously something wrong at the IRS:
“GEORGE WILL, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: The investigation to take last first, has stalled because the Justice Department has already leaked its conclusion, which is that no one would be prosecuted. It rises to that level because the Internal Revenue Service is the most intrusive and potentially the most punitive institution of the federal government and has been thoroughly politicized. Let me give you five things we know that she’s done right now. She said the delay on approving conservative groups is caused by a serious uptick in applications. The inspector general of the IRS says that is just not true. She said the Tea Party group was very dangerous. In Texas and Kentucky and probably elsewhere, IRS employees have violated the Hatch Act by using federal resources for campaigning and obviously for Barack Obama.
WALLACE: Can we — I just want to point out — because the office of Special Council came out this week with a report and they said, now, there weren’t vast cases although in Dallas they apparently — they were wearing campaign buttons and there are screen saver said Obama and stuff like that. But there was at least one case where if you called the helpline this person was in effect tell you when you should vote for Obama and not for the Republicans because they’ll keep you in this mess. On the IRS helpline. So, (INAUDIBLE) with you recitation, I’m (INAUDIBLE).
WILL: Confidential taxpayer information of the organization, the National Organization for Marriage was leaked to a rival group. And finally, when Senator Schumer and Durbin and others were exerting the IRS to be more political in their application of views, she said with regard to Crossroads GPS, the most important conservative group, we are working on a denial of the application. Not expediting, not coming to a quick conclusion, but we are working on denial of it. That’s why this rises because as Bob Woodward remembers, the Watergate scandal was fundamentally in the words of John Dean using the machinery of the federal government to punish our enemies.
WALLACE: All right, Mr. Woodward, you know something about scandals. And if that’s forgetting them, how serious is the IRS scandal and, you know, I think one of the key questions is, does this really begin and end with a midlevel bureaucrat who we never heard of a year ago named Lois Lerner?
BOB WOODWARD, THE WASHINGTON POST: Well, there is obviously something here. And the question is does this committee know how to investigate? And they’re worried about this one person who has invoked her Fifth Amendment rights not to answer questions and you have congressmen on the committee going on and saying we have evidence she’s involved in criminal activity. I don’t think you should cross that line. The second thing is there’s always one person who’s not going to talk. And when you conduct an investigation like this, I have not gone into the details, you need to find people who will talk. And there are always people who will do this. And, you know, we should dig into it. There should be answers. It’s quite correct. And for the president to take that position is very, very unusual and say there is not a smidgeon of evidence here. I mean George has got a good list — I think, actually, there’s more. And there’s a question and you’re right, the IRS particularly this week as we know will file our tax returns has a big place in everyone’s life. And they have immense power. And the power of the federal government to come and say we’re auditing you or we’re going to do something to you, I mean it’s a ten ton truck coming at you. And it’s the sort of thing that the leadership and the White House should take a position. Look, we will not tolerate this. [snip]
HUME: Chris, the same set of facts that Bob and George have described would have touched off, I think, in previous days a media firestorm. What we had was kind of a campfire in most of the media, which was doused before very long and the story has been basically dormant. We at Fox News have continued to pursue it and some other media outlets have as well. But when that kind of firestorm occurs, it creates an atmosphere in Washington where for the administration with a message to try to promote day by day, you can’t get it out. You can get nothing out. We can all remember what it was like. And that creates a hothouse sort of atmosphere, in which all investigations end up being accelerated. There are minute details leaked, they get reported and the thing develops a life of its own and ultimately the combination of things, you know, brings the issue out and you get to the facts. It has not happened here.”
Big Media will protect Barack Obama and his gangster government. It will be up to Congress to get the truth.
Since the beginning of the IRS scandals we have stated that a special select committee was needed. Instead on issue after issue we have seen mostly bumbling from the committees charged with investigation.
Soon the entire House of Representatives will have to rise up to defend the law. The Constitution provides the shield and sword of law for the House of Representatives to take back representative government from the corrupt gangster government of Barack Obama. “This government of the people, by the people, and for the people. shall not perish from the earth” unless Congress and the people abandon principles and the solid rock of law.
April 10th, 2014
Update: Obama is right about Sebelius but not in the way he meant it. “Kathleen Sebelius resignation: Obama says the HHS secretary will ‘go down in history‘” That’s like saying “Brownie, you’re doing a heck of a job.” She’s “going down” in history alright. We’ll make sure of that. Maybe Sebelius will retaliate like Brownie did and call out Obama as an incompetent boob not bothered about his supposed “legacy” “achievement”.
Even as Obama and Sebelius tried to polish their ObamaCare turd today there was One final glitch: Sebelius’s farewell speech derails because … it’s missing a page. Ah, good times, good times. The Obama circus is losing one of it’s biggest clowns.
Barack Obama is the one that should be forced to resign or be removed. But for now Sebelius is the one to take the fall. Yup, Sebelius to resign as secretary of HHS.
To punish Sebelius she should be forced to go on ObamaCare. She was not fired. She has not been punished. Force ObamaCare down her throat. Next stop: the nomination fight of her successor, OMB Director Sylvia Mathews Burwell.
There will be a lot of updates on this resignation as the **it hits the fan. For now it is time to polish the ammo to be used in the nomination fight to come in the midst of the November midterm elections.
In the nomination fight to come, one of the issues will be the necessary repeal of ObamaCare. The response to this from Obama ObamaCare shills is that the problem with ObamaCare is not enough ObamaCare. To them a “fix” here and there will solve the nonexistent problems.
We point out that the “fixes” proposed for ObamaCare effectively kill ObamaCare. ObamaCare cannot be fixed. “Oh, but people want ObamaCare fixed with more ObamaCare” these apologists claim. Enter reality, via former darlings of Obama Hopium Guzzlers- Nate Silver and the Huff n’ Puff:
“FiveThirtyEight, HuffPost Destroy Idea of ‘Secret Majority Supporting Obamacare’
On Thursday, a USA Today/Pew Research Center survey confirmed what most already know: the Affordable Care Act is not popular. 50 percent of respondents in that survey said they continue to disapprove of the ACA compared with 37 percent who approve of the law. That is largely stable from that survey’s results last month which found 53 percent disapproving and 41 percent approving of the ACA.
In fact, Pew’s results are consistent with other polls which have found broad disapproval of the law since it’s passage in 2010. Today, the Real Clear Politics average of opinion polls shows the ACA remains unpopular with an average of 52.2 percent of the public compared with an average of 39.8 who approve.
No matter, some of the ACA’s supporters say. For within those surveys that persistently show the public disapproving of the law lay secret subsets of respondents who, when added together, reveal that majorities actually adore the health care reform law.
“If one combines the segment that wants a more liberal approach to health care reform with those who approve of the law, a plurality of Americans view health care change favorably,” declared the New York Times‘ Allison Kopicki on the day the ACA’s troubled online presence went live last October.”
We read the same rubbish all the time. “Americans want more ObamaCare” not less recite the apologists:
“Based on a November CNN survey which asked respondents who say they oppose the law why that is the case, MSNBC.com analyst Steve Benen declared that, in spite of the fact that 58 percent said they oppose the law, the ACA is secretly beloved. “In other words, as the CNN analysis explained, 54% of the country either supports Obamacare, or say it’s not liberal enough,” he exclaimed.”
Jamelle Bouie at The Daily Beast has written the same rubbish. Ditto CNN (“Thirty-nine percent say they oppose the law because it’s too liberal, but 12% say they oppose it because it’s not liberal enough.” “That means half the public either favors Obamacare, or opposes it [because it] doesn’t go far enough.”.)
This delusion will be tested fully in November. Kathleen Sebelius tried to sail that river of denial but reality intruded on her reveries. The “math” from the once beloved Obama acolytes at 538 and Huff n’ Puff tell another story:
“Recently, partnering with the polling firm YouGov, Huffington Post polling analyst Mark Blumenthal attempted to duplicate CNN’s method of divining support for the ACA among those who do not support the ACA. To clarify CNN’s findings, he performed one extra step. “In your own words,” HuffPost asked select respondents, “what do you mean when you say the health care law is not liberal enough?”
“[V]ery few said they opposed the law because they would prefer a ‘single payer’ system (6 percent of those answering) or would prefer either the ‘public option’ or an alternative to ensure “healthcare for all” (4 percent),” Blumenthal revealed.
A much larger portion of the not-liberal-enough group referenced high costs (15 percent), the mandate to purchase health insurance (12 percent), or more general complaints about a lack of choice or too much government control (13 percent).
“I don’t think forcing everyone to buy insurance is liberal at all,” one respondent told Blumenthal.
“Liberal means choice to me at least and it leaves us no choice, we are forced to buy insurance we may neither need or want,” another said.”
Call rewrite at the ObamaCare Dreamworks studios of delusion.
Bad enough coming from the Huff n’ Puff. Then Nate put the Silver knife right through the heart of this bloodsucker’s delight argument:
“But the fatal blow to this happy theory came from statistical guru Nate Silver‘s outlet, Five Thirty Eight. On Thursday, analyst Harry Enten observed ACA supporters have not only misread polling results that show some say the ACA is not liberal enough, but they have also misconstrued polling results which show ACA does not go “far enough.”
“The ‘not far enough’ group has been read as opposition from the political left,” Enten wrote. “But in the Democracy Corps survey, 13 percent of Republicans said Obamacare didn’t go far enough in changing health care. Only 4 percent of Democrats said the same.
The ABC News survey was more evenly split, but there was still no major Democratic opposition. Nine percent of Republicans and 8 percent of Democrats said the law didn’t go far enough, according to ABC News.
For most, the ACA is, in fact, unpopular. To the extent that this fact remains murky to some, the Pew survey released this week indicates that it will become clear as day in November.
“In the survey, taken after President Obama announced a surprising 7.1 million Americans had signed up for health care through the law’s exchanges, more than eight in 10 registered voters say a candidate’s stance on the law will be an important factor in determining their vote,” wrote USA Today‘s Susan Page. “A 54% majority call it very important.”
“By 2-1, those who rate the issue as very important disapprove of the law,” she continued. “That means it is more likely to motivate opponents than supporters to vote — a critical element in midterm elections when turnout often is low.”
Reality is paging Sylvia Burell in the lobby of the Roach Motel. Don’t go in there girlfriend.
April 3rd, 2014
We’re constantly implored/commanded by the Obama cult to “get over 2008“. But we know our Alinsky Rule #4 and we promised at the end of 2008 to hold Barack Obama’s stinking feet to the fire. Think of us as Banquo’s ghost with a red hot poker to shove up the ass of Obama acolytes.
What we find particularly galling however, is that the whine to “get over 2008″ comes from the same people and Big Media institutions that bemoan the Koch brothers and weep about the need for “campaign finance reform“. What Obama supporters mean by “campaign finance reform” is that the other side stop fundraising so that Obama supporters can keep buying/stealing elections.
The hypocrisy of Obama cultists who demand we “get over 2008″ was further exposed this week thanks to the Supreme Court’s ruling in a major campaign finance case. Oddly, the hypocrisy of Obama supporters was exposed by a pretty good article from the Obama cult website DailyBeast. Stuart Stevens at DailyBeast made a very good policy case for not getting over 2008:
“When Obama rejected federal funding for presidential campaigns before his first term, he changed campaigning as we knew it, with candidates on both sides shifting their focus from what’s important (votes! dialogues! press!) to what’s not (money! money! money!). [snip]
Campaign finance is a complicated, vexing issue. There are freedom of speech issues which are legitimate and compelling with a fierce disparity of opinions on the proper solutions. But for over thirty years we had one positive reform that both parties embraced and maintained: federal funding of presidential elections. That ended in 2008 when Barack Obama became the first nominee since Watergate to reject federal financing.“
Hey! that happened in 2008! Obama cultists don’t want to remember that it is Obama that lied and it was Obama they let get away with his lies. That’s the DailyBeast talking, not good ol’ Big Pink. That pig Barack Obama destroyed campaign finance reform:
“Let’s look at the history.
After Watergate, a series of reform campaign finance measures were passed. For the first time in US history, a system was established to fund presidential campaigns with tax dollars. [snip]
The same legislation provided for a partial federal funding mechanism for the presidential primaries. [snip]
This system of federal funding and limits held for both primaries and the general election lasted until 1996, when Steve Forbes running in the Republican primary for President rejected federal funding to self-finance his primary campaign. On the Democratic side, the same happened in 2004 when Howard Dean realized he could raise a lot of money on the Internet and therefore rejected federal funding for the primary. It was probably a mistake as it gave permission to John Kerry, married to a billionaire, to spend personal funds. Kerry did, outspending Dean and quickly won.”
Well isn’t that special? Capitalist tool Steve Forbes and tool/fool Howard Dean broke the public finance system aided and abetted by John Kerry. It wasn’t evil Bill Clinton or corporatist evil Hillary Clinton that broke the system but rather the ‘Dimocratic wing of the Dimocratic party’ Howie and ketchup king weenie John Kerry. Who would’a guessed? According to Big Media it is those evil Clintons raising money in Lincoln’s bedroom that are the cause for all the calamities of campaign finance. Enter the DailyBeast which informs the Obama cult that it was Howie that began to kill the system they whine about.
But it was another beast, a beast that walks on hind legs, a beast from Chicago, that finally chewed the public finance system to death – IN 2008! The beast is called Barack Obama:
“But Kerry still accepted federal funding and limits for his general election, as had every candidate from 1976 until 2008. In the 2004 campaign, Kerry and Bush each received $74.6 million for the general election.
In 2008, Barack Obama, of course, pledged to accept federal funding if he were the nominee. At the time, Hillary was the fundraising juggernaut and it was assumed no progressive candidate could be the first to reject federal funding in a general election. As David Plouffe detailed in his book, The Audacity To Win, the campaign had committed in writing to stay in the federal system. “It was declarative, and it was unquestionably stated we’d be in no matter what the GOP nominee did.”
But Obama and his campaign realized they could raise a lot of money. A lot of money. “I thought if we opted out of the system,” Plouffe wrote, “We could enjoy a significant financial advantage over McCain.”
So they did what no campaign had done since Watergate: They rejected Federal funding and campaign spending limits. In a classic Obama touch, he announced the decision not to accept federal funding in a video that claimed, “I support a robust system of public financing of elections.”
Get over 2008!!!???!!! It’s a year that lives in campaign finance Big Media infamy.
How could that dog chewing carnivorous beast Barack Obama get away with such monstrous acts??? How???? How???? How indeed?:
“The Obama campaign knew they would face criticism in the media. But they were betting that Obama’s special appeal to the media would allow them to get away with it. They were right. The New York Times and Washington Post wrote weak editorials slapping Barack Obama on the wrist; meanwhile the Obama campaign went on to raise historic levels of money. Much is made of their small dollar contribution, but over 20 percent came from a single source: Wall Street, breaking all records.”
Get over 2008? Get over 2008? We’ll never get over 2008! We’ll remember 2008 for eternity and shove our red hot poker up your hypocritical asses so far you’ll see Game of Thrones episodes in holographic 3D!
Meanwhile, as treacherous liar Barack Obama was aided and abetted in his crimes by Big Media and the hypocrite horde of Obama cultists, John McCain was living up to his ideals:
“Meanwhile John McCain, long a champion of campaign finance reform, stayed in the system. He received $84 million and stuck to the limits. By Election Day, Barack Obama had raised $750 million. The Obama campaign smothered McCain in money.
Today many people, including some in the media, have a tendency to confuse Obama’s decision to reject Federal limits with the Citizens United Supreme Court decision that opened the door to corporate dollars in Superpacs. The two are completely unrelated. The Citizens United came two years after Obama rejected federal funding.
The history of campaign finance reform demonstrates that once a voluntarily imposed limit is broken, it is very difficult to go back. For 2012, Obama announced early that he would continue to reject Federal funding. To avoid the financial mismatch that faced John McCain, every Republican said they’d do the same. The system was dead.“
The DailyBeast article further notes that the system that Obama spawned in the same way his father spawned him almost insures that incumbent presidents will always win reelection. That’s because a president can amass billions from now on while the opposition party will exhaust it’s finances in primaries. Of course, this scenario can be avoided with a super-rich opposition candidate that self-finances. This means that thanks to Barack Obama 2008 a super-rich candidate is empowered. And we’re supposed to get over 2008?
In addition, because of Obama 2008, which we are supposed to “get over”, the wealthy donor primary is more important than ever:
“A strong candidate who has grass roots appeal but lacks an ability to attract major donors can now be attacked for that weakness as a potentially disqualifying factor. “We can’t nominate a candidate who doesn’t have what it takes to raise a billion dollars from April to November” is a legitimate concern for both parties focused on winning in November.
Everybody hates money in politics. Candidates hate to raise it, most donors would rather not give it and there is almost universal agreement that our system is crazy. Still, it continues and just gets worse. Federal funding of presidential campaigns with spending limits was one of the last great reforms keeping some sanity in the system.”
Big Media and the Obama cult pigs that snort and yelp because we won’t forget 2008 or let 2008 be forgotten are the culprits, not the Koch brothers, not the Supreme Court, not Republicans. It is Barack Obama, Big Media and Obama voters that are to blame for the state of campaign finance reform:
When Barack Obama announced he was thinking of breaking the system, there should have been a much stronger reaction from those invested in good government. The Commission on Presidential Debates should have announced they would not allow any candidate who rejected spending limits in the debates. The New York Times and Washington Post should have called it disqualifying for a nominee. That would have signaled the pain was too great for anyone, even Barack Obama, to undo the Watergate reform. [snip]
The new, post-Obama system requires candidates to spend upwards of 60 percent of their time raising money deep into September and October. That takes them away from voters, away from the press, away from every dialogue we value in our campaign system.”
The Obama hypocrites that want us to “get over 2008″ can go f*ck themselves. We’ll provide the red hot poker.
March 31st, 2014
The mystery is solved. One picture tells the story.
His parentage is dubious. No one is 100% sure who his real father is. His “father” was so sexually active only DNA detectives can determine who’s who and what’s what. We’re not even sure of what his name is because he has had so many. His mother was liberal when it came to sperm donors. At the beginning of his magnificent new career he was gifted with a prestigious award in spite of having done nothing at all to earn the prize. Great hope was invested in him by the political left. Many considered him a good looking brainiac. Not a he-man he can best be described as “fey”. He went to the finest schools. The toast of blue-town. A world of promise. Yet he is a big fat flop.
Of course we write of Ronan Farrow. His mother is Hollywood’s Mia Farrow. In 1966 the 21 year old Farrow married the 50 year old Frank Sinatra. One year later came the divorce. Mia’s sister Prudence was the inspiration for the Beatles song Dear Prudence. Mia’s next marriage was to composer André Previn. That marriage didn’t last either. Enter Woody Allen the same year the Previn marriage ended.
We won’t examine the Woody Allen marriage to his own daughter nor the sex abuse allegations made by Farow siblings. Who has that much time? In 1987, Farrow gave birth to their son Satchel “Seamus” O’Sullivan Farrow, later known as Ronan Farrow. In a 2013 interview with Vanity Fair, Farrow stated that Ronan could “possibly” be the biological child of her first husband Frank Sinatra, with whom she claims to have “never really split up”.
For us that mystery is now cleared up. Ronan Farrow is the son of Frank Sinatra, not Woody Allen. No doubt about it. The proof is in the picture.
We saw the picture today and Satchel, er, Seamus, er Ronan, looks just like our beloved Frank Sinatra when he was young. Other than in his looks there is not much resemblance between Satchel, er, Seamus, er, Ronan and his very talented dad. Indeed if Ronan Farrow had a black daddy he would very much resemble in “accomplishments”… Barack “Boob” Obama:
” Farrow, 28 — the opinionated, blue-eyed son of actress Mia Farrow and either Woody Allen or Frank Sinatra (even Farrow’s not sure which) — has been a disaster for MSNBC. The channel took the frequent cable-show guest and handed him his own program, “Ronan Farrow Daily,” which premiered in late February.
“He sort of stinks on TV,” an MSNBC source told Confidenti@l. “He hasn’t turned out to be the superstar they were hoping for.”
The theory was that Farrow, a Rhodes scholar who graduated college when he was 15 and went on to score degrees from Yale and Oxford, would bring his 245,000 Twitter followers with him to television. “But that hasn’t happened,” the source said. “Just because someone is a boy genius-turned-Twitter star doesn’t mean they deserve their own TV show.” [snip]
Even worse: Wednesday’s show was 708th among all programming ranked by Nielsen, in both total viewers and the 18-to-49 age group advertisers covet. The midnight airing of “Baggage” on the Game Show Network came in ahead of it, at No. 707, and the 8 a.m. “Golden Girls” on the Hallmark Channel (No. 700) crushed it.
Farrow, who has also worked for the House Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Obama administration, has looked uncomfortable on camera and often stumbles over his words. His lack of TV experience was especially apparent last week during an appearance on NBC’s “Today” in which he seemed to have trouble linking sentences.“
Get that boy one of Barack’s TelePrompTer’s. When the “Golden Girls” beat you…. Keep in mind that in February, Farrow won the Walter Cronkite Award for Excellence in Journalism — after just three days on the air.
Next stop for Satchel, er Seamus, er Ronan? Why a Nobel Peace Prize of course!
MSNBC thought that an inexperienced do-nothing could lead the network to victory. MSNBC invested its hopes and dreams in an educated fool. Now MSNBC has a big fat flop dragging it down like an anchor on a missing plane.
Satchel, er Seamus, er Ronan is not the only bad bet the dunderheads at MSNBC have made. They bet on Obama as a world historic transformational leader. Instead they got world historic boobery. They bet on ObamaCare as the cure. ObamaCare proved worse than the disease. Now at MSNBC there is desperation. At MSNBC morale, like the ratings, are at an all time low. They could change and face the reality that they have been entirely wrong about Obama and his Obamination works. But, at MSNBC there will be no CHANGE. At MSNBC there is no HOPE. At MSNBC the beatings will continue until morale improves.
MSNBC is not alone. Race-baiter Jim Clyburn’s morale is at a low too:
“Jim Clyburn’s plea for Obama to do more
Veteran Democratic Rep. Jim Clyburn said Monday that the White House could be doing more to help Democrats in November’s midterms.
The South Carolina Democrat said while he feels “real good” about where his party stands right now, there’s still room for President Barack Obama to help further with his political apparatus.
“No, they aren’t doing everything,” Clyburn said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” in response to a question. “There’s some things I would like to see done, because there’s a lot of fundraising going on. I do not believe that fundraising will be key in November.”
Clyburn said what’s needed from the administration is ground game.
“I think the organization will be key,” Clyburn said. “And if we can get the White House to come in, or at least the president’s political operations, to help us at the state and local levels the way they did in Ohio and Florida, the mechanisms they put in place were just great.”
He said he didn’t think that was happening currently when asked by panelist Mark Halperin, who suggested Clyburn look into the camera and ask the president for his help.”
Poor race-baiter Clyburn’s morale is sinking. We believe he requires a good strong beating. Beat him unil his morale improves.
Improved morale will require a lot of beatings and more beatings. Clyburn knows that raising money will not hold back the coming storm. It doesn’t help that the ObamaCare website ended its last offical day of enrollment the way it began – by breaking down. Clyburn knows fools that voted for Obama and wanted ObamaCare have low morale too:
“Obamacare will be a huge voting issue for Republicans — that’s already clear. They’ll turn out in droves because they hate the law. What’s less clear is how Democrats will get their supporters to the polls to say, “hey, thanks for health reform.” [snip]
The reality is, it’s probably going to be a negative message rather than a positive one. [snip]
Increasingly, liberal Democrats and outside groups are convinced that the formula that party strategists had recommended until now — telling candidates to stress that they’ll fix what’s wrong with the law — is not going to work. [snip]
But those votes will allow the drumbeat of anti-Obamacare votes and investigations to get even louder. And if Democrats can’t turn public opinion around soon, they’ll have to deal with the enthusiasm gap all over again in 2016 — this time when they’re trying to hang on to the White House.”
The ObamaCare prescription: more beatings. The beatings will continue until morale improves. It doesn’t help that some of the truth about the mess called ObamaCare is coming out via Kathleen Sebelius: Oh, by the way, insurers tell us 10-20% of ObamaCare enrollees haven’t paid their premiums yet.
An election campaign based on support for ObamaCare? The Hammer makes it all go plouffe:
“Trading barbs, campaign lines and even some compliments, conservative columnist Dr. Charles Krauthammer and Barack Obama campaign mastermind David Plouffe entertained the George Washington University College Democrats and Republicans with a debate Sunday night on foreign policy, health care and the upcoming elections.
Krauthammer dominated the night delivering lines and anecdotes drawing the most laughs and applause.[snip]
Plouffe advised Democratic candidates to pay attention to all sides of the spectrum and to voter turn out, to put their opponent on trial and show them as an unsafe alternative, and to not be defensive on Obamacare but rather go on the offense and show what would happen to healthcare if Republicans take over.
Though Krauthammer called Plouffe’s 2014 analysis “brilliant” and said there’s a reason he is in the “hall of fame” of campaigns, he grinned broadly as he ironically voiced full support for Plouffe’s advice that Democrats run on Obamacare.
“I hope you do and that’s the only advice that I think their side needs,” Krauthammer said. “By the way for those of you on this side of the aisle (pointing to the College Democrats), that was meant to be ironic.”
Dr. Krauthammer, like a judge pronouncing an execution sentence on a serial killer, is fully justified in his assessment. ObamaCare is a political serial killer:
“Early national polling is supporting the prevailing view in Washington that Democrats are in trouble in the 2014 midterm elections. While Democrats are more popular than the GOP among the general public, the party faces a number of challenges in November.
First, there’s an enthusiasm gap. [snip]
Another challenge for Democrats is winning independents, who typically decide election outcomes. Democrats trail Republicans among independents by 38% to 44%, according to Pew’s February survey. [snip]
A third challenge is the white vote. [snip]
Then there are the millennials. While support for Democratic candidates among African-Americans and Latinos remains high, young people are less enthusiastic. The Pew center’s in-depth surveys of those ages 18-34 indicate that this generation, a voting bloc so important to Mr. Obama’s two victories, is growing more disillusioned with the president. Millennial self-identification as Democrats has edged down to 50% from a high of 58% in 2009. Pew also found Mr. Obama’s job approval among millennials has fallen to 49% in early 2014, down from 70% in the honeymoon months of 2009, his highest rating among any generation.
Opinion of the president is probably the greatest problem for Democrats this year.“
For millennials, the beatings must continue. Their morale must be made to be improved. The beatings will continue. More and more beatings will be required:
“Democrats’ prospects for 2014 do not look rosy. There is little chance that they will retake the House, and a good chance they will lose seats. Even worse, there is a significant chance that they will lose control of the Senate. Our forecasting model said as many as two months ago. That forecast continues to square with the sense of many analysts — even those who mocked the forecast. [snip]
As we have begun to incorporate candidate experience into the model, our initial sense is this: Republicans may have a far better chance of winning control of the Senate than we or other analysts previously thought. Here is a preliminary estimate: The GOP could have as much as a 4 in 5 chance of controlling the chamber.”
It gets worse. The blame game has already started:
“Bracing for a rough midterm-election outcome, Democrats aren’t waiting until Election Day to start blaming one another for the party’s problems. Anticipating the possibility that Republicans will flip the Senate, the finger-pointing game is already underway between the party’s warring factions.
Earlier this month, Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas argued liberals had successfully purged so-called squishy moderates from the Democratic Party’s ranks—even if those same lawmakers had helped the party retain conservative-leaning Senate and House seats. From the middle, the centrist Democratic think tank Third Way has become more outspoken in criticizing progressive leaders, including Sen. Elizabeth Warren and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, for advocating an agenda that will compromise the party’s ability to attract moderate voters.
The public spats between outside groups are nothing compared with the private finger-pointing over who could be responsible if Republicans ride a political wave this year. The moderate wing is prepared to blame the party for avoiding centrist initiatives like free-trade deals and entitlement reform, while the Left will argue party leaders didn’t do enough to protect benefits.
“This is a coming divide for the Democratic Party,” said one progressive strategist, who was granted anonymity to speak candidly. “Not only about explaining 2014, but laying the groundwork for 2016.”
Our recommendation: more beatings. More beatings are necessary. Increase the beatings. Let a thousand welts swell. The beatings must continue. The beatings will continue. The beatings will continue until morale improves.
Morale will improve once Obama and his Obamaination works and allies are beaten down, never to rise again.
March 28th, 2014
Well the Ukraine girls really knock me out… That Georgia’s always on my mi-mi-mi-mi-mind.
Back in 2008 Barack Obama’s mocking of Hillary and McCain triumphed. Barack Obama called those two old hat. Barack Obama was going to “turn the page”. All those pesky old time problems Mess-Obama was about to celestial choir away – along with no more rising oceans and well everything old and bad and soon we would have anti-gravity cars and planes taking us to holidays on the moon and a disco ball in the White House. Well the page has turned alright. We’re now out of the frying pan and into the fire. Elect a boob and you get boobery. Re-elect a boob and you get more boobery. Oy vey!
Back in 2008 Barack Obama was a promising star. Obama promised and promised and promised – stars and unicorns along with pennies from Heaven. It’s been Hell ever since.
Now Vladimir Putin is the star, er, Tsar – sorry for the typo, misplaced letters and all that. Obama is exposed as an international man of boobery. Charles bangs down the hammer on Obama the boob:
“The United States does not view Europe as a battleground between East and West, nor do we see the situation in Ukraine as a zero-sum game. That’s the kind of thinking that should have ended with the Cold War.” — Barack Obama, March 24
Should. Lovely sentiment. As lovely as what Obama said five years ago to the United Nations: “No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation.”
That’s the kind of sentiment you expect from a Miss America contestant asked to name her fondest wish, not from the leader of the free world explaining his foreign policy.
Miss America is made of sterner stuff and has more lucid wits than Barack Obama. Miss America would likely agree with an argument we recently made about the Ukrainian crisis. We wrote that the task for an American president who shared Western values is to make the case for the West and the values and history of the West:
“If we had an American president with belief in American values and willing to fight for those values, instead of a president only concerned with his stinking “brand”, the Ukraine crisis could be easily turned into a Churchillian moment in Western history. [snip]
An American president at this time who believes in American values and the values of the Christian West would leap to action. The first symbolic action of such a president would be to recall the ejected bust of Winston Churchill and place it back in a place of honor on the desk in the Oval Office.
Next, such an American president would, alongside Mitt Romney fly to the German capital of Berlin and with Lech Walensa at his side address the peoples of Europe, the West, and the world. To a candid world, in words of brutal truth, such a president would place the attack on Ukraine in historic context. “Ich bin ein Ukrainer” would echo from JFK. “Mr. Putin we forced Mr. Gorbachev to ‘tear down this wall’” and Reagan could for a second be remembered. But more than that, an American president with American values would place the crisis in Ukraine in the context of the West and the long fight for freedom and self-determination of nations.
An American president with granite belief in American values would remind the world that people and nations run TO the west and FROM totalitarian regimes.
An American president with American values would remind the world that the crime of the Ukraine in the eyes of the Evil Empire redux is the preference for the values and freedom and economic hope provided by the West. An American president with American values would remind the world that there was a time when half a continent was called the “captive nations”. An American president with American values would remind the world that evil will not live forever and that even though the Hungarian revolution was crushed by the Evil Empire, tens of thousands killed, freedom came to Hungary and it is free today after a long twilight struggle between the West and the totalitarians.”
As we wrote there is a lot an American president with American values could do to shore up the West and challenge the totalitarian imperium. Roger Cohen at the New York Times is an Obama supporter who does not abandon Obama talking points but he agrees with the the main thrust of our assessment:
“LONDON — Having pivoted to Asia and done the de rigueur minimum over several years to keep the trans-Atlantic alliance off life-support, Barack Obama awakened with a jolt to Europe this week and, on his first visit to Brussels as president, spoke of “inseparable allies” with a shared mission to demonstrate that Russia cannot “run roughshod over its neighbors.”
Shaken from a view of Europe as a kind of 20th-century yawn, Obama spoke of freedom and the ideas that bind the United States and Europe still in an ongoing “contest of ideas” against autocracy and “brute force.” [snip]
Better late than never: The Russian president has benefited from the perception of a United States in full-tilt, war-weary retrenchment; of American red lines turning amber and then green; of a divided European Union; and a hollow NATO living more on the past than any vision of a 21st-century future. Obama has been making up for lost ground.
Still, his Brussels speech, presented as a capstone of his visit and one of those Obama specials designed to offset with eloquence a deficit of deeds, was a poor performance overall, a jejune collection of nostrums about binding values of free-market Western societies and their appeal to the hearts (and pocketbooks) of people throughout the world, not least Ukrainians.[snip]
It is all of this. Unless Western societies find a way to shake their moroseness, level the playing field and rediscover, as Obama put it, the “simple truth that all men, and women, are created equal,” they are going to have a very hard time winning “the contest of ideas.”
Instead of a speech of weary worthiness, Obama should have addressed how an alliance neglected through much of his presidency can be revived; and how American and European democracies, for all their failings, can right themselves because that is the great distinguishing feature of open societies — their capacity for renewal.“
Weakling Obama will not be able to bluster the new star, er, Tsar. The world looks at Obama and sees a weakling and smells the stinky fear emanating from the corpse of the unicorn man. Obama is a bumbling boob that will get us all killed. Vladimir Putin is a Tsar who wants to bring back all the Russias and has an active strategy for getting what he wants:
“Perceptions are important. Whatever his long-range intent, Vladimir Putin has Russia’s neighbors fearing and many Russians believing that he has, in effect, announced his objective to bring the former Soviet space once again under Russian influence, if not incorporated into the Russian state. He has stationed troops and other military assets in proximity and has indicated a willingness to use them. The resentment and fear his moves have created in Ukraine and other neighbors will, over time, set in motion countermoves and activities that will diminish Russia’s own security. Putin has demonstrated his willingness to cut off supplies of the large quantity of oil and gas Russia ships to Ukraine and the countries of Western Europe and to play games with prices. Russia has also developed important trading and financial dealings with Western countries, particularly Germany, Britain and France.”
The Tsar of all the Russias is up against Obama the Boob. As Krauthammer stated, it is quite a mismatch.
There are some who outright cheer Vladimir Putin’s not yet satiated hunger for territory. There are some who want us to consider why Putin is doing what he is doing and busy blaming the United States policy incompetents (if not corrupt) of officialdom. The smart Patrick Buchanan is in that latter category:
“Perhaps Americans, a fortunate tribe, should try to see the world from the vantage point of the Russian people and Vladimir Putin, and, as the poet Robert Burns said, “see ourselves as others see us.”
At 35, Putin was a rising star in the elite secret police, the KGB, of a superpower with a worldwide empire.
The USSR was almost three times as large as the United States. Its European quadrant was half of the Old Continent. The Soviet Empire extended from the Elbe River in Central Germany to the Bering Strait across from Alaska. It encompassed thirteen time zones. [snip]
Consider, then, what the last dozen years of the 20th century must have been like for proud Russian patriots and nationalists.
First, the European empire suddenly and wholly collapsed. East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Rumania, Bulgaria all broke away to join the West. The Red Army came home, undefeated, but also unwanted and even detested.
The Warsaw Pact, the rival to NATO, dissolved.
Eastern Europe, which Russians believe they had liberated from the Nazis at a monumental cost in blood, turned its back on Russia, hailed the Americans as liberators, and queued up to join a U.S.-led alliance created to contain Russia.
Then, as Germany was reuniting, the Soviet Union began to break apart — what Putin calls the great tragedy of the 20th century.
One-fourth of the nation he grew up in and half its people vanished. Tens of millions of Russians were left stranded in foreign lands.”
Buchanan’s history is all too true. Yes, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia joined NATO, Belarus, Ukraine and Moldova left too. Romania, Bulgaria, Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan soon packed up their lipsticks and left – former girlfriends tired of being abused. Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Turkmenistan hit the road too. Buchanan writes those loses are equivalent to an America without the 11 Confederate states with Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua aligned with the now defunct Warsaw Pact. There’s also this bit of “blame America”:
“State’s Victoria Nuland says we invested $5 billion in re-orienting Ukraine away from Russia. How would we respond if we awoke — as Putin did in February — to learn a pro-American government in Mexico City had been overthrown by street mobs financed by Beijing, a pro-China regime installed, and this unelected Mexican regime wanted out of NAFTA in favor of joining an economic union and military alliance with China?
A U.S. president who landed Marines in Veracruz, as Wilson did in 1914, and sent a 21st-century General “Black Jack” Pershing with an army across the border, would be over 70 percent in the polls, as Putin is today.
And if he seized Baja, as Putin seized Crimea, it would be a cakewalk to a second term.”
Fair points and one that are currently in vogue among those that, well we really don’t understand the motivations of those making excuses for Putin’s actions.
What Buchanan and others like him fail to acknowledge is that the young Putin lived in a vast totalitarian imperium appropriately described by President Ronald Reagan as “The Evil Empire”. That halcyon memory of days gone by was a nightmare for the rest of the world.
What happened to Vladimir Putin’s boyhood homeland is that the “captive nations” escaped. They fled to the West. The West was a refuge. They fled to the West for freedom and the economic growth that follows when women and men are free.
The Russia of Putin’s memory was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. It was the Evil Empire. It deserved to die. America and the West killed it. Pope John Paul II killed it. The U.S.S.R. was put out of it’s misery. The Berlin Wall was torn down. The KGB and the Stasi and all the apparatus of state terror against its citizens was destroyed. Temporarily.
Now, we are “turning the page” once again – to the past. Any cursory reading of the Quotes of the day reveal the utter befuddlement of Obama’s minions and the purposeful or foolish assessments they make. Unfortunately armies are massing and time is running out. The Tsar of all the Russias is calling. The Evil Empire calling. It’s time to “disconnect the phone” – we’re back in the U.S.S.R.
March 25th, 2014
We took a break today from listening to the Rolling Stones, to check out the two big ObamaCare cases up for a hearing. In the case before the Supreme Court, the Hobby Lobby contraception mandate case which the government will likely lose, we spotted something that no one else is mentioning Here’s the spring sprig which caught our attention:
“As Verrilli’s situation worsened, Justice Kennedy moved in to wonder why it was that Congress would allow a government agency — the Health and Human Services Department — “the power to decide a First Amendment issue of this consequence…. That is for Congress, not for an agency.” Kennedy would repeat that criticism later in the argument.”
It seems to us that Justice Kennedy was telegraphing something to the much more substantial case – the ObamaCare-killer hearing – in the circuit court which was also heard today:
“As has been recounted in this space before, the plain text PPACA authorizes tax credits and cost-sharing subsidies for the purchase of qualifying health insurance plans purchased in health insurance exchanges “established by the State under section 1311” of the Act. PPACA supporters believed every state would create its own exchange. They were mistaken, however, and over thirty states have refused. In response, the IRS promulgated a regulation authorizing tax credits and subsidies in all exchanges, whether or not they were “established by the State under 1311.” Halbig is one of four pending challenges to this regulation.
On January 15, Judge Paul Friedman of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columba upheld the IRS rule. According to Judge Friedman’s opinion, an exchange may provide tax credits and cost-sharing subsidies even if it was neither “established by a State” nor “established . . . under section 1311.” As should be clear, I take a different view. Indeed, my work (with Michael Cannon) has been credited with inspiring this litigation and I co-authored an amicus brief in Halbig expanding on our research (see also here).”
It appears to us that Justice Kennedy in questioning whether a mere agency, not the Congress, had the authority to decide an issue of such consequence (namely a First Amendment religious freedom issue) in the Hobby Lobby case might be sending a strong signal to the Halbig litigants and justices that he is not kindly disposed to agencies, not the Congress, making consequential law. Perhaps Justice Kennedy believes that the legislature legislates?
Did we detect from Justice Kennedy something no one else saw? Or did the Rolling Stones put us in such a good mood we are deceived?
* * * * * *
Yup, we are in a good mood. Those of us in winter quarters for these past six years see the jonquils of hope bursting out through the hard ground. Finding good news is as hard as spotting red roses blooming in the snow during these lean Obama years. But we’re optimists and we’re always on the lookout for pink petals floating from the sky.
Still, it sure’s been a long cold cold winter… and the springtime takes a long way around.
It was Mick and the boys that today pep us up:
We previously reported how Roger Waters, formerly of Pink Floyd, is spearheading the movement to prevent musicians from appearing in Israel, even using a fake Gandhi quote as justification.
One of the groups subject to boycott pressure is the Rolling Stones.
In a blow to the boycott movement, Rolling Stones confirm June 4 Israel show:
The Rolling Stones confirmed Tuesday that they will perform in Tel Aviv on June 4 as part of their “14 On Fire” world tour.
“It’s the first time in 35 years that I have no words to describe the enormity of this event,” said producer Shuki Weiss, who has been trying to get the renowned band to Israel for much of his career.
The concert had been rumored for months, but organizers were only able to announce the official confirmation at a press conference in Tel Aviv on Tuesday.
“This is a historic moment,” said Weiss, who has produced many of Israel’s largest concerts. “It’s a huge honor to bring the Rolling Stones to Israel, an honor for the country, the citizens, and mostly for the fans who have waited for this moment.”
Israel continues to be under attack by the forces of “divestment” especially at American colleges and universities. If you’re a White House reporter, who is Jewish, traveling with Israel hating bow-to-Saudi-despots Barack Obama you’re out of luck in getting your travel papers to enter Saudi Arabia. Obama will no doubt denouce Israel and bow again to Saudi creeps instead of standing up for American values. Well, anyway, at least the British boys called the Rolling Stones stand up for American values.
* * * * * *
Our regular readers know we have been strongly warning that Hillary Clinton 2016 better run away from Obama and ObamaCare. We believe Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton are already doing that, albeit at a snail’s pace.
Yesterday, Bill Clinton continued to put pedal to the metal and increased the distance from Obama:
“Bill Clinton: If The U.S. Gives Up Internet Oversight, Internet Freedom Will Suffer
According to former U.S. president Bill Clinton, Obama’s plan to relinquish control of the Internet will enable foreign governments to crack down and limit Internet freedom.
Last week the Obama administration announced that they were looking for private company to take over the US handling of internet address.
Clinton has joined a number of critics in the US and around the world who think this is a bad and would lead to vulnerability of the internet freedom.
Speaking at Arizona State University, Clinton and Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales doubted the benefits of such a change. Bluntly, Clinton claims introducing a system of global oversight will empower “governments that want to gag people, and restrict access to the Internet.”
“I understand in theory why we should have a multi-stakeholder process…I just know that a lot of these so-called stakeholders are really governments that want to gag people, and restrict access to the Internet.”
Clinton asked Wales on stage if he is concerned that this decision will negatively impact Internet freedom. In response, Wales said “yes, I’m very worried about it.”
What else will Obama give away that weakens America? Obama’s already given away nuclear reductions unilaterally. Obama proved to be very “flexible” after the elections and given Crimea to Russia because of inaction. Missile deployment? Check. Iran nuclear weapons to threaten Israel? Check. What’s left? Even Michelle is in China!
* * * * * *
Michelle torturing the Chinese – see we told you things are getting better!
Picture it: Chinese government officials used to tormenting their people wake up and have to see Michelle Obama stomping through the Forbidden City spending American cash borrowed from the Chinese lender government. The power of Karma!
While Michelle scowls her way through China – frightening peasants, bicyclers, and officialdom, we are treated to an appearance by Sister Sarah:
“Sarah Palin on Hillary Run: ‘I Would Like to See More Women Run for Higher Office’
During her appearance on “Extra” to promote her new TV Show “Amazing America,” former Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) was asked by host Mario Lopez “What are your thoughts on Hillary Clinton?”
Palin responded, “I would like to see women run for the higher office. I think America certainly is ready for more female candidates at that upper echelon.”
The Palin interview may be viewed at HERE.
Good for Sarah Palin. Palin could have been snarky and insulted Hillary. Palin eviscerated Obama in the interview. Palin could have denounced Hillary Clinton 2016 too. Palin could have said something along the lines of “I’m looking forward to Republican candidate X to get in the race”. Palin could have said a lot of avoid the topic entirely non-sequiturs Instead Sarah Palin smelled the pink roses. That’s the right thing to do in Spring.
March 19th, 2014
Update: Lots of reports confirming what we have forseen and advised for months (if not years). Run Hillary, Run against Obama and his Obaminations. Forthwith the Quotes of the day: “…Hillary Clinton, has already left the administration and can thus, in classic Clinton form, ditch unpopular policies….” That’s about how Biden is trapped defending the indefensible.
The Hill newspaper also sees Hillary Run Run Run away from Obama and his Obaminations. But as Clinton distances herself from Obama, rakes in the cash and prevents other Democrats from prepping a national campaign for a White House run in 2016, she might look around at the polls and see just what will happen to Democrats in this fall’s midterm elections if all current estimates are correct.
The Wall Street Journal noticed Hillary demonstrating the toughness Obama only fantasizes about as he watches burly men on the basketball court. Hillary said she is “personally skeptical that the Iranians would follow through and deliver” on the Obama sell out of American/Israeli interests.
For success, Hillary Clinton 2016 must run away and eventually denounce Barack Obama and his Obaminations. It’s beginning to happen albeit not fast enough. Whatever loses this strategy costs in loss of Obama cultists and DailyKooks will more than be matched by increased support of the white working class and senior citizens both groups which once formed the Democratic Party base.
For Republicans the strategy on how to destroy Hillary Clinton 2016 is obvious and real easy. For Hillary Clinton 2016 the road to success is more treacherous but the Republican attacks can be anticipated, prepared for, and protected against, if and when Hillary Clinton decides (after November 2014) to commence Hillary Clinton 2016.
As we have advised before, Hillary Clinton 2016 must be like hockey great Wayne Gretzky and anticipate where the puck will be in 2016. Republicans have the same task. Republicans also have to get rid of their practice and image as hypocritical panty sniffers more concerned with the bedroom activities of other adults than their own sexual hijinks and policy prescriptions. Republicans have taken a giant step in at least putting forward an initial attempt to fix their image with a new campaign which features YouTube videos like this one:
That video upends what most people believe Republicans look like which in itself stokes attention to the message. The message from the mouths of normal looking everyday people is at the heart of Republican philosophy. Yet it is not difficult to believe that a great majority of what is said in the video will find agreement with most Americans whatever their political persuasion. In short this is an agreeable, smart, honest, accessible, positive, attractive, inclusive, surprising, feel good, expression of what the Republican Party image can and should be. The problem comes when the red flag of battle is waved which causes Republicans to forget this type of “addition politics” and revert to emotionally satisfying ugly self-destructive foolishness.
We are not suggesting for a second that Republicans should not be tough during a campaign. Quite the contrary. We are once again suggesting that Republicans (and Hillary Clinton 2016) be tough. In 2012 we fumed when Mitt Romney said Barack Obama was a nice guy. Mitt Romney should have exposed Barack Obama as a race-baiter whose entire campaign history was ugly attacks on opponents while publicly demanding a “new politics”. By saying Barack Obama was a nice guy Romney undercut himself by telling a lie. Now Mitt Romney is talking tough about Obama (shades of Chris Christie) but when he should have been tough Mitt was mostly a doughnut.
All the above we have written before and will write again and again and again until the message sinks in. Some of our message is taking hold. For instance, the intelligent Jay Cost has advice of his own for Republicans on how to destroy Hillary Clinton 2016 most of which we have written long ago. Most Republicans will not be able to tolerate what Cost is telling them let alone take his good advice. Jay Cost does provide one suggestion we find counterproductive, but overall it is good advice which will stick in the craw of many Republicans. Here is the smart part of the Jay Cost advice for Republicans which comes after Cost raises the specter of the massive Clinton money machine:
“Not Ready for Hillary
The GOP has another problem with Hillary: In the last quarter-century, it has exhibited no facility for countering Clintonism in the public mind. This failure is arguably worse than any cash crunch; it does not matter how much money you spend making a bad argument if it is still a bad argument. And that is all the GOP ever seems to have against the Clintons.
Republicans have had three at-bats against the Clintons—the elections of 1992 and 1996 and the impeachment proceedings of 1998-99—and struck out every time. To date, there is little evidence they have learned from their defeats. Rand Paul has been raising Bill Clinton’s sexual misconduct, something that backfired while Clinton was president. Meanwhile, some Republican pundits are saying that Hillary Clinton has never really accomplished anything, a line that got George H.W. Bush nowhere in 1992.
Almost certain to be outraised and lacking any compelling case against the Clintons, the Republican party, it is fair to say, is not ready for Hillary. If anything, the classic Clinton shtick—“I feel your pain”—should play particularly well in this age of seemingly permanent economic anxiety.
Context is still important. In 1992, when Bill and Hillary Clinton waxed eloquent about the middle-class squeeze, they were flanked by an unemployed steelworker and a single mother working two jobs. Nowadays, they are more likely to have Warren Buffett on one side and Mick Jagger on the other. That’s the price you pay for being at the top of the world’s political, social, and economic hierarchy for a quarter-century: You are bound to lose touch with the “folks” (a Clintonian classic) who elevated you to those heights in the first place. In 1992 George H.W. Bush was the out-of-touch elitist who (supposedly) did not understand how a grocery scanner worked. In 2016, Hillary Clinton will not have driven her own car for 25 years.
And therein lies the GOP’s best opportunity.”
At this point Jay Cost goes off the rails. Cost is absolutely correct in asserting what we have constantly shouted about why the Clenis, Lewinsky, Brodderick, Paula, Whitewater, bimbos, travel office, Mena, blue dresses, draft dodging, pot smoking, black baby daddy, Gennifer Flowers, missing papers, release of papers, furniture, pardons, yackety yack yack yack yada yada yada etc. etc. etc. won’t hurt Bill or Hillary Clinton. If anything this all helps them. Republicans might not like it, but these things help Bill and Hill more than anything else. Scandal fatigue is transmuted to at worse entertaining entertainment. Cost is right about this.
But when Cost discusses the “GOP’s best opportunity” he has forgotten 2008 and 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014. Here is Jay Cost’s proposal to the GOP:
“Put simply, the party should try to occupy the same political space the Clintons seized in 1992, and cast the Clintons in the role of the out-of-touch elitist. Bill’s appetite for the rock-star lifestyle—hobnobbing with the gilded elite in Davos rather than the diner crowd in Little Rock—facilitates this effort. So does Hillary’s presumably endless grasping for campaign contributions, which unmistakably connects her to the elite (and reviled) quarters of this country. Goldman Sachs’s Lloyd Blankfein is already on board for Hillary, which tells you all you need to know. It should, in theory, be possible for the GOP to expose the hypocrisy of the Clintons’ pitch to the “forgotten middle class,” given that they seemingly have forgotten all about their own middle-class backgrounds.
That’s the theory, at any rate. In practice, success depends upon the nominee. Some candidates are well equipped to make a populist pitch to the middle class, others not. [snip]
This time, Republicans would be well advised to cast against type. They should consider a candidate who has not spent much time in Washington, somebody whose parents struggled to reach the middle class, someone who has had to work hard in the last 20 years to retain that status, somebody who is, if not hip, at least relatively young (the younger candidate has won the popular vote in the last six presidential elections). In general, one cannot overstate the power of symbolism in a presidential election. The vast array of issues that confront the electorate is bewildering, and an easy heuristic to deal with the messy questions of policy is: Which candidate has more empathy for people of my social and economic status? The Republicans should find a candidate who seems more empathetic than Hillary Clinton.“
Indeed, “The Republicans should find a candidate who seems more empathetic than Hillary Clinton.” But c’mon. Really? Does anyone think the Republicans have someone more empathetic than Hillary??? No, really, c’mon. Ain’t gonna happen. Let’s get real here.
In 2008 Hillary Clinton roared and rallied the white working class to her side. That’s not “elite” Jay. In 2009 through 2014 it has and will be Bill and Hillary Clinton that can go, to cheers and applause, to places that no Democrat can go to and win. Hillary can knock back a drink and wiggle a dance in any working class bar in any country in the world. So don’t go there Republicans. That’s an area you cannot yet compete in.
Could we be wrong in this? We suppose so but right now we cannot think of a Republican candidate that fits “the bill” so to speak better than Hillary. Rand Paul? The guy that loves to talk Clenis? Chris Christie? He could say, as we have strongly suggested, that he is a fighter for the people but empathy? We don’t think so. Ted Cruz is smart and tough. But empathy? Jeb Bush, Huckabee, Martinez, Walker, Ryan, might be the empathetic miracle Cost is summoning but we have not yet seen any evidence they can be more empathic than Hillary. Rubio? Is he still an option after his immigration reform campaign?
As for Republicans denouncing Hillary Clinton 2016 for fundraising, or as Cost terms it “Hillary’s presumably endless grasping for campaign contributions” unless Republicans forgo fundraising in 2016 that appears to be a non-starter too. Yes, Barack Obama got away with his fundraising lies and hypocrisies but that was well, “racism” if you pointed it out.
Jay Cost is also right that Republicans need a “Sister Souljah moment” but that is a discussion for another day. The best part of Cost’s article for Hillary Clinton 2016 and Republicans is this paragraph about Bill Clinton:
“Meanwhile Clinton mentioned “work,” “working,” or “hard work” 29 times in his 1992 address, and in so doing produced a lasting shift in the party’s image. No longer would it be the party of the radicals, the grievance mongers, or those blindly pushing government for its own sake. It would be the party that wields government to help those who are already working hard. That was the essence of the “New Democrat” label.”
If Hillary Clinton 2016 and Republicans run a campaign based on that paragraph all Americans will be better off.
How does Hillary Clinton 2016 win? How do Republicans win in 2016? Cost comes close to suggesting what we have been suggesting for some time now:
“An economic calamity would sink the standing of Barack Obama, the Democratic party, and the Clintons as well, in which case any reasonably qualified GOP nominee could probably win. Similarly, an economic boom might restore Obama’s reputation and render moot the entire GOP campaign, wafting Clinton into office on her predecessor’s coattails. But if the current state of affairs prevails—Obama is unpopular, but Democrats are united and Clinton remains detached from the incumbent in the public’s mind—the GOP should worry. This could produce something close to a 50-50 race, making the party’s message to the electorate of crucial importance.”
If Republicans want to win in 2016 all they have to do is make sure that Hillary no longer “remains detached from the incumbent”. If Hillary Clinton 2016 wants to win then the effort must be to make sure that “Clinton remains detached from the incumbent”. Tie Hillary to Obama – Republicans win. Get away from Obama as far and fast as possible and Hillary Clinton 2016 wins.
For Hillary Clinton 2016 the time is now. Barack Obama has been a boon to Republicans and poisonous stink to anyone near him. The latest attempt by James Carville, a close adviser to the Clintons, to rally the party lacks spirit and conviction. Carville writes:
“In early February this year, I wrote a column for The Hill in which I tried to talk Democrats off the cliff. I warned them against having such a gloomy outlook for November. To tell you the truth, though, when I saw the result from the Florida special election last Tuesday, I asked myself where my straight razor was because I thought I might need it.”
Another Clinton advisor, Doug Sosnick, analyzes Republican prospects:
“Since Obama became president, the party has not fared particularly well. The WSJ/NBC polling trends indicate that Democrats’ favorability ratings have dropped 21 points during Obama’s time in office, going from a rating of 49 percent positive/31 percent negative during his first term to being underwater now with a 35 percent positive /38 percent negative rating. (See May 9, 2013 memo)
All of these indicators would seem to suggest that 2016 should be a “time for a change” election, creating a window of opportunity for Republicans.”
Sosnick is stating what we have stated:
“The central question for any campaign is whether the electorate must “stay the course!” or whether it is “time for a change!”. It’s one or the other. There is no other question. A merge, a double message won’t sell. A “let’s stay the course but change” concoction has as much appeal and logic as vegetarian pork chops.”
IT’S TIME FOR A CHANGE! Hillary Clinton is already tiptoeing away from the Hell-Hole called ObamaCare. Hillary will have to run faster away from the domestic disaster that is ObamaCare. ObamaCare is going to get much worse and the costs will continue to rise for Americans. But at least she has begun the walk-trot-run-race away from ObamaCare.
ObamaCare will continue to kill ObamaCare supporters. In Colorado, according to the Dem pollsters at PPP, “There’s little doubt that it’s the unpopularity of Obamacare and Barack Obama himself that’s making the Colorado Senate contest look so potentially competitive.” It’s not just Colorado and it’s not a problem that can be fixed with distractions and squirrels, “The Democratic power elite now believe that appeals to raise the minimum wage and extend unemployment insurance are not enough to overcome Obama’s deep unpopularity and frustration with the president’s signature health care law.“
Hillary Clinton 2016 has begun to run away from ObamaCare but not quickly enough. Barack Obama is poison and the party that destroyed it’s winning FDR-Kennedy-Clinton coalition to embrace the Obama “creative class” “coalition of the ascendant” is finally beginning to figure out what we warned them about starting in 2007. Hillary Clinton 2016 can avoid the “screaming siren” “turnout issue” by mobilizing white working class voters and senior citizens to her banner again. The problems of 2014 will repeat themselves in 2016 even though it is a presidential election year because the population will rise up in pitchforks to burn down ObamaCare and all the evil works of Barack Obama.
Hillary Clinton has also begun to get away from Barack Obama and his foreign policy disasters. We’ll be discussing Hillary Clinton, foreign policy, her record at the State Department very soon. But for now let’s briefly glance at Hillary Clinton and the Obama weakness on Ukraine. Obama weakness emboldens Putin and today more bad news is Breaking: Ukraine military to pull out of Crimea
Like the proverbial 98 pound weakling on the beach, flabby fool Barack “coward” Obama is getting sand thrown in his face and sandwiches by the strong guy Vladdy “Punchin’” Putin. Putin and his pals are laughing at Barack Obama openly and twittering their contempt. Who can blame them? When you see such contemptible weakness posing as a tough guy the testosterone demands kicking in the teeth and administering noogies on the noggin. We are sure Putin stays awake at night – thinking of new ways to mock Obama and humiliate the preening jerk. When Putin finally drifts off to sleep he dreams of kicking and punching Barack Obama again and again to general guffaws as he further demonstrates his ability to humiliate the tall hapless dope that occupies 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Barack Obama? Barack Obama is busy preening in front of various mirrors only too happy to remind himself that Michelle will soon be gone for a few glorious days of mooching off the taxpayer purse. World affairs, missing airplanes, ObamaCare disasters? Barack is busy watching burly men sink basketballs and cheering them on with his bracket picks.
Hillary Clinton? Hillary is saying some of what needs to be said:
“Hillary Clinton on Tuesday painted Russia’s actions in the Ukraine as an affront to “our values” that will set a dangerous precedent if left unpunished. [snip]
Her remarks came hours after Russian President Vladimir Putin claimed the Ukrainian region of Crimea for Russia.
“I hope there’s not another Cold War,” she said, when asked if that was how she saw the conflict playing out. “Obviously, nobody wants to see that. I think that’s primarily up to Putin.”
The United States earlier this week announced some sanctions targeting officials tied to the crisis on Monday, to mixed reviews.
Clinton, who recently likened Putin’s moves in the Ukraine to those of Adolf Hitler’s in the 1930s, warned that allowing Russia to escape relatively unscathed from its actions in the Ukraine sends a problematic message.
“What Putin did is illegal,” she said.
Dripping sarcasm, she continued, “It’s not because we gave the poor little Baltic states NATO protection. And people need to say that, and they need to be very clear: This is a clash of values and it’s an effort by Putin to rewrite the boundaries of post-World War II Europe. If he’s allowed to get away with that, then I think you’ll see a lot of other countries either directly facing Russian aggression or suborned with their political systems so that they’re so intimidated, they’re in effect transformed into vassals, not sovereign democracies.”
The issue requires “visionary leadership,” she said, adding that Europe — especially Germany — is dependent on Russia for energy.
“How far this aggressiveness goes, I think, is really up to us,” she said. “I would like to see us accelerating the development of pipelines from Azerbaijan up into Europe, I’d like to see us looking for ways to accelerate internal domestic production [in places like Poland] … and just really go at this in a self-interested, smart way. Russians can only intimidate you if you’re dependent upon them.”
Clinton added that there’s no need to “be rattling sabers, that’s not useful. But people need to get moving in protecting themselves against future intimidation.”
We especially like that Hillary calls what is happening in the Ukraine as a “clash of values” as we have suggested. Even before those tough, not wimpy flabby foolish remarks like what oozed out of Barack Obama’s mouth, Hillary was seen by many as stepping away from Barack Obama – on foreign policy:
Hillary Clinton Steps Away From Obama on Foreign Policy
She rolls out tough rhetoric on Russia as the president treads lightly with Putin.
In recent weeks, as the standoff over Ukraine escalated, Hillary Clinton did something that she never did as secretary of State: She put considerable distance between herself and the president she served loyally for four years. While Barack Obama cautiously warned Vladimir Putin to back off his claims on Ukraine, Clinton rolled out a rhetorical cannon, comparing the Russian president’s moves to the seizure of territory by Adolf Hitler that set off World War II. Her comments were so harsh and controversial that she was forced to walk them back a bit, saying, “I’m not making a comparison, certainly, but I am recommending that we perhaps can learn from this tactic that has been used before.”
Clinton’s remarks appeared to be an indication of two things. One, she’s concerned enough about shoring up her reputation for toughness that she may indeed be thinking about running for president in 2016. Clinton offered up, in other words, a rare and enticing hint about the question that everyone in the politics game is asking these days. Undoubtedly she knows that the effort she led as secretary of State in 2009, an attempted “reset” of relations with Russia that included a new arms treaty, now looks naive in the face of Putin’s repudiation of Obama over Ukraine and his lack of cooperation on other issues, such as resolution of the Syrian civil war. Two, Clinton could be worried that by the time the next presidential season rolls around, what was once seen as one of Obama’s stronger points—foreign policy—could easily become a liability to whomever is seeking the Democratic nomination.[snip]
Putin’s continued recalcitrance, and Obama’s hesitancy over how to react to the biggest foreign policy test of his presidency, is only the capstone to a series of apparent failures and abortive efforts to avert war in Syria, resolve the situation in Afghanistan, and tamp down the resurgence of al-Qaida. If, as is likely, Russian forces are still occupying Crimea come 2016—or worse, advancing westward—if chaos and bloodshed still reign in Syria, and if Afghanistan begins to look as chaotic as Iraq has in the aftermath of the planned U.S. troop withdrawal at the end of this year, the narrative will be very different in the next presidential campaign.
Republican attacks on Obama in recent months are an early indication of what’s to come. Sen. John McCain, Obama’s 2008 opponent, has been almost beside himself with fury in condemning the president as weak on Ukraine, Syria, China, and Iran. With negotiations failing over Syria, Egypt becoming a military-run state, and Putin indicating he intends to stay where he is in Crimea, the killing of bin Laden will be but a distant memory in 2016. Even some prominent Democrats, such as Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Robert Menendez, have turned into persistent critics of Obama’s policies abroad. “Our policies toward Russia require urgent reexamination,” Menendez wrote in The Washington Post this week.
“It’s absolutely true that things are tough for the president all around right now, whereas before, his foreign policy and relations with the world were one of the high points for a long time,” Campbell says. “She can credibly create the separation for herself. It’s going to be a lot tougher for Vice President Biden.”
Hillary Clinton is saying what must be said about events in Ukraine. Hillary Clinton is doing what must be said and done. Hillary Clinton is also getting away from Barack Obama on domestic policy and foreign policy which is another imperative priority for Hillary Clinton 2016.
Hillary Clinton 2016 must get as far from Barack Obama and his Obaminations as fast as possible. Hillary Clinton must realize that the only way Republicans can defeat her in 2016 is to tie her to Barack Obama.
Likewise, for Republicans to win in 2016 they must tie Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama. It’s a race to see who will do a better job of linking or shielding from poisonous snake Barack Obama first.
Mitt Romney is doing his best to tie Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama. But that is a topic for another day when we discuss Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s record at the State Department.
March 14th, 2014
At the end of last month Hillary Clinton 2016 began the inevitable run, away from Obamacare, on tiptoes.
Today we got a confession from Barack Obama: Yeah, a lot of you won’t be able to keep your doctor after all. Also today David Jolly was sworn in as the latest Republican member of the House of Representatives even though, according to Republican officials, lobbyist Jolly campaigned for office in a “Keystone Kops” manner which included the soon to be divorced candidate, with his 14 years younger squeeze in tow, trolling for votes. Shortly after Jolly’s romp to Congress Barack Obama made moves to trip Hillary Clinton 2016 and prevent the tiptoe slink-away from turning to a full canter then gallop away from ObamaCare. Let’s unpack these related events.
Hillary Clinton 2016 is in a bind. On the one hand Obama and ObamaCare are a disaster that must be run away from. On the other hand the rot that calls itself the Democratic Party and all its D.C. office contestants decided for various reasons (hint: money) to run on a strategy which worked so well for Bill Clinton years ago when the issue was affirmative action. Back then Bill Clinton declared “mend it, don’t end it” to great success. But Barack Obama is no salesman like Bill Clinton and ObamaCare is a threat against every adult American so there is no tactical manover such as “mend it, don’t end it” that will stave the “end” from arriving. We were not surprised when Hillary Clinton 2016 began to slink away.
In September of last year we predicted much of what has happened in regards to Hillary Clinton 2016 and ObamaCare along with our dire warnings:
“The central question for any campaign is whether the electorate must “stay the course!” or whether it is “time for a change!”. It’s one or the other. There is no other question. A merge, a double message won’t sell. A “let’s stay the course but change” concoction has as much appeal and logic as vegetarian pork chops. Hillary Clinton 2016 thus far mumbles non sequiturs hoping no one will notice the screeching echoes of the 2008 muddled message mess (which we tried to correct) when the campaign careened from message to message while the Obama campaign stuck to it’s simple and clear lie.”
As we wrote “a double message won’t sell”. The sunken Sink is proof if any proof is needed.
Hillary Clinton 2016 is in a bind. The entire party swears and promises to run as remorseless ObamaCare congregants – which places a fork in the road for Hillary Clinton 2016. The choice is this: lead by telling the truth about the Obamaination called ObamaCare; or gallop at the head of the Crimean War Light Brigade.
Don’t think Barack Obama does not know in which direction Hillary Clinton 2016 and others running for office are going as a consequence of Tuesday’s election results. Barack Obama read what Hillary Clinton said at the end of February. Further, Barack Obama knows a united front on ObamaCare is collapsing. So Barack Obama acted to prevent the near silent tiptoes from becoming a mass breakout run away from himself and ObamaCare. Obama issued new exemptions from ObamaCare.
The new ObamaCare exemptions expire shortly before the 2016 presidential elections. Whoever gets the party nomination for 2016 will be slaughtered if the exemptions are not extended past the 2016 election. If the nominee does as Obama wants, then election aid exemptions will be issued. If the nominee does not do as Obama wants, then no exemptions will be issued and the American public will visit its vengeance against the 2016 nominee. Barack Obama does not know how to run a lemonade stand but he is a brilliant strategist when it comes to self-advancement, self-protection, and self-interest.
And so, Hillary Clinton 2016 is in a bind. To break away or not to break away, that is the question. We’ve advised a brutal break away from Obama and ObamaCare and while that debate raged in HillaryLand, tentative tiptoe steps began the walkaway:
“HILLARY PULLS INTO THE PASSING LANE ON OBAMACARE
Democratic 2016 frontrunner Hillary Clinton nudged the accelerator in her effort to get past the problems with ObamaCare bedeviling the president and their party. Talking to a gathering of health information specialists in Florida, Clinton sounded more than open to substantial changes to President Obama’s signature law. From Reuters: “Part of the challenge is to clear away all the smoke and try to figure out what is working and what isn’t,’ Clinton, who served as secretary of state in Obama’s first term, was quoted by CNN as saying. ‘What do we need to do to try to fix this? Because it would be a great tragedy, in my opinion, to take away what has now been provided.’” Clinton previewed her expected talking points for the 2016 campaign, praising Obama’s goals but lamenting his poor execution: “But I would be the first to say if things aren’t working, then we need people of good faith to come together and make evidence-based changes,’ said Clinton, who led a failed effort to pass healthcare reform during the administration of her husband, Bill Clinton. Among issues she said should be addressed were small businesses of 50 or more employees providing health coverage and companies moving people to part-time from full-time work to avoid making healthcare contributions.”
That’s a “vegetarian pork chop” in the “mend it don’t end it” vein. For the discerning it was also quite a rebuke of Obama and ObamaCare. The mention of “evidence-based changes” needed to fix ObamaCare and the adverse impact on jobs echoed the most scorching of ObamaCare critics.
Reuters linked those late February remarks as “a hot-button campaign issue in congressional elections in November and possibly the 2016 White House race.” No kidding.
The problems for Hillary Clinton 2016 oddly enough were best summarized by conservatives/Republicans at HotAir:
“Hillary Clinton aims for middle of ObamaCare debate
We can talk about mending it instead of ending it, but there simply is no mending it. What’s broken is the system itself, because it’s based on the idea that government can competently run a command economy. That’s what needs to be “mended.” By 2016, most Americans will have personal experience with the endemic failure of a command health-care economy, and Hillary will have to find a new position.”
The “new position” for Hillary Clinton 2016 predicted in late February by HotAir is urgently required in the wake of the elections results in which ObamaCare sank Sink.
That prediction of a “new position” needed in future by Hillary Clinton 2016 came on the same day as a CBS/NYT poll in which “the difference between fix and repeal” further narrowed.
Hillary Clinton cited, as good, the least controversial aspects of ObamaCare such as children up to age 26 dependent on parental insurance for protection. The problems with a continued defense by Hillary Clinton 2016 or anyone running for election this year of ObamaCare are many:
“The first change hardly required a national takeover of the insurance industry to accomplish, even though it’s still of dubious value. In an economy that actually produced above-population-growth job creation, young adults would have an easier time of getting their own insurance rather than making Mom & Dad responsible for their upkeep well into adulthood. Access to preventive care was not a big issue, either; everyone had access to it with or without health insurance, and as the premium spikes in the last few months demonstrate, they don’t come free either way.
What’s missing from Hillary’s list of ObamaCare wins? Oh, items like bending the cost curve downward, insuring the uninsured, and if you like your plan/doctor, you can keep your plan/doctor. The first two were supposedly the primary reason that health-care reform had to take the form of a government takeover of the entire system and forced participation. The third was the promise that a government takeover of the entire system would have no impact on the 85% of Americans who were already insured, with 87% of those satisfied with their health care. Instead, ObamaCare has made the system unstable, more expensive, and made many Americans less able to keep their current providers while seeing more money come out of their pockets for plans they didn’t want.”
That last sentence should have been enough to keep awake through many nights Hillary Clinton 2016 strategists. Then it got worse.
The New York Times reports today it was ObamaCare that sank Sink:
“Health Law Tied to G.O.P. Victory in Florida Race
CLEARWATER, Fla. — For Democrats hoping to claim a prized House seat in a swing district, Alex Sink seemed a shining candidate: a moderate, business-minded banker and former candidate for governor with ample experience in running a big race and raising money for it.
But in the end, Tuesday’s special election showed that her campaign could not outrun the tsunami of advertisements tying her to President Obama’s health care law. And, just as important, Ms. Sink was unable to step out of Mr. Obama’s shadow. Although he won twice in Pinellas County, where Tuesday’s vote took place, his approval ratings in Florida were a liability this year. [snip]
Mr. Jolly said he would vote to repeal the law. Ms. Sink said it had problems but should be fixed rather than discarded.”
‘Fix it don’t discard it’ is the less poetic sibling to “mend it don’t end it”. The voters decided to end it, not prolong it.
All the spin by Obama and ObamaCare apologists won’t twist the elemental truth that ObamaCare kills political careers. In 2010 ObamaCare killed a whole generation of Dimocratic Party elected officials. In 2014 the same will happen. In 2016 Obama will try to tie the party nominee to his sunken treasure.
Big Donors are hearing the very same prognosis we have been writing and that won’t encourage them to pay for suites on Titanic. Chris O’Tingles has seen the ghost of Christmas Future:
Joe Scarborough too:
For O’Tingles race-baiting and lies should be the only items on the electoral menu because ObamaCare kills political careers. Brent Budowsky has seen the ghost too:
“Obama endangers Dems
Mr. President, Democrats are alarmed. About you.
The legacy of the Obama presidency could well include the destruction of Democratic control of the House, the Senate and a majority of governorships and state legislatures across America. Democrats can prevent this. My warning to Democrats and to Obama — whose presidency will effectively end if the outcome in 2014 is unfavorable — is that they must understand the gravity of the danger and the urgent need to improvise, adapt and do some things very differently.”
Paul Begala tweeted “Dems should not try to spin this loss. We have to redouble our efforts for 2014. Too much at stake.” If Begala looks out his window he can see Hillary putting on some running shoes and about to hit the road far far far away from Obama and ObamaCare.
Conservative Byron York laid out once again why fix = repeal:
“They have to say they want to fix the program because almost nobody (a bare eight percent in the latest Kaiser Foundation survey) wants to keep the law as is. But to fix the aspects of Obamacare that are imposing new burdens on millions of Americans — higher premiums, higher deductibles, a hugely unpopular mandate, and narrower choices of doctors, hospitals, and prescription drugs — Democrats would have to advocate fundamental changes in the law that they have so far steadfastly refused to accept. Get rid of the individual mandate? To do so would rip the heart out of Obamacare, tantamount to repealing it altogether. Many Democrats would rather lose than do that.”
At National Journal Josh Kraushaar sees a Republican wave already building offshore ready to sweep away the detritus which is Obama’s presidency.
Charlie Cook surmised that sunken Sink was not the worst news of the week, “even worse news came in the form of an NBC News/Wall Street Journal national poll released last night, along with four statewide surveys conducted by a highly-regarded Democratic pollster in key Senate race states.”
Hell’s bells, even Carney the Clown is getting out of the Obama circus (to go to Russia as Ambassador??? and give Putin more laughs???).
Such is the panic that Big Media Obama acolytes are banging the drum for Justices Ginsberg and Breyer to retire so that Obama can appoint young’uns to the court and thereby have some sort of legacy other than the soon to be dead death-dealing ObamaCare. The desperation is for Supreme Court retirements now because the Senate will likely go Republican this year and these acolytes don’t know when there will be another Democrat in the White House. “Yes, some Democrats (and perhaps some pessimistic Republicans) have convinced themselves that Democrats now have a demographic or electoral college lock on the White House, but that’s hooey. At best, Democrats have a very slim edge, one that could easily be swamped by the normal ebbs and flows of events, or disappear just as rapidly as it emerged.”
If there is a swamp to be seen it is ObamaCare. Candidates running for office in 2014 and 2016 cannot continue with “mend it don’t end it”. To do so will be the end of them.
The flawed David Jolly has made Obama supporters and ObamaCare defenders sad.
Deceivers like Nancy Pelousy will lie to all willing to be deceived that she and her ilk are not worried that Sink sank. But even as the lies come from her mouth the Obama leadership is taking action which betray the lies as the lies they are:
“House Democrats are looking for a way to blunt their Obamacare woes.
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, House Democrats’ campaign arm, is about to embark on a large-scale public opinion survey that will – in part – seek to uncover how voters in key districts across America feel about the 2010 Affordable Care Act.
The DCCC bi-annual National Research Project, which begins in the next several weeks, will also include focus groups across several dozens competitive districts. The DCCC is devoting much of its energy to uncovering how – and how much – they should talk about the battered health care law. [snip]
Key Democratic strategists, who spoke anonymously to discuss party strategy, were blunt about Obamacare’s problems, especially from the political angle. They said Alex Sink’s loss in the Florida special election was a “nightmare.” Sink campaigned on Obamacare, and couldn’t beat the deeply flawed Republican David Jolly. Democrats know they can’t ignore Obamacare — they need to find a successful way to talk about it. [snip]
A Democratic strategist involved in House races said, “We’re going to test the the hell out of this. We’re really hurting from Obamacare.”
At the same time, a number of other disparate dynamics are surfacing. There is a fear that more and more will join Republicans to vote to change the law – a phenomenon that has recently worsened.”
Perhaps by 2016 ObamaCare propagandists will devise new brainwashing techniques to fool the public. But we doubt it. It’s been years now and thus far all we have gotten is a potted plant selling ObamaCare between two ferns.
That potted plant is full of fertilizer.
Worse, the Obama/ObamaCare cult persists and demands that ObamaCare be defended without mending or tending. The Obama/ObamaCare cult screams, ‘give no quarter’ ‘ do not retreat’ ‘do not equivocate’ – “It’s Time for Democrats to Embrace ObamaCare:“
“Trying to pussyfoot around Obamacare was an awkward strategy, and, evidently, it didn’t work. If other Democrats are to avoid meeting Sink’s fate in November, they need something more convincing to say about the Affordable Care Act than “mend it, don’t end it,” which is now their default position. But what could that be?
Here’s a heretical idea. [snip]
What better way to do it than by turning Obamacare into a great progressive cause, rather than something to avoid or be embarrassed about.“
“A great progressive cause”? This is madness!
How to explain “a great progressive cause” opposed by your strongest allies who demand change? How is it not madness to insist, fingers firmly in ears that all is well and no need to mend nor end when your strongest allies yell “stop!:
“Union: Obamacare will slash wages by up to $5 an hour
A national union that represents 300,000 low-wage hospitality workers charges in a new report that Obamacare will slam wages, cut hours, limit access to health insurance and worsen the very “income equality” President Obama says he is campaigning to fix.
Unite Here warned that due to Obamacare’s much higher costs for health insurance than what union workers currently pay, the result will be a pay cut of up to $5 an hour. “If employers follow the incentives in the law, they will push families onto the exchanges to buy coverage. This will force low-wage service industry employees to spend $2.00, $3.00 or even $5.00 an hour of their pay to buy similar coverage,” said the union in a new report.
“Only in Washington could asking the bottom of the middle class to finance health care for the poorest families be seen as reducing inequality,” said the report from Unite Here. “Without smart fixes, the ACA threatens the middle class with higher premiums, loss of hours, and a shift to part-time work and less comprehensive coverage,” said the report, titled, “The Irony of Obamacare: Making Inequality Worse.”
“Mend it don’t end it” is indefensible and cannot be sustained as an election year message. However, “don’t mend it and don’t end it” is certifiable lunacy. This is a cult mentality not politics. Two alternatives then remain: repeal or single payer. Single payer after Obama and ObamaCare is a double down on madness. Why? Because if Obama cannot manage to establish and run a website and made a mess of his singular legacy “achievement” how can anyone believe that he can run the entire health care system?
Today we heard of the latest resignation from the overseers of ObamaCare:
“A Department of Health and Human Services official resigned from his post in a scathing letter that ripped the agency for profound dysfunction.
David Wright headed the Office of Research Integrity for two years and wrote in his letter dated Feb. 25 that his time with the agency left him “offended as an American taxpayer.” [snip]
The letter, which was addressed to Assistant Secretary for Health Howard Koh, goes on to accuse top agency officials of caring more about their personal advancement than about doing their jobs well.
“Since I’ve been here I’ve been advised by my superiors that I had ‘to make my bosses look good.’ I’ve been admonished: ‘Dave, you are a visionary leader but what we need here are team players,’” the letter reads. “Recently, I was advised that if I wanted to be happy in government service, I had to ‘lower my expectations.’ The one thing no one in OASH [Office of the Assistant Secretary of Health] leadership has said to me in two years is ‘how can we help ORI better serve the research community?’ Not once.”
Wright went on to note that Koh himself once described the office as operating in an “intensely political environment.”
A “political environment” is a mild phrase for crony corruption and willful deceit. Bad enough in any government agency or department but corrosive to democracy in a government entity with the power of medical life and death.
* * * * * *
We began with some of Hillary Clinton’s tiptoe critiques of ObamaCare from late February. Little noticed, Hillary Clinton made additional remarks late in February when she spoke before that group of health care technology professionals:
“Clinton tells health-care conference: Good data make good decisions
Clinton was speaking to the Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society convention at the Orange County Convention Center. The former first lady, U.S. senator and secretary of state and presumed Democratic presidential candidate spoke mostly about information technology, sometimes making it a metaphor for governing, in her 22-minute speech.
Yet during a 38-minute question-and-answer period she assumed her past roles and often sounded as if she were talking about presidential politics.
“Good data helps to make for good decisions. That’s true in medicine. That’s true in business. That’s true in government,” she said.”
What is it that is most sorely lacking, other than common sense, good policy, and decency, in ObamaCare? Why metrics of course. Obama does not know how many of the uninsured have enrolled in ObamaCare. Obama does not know how many of those enrolled in ObamaCare have paid for coverage. On question after question Obama does not have the metrics to substantiate his not to be believed claims about ObamaCare. This of course is from the man whose campaign supposedly relied so effectively on… metrics.
The metrics on ObamaCare doom ObamaCare. ObamaCare is simply not sustainable. For Hillary Clinton 2016 this truth requires a new strategy and a new mantra on ObamaCare: END IT, CAN’T MEND IT!!!