Speaker of the House Nancy Pelousy released her version of a health care, make that health insurance, plan. The plan, to be brief and vulgar, is lousy. Almost without fail, Obama lovers and Big Media (redundant, we know) have failed to discuss this aspect of the much discussed public option:
The public insurance option would typically charge higher premiums than private plans available in the exchange, according to the Congressional Budget Office analysis of the House bill.
That surprising conclusion raises doubts about Democratic promises that a government-run insurance plan would provide a lower-cost alternative to consumers. At the same time, it calls into question Republican charges that the plan amounts to government takeover of health insurance — because only 6 million people would enroll in the plan, according to the CBO.
With the exception of LivePulse, few are discussing this startling result. Here is the Congressional Budget Office analysis (found on page 6).
Roughly one-fifth of the people purchasing coverage through the exchanges would enroll in the public plan, meaning that total enrollment in that plan would be about 6 million.
That estimate of enrollment reflects CBO’s assessment that a public plan paying negotiated rates would attract a broad network of providers but would typically have premiums that are somewhat higher than the average premiums for the private plans in the exchanges. The rates the public plan pays to providers would, on average, probably be comparable to the rates paid by private insurers participating in the exchanges. The public plan would have lower administrative costs than those private plans but would probably engage in less management of utilization by its enrollees and attract a less healthy pool of enrollees. (The effects of that “adverse selection” on the public plan’s premiums would be only partially offset by the “risk adjustment” procedures that would apply to all plans operating in the exchanges.)
Surely “liberals” in the House will revolt? No, not quite. Earlier this year Representative Anthony Weiner voted for the Energy and Commerce Committee bill on health care after threatening to vote against it. There were sufficient votes to block the bill in the Energy Committee. Nancy Pelousy and other House leaders made promises to get votes.
A most crucial promise was that Anthony Weiner would get a vote on an amendment on the House floor for his proposal to establish a single payer system. No surprise that Nancy Pelousy lied. No surprise that “liberals” caved and won’t protest the lies:
Even New York Rep. Anthony Weiner, who received a public assurance from Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) over the summer that he would get a vote on an amendment establishing a single-payer government-run health care program, seemed to take the news in stride that party leaders had reneged on that agreement.
“I wouldn’t be the first person to learn this place isn’t on the level,” Weiner told a crowd of reporters.
No surprise that lies are discounted and Obama excused. We recall Obama’s FISA lies.
There was a lot of confusion Thursday when the CBO released its cost estimate for the House bill. Democrats had said earlier in the day that the bill would cost $894 billion — just under the $900 billion limit set by President Barack Obama. But in the CBO analysis, there were two price tags: a net cost of $894 billion and a gross cost of just over $1 trillion. Both numbers are correct, but Democrats shifted the terms of the debate and cherry-picked the lower one.
More lies from Nancy Pelousy and her lousy crowd.
And the promises that health care [insurance] reform would lower costs, or as the wonks say “bend the curve”? More lies. It’s all a crock.
Nancy Pelousy had a banner week of lies to top off her lies attacking Hillary in 2008 and in support of Obama. Barack Obama, along with his thugs, had a banner week of lies too.
The noise from Obama this week was “Mission Accomplished” and the new GDP report claimed the recession was over. Not quite. It was steroids. Without government steroids, er, “stimulus”, such as the wasteful “cash for clunkers”, the economy is not well. Christina Romer, at the White House, confirmed the GDP steroid story:
Without stimulus programs such as “cash for clunkers” and a first-time homebuyer’s credit, “real GDP would have risen little, if at all, this past quarter,” Christina Romer, president of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, said in a statement.
There were more Barack Obama lies on jobs and steroids, er, “stimulus”. CBS followed up on the Associated Press report noting the Obama lies on jobs. Let’s go to the videotape.
An early progress report on President Barack Obama’s economic recovery plan overstates by thousands the number of jobs created or saved through the stimulus program, a mistake that White House officials promise will be corrected in future reports.
The government’s first accounting of jobs tied to the $787 billion stimulus program claimed more than 30,000 positions paid for with recovery money. But that figure is overstated by least 5,000 jobs, according to an Associated Press review of a sample of stimulus contracts.
The AP review found some counts were more than 10 times as high as the actual number of jobs; some jobs credited to the stimulus program were counted two and sometimes more than four times; and other jobs were credited to stimulus spending when none was produced.
Examples of the Obama lies:
– A company working with the Federal Communications Commission reported that stimulus money paid for 4,231 jobs, when about 1,000 were produced.
– A Georgia community college reported creating 280 jobs with recovery money, but none was created from stimulus spending.
– A Florida child care center said its stimulus money saved 129 jobs but used the money on raises for existing employees.
Obama claimed the “stimulus”, which we rightly called a “slush fund” for Dimocrats reelection efforts next year, would produce 3.5 million jobs. Call the police, the jobs are missing.
While the thousands of overstated jobs represent a tiny sliver of the overall economy, they represent a significant percentage of the initial employment count credited to the stimulus program.
Oh, and the stock market dropped 200 points today.
In The Shame Of The Democratic Left, Part Iwe wrote:
The misogyny, sexism and gay-bashing by Democrats that occurred in the 2008 election cycle is an open sore that will not heal. The leadership of the Democratic Left increasingly proved itself to be a misogynistic and anti-gay coalition. The words are “progressive”. The actions contradict the words. We know actions speak louder than words.
Actions do speak louder than words but we also remember some of the words. Obama in New Hampshire insulting Hillary in a nationally televised debate with the words “You’re likable enough, Hillary” or the “sweetie” remarks or the criticisms by Hillary that Obama noted came “monthly”.
We also recall the words of once respectable writers like Hendrik Hertzberg who wrote that race oppression was worse than gender oppression. That was Hertzberg’s way to pump up Obama at the expense of Hillary. Race might be worse than gender-based oppression if you ignore the daily humiliations and subjugations women are subject to. African-American women know oppression from both sides which is why so many African-American women fought, and fight, so vigorously for Hillary.
African-American women get abused by men of all races including their own. We quoted Congresswoman Shirley Chisholm’s statement:
“I’ve always met more discrimination being a woman than being Black,” she said. “When I ran for the Congress, when I ran for president, I met more discrimination as a woman than for being Black. Men are men.”
In The Craigslist Killer and Barack Obama we discussed violence against women and quoted John Lennon – “Woman is the slave to the slave.”
Lately more evidence for Hertzberg to consider when next he weighs oppressions. As we wrote:
Males like Hertzberg, once respected by us as deeper thinkers than they proved to be, “belittle the oppressions of gender” with their gimmick of ignoring rape and battered women, including the supposedly loved wives battered by their husbands (or girlfriend/boyfriend violence). Struggles for the still NOT ratified Equal Rights Amendment do not enter into the Hertzberg equation. The struggles to get the right to vote, the right to “male” jobs, the right to serve fully in the most prestigious levels of the military, the everyday indignities of losing jobs to less qualified males – all are ignored.
Investigators say as many as 20 people were involved in or stood and watched the gang rape of a 15-year-old girl outside a California high school homecoming dance Saturday night.
Police posted a $20,000 reward Tuesday for anyone who comes to them with information that helps arrest and convict those involved in what authorities describe as a 2½-hour assault on the Richmond High School campus in suburban San Francisco.
Two teenage suspects have been jailed, but more arrests, as many as 20 total, are expected, according to a police detective. [snip]
As many as 10 people were involved in the assault in a dimly lighted back alley at the school, while another 10 people watched without calling 911 to report it, police said.
The assaulted girl was “found unconscious under a bench shortly before midnight Saturday”. The girl is in critical condition. “[S]he was raped by at least four suspects committing multiple sex act.”
Recently Obama praised Congressman Alan Grayson. The same Grayson who later exposed his misogyny and anger at a woman who might know more than he about economics.
You can hear Grayson making the comment about the Bernanke adviser, who is named Linda Robertson, here. “This lobbyist, this K street whore, is trying to teach me about economics,” he said.
Grayson has been widely criticized for his comment, as Politico and the Associated Press report. Republican Washington Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers said Grayson is “out of control,” while Democratic Rep. Anthony Weiner asked, “Is this news to you that this guy’s one fry short of a Happy Meal?”
“Alan Grayson’s latest comments are disgraceful, inappropriate and disrespectful to women,” RNC Co-Chairman Jan Larimer said, calling on Grayson to issue an apology.
That seems unlikely to happen. Todd Jurkowski, Grayson’s spokesman, sent an email to Hotsheet standing by the comment and further criticizing Robertson.
Did we ever imagine a day when Republicans are (even if for political reasons) the party attacking misogyny? Grayson eventually was forced to issue a sort of apology and acknowledge he used “a term that is often, and correctly, seen as disrespectful of women.”
The suspicion flared in recent weeks — and not for the first time — after President Obama was criticized by women’s advocates and liberal bloggers for hosting a high-level basketball game with no female players.
The president, after all, is an unabashed First Guy’s Guy. Since being elected, he has demonstrated an encyclopedic knowledge of college hoops on ESPN, indulged a craving for weekend golf, expressed a preference for adopting a “big rambunctious dog” over a “girlie dog” and hoisted beer in a peacemaking effort.
He presides over a White House rife with fist-bumping young men who call each other “dude” and testosterone-brimming personalities like Rahm Emanuel, the often-profane chief of staff; Lawrence Summers, the brash economic adviser; and Robert Gibbs, the press secretary, who habitually speaks in sports metaphors.
The technical foul over the all-male game has become a nagging concern for a White House that has battled an impression dating to the presidential campaign that Mr. Obama’s closest advisers form a boys’ club and that he is too frequently in the company of only men — not just when playing sports, but also when making big decisions.
Obama fluffs his frat house antics and flaccidly rebuts the “beef” as “bunk” Obama, like Grayson belongs in a cheap community college frat house not the people’s house:
One Democratic media strategist says that while Mr. Obama does place women in important roles, his comfort level with staff members is not always perceived as equal.
“There is a sense that Obama has a certain jocular familiarity with the men that he doesn’t have with the women,” said Tracy Sefl, an adviser to Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign who speaks regularly to some female aides in the administration.
President Obama drew heat last week for a story that surfaced outing his private White House male-only b-ball games. The story was that even though two female members of his cabinet were members of their college basketball teams, they were excluded, as were all women, from this most private of male-only clubs. The story became a metaphor for how the president views women generally and threatened to reveal some inconvenient truths about the man.
Erbe notes that Obama was forced to drag the African-American “chief domestic policy adviser Melody Barnes to the golf course on Sunday, and she became the first female to join his golf foursome since he took office.” Maybe it’s white women Obama has a problem with but we suspect it is all women. Or maybe it’s a mother thing?
Erbe also thinks there is something deeper to the woman hate from Obama:
I still wouldn’t believe he’s any more comfortable dealing with women or concerned about “women’s” issues than the dearly departed former Sen. Jesse Helms. President Obama talks the talk a lot better and a lot louder than Helms. But Jesse Helms was so rooted in his atavist traditions, he chose to remain true to his misogyny rather than pose for cameras with faux female golfing partners. President Obama must hide the side of his personality that is clearly uncomfortable with women because he needs their votes much more than Helms ever did.
Whether it was his treatment of Hillary Clinton on the campaign trail (as in his condescending remark that she was “likeable enough”) or his clearly career-oriented mate who has been toned down and remorphed into a Stepford Wife, I just don’t get the impression this man is comfortable with women. Nor do I believe he cares about them beyond needing women’s votes. It’s an act and a thoroughly see-through, amateur one at that.
It’s an act for votes.
Obama hates women. Especially strong women. Especially women with experience who are ready on Day 1.
During the primaries Obama smeared Hillary because of lobbyists. Obama took money from state lobbyists but made a great show of not accepting money from national lobbyists. The fools who believed Obama made a great show of their gullibility by repeating Obama’s attacks.
Now, one of those great fools is hungover from the Hopium he ingested by the barrel. On the morning after, this great fool is checking his wallet to discover how much money he wasted getting wasted with other fools at the Obama Hopium Bar & Grill.
We’re coming up on the one- year anniversary of Barack Obama’s election. I think it’s maybe time that we asked ourselves how he’s doing.
He didn’t close Guantanamo Bay, and not only didn’t reject the idea of pre-emptive detention but added spice to his own new version of pre-crime prosecution, “prolonged detention.” He promised health care reform and campaigned on a public option, and we all know how that is going to turn out.
But most importantly, he came into office amidst sweeping crises in the financial sector and did not do what needed to be done, and what had been done the last time the U.S. was sent careening into a depression because of Wall Street: he failed to push for tough financial reforms. Barack Obama needed to be the FDR figure who remade the American capital markets and made them fair again, and he barely laid a finger on the whole scene.
Instead, he put the people who created the problem in charge of fixing the mess, and ended up bailing them out instead of the rest of the country, at huge current and (presumably) future cost.The total bill for the Bush-Obama bailout is certainly above ten trillion at this point — Inspector General Neil Barofsky thinks it might hit nearly $24 trillion ultimately — and this went through without much fanfare. Meanwhile, the congress is stuck in the mud, panicked at the thought of paying three or four trillion over a decade or so for a health care program.
The Dr. Frankensteins who created the monster now regret galvanizing the creature to life. The Hopium addled have created a permanent Halloween in America and only now, a year later, do these fools begin to understand the damage they have done. They still do not blame themselves for their crimes. They do however begin to see how the monster they created, are responsible for, is cutting havoc across the land:
None of this is new news. What is new is the question of what to do about it. I’m personally of the opinion that our main problem lay with the fact that the Democratic Party as currently constituted is more afraid of losing the financial support of Wall Street and the health insurance industry and the pharmaceutical industry than it is of losing progressive voters. In fact, I think I’ve put that wrong, because it implies that the Democratic Party pushes the agenda of industry insiders out of fear. That is a misread of the situation, I think.
The fools that created the Frankenstein monster who is Obama, only now realize that Obama empowers the other monsters. Hillary Clinton, with a flaming torch slashing at the monsters, knew how to keep the monsters in check. But the monster Obama empowers the other monsters:
I think they prefer those people to their voters. I think they feel more comfortable with them. I heard a story recently from a Democratic Party operative who tells me that certain members of one of the president’s cabinet departments only got wind of how hard it is out there for ordinary people to pay their bills when they invited in a major corporation to give them a presentation about their financial outlook for the holiday season — and through that report found out that this company’s prospective customers were spending less because large numbers of them had been laid off, or had huge medical bills, or had maxed out their credit, and so on.
Letters from customers, survey answers and such, were read to the cabinet group. And they were shocked. This is how they find out about the economic reality of this country — accidentally, from a major campaign contributor! That’s how out of touch these people are.
The Obama loving writer who hated Hillary and waved the flag for Obama is one of those responsible for the Frankenstein monster who is Obama. Instead of contrition, the Obama loving writer lectures about the anatomy of monsters:
On these financial issues, not just the issue of financial regulation on Wall Street but the larger issue of income distribution and what kind of country we want to be — the Democratic Party no longer has a policy that makes any sense. They do not seem to understand or even recognize that real wages in this country have not grown for most people for decades. [snip]
This is all a long-winded way of saying that we have problems whose solutions involve taking on powerful interests, political challenges that will necessarily involve prolonged and hard-fought conflicts, but what we have in the Democratic Party is an organization dedicated to avoiding such conflicts and resolving issues in the manner of a corporate board, in closed meetings with the chief cardholders where things get hashed out to the satisfaction of everyone present.
We supported Hillary Clinton because she was a fighter. But the Hopium addled wanted a “no blue state, no red state” delusionalist. The very writers, “activists”, Big Boy Bloggers, and politicians who now whine that Obama should attack Republicans are the very same writers, “activists”, Big Boy Bloggers, and politicians that believed and sold Obama’s delusions of 80% votes and what Hillary Clinton mocked as “celestial choirs”.
The idiot Hopium addled writer continues:
The problem from the standpoint of the typical voter is that he is not terribly present in those discussions. When Rahm Emmanuel met with Billy Tauzin and Merck and Pfizer in the Roosevelt Room (how ironic!) of the White House earlier this summer to work out the details of exactly how much of a bite the new health bill was going to take out of the pharmaceutical industry — the answer turned out to be none, and all the insane subsidies of big Pharma are going to remain in the final bill — were you there? Was anyone representing you there?
The Democrats feel safe in leaving you and me out of that room for two big reasons. One, our main electoral alternative is the party that put George W. Bush in office. Two, the last time significant quantities of Democrats decided to buck and send the party a message, they helped get George Bush elected by giving Ralph Nader the deciding votes of what turned out to be the tightest of elections. Or at least that’s the storyline that’s been popular since that incident. The Nader “debacle” forever closed the notion of third-party progressive challenges to mainstream Democrats, at least in the minds of the Democratic Party bigwigs, anyway.
It seems to me then that the only hope of getting any of these problems is to get ourselves a national candidate who on the one hand is a mainstream politician and on the other is willing to embrace the notion of an open protest against the Democratic Party doctrine. We need for someone who has some legitimacy with both the media and the Democratic Party constituents themselves to come out and publicly campaign to re-seize the Party from the Wall Street interests that have come to dominate it. We need someone who understands the finance stuff (which automatically reduces the pool of possible applicants to a small handful), will know the difference between real regulatory reform and a dog-and-pony show, and will not be likely to fill a cabinet with bankers from Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley.
The person who comes closest to that job description is Hillary Clinton although the Obama loving writer of the article thinks it is Elizabeth Warren. During the primaries Hillary won the vote of the white working class (in politically correct terms, “lunchbucket Democrats”) because they saw her as a fighter for their interests, not the interests of corruption represented by Barack Obama and his Hopium addled writers, “activists”, Big Boy Bloggers, and politicians.
The idiot writer thinks his idea is “crazy” because it would hurt Obama. The stupidity never ends with this one. However the writer still wants the idea “talked about anyway.” A fool who supported a fool.
The way I look at it, the problem with the Democratic Party is not the voters, it’s the 19 or 20 people who are paying for the campaigns and sitting in at those meetings with Rahm and Billy Tauzin. We have to get rid of those people, herd them all to the edge of a very tall cliff and push them off and be done with it.
This fool Obama loving writer ends his foolish article by making sense, even as he defends his Obama loving: “How can we keep voting for these guys, when they never, ever deliver?”
The person who could deliver was Hillary Clinton.Hillary Clinton knew the ropes and how to keep the monsters in their cages. Hillary could sweet talk the monsters but they knew she stood blocking them with a flaming torch to keep them at bay. But Hopium addled writers who now want to gather campaign contributors and lobbyists “all to the edge of a very tall cliff and push them off” are responsible for writing paeans to Obama and ignoring the history of their galvanized monster. They still defend Obama even as their foolishness is exposed every day.
During his first nine months in office, President Obama has quietly rewarded scores of top Democratic donors with VIP access to the White House, private briefings with administration advisers and invitations to important speeches and town-hall meetings.
High-dollar fundraisers have been promised access to senior White House officials in exchange for pledges to donate $30,400 personally or to bundle $300,000 in contributions ahead of the 2010 midterm elections, according to internal Democratic National Committee documents obtained by The Washington Times.
One top donor described in an interview with The Times being given a birthday visit to the Oval Office. Another was allowed use of a White House-complex bowling alley for his family. Bundlers closest to the president were invited to watch a movie in the red-walled theater in the basement of the presidential mansion.
Mr. Obama invited his top New York bundler, UBS Americas CEO Robert Wolf, to golf with him during the president’s Martha’s Vineyard vacation in August. At least 39 donors and fundraisers also were treated to a lavish White House reception on St. Patrick’s Day, where the fountains on the North and South Lawns were dyed green, photos and video reviewed by The Times and CBS News also show.
Obama trashed Bill Clinton in the same way and on the same issue of White House access as George W. Bush attacked Bill Clinton.
But veteran Washington observers say the Obama-era perks still carry shades of the so-called “donor maintenance” programs of past administrations, when Bill Clinton rewarded fundraisers with White House coffees and overnight stays in the Lincoln Bedroom and George W. Bush invited “Pioneers” to Camp David or his Texas ranch.
And the donor access raises questions about the fervor of Mr. Obama’s stated commitment to clean up what he once called the “muddy waters” of Washington, where political cash is exchanged for access, ethics experts said. [snip]
Only select members of the public, however, were provided access to a series of invite-only briefings by senior administration officials organized by the DNC.
Over the summer, for instance, one of Mr. Obama’s deputy chiefs of staff, Jim Messina, flew to Los Angeles and San Francisco to provide in-person briefings to a small collection of top donors to explain the administration’s plan for tackling health care legislation and counter the rising tide of opposition at town-hall meetings. In another, a group was briefed by one of Mr. Obama’s top economic advisers, Austan Goolsbee.
And festive events at the White House, such as parties thrown to celebrate Cinco de Mayo and July Fourth, were underwritten in part or in full by the DNC. Guests lists for those functions have not been made public.
When Bill Clinton invited donors to the White House it was front page news for months and months. Talk shows and comedians referenced and mocked the fund-raising for years. But Obama is protected by Big Media and those who profit from Obama’s tax-payer funded largesse.
The DNC has presented a menu of exclusive access opportunities to top givers, according to internal DNC documents provided to potential donors and obtained by The Times.
Top-tier donors gain membership to the DNC’s National Finance Committee or to the ultra-exclusive National Advisory Board, both of which meet four times a year, including this week at the Mandarin Hotel in Washington.
“They have an opportunity to meet senior members of the Obama Administration and senior members of Congress, and to hear from political analysts and policy experts,” according to the internal DNC documents.
Mark Gilbert, a Florida businessman who raised more than $500,000 for Mr. Obama, said he gets regular e-mails from the White House on topics that interest him — in his case, economic policy — and he occasionally joins special conference calls for Mr. Obama’s political supporters. The calls are frequently timed to follow up on a major news development out of the White House.
Obama’s promises to ban lobbyists are long gone and forgotten by Big Media and the Hopium addled. The fundraising has not been forgotten by Obama:
Rewards for those who supported the president’s 2008 campaign have been doled out in less formal ways. Two top bundlers, for instance, described invitations to bring their families to the private bowling alley at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, adjacent to the White House. Both spoke on the condition they not be named because they did not want to damage their relationship with the White House. [snip]
In interviews, top Obama donors described different methods for arranging such perks. Some said they contacted Reggie Love, the president’s personal assistant, to request appointments or White House access. Others said they arranged meetings through regional finance directors at the DNC.
“Many people know Reggie because they met him on the trail over the two years he traveled with the president, which is why they reach out to him, but that is not exclusive to donors,” a White House official said. The courtship of top donors is overseen by Rufus Gifford at the DNC in consultation with White House political director Patrick Gaspard, party officials confirmed. Their activities are not new to presidential politics. But they offer a contrast to the public face of the president’s fundraising operation, which has always focused on its efforts to reach out to grass-roots supporters who send small-dollar donations through the Internet.
It’s all a fake. All the Obama openness promises and all the “uniter not divider” slogans sung by the Hopium addled were a fake. Obama is a fake. All the anti-lobbyist talk is a fake.
Since taking office, Mr. Obama has pledged that his administration will be “the most open and transparent administration in history” and has agreed to make public the names of those who sign into White House visitor logs, though a request from The Times for logs that show visits from his top 45 bundlers has so far gone unfilled.
Requests for guest lists to various White House events, such as a recent cocktail reception surrounding the celebration of the Pittsburgh Penguins’ National Hockey League Stanley Cup victory or the Latin music concert last week, have also been denied repeatedly.
The most traditional aspect of the Obama administration’s continued outreach to donors has involved the time-honored practice of doling out ambassadorships to his most prolific financial benefactors. [snip]
For young music executive Nicole Avant, that meant the Bahamas. For veteran political fundraiser Alan Solomont, it was Spain.
The fundraising will not stop:
With many of the president’s top bundlers now serving in ambassadorships, and therefore unable to help with a 2012 re-election bid, the DNC has started the process of recruiting a new round of top givers.
The DNC began cultivating these donors this summer, when Mr. Obama’s health care legislation was facing strong opposition from vocal opponents at town-hall meetings. The president’s top political advisers took commercial flights to California, paid for by the DNC, for meetings with key donors in Los Angeles and San Francisco. [snip]
The most exclusive access to the president has been reserved for Mr. Obama’s closest friends, many of whom also served as donors and bundlers during his campaign. When the president hosted a Ramadan banquet at the White House, he invited three top fundraisers, Hasan Chandoo, Wahid Hamid and Lutfi Hassan. Mr. Chandoo and Mr. Hamid, who both raised between $100,000 and $200,000 during the campaign, had been college roommates of Mr. Obama’s.
Marty Nesbitt, who bundled between $50,000 and $100,000, and John Rogers, who bundled more than $500,000, have both spent time with Mr. Obama in the White House, including joining the president in the White House movie theater, which Mr. Obama’s aides said is nothing surprising.
According to those that hate lobbyists, money buys not only access but clout. In the case of Barack Obama we have evidence of that lobbyist clout in the Obama deals with Big PhaRma. But Obama told the Hopium addled he hated lobbyists.
Obama lied. Obama loves lobbyists.
The day after her birthday, Hillary is still in the news. Hillary’s prominence is why Michelle is still yanking sleeves and Barack is still sneaking smokes.
Barack Obama’s Thugs (hereinafter, B.O.T.s) are increasingly aware that neither we, nor Hillary, are going away. As we know, Hillary is the real thing, not an inexperienced pretender, and real things last a real long time:
It’s tempting for some Beltway players to presume Clinton’s greatest prospects are behind her. Tempting, but hardly assured.
Clinton’s coalition is the sleeping giant of American politics. No other national politician, save Obama, has proven able to raise as much money. Much of her base was, like Obama, also loyal for deeper reasons than politics. This is doubly true for the Democratic women who were, and still are, personally invested in Clinton’s almost-historic presidency. It’s no coincidence that Clinton is on the cover of Parade magazine this week.
Clinton remains the second most prominent Democrat in the country. Her approval rating is higher than her boss, according to Gallup.
Clinton’s coalition is the true Democratic Coalition. It is the FDR coalition. It’s the coalition that builds the party and grows. Obama’s coalition, like Halloween, only materializes once and it is a Situation Comedy Coalition not fit for governing.
There are perils which Hillary supporters must always keep in mind as we exercise and drill in Winter quarters:
If she still wants it, her chance is likely 2016. Obama has good odds in 2012, as incumbents do. But Obama’s presidency could sink into unusually bad times. If so, don’t bet on a rerun of Jimmy Carter versus Edward Kennedy.
Kennedy never served under Carter. If she left early, with no excuse but her own ambitions, charges of betrayal would dog Clinton. Clinton’s investment in Democratic détente would be squandered. “Being on the presidents’ team gives you the chance to end the speculation that you are not on the presidents team,” as one Clinton White House veteran said.
Clinton has a term obstacle in this scenario as well. Secretaries of state generally serve four years. To leave early would inflame Obama’s base all over again. [snip]
Her past stature is precisely why Clinton attempts to lower her profile in new posts, at least at first. “I want to be a workhorse here, not a showhorse,” she reportedly told her Democratic colleagues after winning her 2000 Senate bid. The New Republic later complained, “Clinton has submerged herself in policy minutiae that would make a C-SPAN junkie snore.”
Nearly a decade later, Washington is again wondering about Clinton’s relative silence in the big show. The Kerry incident did not help. Yet overall, the low profile is a political blessing.
Hillary remains the future and still can be the 44th person to be inaugurated as president. Far from diminished, Hillary still has more remarkable petals left to blossom:
Clinton is different. She never ran a general election campaign. Therefore she does not have to live down mistakes. In fact, Clinton’s profile appears stronger for her bid. She proved her endurance and capacity to win votes. Importantly, she still is seen as presidential.
A Fox News poll in September found that 27 percent of Americans believe if “Clinton had won the election” she would “be doing a better” job as president. Another 25 percent said she would be doing as well as Obama.
More than half of the country, and even half of Democrats, views Clinton as the president’s equal or better. And Clinton likely agrees.
Our job, the job of all Hillary supporters and websites, is too smash the myth, the fake Big Media narrative, that Obama is doing about as well as could be expected from anyone. This myth is the most pernicious yet to emerge from the Obama protection racket which is Big Media and the Obama campaign machine. We, must make the case that Hillary would be doing much better than Obama no matter how bad the circumstances.
* * * * *
Yesterday, while we celebrated Hillary’s Birthday, Dimocrats and associated dimwits on the Big Blogs celebrated what they think is a big win for them on health care and the public option. We didn’t bother to put down the lace hand-fan when we heard the less than interesting news.
What caused the cheers and thrills from Dimocrats and dimwits – Harry (Reid of Nevada) had decided to announce the public option was “in”. We laughed at the little morsel thrown their way and what the dimwits allow to be called a “public option”. So, what happened (other than Hillary’s Birthday) yesterday?
The Dickens you say. Why would Harry do such a thing without the votes? Isn’t it foolish, down the road, to promise what you can’t deliver?
“If we can’t produce 60, you’ve got two choices: Pull the bill, or amend it. And amending it means that you’ll also need 60,” said a Senate Democratic aide. “The question is if the handful of moderates stay resolute and oppose cloture on the bill, then we’ll have to convince liberals to vote to weaken the public option. And that may be a very tough hill to climb because some of them may say they’d just as soon go to reconciliation than to compromise at that point.”
Why would Harry go to Copenhagen without the votes? Is Obama-style stupidity and boobery, like the swine flu, catching?
What Harry Reid did Monday afternoon gave new meaning to the phrase “public option.
The Senate majority leader, after haggling behind closed doors with members of his Democratic caucus, realized that he couldn’t cobble together the 60 votes he needed to pass health-care legislation with a government-run health plan. So Reid chose another option: He shut down the private talks, booked the Senate TV studio and went public with his own proposal. [snip]
For Reid, it was an admission of the formidable power of liberal interest groups. [snip]
Reid, facing a difficult reelection contest next year at home in Nevada, will need such groups to bring Democrats to the polls if he is to survive. But there were a few problems with the leader’s solo move. He shifted the public pressure from himself to half a dozen moderates in his caucus. And he defied the Obama White House, which had hoped to keep a bipartisan patina on health-care reform by maintaining the support of Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine).
Then there was the small matter of lacking the votes to pass the public option. “Do you feel 100 percent sure right now that you have the 60 votes?” CNN’s Dana Bash inquired. Reid looked down at the lectern. He looked up at the ceiling. He chuckled. He put his palms together as if in prayer. Then he spoke. “My caucus believes strongly there should be health-care reform” was the non sequitur he offered. [snip]
Of course, everybody knew that Reid didn’t have the votes. That’s why he was standing there alone, a Gang of One.
Why did Harry do it?
As Democratic aides described it, the moment had less to do with health-care policy than with Nevada politics — and one vulnerable senator’s justifiable fear of liberal anger. Now, if the public option unexpectedly survives in the Senate, Reid keeps his hero status on the left. If it fails, he at least gets credit for trying. By the Nobel committee’s revised standards, his aspirations might even earn him the prizes in medicine and economics.
It’s Hillary’s Birthday. Hillary (Rodham) Clinton, we all wish you a Happy Birthday and many more.
The toll-free phone number at the State Department is 800-647-4000. The Federal Relay Service phone number is 1-800-877-8339. Hillary Clinton may also be reached at the State Department via the internets HERE.
Sent Hillary some love, or merely appreciation, today.
Earlier this year, at an annual State Department briefing for editorial writers, a special envoy hesitated and then insisted he go on background when I asked how the new secretary of state, Hillary Rodham Clinton, was doing. [snip]
The envoy cited how years of useless negotiations between rivals — in an unidentified region — were zapped within hours after Clinton showed up. She had been running late, so the nervous staff had little time to brief her on the issues that matter. But Secretary Clinton knew what questions to ask to hone in on what mattered most to both sides.
“Okay I got it,” she said, leaving the staffers stunned as she headed inside.
“She gets it,” the envoy said. “She has proved to be a natural. She has the toughness and scars to do what’s needed with the job.” [snip]
She is a masterful conciliator, albeit the first woman so far with the best chance to be the first female U.S. president, who knows how to retrofit her life after a numbing defeat.
No wonder, the secretary of state is now viewed favorably by 62 percent of Americans, compared to President Obama’s 56 percent rating. [snip]
She’ll be back as presidential candidate Hillary, I suspect, but not as someone forced to make lemons out of lemonade.
Parade Magazine yesterday published 21 photographs of Hillary Clinton. They may be viewed HERE.
On Sept. 16, PARADE’s Leslie H. Gelb spent an action-packed 24 hours following Secretary of State Hillary Clinton through the ordinary paces of her day at the Harry S. Truman Building in Washington, D.C. From formal ceremonies to top-level security meetings, the following photo essay depicts a typical workday in the life of Madame Secretary.
As the accompanying citation to the photographs states, Hillary was followed for “an action-packed 24 hours, by Leslie H. Gelb. Gelb, the president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, wrote an exhausting article yesterday detailing a Hillary day.
“We’re going to work you to death,” Hillary Clinton promised me with a laugh. She was taking me—and PARADE’s readers—along on a typical day in the life of the U.S. Secretary of State. Our 24 hours together would prove both grueling and inspirational, full of diplomatic pageantry, big meetings with policy brainiacs, small sessions with trusted aides, a stream of time-consuming formal duties, and, of course, phone calls and more phone calls. The Secretary allowed me to be a fly on the wall for almost every minute, under the constantly watchful eyes of the Diplomatic Security Service. Having known her since her husband began his first run for the White House in 1991, I couldn’t stop myself from calling her Hillary. To everyone else, however, she was always Madame Secretary.
Gelb’s, or rather Hillary’s day, was indeed grueling. Dinner with Muslim-American leaders with a surprise visit by a rabbi included, the daily staff meeting in the morning to review the day’s schedule, policy meetings, more staff meetings with senior staff, breakfast with Congresswoman Nita Lowey, an Energy-Security Briefing, Recording “thank you” videos, meetings with a boob and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper regarding Afghanistan, a ceremony for Senegalese diplomats, swatting away rumors, meetings on strategy toward India, meetings with the Bangladeshi Foreign Minister (a woman), a swearing-in ceremony, meetings and more meetings on Taliban propaganda and Pakistan and new technology, another swearing-in ceremony, and more meetings and a policy dinner to discuss Iran, then more calls and some reading, which finally ends Hillary’s day.
Hillary, always working and putting her hard earned experience to use.
Near You – Fanics Craig; Peg O’ My Heart – Harmonicats; Heartaches – Ted Weems; Linda – Ray Noble & Buddy Clark; Smoke, Smoke, Smoke (That Cigarette…) – Tex Williams; I Wish I Didn’t Love You So – Vaughn Monroe; Peg O’ My Heart – Three Suns; Anniversary Song – Al Jolson;
Near You – Larry Green; That’s My Desire – Sammy Kaye; Ballerina – Vaughn Monroe; Mam’selle – Art Lund
Managua Nicaragua – Freddy Martin; Chi-Baba Chi-Baba – Perry Como; Timtayshun Red Ingle & – Jo Stafford; I Wonder Who’s Kissing Her Now – Ted Weems & Perry Como; Near You – Andrews Sisters;
The Old Lamp-Lighter – Sammy Kaye; When You Were Sweet – Sixteen Perry Como; How Soon – Jack Owens; Too Fat Polka – Arthur Godfrey; I Wonder, I Wonder, I Wonder – Eddy Howard; My Adobe Hacienda – Eddy Howard; Huggin’ And Chalkin’ – Hoagy Carmichael; Ole Buttermilk Sky – Hoagy Carmichael; Mam’selle – Dick Haymes; You Do – Vaughn Monroe; (I Love You) For Sentimental Reasons – King Cole Trio; Anniversary Song – Guy Lombardo; White Christmas – Bing Crosby.
We’ll let Nat Cole speak appreciation for Hillary on our behalf today:
Update II: We received this picture from a friend (taken with a phone camera so the quality is not great).
The store is Time Machine located at 207 West 14th Street in New York City for those in the area that want to take a look.
The sign says:
Obama Comics Special Sale
Price – Job Performance Poll Number
Today’s discount: 54% off
The discount tag is apparently replaceable. If Obama’s approval numbers keep dropping we expect the comics will soon be close to free.
Update: Music video added below.
Some top Republicans and many regular Republicans are acting like free love Hippies lately. This Republican activity comes even as Barack Obama trys to benefit himself by calling Republicans “robots”. [Warning, video below is of Obama at his usual annoying speechifying.]
Obama thinks he can benefit himself by calling regular Democrats “an opinionated bunch”. It’s a fancy way of saying “shut up”.
Obama also said Republicans “do what they are told” along with oh-so-hip robotic movements. ‘Shut Up and do as I say’ Obama says to Democrats and Dimocrats.
Here at Big Pink we have learned when Obama is moving his lips, he is lying. Are Republicans currently “doing what they are told”? Are Republicans currently “robots”? Hardly. If anything, it is Democrats and Dimocrats who are “doing what they are told” and following Mess-iah.
Some of the most prominent names in national Republican Party politics are lining up against the GOP nominee in a key upstate New York House special election, the latest being former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, who weighed in Friday.
In endorsing Conservative Party nominee Doug Hoffman in the Nov. 3 contest, Santorum joined former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, Minnesota Rep. Michelle Bachmann, former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson, and former presidential candidate Steve Forbes, all of whom announced their backing for the conservative third-party candidate this week.
Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty suggested Friday that he might be the next well-known Republican to break with the party establishment and support Hoffman.
Who’s the robot now? Big Pink readers will recall our laughter when Obama Dimocrats (these fools were outraged when Joe Wilson correctly called Obama a liar while Obama was speechifying) sent hundreds of thousands, then over a million dollars, to a Blue Dog Democrat after spending months attacking Blue Dog Democrats. We wrote:
Dimocrats have been whining and moaning lately about Blue Dog Democrats. Instead of placing the responsibility on Barack Obama, for the disaster which is the health care insurance company rescue scam and the deals Obama has made with the pharmaceutical companies, Dimocrats avert their vision and their few morals in order to blame Blue Dog Democrats. Immediately though, these dumb-ass (is there another word for such stupidity?) Dimocrats cheer and fist-bump themselves because they have raised hundreds of thousands of dollars – for a Blue Dog Democrat! These are truly stupid people.
While Scozzafava can point to many other prominent conservatives who support her bid—including former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Republican leaders on Capitol Hill—this week’s surge of leading conservatives to Hoffman’s camp is a troubling sign for her campaign and the national GOP establishment since several of the recent Hoffman endorsers have significant followings and represent the most energetic part of the Republican base.
“I would prefer to not have to go up to New York to endorse and campaign for the conservative candidate. But Republicans lost the race when they nominated Dede,” Armey told POLITICO.
“It’s the first really great chance for small government conservatives to present themselves as attractive candidates in opposition to Obama,” he said. “We treat this is as an important opportunity for conservatives to win the race. We wish Republicans had picked a conservative.”
Asked why Palin, Thompson and the others joined him this week in endorsing Hoffman, Armey responded: “They see the need for us to make the point that policy positions of small government conservatives are what is needed for us to win this race. They understand how important this race is and that’s why I think they endorsed.”
Republican strategist Mary Matalin added that Hoffman’s endorsers “speak for all of us who came to the party in support of the fundamental/constitutional principles it represented.”
“We can disagree or compromise on marginal issues, but not freedom-quashing, government-grasping ones, like tax increases, anti-democratic card check, etc. Holding on to a seat won on those principles is worse than losing it,” she said. “Conversely, losing seats to articulate, conservative Democrats has proved to be the best defensive line holding back Obama’s expansive ambitions.”
In her endorsement of Hoffman Thursday night, Palin sounded a clear anti-party tone, writing that Hoffman was the candidate that “stands for the principles that all Republicans should share.”
“Political parties must stand for something. When Republicans were in the wilderness in the late 1970s, Ronald Reagan knew that the doctrine of ‘blurring the lines’ between parties was not an appropriate way to win elections,” Palin wrote in a statement on her Facebook page. “Republicans and conservatives around the country are sending an important message to the Republican establishment in their outstanding grassroots support for Doug Hoffman: no more politics as usual.”
Obama Dimocrats threw out all core Democratic principles, the core Democratic principles Hillary Clinton has fought for all her life, to gift the nomination to an unqualified, race-baiting, and gay-bashing, and woman hating, Barack Obama. Now these same lemming Dimocrats blame everyone except the blameworthy Obama for the lack of Hope and Change.
As pro-choice, pro-gay rights Democrats we oppose Republicans, but, we applaud the Republicans who will not allow their party to be turned over to someone who does not represent their values. These rebellious, unRobotic Republicans fight for core Republican principles (and contrary to the propaganda, real Republicans, not the Bush W. worshipers, actually do have core Republican principles) and will not sacrifice those core principles in order to win an election.
Hillary supporters like those at Big Pink did not sacrifice core Democratic principles at the alter of party unity. We wish Hillary and Bill had refused to have anything to do with Barack Obama after he was gifted the nomination and they were called racists. We understand however that if Hillary and Bill are ever to return the party to its senses they have to be loyal to the party or risk future attacks of “disloyalty”.
Grassroots Democrats have no need to vote for Dimocrats who violate core Democratic principles, such as respect for the will of grassroots Democrats to choose their nominee, not have the party establishment belittle us and call us “bitter” and “clingy” and force feed an Obamination on us.
The conservative star power rallying behind Hoffman has done more than generate buzz for his candidacy—his campaign reported raking in more than $100,000 in the 24 hours since Palin’s endorsement. [snip]
In defending his endorsement of Scozzafava to the National Review, Gingrich warned conservatives that “if you seek to be a perfect minority, you’ll remain a minority.” [snip]
One top Republican official in Washington said that many within the party’s establishment are worried by the support Hoffman has been able to attract, but don’t believe it’s indicative of any broader party fissures.
“It is a little surprising. [Scozzafava is] not the person I would have nominated, but she is still the party’s nominee,” said the insider.
In past years, when the nomination process was determined by voters, not party leaders, it was proper for Democrats (and Republicans) to fight the fight in the primaries and then come together when the people spoke and the nominee was chosen. As long as the nominee is not someone who is so unqualified that a vote demands putting party over country, the appropriate process is for party members to support party nominees fairly chosen who will do well for the country and the party.
In the 23rd district this year, many Republicans do not believe the Republican nominee represents their core Republican values. The Republican in that very Republican district is a pro-choice, pro-gay rights Republican so these rebel, non-robotic Republicans are correct in their opposition.
Rebel, principled, non-robotic Republicans in the 23rd congressional district of New York are teaching a valuable lesson to their party leaders and to the Republican grassroots.
More importantly the rebel, principled, non-robotic Republicans in the 23rd congressional district of New York are teaching a valuable lesson to the robotic, compliant, prostrate, unprincipled Obama-worshiping kooks who style themselves as “the creative class” Dimocratic Left.
The lesson is: stick by your principles.
Long ago Shakespeare said the same thing “This above all: to thine own self be true. And it must follow, as the night the day, Thou cans’t not be false to any man ” Or woman.
When the going gets tough, a flim-flam man starts talking. When the police stop a flim-flam man, the words do not stop flowing as the flim-flam man sweet talks his way out of a jam and bamboozles the police so they forget why they stopped the con-artist in the first place.
So it is with Chicago flim-flam man Barack Obama. Obama is talking a mile a minute in order to avoid making tough decisions that don’t benefit Obama personally.
This week Obama again dragged in the usual suspects (along with the often rational Gerald Seib and the formerly reliable Ron Brownstein), including Rachel Maddow and Keith Olberman, Eugene Robinson, E.J. Dionne, John Dickerson, Frank Rich, Maureen Dowd, Bob Herbert, Gloria Borger, and Gwen Ifill for a talk to bolster their faith in Mess-iah (and put the screws to Seib and Brownstein). As usual the above scribes and talkers will regurgitate Obama’s words as their own to unsuspecting readers.
Things bog down and all these deadlines continue to slip. CBO will need time to score the merge. Meanwhile, despite the sense of inevitability Democrats are far from unified on pay-fors. There is strong Labor opposition to the Cadillac plan tax. Plus, they are going to try and pass a quarter trillion doc fix by waiving paygo and then pretending that health care reform is deficit neutral, which people will see for the farce it is.
And as kumbaya fades, Business is getting increasingly antsy because they know they are paying the bill at the end of the day and there is positively nothing in the legislation that will bring down costs, and they know the main point of the PWC study is dead on. The insurance industry may not be isolated for long. The White House has very successfully wooed many name-brand CEOs with lots of face time, but rank-and-file business groups are returning home.
Plus a re-energized public plan debate is not the winner that liberals think it is. You dig below the surface of the meaningless “do you support giving consumers the choice of a public option” questions and you find strong sense that government is doing too much (TARP, AIG, stimulus, GM etc). People should remember that POTUS righted the ship on this by changing the emphasis from the public plan to how-reform-helps-people-who-already-have-insurance after the Democrats’ August recess debacle.
“Anonymous” continues, like a meteorologist to describe the storm cloud patterns over Obama’s clown utopia:
Everyone is for “reform” but here is why this whole enterprise has always been bad politics: At a time when we have 10% unemployment and record deficits, Congress is going to 1) cut Medicare and 2) raise taxes to 3) pay for health care for the uninsured. None of these are popular.
And when McDonnell wins in Virginia despite his encyclical, Blue Dogs and moderates will get even more nervous about midterms. Likely Corzine win gets discounted because it’s New Jersey and GOP nominated a hapless candidate.
Nothing final happens before Christmas at the very earliest. Most likely spills into next year. Which means economic numbers and POTUS approval ratings will be determinative. Odds are still clearly in favor of something big passing. But IF this thing goes into 2010, there are several more months of the “jobless recovery,” unemployment goes above 10 and POTUS slips below 50, all bets are off.
1. A new Afghanistan policy. 2. Immigration reform. 3. Gitmo closing. 4. A second major stimulus bill. 5. A major climate deal in Copenhagen. 6. A real fight over regulating the financial sector. 7. A real fight with Fox. (Just kidding — of course there’s time for that.) 8. Deficit reduction. 9. Ending “don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t pursue.” 10. Tax reform. 11. Entitlement reform. 12. Ending the bitter partisanship in Washington that has divided us for too long yada yada yada.
At the Obama-loving websites, some light is breaking through. Some are just now beginning to open their peepers and imagine the possibility that indeed Big Pink has been right all along and Obama (gasp!) is a Chicago flim-flam man:
The question many health reform advocates have been asking about the public option debate is “what’s the problem”??? Why isn’t the President demanding it, pushing it, selling it? Well, maybe he doesn’t want it.
The problem, dude, is the flim-flam man from Chicago you were all so giddy about while trashing a genuine leader and fighter who happened to be a woman:
The Beltway conventional wisdom, steeped in cynicism, is that the White House is being disingenuous when it repeatedly says the President supports a public option. WH officials claim Obama believes it is “the best way” to provide an affordable choice and reduce costs. But then why is he not working to get it adopted in the Senate, and explicitly directing his OFA troops to help that effort? Why has he ducked every opportunity to make even the logical argument that the burden is on detractors to show there’s a better measure? No one has seriously attempted such a case.
Why indeed? Maybe your man is leading you on, making fools of you. We’ll laugh wryly on the day you actually type the words “Chicago flim-flam man” to describe the man who played you so well. For now some light is dawning on the Obama-love community:
It is hard to avoid the fear that this White House has now become a principal obstacle to getting meaningful health care reform. It claims it wants major cost reductions in Medicare, via a semi-autonomous cost-cutting commission. But the White House has already bargained away the savings it can achieve from most of the major providers: PhRMa ($80 billion), hospitals ($155 billion) so they can give it back to the doctors (for whom AMA is demanding $240+ billion more over ten years in relief from automatic Medicare reductions).
Why should we not also believe that the White House has a deal to shield insurers from competition by preventing the creation of a public option in exchange for the insurers agreeing to reforms on guaranteed issue and limited community ratings (with the flexibility Baucus provided) and to support this framework with tv ads? (Read Ignagni’s WaPo op-ed today; while defending the PwC study, she says they made a deal, but Baucus broke it; she didn’t say the deal’s off.)
The White House isn’t taking up most of the chairs in Harry’s Reid’s meetings just to watch him make decisions on his own. They’re there to make sure Harry Reid doesn’t undo the White House deals and wander off the reservation.
This President has filled the White House with people who have no inclination to pose any major challenge to the economic power of America’s dominant financial industries (GM being an exception). We’ve already seen this in their dealings with Wall Street investment banks and their too-big-to-fail is too-big-to-challenge approach to financial regulation. We’re seeing it now with efforts to shield the major health and insurance industries from any fundamental challenge.
It’s all a Chicago three-card monte flim-flam with fast-talking Obama doing the pitch. Americans have already witnessed the debate shift from health care to health insurance. We’ll soon see all the scribes and talkers invited to the White House try to sell the Obama flim-flam in upcoming publications and shows.
The invited scribes and talkers will say everything is on track and Obama is bringing Hope and Change. But the reality is that, as in Chicago, Obama will plunder Hope to bring Change to his pockets.
As the lightening flashes, and the torrential rains hurl down with thunderous screams, the Obama-loving scribes and talkers will pretend they are meteorologist and say it is a sunny day. But it is a dark day in America no matter what they say.
Obama is in trouble because he is unqualified and too inexperienced and too mesmerized by his mirror and cares only about himself.
The usual suspects will praise Obama, but Americans will continue to reject the Obama health care insurance flim-flam.
Obama and the Barack Obama Thugs (hereinafter B.O.T.s) are up to their old tricks again. This time Fox News is the cat’s-paw for the cynical games of Obama and the B.O.T.s.
Regular Big Pink readers know of our contempt for Big Media. We explained why we do not use the weak and self-defeating term MSM (main stream media) in Big Media Party. In that November 2007 article article we properly described Big Media as a political party.
In Big Media Party we described the then current (November 2007) political situation and the mounting attacks on Hillary Clinton as Big Media Party Bosses (The Tim Russerts and Chris Matthews) pretended to act as “referees”:
Big Media, as represented by the Tim Russerts and Chris Matthews and many others, is no longer just a referree. Big Media wants to be paid homage. Big Media wants their agenda adopted as policy by the candidates. [snip]
Obama and Edwards are appealing to Big Media and adopting Big Media narratives and political agenda.
Big Media will “ref” in Obama and Edwards’ favor now in order to destroy Hillary. But the Big Media wheel will grind them down if they were ever to get the nomination. Big Blogs will help Big Media for their own self interests as they regurgitate Big Media “waitress tips” stories.
The Big Media love affair with Barack Obama continues, sometimes abated, but it continues nevertheless. However, Fox News is not in love with Barack Obama and for that crime Barack Obama and Dimocrats want to punish Fox News.
Fox News is a component of Big Media and the Big Media Party. Fox News is a biased news source – just like every other broadcast news outlet and most newspapers. Fox News has tormented Bill and Hillary Clinton for many years. However, the New York Times was much more vicious towards Bill Clinton, with smearing editorials day after day after day and has yet to apologize for their crusade to destroy Bill Clinton.
How bad was the New York Times (and the Washington Post along with other “liberal” newspapers)? Liberal bastion The Nation took notice of the Clinton hate at the “liberal” New York Times:
But beyond the rhetoric, what’s been even more astonishing is the moralistic position the editorials have staked out: Clinton is not only a humiliating failure as a leader, and even as a human being; he has destroyed Americans’ faith not only in him, which nearly goes without saying (except that…it doesn’t, since the paper says it almost daily now), but in the institutions of their government; he must not be allowed to wiggle out of the range of the rule of law’s mighty sword; and yes, that prosecutor fellow may have gone overboard here or there–Starr has a “tin ear,” has displayed “clumsiness” (both February 25), has “seemed…a klutz” (July 29)–but his sins are as nothing compared with those of the Philanderer in Chief.
And that’s just what the paper said. What it hasn’t said is, if anything, more revealing. It has not, during this entire episode, written an editorial, for example, wondering whether sheet-sniffing expeditions of the sort that launched this story are the proper work of journalism in the first place (one sentence–one sentence!
The Times has never apologized for their fake news stories about Watergate either.
Yes, Fox News has a horrible history and Rupert Murdoch uses his news outlets (he also owns The New York Post among other media properties) to attack political opponents with smears and critical news stories. Yes, The Washington Times has a right wing agenda and was set on its ugly path by the “Reverend” Sun Myung Moon. Yes, there is a right-wing press and it is bad. But, the “liberal”, what we call PINOs (Progressive In Name Only) new outlets, are just as bad if not worse.
Certainly, excrement such as Tim Russert and Chris Matthews proved in 2007 and 2008 they are much worse than anything Fox News has ever spawned. Indeed, in 2007 and 2008 Fox News proved, when compared to MSNBC and NBC and CNN, that Fox News is much more Fair And Balanced than the alleged “liberal” outlets. To hell with all of them.
Some Hillary supporters perhaps have forgotten what happened during the primaries last year. Big Pink Hillary supporters have not forgotten. Democratic Governor Ed Rendell spoke for many Hillary supporters when he declared Fox News Fair And Balanced in 2008 especially when compared to the PINO “news” outlets:
Lanny Davis knows Fox News was Fair And Balanced in 2008 and said so forcefully:
Terry, cannot deny Fox News was indeed Fair And Balanced when it came to Hillary Clinton:
No doubt Fox News had its own self-interested reasons for being Fair And Balanced when it came to Hillary Clinton. But the fact remains that Fox News was Fair And Balanced when it came to Hillary Clinton in 2008 – certainly so beyond any doubt when compared to the garbage at MSNBC or CNN which removed the “biased” James Carville but kept on as an “undecided” commentator the Obama besotted Donna Brazille.
Now more PINOs are complaining that Fox News is mean to Obama. Hypocrite Left Talkers who surrendered the Democratic Primaries to Big Media and Big Media “darling” Barack Obama now whine about Fox News. We warned Left Talkers about their foolishness:
We have even less sympathy for the Obama Hopium addled addicts who now complain about the power of Big Media. The Obama Hopium addled addicts empowered Big Media and rejoiced as that power was aimed against the qualified and experienced Hillary Clinton. Now the Big Media leash will be yanked against lapdog Obama.
We had the opportunity to to rid ourselves of the Chris Matthews’ of the political world or at least make them less significant. Now they are more powerful than ever. Obama supporters are entirely to blame for the ugly control Big Media now exerts over all our lives.
These fools have no one to blame but themselves for the power wielded by the Big Media Party. They now whine alongside Obama that Fox News is mean to Mess-iah.
A White House attempt to delegitimize Fox News – which in past times would have drawn howls of censorship from the press corps – has instead been greeted by a collective shrug.
That’s true even though the motivations of the White House are clear: Fire up a liberal base disillusioned with Obama by attacking the hated Fox. Try to keep a critical news outlet off-balance. Raise doubts about future Fox stories.
But most of all, get other journalists to think twice before following the network’s stories in their own coverage.
Yes, like most of everything regarding Obama the Fox hunt is fake – a diversion, a piece of red meat, to feed the starving, increasingly alienated, Hopium eaters.
The Tin Pot Dictator wants to silence the only news outlet that is not going along with the consensus opinion of the Big Media Party as if the United States is his Tin Pot Kingdom.
To some media observers, it’s almost the definition of a “chilling effect” – a governmental attempt to steer reporters away from negative coverage – but the White House press corps has barely uttered a word of complaint. [snip]
“This is an effort in effect to quarantine Fox News and to discourage other media outlets from picking up on stories that originate here,” Hume said on “The O’Reilly Factor.” “My guess is it won’t work….Look at Glenn Beck, he’s having a field day with this.” [snip]
“This is a mutually beneficial deal,” said Paul Begala, a former adviser to President Bill Clinton. “Fox’s ratings keep going up, as they’re seen as the voice of opposition to Obama. The Democrats need to do something to excite their base, which is suffering from a case of the blues.”
Paul Begala knows the Fox hunt is a fake. A very few “journalists” see the cynical ploy as a serious danger:
A day after White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and Obama senior adviser David Axelrod said other journalists should no longer treat Fox as a bona fide news outlet, the comments generated only a single, tangential question at the White House’s daily briefing for reporters.
Still, the comments set off alarm bells with some journalists and media analysts.
“I can never remember a White House urging news organizations to boycott other news organizations. That strikes me as unprecedented,” said Thomas DeFrank, a Washington journalist who has covered eight presidents and now serves as the bureau chief of the New York Daily News.
“I see it as bullying a news organization, by the time you get to telling ABC or some other news organization how they should behave to another news organization,” said David Zurawik, media critic for the Baltimore Sun. “Someone should tell them: you’re one branch of government. We’re something else over here. Don’t lecture us about how we should behave towards one another.”
If Big Media were doing its job we would not respond with a guffaw at the idea that “journalists” are under attack. We thought Hillary Clinton should have responded forcefully to MSNBC and other “news” outlets that smeared her but we know she would have been further savaged by these brutes. We certainly do not object to Obama going to fake war with Fox news – what we object to is the rest of the Big Media components fluffing Obama’s pillows while he fakes a Fox hunt for cynical purpose. To hell with all of them.
Ruth Marcus at the Washington Post thinks the fake Fox hunt is a dumb, “childish and petty” “fight” for Obama to take on because it helps Fox News.
Tapper: It’s escaped none of our notice that the White House has decided in the last few weeks to declare one of our sister organizations “not a news organization” and to tell the rest of us not to treat them like a news organization. Can you explain why it’s appropriate for the White House to decide that a news organization is not one –
Gibbs: Jake, we render, we render an opinion based on some of their coverage and the fairness that, the fairness of that coverage.
Tapper: But that’s a pretty sweeping declaration that they are “not a news organization.” How are they any different from, say –
Gibbs: ABC –
Tapper: ABC. MSNBC. Univision. I mean how are they any different?
Gibbs: You and I should watch sometime around 9 o’clock tonight. Or 5 o’clock this afternoon.
Tapper: I’m not talking about their opinion programming or issues you have with certain reports. I’m talking about saying thousands of individuals who work for a media organization, do not work for a “news organization” — why is that appropriate for the White House to say?
Good on Fox. They are covering some key stories the rest of the media prefer to ignore. [snip]
I do not begrudge Fox having a bias. It does have one. But the notion that CNN and MSNBC (not to mention ABC, CBS and NBC) are somehow devoid of bias and simply pursuing truth is delusional. What is truly alarming is that the White House is possessed of a delusional we last saw when Tricky Dick wandered the halls of the White House. Someone needs to slap some sense into Obama, Axlerod and Emmanuel. Acting like Dick Nixon is not “Presidential.”
It’s not just that the current occupant of the Oval Office has a particularly thin skin when it comes to criticism – which is especially ironic given that he’s been the recipient of more glowing press coverage than possibly any candidate or president in modern American history. But not since Nixon conjured up an “enemies list” have we seen the full weight of the Office of the Presidency brought to bear in such a targeted and deliberate effort to delegitimize a media organization critical of the President. [snip]
And MSNBC doesn’t push a certain “perspective?” What about the New York Times? The idea that FOX News’s perspective disqualifies it as a “legitimate” news operation lays bare the manipulation and hypocrisy at work here. The White House is all for news organizations taking certain “perspectives” – so long as they’re favorable to the administration’s agenda.
Arthur Gelb, The Times’s famed former culture impresario and managing editor, begins his wonderful memoir, “City Room,” by describing the racier Times newsroom of the 1940s. He says it was a time of clandestine sex in closets, a movie-star mistress of the publisher sashaying about and two tough bookies from Hell’s Kitchen at a corner desk taking bets as “wads of bills peeked from their pockets.”
In his memoir, “Gaily, Gaily,” Ben Hecht describes his years as a cub reporter at The Chicago Daily Journal starting in 1910. It was a time when reporters were still “exotic adults,” he writes, and journalism was considered by many as “a catch basin for hooligans, bar flies and minor swindlers.”
The first thing Hecht did was get his girlfriend, who was “in harlot servitude” when they met, hired as the “first girl reporter” at the paper for $12 a week by pretending she was a Van Arsdale who was a niece of Edith Wharton.
When she got caught selling her services in the newsroom, Hecht’s cynical Irish editor advised him that reforming women was a time-waster. “The female, from birth onward, is a mist of lies,” the editor intoned. “And her white belly is a shrine for swindle and delusion.”
Oh for the days when journalists were “hooligans, bar flies and minor swindlers”. Those days of working class stiffs published in major papers are long gone. Now we have a professional class of major swindlers writing for the front pages of our major newspapers and news broadcasts.
Ben Hecht’s “girlfriend” sold her “services” in the newsroom – how far we have fallen. Today, Big Media whores and women-hating scum, like Maureen Dowd and Chris Matthews, sell their services on the front page to Barack Obama and praise the Emperor for his new clothes, while here at Big Pink we see Obama naked – a Tally Ho on a Fake Fox hunt.
It’s not only Lynn Forester – a lot of people are just beginning to discover we are right when we say:
Obama simply cannot be trusted. Obama cannot be trusted on any issue. Obama cannot be trusted by his friends. Obama cannot be trusted by his enemies. Obama cannot be trusted.
Democrat Brent Budowsky (an aide to former Sen. Lloyd Bentsen and Bill Alexander, then chief deputy majority whip of the House) once again is calling it as he sees it:
Recently The Jerusalem Post ran a brilliant and troubling piece by Amir Mizroch titled “Why everyone is saying no to Obama.”
Last Friday the president was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for doing nothing. [snip]
The Nobel Prize gets to the heart of the matter of the Obama presidency. The prize was not awarded to President Obama, but to the idea of Obama.
Voters may vote for an idea. Prizes may be awarded for an idea. But war and peace, prosperity and joblessness, legislation and treaties, illness and health, are not decided by the idea of the candidate but the actions of the president who is elected.
What made Roosevelt Roosevelt, Kennedy Kennedy and Reagan Reagan was that the idea of their persona during the campaign was followed by their actions during their presidencies.
NObama is what Obama backslapping-in-public smart leaders, not necessarily good leaders, say to a boob who is the Third Bush Term.
The Jerusalem Post piece was troubling because it is true. There is a pattern that others repeatedly say no to the president. Passing weak legislation and calling it a “W” does not change the pattern of his presidency or satisfy the powerful yearning for change that is not realized by promises, public relations or the cult of personality.
“Cult of personality” – that is a Big Pink term from 2007 when Dimocrats craved to get on board the Titanic with the boob. Big Pink also called Obama a “boob” in 2007 and we predicted the mess the boob would cause.
Virtually every player in the Middle East has said no to the president. Banks and Wall Street say no to the president. The Europe that said yes to the Nobel Prize says no to giving more support for Afghanistan. The president even snubbed the Dalai Lama in anticipation the Chinese would say no. The list is long of those who say no and short of those who say yes.
It is time to worry when “Saturday Night Live” makes fun of the president for achieving so little. It is time for alarm when so many power players believe this president can be rolled. Even a Senate where Democrats have 60 votes shows an almost daily disrespect for the president.
Boobs, like doughnuts, can be rolled:
The reason so many power centers, at home and internationally, say no to the president is that they do not know his bottom line. They believe he may shift with the winds. They know he accepts a tiny loaf while claiming a big victory. They believe he can be rolled.
Budowsky says pretty much the same as Lynn Forester about that “blank screen” which is Obama to his Hopium addled boobettes:
The president has described himself as a Rorschach in which others with divergent views project their views onto him. This is brilliant politics in a campaign but a disastrous approach to governing. [snip]
The centrifugal forces from inside Washington to combat theaters abroad revert to form in a divided nation and troubled world. Nothing of historical importance gets done.
The history of successful presidents is clear: They fight for major change. They battle complacency and resistance. They risk losing tactical battles for greater victories. They challenge and inspire supporters to fight great battles for great deeds and inspire fear in opponents who resist.
Remember how Big Media and Barack Obama mocked Hillary when she said she had “the scars to prove it” in regards to her ceaseless leadership to make the world a better place? Read that last paragraph and it describes Hillary Clinton, not the boob.
Rorschach presidents do not change anything. I pray the president will learn the lessons of history and his own experience, but when he does not, I must dissent.
Budowsky will not be accused of being “bitter” and “clingy” for his dissent.
“Whiner in Chief,” reads the headline at The Nation, referring to President Obama.
Self-styled progressives across the country are angry, not just at Obama, but at the rest of the Democratic power structure, as well. That anger is causing an ugly split inside the Washington Democratic world. [snip]
NBC’s John Harwood recently reported that Team Obama views the complainers as part of the “Internet Left fringe,” and that one White House adviser said, “Those bloggers need to take off their pajamas, get dressed and realize that governing a closely divided country is complicated and difficult.” [snip]
Recent Gallup polling shows that Congress’ job approval among Democrats plunged in September, from 54 percent to 36 percent — an 18-point drop in the course of a single month.
There simply can’t be that many people in pajamas. [snip]
There are no precise polling numbers to measure the division, but for months now, Gallup surveys have shown that Obama’s job approval rating among people who call themselves conservative Democrats is 15 to 20 points below his rating among those who call themselves liberal Democrats. And now the liberal Democrats are becoming increasingly unhappy.
Even Obama blowhard and blower, Charles Blow, at the New York Times is in “dissent”:
When, Mr. President? When will your deeds catch up to your words? The people who worked tirelessly to get you elected are getting tired of waiting. [snip]
The fierce urgency of now has melted into the maddening wait for whenever.
Blow is upset at the Boob-in-Chief for weakness on health care “reform”. Blow, after fluffing Obama has other “dissents”:
On the same weekend that gay rights protesters marched past the White House, the president again said that his administration was “moving ahead on don’t ask don’t tell.” But when? This month? This year? This term?
As we prepare to draw down troops from the disaster that was the war in Iraq, we may commit more troops to the quagmire that is the war in Afghanistan and the government may miss its deadline for closing the blight that is the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.
Obama pledged to stem the tide of job losses and foreclosures and to reform the culture of the financial sector. Well, the Dow just hit 10,000 again while the national unemployment rate is about to hit 10 percent. And the firms we propped up are set to dole out record bonuses while home foreclosures have hit record highs. Main Street is still drowning in crisis while Wall Street is awash in Champagne. When will this imbalance be corrected?
Candidate Obama pledged to make the rebuilding of New Orleans a priority, but President Obama whisked into the city on Thursday for a visit so brief that one Louisiana congressman dubbed it a “drive-through daiquiri summit.” The president spent more time on the failed Olympic bid in Copenhagen than he did in the Crescent City.
Big Pink was the first to call Obama the Third Bush Term. Now Charles Blow says the same thing:
At the town hall in New Orleans, Obama appealed for patience. He said, “Change is hard, and big change is harder.” Is that the excuse? Now where have I heard that before? Oh, yeah. From George Bush.
The president of one of America’s largest labor unions, Gerry McEntee, has emerged as a major obstacle to the White House’s efforts to maintain a unified front in the health care debate.
The veteran president of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) has crossed lines that few labor leaders – even those who quietly agree with him – would go near.
McEntee led workers in chanting a barnyard epithet to describe Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus’s health care bill, which would levy a new tax on expensive health care plans. He published an op-ed in U.S.A. Today warning, in terms that could be used against Democrats in the midterms, that the plan could tax the middle class and cost workers their health care. And he blew off a plea from White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and published an open letter promising to “oppose” legislation that contained the tax – published over the objections, several labor officials said, of other union presidents whose names appeared on the letter.
Obama’s thugs responded to McEntee with insults.
But a spokesman for AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka stood by McEntee.
“We work closely with the White House and count ourselves among their strongest supporters,” said the spokesman, Eddie Vale. “Sometimes being supportive means staking out a tough position, and nobody understands that better than President McEntee.”
McEntee’s posture – and the fierce response from a White House determined to keep allies in line – reflects a broader dilemma on the left of the Democratic Party, which is feeling both lingering satisfaction at Obama’s victory and frustration at his caution.
Many Dimocrats are angry with Obama but are afraid of “losing the access and power” if they challenge Obama and his thugs.
McEntee knows a boob when he sees a boob. McEntee knew Hillary was a leader and ready on Day 1.
McEntee first angered the Obama camp during the 2008 campaign with his support for Clinton, especially in the early, demure days of the primary season, when his union mailed a harsh attack on Obama to New Hampshire voters, which asked: “How can we be sure the new President is ready?”
Randi Weingarten of the teachers union thought the McEntee language was too strident. That did not stop Weingarten from sounding like Big Pink when it came to “No Child Left Behind”:
A skirmish between powerful teachers’ unions and President Barack Obama over nearly $5 billion in education spending is shaping up as a preview of the battle to come over No Child Left Behind in Congress early next year. [snip]
The dispute adds teachers’ unions to a growing list of key Democratic constituencies that have been frustrated by Obama’s lunges toward the political middle, along with gay-rights activists upset Obama won’t lift the ban on gays in the military, and Latino officials who say Obama is slow-walking immigration reform. [snip]
One of the little-noticed aspects of Obama’s presidency is how much his approach to education mirrors Bush’s – heavy on testing and data-collection, with support for charter schools, teacher evaluations and merit pay. [snip]
“This administration doesn’t want to be ‘Bush Three,’ but some of the things that are coming out…simply charter schools and measurement… that’s what the previous administrations pushed,” Weingarten said, referring to Bush and his father, the president.
Watch the skid marks on teachers who drank Hopium:
“What we have now is a Democratic president who is using the words ‘fire teachers’ so the labor movement is starting to say they want to get on the bus and help steer, rather than get run over by it,” said Amy Wilkins of the Education Trust, a non-partisan think tank.
Hypocrite Dimocrats, like Representative Earl Blumenauer are lying to their constituents and continue to protect Obama while publicly decrying what they see.
The liberal Democrat from Portland, Ore. — known for his bowties, his Trek bicycle and a pragmatic brand of progressivism — embraced Barack Obama’s presidential candidacy early in 2008 and campaigned hard alongside him, steadily gaining confidence that the young senator from Illinois was the ideal liberal remedy to eight years of conservative dominance.
Now political reality has set in, testing Mr. Blumenauer’s faith that Mr. Obama’s election and big Democratic majorities in Congress would yield quick advances in the progressive agenda.
One singular leader who wrote elegantly about his ideals, was swept into the presidency and then collided with harsh reality had some advice for another.
In an interview with Alison Smale in The Times last week, Vaclav Havel sipped Champagne in the middle of the afternoon and pricked Barack Obama’s conscience.
Havel, the 73-year-old former Czech president, who didn’t win a Nobel Peace Prize despite leading the Czechs and the Slovaks from communism to democracy, turned the tables and asked Smale a question about Obama, the latest winner of the peace prize.
Was it true that the president had refused to meet the Dalai Lama on his visit to Washington?
He was told that Obama had indeed tried to curry favor with China by declining to see the Dalai Lama until after the president’s visit to China next month. [snip]
“It is only a minor compromise,” he said. “But exactly with these minor compromises start the big and dangerous ones, the real problems.”
Yet Obama’s legislative career offers cautionary tales about the toll of constant consensus building.
In Springfield, he compromised so much on a health care reform bill that in the end, it merely led to a study. In Washington, he compromised so much with Senate Republicans on a bill to require all nuclear plant owners to notify state and local authorities about radioactive leaks that it simply devolved into a bill offering guidance to regulators, and even that ultimately died.
Now the air is full of complaints that Obama has been too cautious on health care, Afghanistan, filling judgeships, ending “don’t ask, don’t tell,” repealing the Defense of Marriage Act and rebuilding New Orleans; that he has conceded too much to China, Iran, Russia, the Muslim world and the banks.
Dowd has always been “bitter” and “clingy”. Now Dowd is approaching “dissent”.
Obama’s treacheries in Illinois have been well documented on Big Pink. Someday Big Media blowhards and blowers will decide to write about the dirty, not clean” screen – which is Barack Obama.
Today we woke up to a good commentary and a question that has us scratching our heads.
The article is written by the founder of “To Get Her For Us” Lady Lynn Forester De Rothschild. Readers of Big Pink know Lynn Forester from her courageous stand for Hillary Clinton when other Democrats chose to become Dimocrats.
Instead of strong Hillary supporters “No Limits” is inviting people who should not share the stage with Hillary Clinton. Where’s Lynn? Why isn’t she invited to speak?
We know Lynn Forester did not support Obama in the election out of conviction but she is a prominent Democrat and someone who has recently attended events with Hillary, including an awards ceremony. Lynn Forester is a self-described Jersey “girl”, a long-time Hillary Clinton supporter and a strong woman who sees right through Obama’s flim-flam scams. Is that the answer?
Instead of Lynn Forester “No Limits” is inviting Congressman Barney Frank, Nancy Ann Min DeParle, Dee Dee Myers, and Maggie Fox, among others.
We hope, but like Obama supporters whose hopes have been dashed do not expect our hopes to be realized, that invited Nancy Ann Min DeParle the head of the White House Health Care “Reform” Office does not use the “No Limits” opportunity to praise the Obamination which is the Obama health care scam.
Lissa Muscatine, will speak on “Women’s Rights Are Human Rights” as Senior Advisor to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Director of Speechwriting. Good for Lissa Muscatine. But what about someone to speak about misogyny and sexism in the United States and the Dimocratic Party?
We have no quarrel with Kakenya Ntaiya (of Kakenya’s Dream) discussing “building schools for girls in Kenya” but what about attacks on girls here in the United States? What about sexism and misogyny in the United States? Kenya-believe-it? No discussion scheduled thus far about the horrors of sexism and misogyny in the United States, instead we’ll hear about Obama’s Kenya! Maybe Kakenya Ntaiya will address sexual abuse in schools built for girls, in Africa, by Obama friend Oprah.
Also on the Big Media panel will be Dana Perino, the former George W. Bush Press Secretary. Maybe Dana will discuss Todd Purdum and the Boys on the Putrid Bus.
Also on the agenda is Maggie Fox, CEO, The Alliance for Climate Protection as a moderator for a panel called “The Climate Change Imperative”. We hope that Ms Fox will not try to sell the Obamination which is the Obama “Cap and Trade” filth.
The only, and worthwhile, reason to attend the conference appears to be the wonderful Hillary Clinton. But Hillary should not be on stage to lend legitimacy to dubious schemes and scams. We have supported “No Limits” and feature the organization in our “Hillary Saves The World” section for a long time (on the right hand column of this page). But in the same way we believe Obama dupes should speak out against Obama wrongs, Hillary supporters must speak out when we see something wrong about our own allies.
Where’s Lynn on the agenda of “No Limits”?
Perhaps readers of HillaryIs44 who are attending the conference will ask “Where’s Lynn?”
Why are Chris Kelly, a former Facebook Executive, and Thomas Gensemer of Blue State Digital invited instead of Lynn Forester? We recall Facebook as an Obama outlet and Blue State Digital is a Howard Dean inspired outfit.
IN “The Audacity of Hope,” Barack Obama described himself as “a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.” This is a powerful tool in elections and explains why liberals, moderates, Democrats, Independents and Republicans joined together to give him 53 percent of the vote last November.
Since his election, this “blank screen” has been an asset, allowing the new president to maintain an illusion of progress, even as he has avoided the hard choices necessary for progress. But, as Americans ponder the unavoidable consequences of the president’s policies — particularly health-care reform — the illusion is wearing thin.
Few Democrats but Lynn Forester dare speak the truth and stand up for core Democratic values, not Dimocratic Obaminations:
The government has spent $3 trillion to prop up Wall Street and take over the big insurance and auto industries — yet the middle class and small businesses continue to suffer. Fifteen million workers remain without jobs; 32 percent of Americans’ homes are worth less than their mortgages — and a whopping 61 percent of Americans are living from paycheck to paycheck.
For these reasons, the American people have begun to judge President Obama on his record, not his rhetoric; on his policies, not his narrative — and on his ability to govern, not on his campaign machine.
The cool and reasonable candidate who gave hope to his voters, who promised to rise above the ugly politics and big money of Washington, is turning out to be as conventional a politician as any other. Indeed, as he runs a permanent campaign from the White House, he is proving to be more committed to protecting the vested interests of his party than standing up for actual change.
Lynn Forester is talking about the Obamination Party, not the once great Democratic Party when she rightly declares that Obama is “protecting the vested interests of his party”.
Lynn Forester describes a conversation with an immigrant from Haiti:
I asked him if he would not have preferred if our country had guaranteed him a job, a pension, health care and a college education for his children. He told me no — and gave three reasons.
First, he said, he takes pride in knowing what he has done for his family. Second, he knows that the government does not, cannot, know what he wants for himself and his family. Third, he knows that what government gives, it can take away.
Having lived the American dream, he realizes that the individualism at the heart of American democracy is what is actually at stake in the present debates over the president’s many policies.
The “can-do” FDR style Americanism Lynn Forester describes as in danger:
Immigrant or native-born, it’s written in the American DNA: A paternalistic government threatens our independence, our individuality and our right to self-determination. It’s why Jefferson sang praise to the yeoman farmer and Jackson to the common man. It’s the principle that Reagan placed at the heart of his presidency, and that Clinton built on by advancing policies that empowered individuals — not policies that made individuals beholden to the state.
Lynn Forester is undoubtedly talking about the welfare reform that Bill Clinton passed. Since Bill Clinton passed the welfare reform plan he has been attacked by PINOs but since Bill Clinton passed welfare reform we Democrats saw the Republican attacks on “welfare queens” disappear. Barack Obama threatens to provide Republicans with the “welfare queen” hatchet once again.
In contrast, President Obama’s praise for the free market and individual liberty just doesn’t ring true — because his record does not reflect his rhetoric. His actions show a fundamental disconnect with American values — a disconnect that won’t be dispelled with captivating speeches, no matter how masterfully delivered.
Lynn Forester should speak at the “No Limits” conference if DeParle speaks up for the Obama health care scam.
It is for this reason that so many Americans are uneasy about Obama’s health-care plan. The promised benefits don’t add up. It’s just not possible for the government to simultaneously a) provide care for 30 million more people, b) not increase the budget deficit and c) allow anyone who is satisfied with their health care package to experience no change.
In repeatedly insisting that he’ll deliver all three results at once, Obama has lost credibility: 80 percent of Americans polled said that his health-care reform will raise costs or diminish quality of care.
On the back of total federal debt that is already over 70 percent of our total GDP, and in light of $34 trillion of existing unfunded liabilities in Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, the president’s lack of actual, as opposed to rhetorical, fiscal discipline further erodes his authority.
Hillary fought for genuine universal health care and has the scars to prove it. Hillary, no matter what DeParle might now say, was right when she denounced the Obama health care scam during the primaries. Hillary is a fighter for core Democratic values and Obama is just a flim-flam scam man who fights only to advance himself:
In light of all the political capital that true and sensible health-care reform would cost him, it is most likely that President Obama will accept legislation that fails in all but name. In such a case, the president will claim victory — but not solve our health-care problems. It will be another empty triumph of his “blank screen” politics.
And voters will find that they elected not another FDR, but another Jimmy Carter.
We know where Lynn Forester stands. Lynn Forester has lived a life of no limits.
Where does “No Limits” stand?