Hillary Clinton And The Sanity Bubble

SkyNews trys to understand the charms of Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin today. Therefore there is a big patch of Big Pink in their discussion.

The Big Pink article reproduced at SkyNews explains enough of our attitude about Sarah Palin so we won’t focus on Sarah today.

Today, we want to end the year on a Cloud 9 of Pink fluffiness. We want to discuss Hillary Clinton at the end of 2009 and the beginning of 2010.

* * * * *

One of the most intriguing observations about the Japanese and the causes of World War II is that the Japanese act collectively. The analysis concludes that, because of their collective mindset, in the 1930s and 40s, the Japanese people went collectively insane. While we think the battle over natural resources leads to a better understanding of the causes of World War II, this interesting observation of 1930s Japanese society skews our view of what is happening in the United States. It’s almost as if the United States has gone collectively insane.

In 2000, the country was saddled with George W. Bush – a man even his family was surprised could possibly want or win the presidency. Yes, the election was a selection by the Supreme Court, but still a lot of people, about half the country, voted for Bush. In 2004 Bush was reelected despite a massive intelligence failure which was exposed with two demolished towers in New York City.

In 2008, after eight years of disaster, the Democratic Party finally organized itself – in order to defeat and destroy the most qualified candidate and gift the nomination to a self-interested boob. The Democratic Party in 2008 dumped the winning FDR coalition in order to embrace a losing “situation comedy” demographic as its base coalition. The Democratic Party in 2008 committed suicide and an ugly monstrosity put on the old Democratic clothes and became the Dimocratic Party of Barack Obama.

This was insanity. A whole decade of insanity. Trade one Republican boob for one Dimocratic boob. Insanity.

Into the American madness, like a pocket of air in a sunken Chappaquiddick car, there is a bubble of sanity.

“At the end of the 21st century’s first decade,” the sanity bubble is Hillary Clinton and her growing army of supporters.

One is a woman who once lived in the White House — Hillary Rodham Clinton. And the other is a woman suspected of harboring ambitions of living there someday — Sarah Palin.

A Democrat and a Republican. A former senator and a former governor. Two polarizing politicians, both moms, both bestselling authors, both who lost their bids for one of the nation’s top elected offices last year.

Are American voters dropping a hint here?

Two women, both savaged and termed “polarizing”, from opposite sides of the political spectrum, find themselves oddly united in a cause. The cause is the fight against sexism and misogyny.

We used to think that it was the Republicans who were mouth-breathers and Neanderthals but now that best describes Obama’s Dimocratic Party. Republicans who are Palin supporters are now champions in the fight against sexism and misogyny. Let’s hope they stay that way and the conversion into opposition of sexism and misogyny is a permanent, eyes opened, new state of being.

The Hillary Clinton Sanity Bubble gives us HOPE. Perhaps the decade of decline and insanity is truly over. As we enter 2010 Hillary Clinton is the most admired woman in the United States, again. A Hillary Clinton versus Sarah Palin 2012 election would forever blast and destroy the glass ceiling of sexism and misogyny that Barack Obama and his Dimocratic Party exploit.

Not that public admiration necessarily translates to votes. But the results have to set off any political spectator’s eager imagination about a future presidential ballot match-up between the pair who, though politically polar opposites, are both outspoken, both often underestimated and both beloved by their respective bases.

The Hillary Clinton Sanity Bubble gives us all HOPE for CHANGE. Not false hope and cheap change, but a successful battle plan for future changes for the better. The Hillary Clinton Sanity Bubble comes from the hearts and minds of Americans. The Sanity Bubble persists even with Obama attempts to pin prick it. The Sanity Bubble persists and grows. The Hillary Clinton Sanity Bubble is a survivor.

Clinton’s 17 straight years as most- or second-most-admired woman is unprecedented since Gallup began asking the question in 1948 (when presidential daughter Margaret Truman and then-Princess, now Queen Elizabeth II were in the top 10.)

Clinton first headed the list in 1993 as the new first lady in the White House.

And she remained highly admired as first lady throughout the public and private turmoils of her husband’s two terms, then as a senator from New York and now as the nation’s 67th secretary of State, only the third woman to hold the post.

Michelle Obama, known for her work in hospital patient dumping schemes found herself in the discount bin of a Science Fiction convention.

The latest new first lady, Michelle Obama, trailed on this year’s most-admired-women list.

She ended up back at No. 4. As The Ticket reported here Monday, in a separate poll, Mrs. Obama is also mirroring her husband’s plunge in approval ratings. From November to December, her approval numbers dropped seven points, down to 55, still higher than the president’s.

The Hillary Clinton Sanity Bubble is not a Wall Street financial Bubble. The Hillary Clinton Sanity Bubble is an antidote to insanity. The Hillary Clinton Sanity Bubble is long term and growing. Have we said “unprecedented”?

Among women, Clinton continues an unprecedented 17-year run as the first or second most-admired woman. She first led the list in 1993 as first lady and has held the top spot for the past eight years as a New York senator and, now, the nation’s top diplomat. [snip]

Over the years, the list has reflected women’s changing roles. In 1948, the top-10 list included presidential daughter Margaret Truman and Princess Elizabeth of England as well as their mothers. Only one, former House member Clare Boothe Luce, had held elective office.

Now, it includes three current or former heads of state, two U.S. secretaries of State, a former governor and a writer, Maya Angelou.

There is not much good news other than the Hillary Clinton Sanity Bubble as we enter the second year of the Barack Obama Age Of Fake swamp. When you elect a boob, expect boobery. We expect a lot more boobery.

The boobery of the New Year will begin at midnight tonight with the Iran drama and the expired deadline. The boobery will continue with the Obama health scam. The boobery will continue. The insanity will not stop. The insanity will have to be stopped.

The insanity will be stopped with sanity. It will begin with massive Dimocratic defeats in November 2010. The insanity will end with Hillary 2012.


Barack Obama Is Not Qualified To Be President

We now come to the close of what feels like a hundred years of Obamas in Washington, but it’s really less than 12 full months. There are many year end assessments of Obama’s annus horrendus in Big Media this week so we thought we would add our assessment.

* * * * *

Barack Obama was not, and is not qualified to be President of the United States. Put aside Obama’s flim-flam history, the thugs he surrounds himself with, his treacheries, his total lack of accomplishments other than self-advancement, his risible résumé, his stinky body odor, the secretiveness of his past, the lack of documentation about earlier periods of his life, drug use, the self-admitted inability to keep a paper in front of him for 2 seconds before losing it, the lies about lost documents from his Chicago legislative office, the grabbing of credit for work others have done, the race-baiting, the woman-hating, the profitable alliances with criminals which even got him a house, the lack of interest in his constituents, the obvious lies when he denies positions he has even affixed his signature to on questionnaires, his lies about being a reformer when he swims in the swamps of Chicago corruption, the ugly church mentor of 20 plus years, his smearing of opponents with sexual or racial slurs, the gay-bashing, the secret deals, the incompetence, the long list of corruptions and boobery… – put all this history we have documented aside. Barack Obama is not qualified to be President because he does not have a world-view which is congruent with reality.

Winston Churchill was in the political wilderness for many years. Churchill’s world view was not viewed positively and few wanted to have much to do with the cigar chomping Winny. Churchill thought that Germany, at the heart of Europe and with many resources and people was a threat to Great Britain, and the peace of Europe. Many labeled Churchill a warmonger and shunned him. Churchill however stood firm. His knowledge of history and geography informed him that Germany was indeed a threat and he held fast to that understanding even though many ostracized him for it. The appeasement of other British leaders and the military actions of Germany eventually forced the world to acknowledge that Winston Churchill’s world view was the one most consistent with reality. Churchill became Prime Minister, then led the Western democracies and Christian civilization itself, from the abyss of despair into victory.

To be an American president means having a world view. Hillary Clinton has a world-view. Hillary Clinton mocked Obama in her insightful “celestial choirs” speech. Hillary Clinton mocked Obama about his foolish “no preconditions, in the first year, anywhere, anytime” meetings with America’s enemies. Hillary Clinton mocked Obama as “naive”. Hillary Clinton was saying that Obama did not know or understand how the world works. Hillary Clinton was saying that Obama’s world view was not congruent with reality. Hillary Clinton has been proved right.

Today, Leslie Gelb begins a very polite and gentle narrative, saying pretty much that Obama better get a reality based world-view, quickly or we all face continued disaster with a boob in charge. Writes Gelb, “If the president wants to be more than a one-term wonder, he needs to have a vision.”

Don’t be fooled by the year-end reprieve of President Obama because the economy looks a bit brighter and the Senate passed a health bill. He’s been pummeled hard all along the political spectrum. He’s in trouble. If he doesn’t overhaul himself and his administration quickly, right-wing bizarros will control Congress in 2011 and he’ll be looking for another job in 2013. He’ll end up a one-termer like Jimmy Carter and George H. W. Bush. Obama can’t afford to wait to make a mid-course correction a year from now. He’s got to make a quarter-course correction in the next months. He needs to prioritize and focus his energies on the economy, teach his opponents to fear him, and change some top personnel. Above all, he’s got to modify his own ways. He puts far too much store on being the smartest guy in the room and not enough on experience. He’d do well to remember that Jimmy Carter also rang all the IQ bells.

Gelb singles out H.W. Bush and Jimmy Carter as examples of single term presidents. Both had a problem understanding the world. George H.W. Bush squirmed when he discussed “the vision thing”. H.W. knew that for all the items on his résumé he lacked the clarity of vision, or world-view, of his predecessor Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan’s world-view was that Soviet Russia was “the evil Empire” and all his actions flowed easily from that perception. A world view is not a set of positions, it is a deep understanding which is in the bones of atavistic history. H.W. Bush made a mess in Iraq but was saved when Margaret Thatcher insisted Iraq be pushed out of Kuwait. H.W. also had a lifetime of experience in job after job which allowed him to accept there was much he did not know and that accepting advice from strong leaders like Thatcher were a help not a hindrance.

Jimmy Carter was a man conflicted. He wanted to be Pope but settled for president. He reacted to events because he did not have a world-view from the outset which comported with reality. Wanting to be an honest man and a peacemaking leader he instead was forced to react to evil in the world and bumbled and stumbled badly. Iran is a great part of his sad legacy.

Both Carter and H.W. had problems with “the vision thing”. Obama too is out of his element (that being the corrupt waters of second city Chicago) and that leads to disaster for us all.

Mind you, I want Barack Obama to succeed. The simple truth, increasingly ignored by Americans and non-Americans alike, is that if he fails, we all fail: Corrosive nastiness and stalemates grow at home, and the world drowns without effective American leadership. I’m talking here about Obama’s success specifically because too many Democrats border on incompetent and Republicans excel mainly at destruction. Obama shouldn’t console himself by believing that as jobs slowly return, his reelection will be saved. His problems, our problems, run much deeper than jobs.

Bill Clinton understood that American military and world power was based on economic power. Bill Clinton knew “it’s the economy, stupid”. American economic strength was deployed by Bill Clinton to solve intractable problems around the world. Northern Ireland and it’s age-old “troubles” is one example of Bill Clinton’s wielding power effectively. Bill Clinton also understood the Teddy Roosevelt and John Kennedy world-view “speak softly, but carry a big stick”. Bill Clinton kept America strong at home and abroad by keeping America economically strong.

More Gelb on boob Obama:

First and foremost, the president must have an overriding theme to discipline himself and focus Americans and the world. He’s been acting as if there are dozens of major issues, when there is only one—the economy, the economy, and the economy. Every other “major” issue has to be judged by how it affects the economy. Our economy is at the heart of our military and diplomatic power, and of our democracy, as Obama said at West Point—but he doesn’t say enough or nor do enough on a day-to-day basis.

Gelb does not understand that Obama knows pretty words and the crafted imagery of his speechwriters via the TelePrompter. But Obama does not understand the meaning of those words. It’s like having a young child star sing, with great feeling and great vocal power, songs about the heartbreak of love and life – the words are there but the understanding is not.

Gelb also fails to let go of the Hopium when he suggests the problems are with legislators and not with Obama when it comes to corruption and “thieving politicians”. As we wrote above, Gelb is being very polite and generous.

When things go wrong at basic levels, there’s only one solution: Go back to basics. Basics means infrastructure—human and physical. We’re falling apart. [snip] But our infrastructure won’t improve if decisions are left in the hands of thieving politicians in state legislatures, or if union workers just stand around so that jobs that used to take one year now take 10. The White House will have to fight to ensure the money gets to the people and the work gets done. That’s far more useful and necessary than Obama flying off on marginal journeys to Copenhagen and the Far East.

Dear Gelb, please understand, those “marginal journeys” Obama makes are his very air. Obama loves the attention and puffing himself up. These trips do not help America at all, but that is not Obama’s interest. Obama only cares about himself. One day Gelb will have the courage, or desire, to finally write this obvious truth.

Gelb wants Obama to go against his very nature, to “modify his own ways”. That’s like asking a coward to be courageous, a follower to lead, a crook to be honest, a Chicago politician to keep his hands in his own pockets.

“Veto that pork” exclaims Gelb. But Obama is a Chicago politician to whom pork projects and waste are the purpose of public life. Gelb pleads, “Same on the need to veto all those damned bridges to nowhere, the pork that candidate Obama promised to get rid of and that President Obama ignores.”

Gelb explains what a world-view is and the practical effects of acting on a world-view:

Elevating the economy to the sole priority doesn’t mean forsaking other major concerns. It means putting those concerns in economic perspective. Obama can fight global warming by funding new forms of energy, which also will reduce the production of offending carbons and stimulate the economy. To deal with health care, focus the final round of congressional bargaining on cost controls to get the deadly deficits under better control. Perhaps the main killer of our economy is that health costs will soon approach 20 percent of our economy. [snip]

Looking down the road, we can do more to protect ourselves through cheaper policies of devastating air strikes and commando raids, containment with allies who share our interests, tried and true divide-and-conquer tactics against our enemies, and good old reliable deterrence, than by embroiling ourselves in endlessly draining civil wars and insurgencies. It will be less expensive and more effective to let our friends know from the outset that their security is primarily their responsibility, that we will help a lot if they’ll fight, but that most of the fighting must be up to them.

Gelb wants Obama to do what Obama is unable to do. Gelb wants Obama to gain a lifetime of experience through sheer will not hard work. But Obama simply does not have the experience needed to be president. All Obama has to show is self-advancement. Obama is the apex of the age of fake: a celebrity who is known for being famous.

Obama is the problem. Obama is not qualified to be president. It’s like asking a chicken to soar with the eagle. It’s like asking Obama to be Hillary Clinton with her lifetime of experience. It’s like asking Obama to be Hillary Clinton with her lifetime fighting to make the world a better place even if she makes enemies while making things better.

Getting policy priorities established and White House power in gear requires that Obama fix up both himself and his team. He can’t keep pronouncing and speechifying on everything. Every time he does, he’s got to say something new, otherwise nothing gets reported. So, he says something new, and it’s different from what he said last time, everyone gets confused about his goals and policies. He also has to impose message discipline. One top economic counselor, Larry Summers, said that the economy and jobs are rebounding. Another top economic counselor, Christina Romer, said that they aren’t. His Vice President Joe Biden says that U.S. troops will start leaving Afghanistan on July 2011, and his senior military advisers say that it “depends.” Jimmy Carter drowned his power in such inconsistencies.

Obama must have White House staff and senior Cabinet officers who will share his policy focus and accept discipline. Above all, that requires that he be clear and consistent in his own mind about what he’s doing. One Obama word out of place and his advisers will simply run off in their own different directions. The president needs managers and strategists, experienced hands in getting things done.

Obama is the problem. Rahm Emanuel was successful in the Clinton White House because Hillary demoted him when he needed to be demoted, disciplined him when he needed to be disciplined, smacked him on the head when he needed to be smacked. All the Clinton era appointees in the world will not help Obama because the problem is Obama. Obama is not qualified to be president. Obama can’t be trusted by friend nor foe. Obama can’t be trusted.

Obama knew it all along. His supporters are beginning to realize it now. We knew it all along. Obama is not qualified to be president. Obama, is not qualified to be president.


Anatomy Of A Flim-Flam Man

We’re not talking about his manboobs. We’re talking about what makes Barack Obama tick.

After a long year of ceaseless flim-flams, which make the year feel more like a decade, some are beginning to trace an outline of Obama’s innards. We are getting a version of what Big Media thinks Obama is made of. It is important that we are finally getting to some evidence based analysis instead of worship.

Doctors, cosmologists, detectives, lawyers, mothers, fathers, most everyone has to look at the world around them and figure out how things work. Doctors must make a diagnosis and then devise a treatment. Cosmologists look at the universe and decide upon a theory of what they are seeing.

In earlier Earth history cosmologists agreed that the universe revolved around the earth. These cosmologists fought and derided those who believed the Sun was the center of our star system. Eventually the cosmologists who, based on evidence – not faith nor hope, determined the Earth revolved around the Sun were proven right.

The same can be said of the current debate about Barack Obama. Here at Big Pink we have contended that Barack Obama is a flim-flam man. Obama is only interested, as his own wife has stated, in his selfish self-advancement and careerism. According to us, Barack Obama is an opportunist who has never accomplished anything but his own self-advancement; Obama is not qualified to be president; is a boob; and lacks a basic rational world-view as well as any experience for the job he has been gifted.

Our views of Obama are evidence based. Whether it’s Rezko, what happened in Illinois with health care, Exelon, Obama’s race-baiting which goes back to his early Hawaii days where Obama blamed all his failures on race (“The fact that Obama was half-black and half-white didn’t matter much to anyone but Obama, Kakugawa says: “He made everything out like it was all racial.” )

The opposite view of Obama we deride as creations by Hopium guzzlers and Mess-iah worshipers. Their view is that Obama is wonderful and gifted and deserving of great respect and applause.

The two views of Obama are opposed to each other just as the views of those earlier cosmologists were opposed to each other. Eventually the evidence will be in and one side will be proven correct beyond any doubt.

In March of 2008 we commented in Dumb White People:

Amazing how the recollections of Obama’s friends over and over again conflict with Obama’s fictionalized accounts of his life story.

He made everything out like it was all racial.” Sounds like Reverend Wright. 20 years he sat in that church and listened alongside his children.

At the embarrassment which is NBC we see a faith based boob trying to understand why Obama is such a failure when so much was expected of him. The boob at NBC is no ordinary boob. The boob is the Washington Bureau Chief for NBC. Scratching his head to try to figure out why his god has failed, Mark Whitaker, the NBC boob in chief, does exactly what he should not do.

Seeking to make sense of Barack Obama’s first year as president — and why he has come across as competent but less magical than many Americans hopedI’ve been rereading his autobiography, “Dreams From My Father.

To revisit that memoir is to be reminded of what a mixed-up childhood the president had. The brilliant but troubled Kenyan father who abandoned his teenage bride and their infant son. The footloose mother who took “Barry” to Indonesia with a second husband, then shipped him back to Hawaii to live with his grandparents. The sense of alienation he felt as a young black man growing up with few African American friends or role models.

Mark Whitaker is a fool. Instead of asking himself if “Dreams From My Father” is a bunch of lies, Whitaker goes on prayerful knees to his pilgrimage site, just like Muslims go to the Kaaba in Mecca. Losing his faith Whitaker re-reads his Barack Bible of lies to try to recapture the glow of earlier cathedral visits to light Obama Hope candles. This is the man in charge of NBC News is Washington!

Instead of acting like a journalist and wondering if he has been flim-flammed, Mark Whitaker seeks to renew his faith in the golden calf. Instead of asking if Obama’s “autobiography” is a bunch of lies which has deceived readers, Whitaker makes new excuses for Obama. Instead of asking, like a journalist, if Obama’s history is more akin to a rejected and dislocated youth who turned to back-slapping and flim-flam confidence games to fill the hole in his life (caused by his disgusting sperm-spraying father and his, to be polite, open petals mother) Whitaker swallows the fake history whole.

Whitaker also absolves Obama of any blame while blaming everyone else. Obama was brilliant on the economy says Whitaker, it was those dastard Dimocrats who harmed Obama’s brilliant plan by gorging themselves on pork projects. Whitaker blames evil Wall Street for being selfish, unlike his wonderful Obama. On Afghanistan Obama is brilliant, according to Whitaker but those “manipulative” generals and advisers made Obama look like a boob. Whitaker blames the health care fiasco not on wonderful Obama but on “grandiose” legislators who hijacked wonderful Obama’s plans.

This nonsense comes from NBC’s top man in Washington. And not to worry Obama fans, Whitaker is sure Obama will brilliantly learn from his boobery. This is the nonsense and worshipful crap that comes from NBC:

Yet, if this first year has sometimes made President Obama seem caught off-guard and frustrated by the meanness and mayhem of Washington, no one should assume that he won’t learn from the experience.

The other theme running through “Dreams From My Father” is Obama’s capacity for self-examination and self-improvement. He has applied that introspection to becoming a better person, a better writer and speaker, and a better politician. In Hawaii for the holidays, taking the long walks he so misses at the White House, Obama may well be reflecting on what he needs to do to be a more effective president.

Mark Whitaker writes like a love struck dumb teen. Mark Whitaker is a self-interested fool and boob, just like the network he serves.

Doyle McManus, at the L.A. Times has not yet caught up with our analysis, but at least he is acting like a journalist and holding Obama to account using Obama’s own words. McManus, is also slowly drawing the anatomy of a flim-flam man:

He promised to save the economy from ruin, redesign the healthcare system, reregulate the financial industry, retool energy policy, slow global warming, reform education, write a new immigration law and serve as midwife to a new era of bipartisan cooperation. He said he would close the prison camp at Guantanamo, organize an orderly withdrawal from Iraq, stave off defeat in Afghanistan, negotiate with Iran, make progress toward Israeli-Palestinian peace, convince the world’s Muslims that America was their friend, launch a new drive toward global nuclear disarmament — and, while he was at it, bring the 2016 Olympics to Chicago.

McManus outlines the celestial choir hopes and dreams of Obama worshipers. Then McManus does the important analysis which point by point shows Obama’s flim-flam in full flower:

Obama turned out to be masterful at launching new policies but inconsistent at getting them to work. His presidency threatened to fall into a worrisome pattern: the announcement of a lofty goal, the delegation of implementation to second-rank officials, a missed deadline or two, last-minute intervention by the president to rescue the effort from collapse, and, finally, mixed results — followed by a statement claiming victory.

Isn’t that exactly what we have seen?
Notice the fact based approach McManus employs at the L.A. Times versus the faith based boobery of Mark Whitaker at NBC. McManus looks at the facts as they are, not as he wishes they were. Obama’s stimulus scam McManus notes is a failure in voters eyes. The Obama homeowners plan (not the wonderful Hillary HOLC program which should have been the priority) McManus declares “a bust”, based on evidence. The Obama Wall Street bailout McManus measures appropriately as bankers “awarding themselves huge bonuses”.

McManus notes that, based on the evidence, Obama is not a communicator:

A Pew poll this month found that only 30% of respondents believed Obama’s policies had made the economy better. A president who made his name as a gifted speechmaker has fallen into a spectacular failure in communicating. He might have served himself better by making fewer trips to Scandinavia and more to construction sites in Middle America.

The effect, based on evidence, is failure:

There’s been an important spillover effect: Obama’s other policies — on healthcare and energy, for example — have lost popular support along with his economic plan. Despite the depth of the economic crisis, the public isn’t clamoring for more federal intervention; quite the contrary. That means Obama hasn’t succeeded in building a strong constituency for his overall philosophy of government, a shortfall that will limit what he can achieve from here on.

McManus is generous to Obama. He does not fully see the disaster this year has been. He credits Obama on the economy and on healthcare as well as in foreign policy, because there have been “no outright disasters.”

We of course see the economic devastation of mounting debt, likely inflation, and a looted middle class to benefit insurance companies. We see Iran as an outright disaster, and a lost opportunity.

McManus is to be complimented for holding Obama to account, using Obama’s own standards.

McManus is at least trying to act like a journalist, letting facts lead him to conclusions. It’s what good detectives and good journalists do.

Let facts lead to conclusions. It’s what flim-flam men fear.


Where’s Obama?

Off on a two week Hollywood Hawaiian vacation Obama is busy taking care, as usual, of what benefits himself. The world is going to hell in a hand-basket, but Obama is too busy to care – presumably flashing his manboobs on sandy beaches and on the luxurious estate he now calls home.

We are thankful that finally we have a respite from the ceaseless Obama publicity stunt appearances, but many are asking “Where’s Obama?”

Still no word from the president about the failed Christmas Day terrorism attempt, but the White House did distribute a statement from him today on the death of Percy Sutton.

Obama called Sutton “a true hero to African Americans in New York City and around the country” whose “life-long dedication to the fight for civil rights and his career as an entrepreneur and public servant made the rise of countless young African Americans possible.”

The president also made time for a workout and some early-morning basketball today. On the guest list for a couple of games at the gym: Marty Nesbitt, Eric Whitaker, Denis McDonough, Bill Burton, Reggie Love, Pete Newell, Grant Campbell and Ben Finkenbinder.

Today, another incident on a flight from Amsterdam (another Nigerian it appears, on the same flight number) but Obama is busy – possibly watching Tiger Woods videos to improve his laughable golf game.

Where’s Obama? Certainly not thinking about the deaths in Iran.

Iranian police opened fire on protesters in Tehran on Sunday, killing at least four people, including a nephew of the opposition leader Mir Hussein Moussavi, as vast crowds of demonstrators flooded the streets of cities across Iran and fiercely fought security forces, according to witnesses and opposition Web sites.

The protests, taking place on the holiday marking the death of Shiite Islam’s holiest martyr, were the bloodiest — and among the largest — since the uprisings that followed Iran’s disputed presidential election last June, with hundreds of thousands of people thronging Tehran alone, witnesses said. There were reports of hundreds of injured people and numerous arrests.

In Tehran, thick crowds marched down a central avenue in mid-morning, defying official warnings of a harsh crackdown on protests as they chanted, “Death to the dictator!” They refused to retreat even as police fired tear gas, charged them with batons and discharged warning shots.

The police then opened fire directly into the crowd, opposition Web sites said, citing witnesses. At least four people were killed, the Web sites reported, and photographs circulated of a man with a bloodied head being carried from the scene.

One of the dead was Ali Moussavi, Mr. Moussavi’s 35-year-old nephew, the Parleman News Web site reported. He was shot near the heart at midday in Tehran’s Enghelab Square, the report said.

The Iranian people are rising against their oppressors. Obama however is busy flashing his manboobs and looking at the mirror and thinking “What a clever fellow am I.” For Americans it is a lost opportunity to express solidarity with a freedom movement filled with real Hope for real Change. But Obama is missing.

The day’s clashes showed an opposition movement that is becoming bolder and more direct in its challenge to Iran’s ruling authorities. Yet the protesters continued to reclaim Islamic symbols from the government, which has cast its opponents as anti-religious rioters. On Saturday, when protesters gathered outside a prayer hall where the reformist former president Muhammad Khatami was speaking, they chanted, “The family of the Imam are with us,” a reference to Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the leader of Iran’s 1979 revolution. Ayatollah Khomeini’s grandson, Hassan, is widely said to support the opposition movement.

Charles Krauthammer, before the latest bloodletting in Iran, called Obama “feckless”.

On Tuesday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did not just reject President Obama’s latest feckless floating nuclear deadline. He spat on it, declaring that Iran “will continue resisting” until the U.S. has gotten rid of its 8,000 nuclear warheads.

So ends 2009, the year of “engagement,” of the extended hand, of the gratuitous apology — and of spinning centrifuges, two-stage rockets and a secret enrichment facility that brought Iran materially closer to becoming a nuclear power.

We lost a year. But it was not just any year. It was a year of spectacularly squandered opportunity. In Iran, it was a year of revolution, beginning with a contested election and culminating this week in huge demonstrations mourning the death of the dissident Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri — and demanding no longer a recount of the stolen election but the overthrow of the clerical dictatorship.

Obama responded by distancing himself from this new birth of freedom. First, scandalous silence. Then, a few grudging words. Then relentless engagement with the murderous regime. With offer after offer, gesture after gesture — to not Iran, but the “Islamic Republic of Iran,” as Obama ever so respectfully called these clerical fascists — the U.S. conferred legitimacy on a regime desperate to regain it.

Why is this so important? Because revolutions succeed at that singular moment, that imperceptible historical inflection, when the people, and particularly those in power, realize that the regime has lost the mandate of heaven. With this weakening dictatorship desperate for affirmation, why is the U.S. repeatedly offering just such affirmation?

Apart from ostracizing and delegitimizing these gangsters, we should be encouraging and reinforcing the demonstrators.

Poor Charles Krauthammer. He thinks Obama cares. Obama only cares for his comfort and his self-advancement. Why should he disturb his slumbers and the airing of his manboobs?

Obama is not about to rouse himself to denounce a privileged terrorist.

With his wealth, privilege and education at one of Britain’s leading universities, Abdul Farouk Abdulmutallab had the world at his feet – able to choose from a range of futures in which to make his mark on the world.

Instead, the son of one of Nigeria’s most important figures opted to make his impact in a very different way – by detonating 80g of explosives sewn into his underpants, and trying to destroy a passenger jet as it came in to land at Detroit Airport on Christmas Day.

As he was charged by US authorities last night with attempting to blow up an airliner, a surprising picture emerged of the would-be bomber.

Abdulmutallab, 23, had lived a gilded life, and, for the three years he studied in London, he stayed in a £2m flat. He was from a very different background to many of the other al-Qa’ida recruits who opt for martyrdom.

Perhaps Obama viewed Abdulmutallab as a potential donor. In either case, Obama has gone missing even as Abdulmutallab’s father took steps which must be the most painful a father can ever take:

Abdulmutallab’s father, Umaru, is the former economics minister of Nigeria. He retired earlier this month as the chairman of the First Bank of Nigeria but is still on the boards of several of Nigeria’s biggest firms, including Jaiz International, a holding company for the Islamic Bank. The 70-year-old, who was also educated in London, holds the Commander of the Order of the Niger as well as the Italian Order of Merit.

Dr Mutallab said he was planning to meet with police in Nigeria last night after realising his son had joined the notorious roster of al-Qa’ida terrorists, and is said to have warned the US authorities about his son’s extreme views six months ago.

Dr. Mutallab, presumably in deep pain, did his duty and reported his terrorist son. But duty is not in the Obama vocabulary. “Self-advancement” and “careerism”, as Michelle Obama herself described Obama, are part of Obama’s life aims.

Where’s Obama? Ask his freezing constituents in Chicago. Ask those in Illinois when Obama killed universal health care from the state legislature. Ask those Obama bamboozled by pretending to oppose Exelon on radioactive leaks while really siding with Exelon.

Where’s Obama? Obama is on the side of what benefits himself. The concerns of ordinary Americans are not to be found in Obama’s mirror.

Where’s Obama? Like George W. Bush, Obama is on vacation when he should be on the job.


Zat You Santa Clause?

Santa has come and gone leaving presents for the nice and coals for the naughty. Santa has also left us with this lesson: Don’t count your chickens before they come home to roost.

Barack Obama and the Dimocrats, think they are Santa, dispensing trillions of dollars squeezed from a Chinese government credit card. Americans however are growing resistant to “gifts” purchased with America’s future and the future of their children.

That’s why Barack Obama’s approval ratings continue to diminish. Approval for the health scam is on the death bed too as Americans realize they will not be better off post Obama health scam than prior to the scam. Even after the Senate vote Americans continue to disapprove and express overwhelming lack of understanding of the crooked scam sold as a straight home run by delusional Dimocrats.

Michelle Obama too, even with worshipful Big Media coverage, is breaking like a glass ornament hitting cement reality.

Santa Clause has come and gone. He gave a Merry Christmas and a Ho, Ho, Ho. Santa then looked at the damage done by Barack Obama and ran, scared of what he will find next year. Santa came, saw, and ran – back to the North Pole.


April In December

Is it really April Fools’ Day and not Christmas Eve Eve? Is this the cruelest month, not the winter wonderland month?

In the next few days as the attention shifts from the political to the personal we expect skulduggery to reign supreme. The travesties to come we can only imagine now that Obama and Obama’s Dimocrats have at least a week of “Friday Dump Day” opportunities.

We know that tomorrow, as shoppers (those with jobs) head to buy gifts and the networks of travel are filled with “Home For the Holidays” voyagers, Senate Dimocrats will be busy. Not only will there be a vote to advance the Obama health scam there will also be a new debt ceiling authorized.

The measure, passed last week by the House of Representatives, would increase the debt limit, now at $12.1 trillion, by $290 billion.

Senate Democrats may approve the measure largely by themselves because most, if not all, Republicans are expected to vote against it, Republican aides said. Democrats control the Senate, 60-40.

The good news is that Dimocrats were not able to raise the debt ceiling as much as they wanted. That’s what passes for good news this April December.

Democratic leaders had hoped to raise the limit by at least $1.8 trillion, enough to ensure they would not have to revisit the issue before the November 2010 congressional elections. But they were unable to agree on measures that lawmakers had hoped to attach to the legislation to control the debt. The two-month hike provides more time to reach a deal.

The government posted a record $1.4 trillion deficit in the fiscal year ended September 30 and is on track this year to spend at least $1 trillion more than it collects.

The vote to raise the debt ceiling only $290 billion was the result of a deal between Senate Republicans and Dimocrats:

Senate Republicans agreed Tuesday to allow a Christmas Eve vote on raising the federal debt ceiling but are insisting on a 60-vote supermajority for passage, a precedent that could come back to haunt both parties in the future.

Debt ceiling votes are inevitably partisan but high-stakes ventures, and this is even more so today, since failure risks throwing the government into default at a time when Washington relies on foreign investment to help finance its burgeoning deficits.

For this reason, the long-standing bipartisan Senate practice has been to require only a simple majority on free-standing bills to raise the debt ceiling. Tuesday’s agreement breaks new ground, establishing that 60 votes will be needed for passage on this week’s debt vote and another to be debated in January.

Republicans are hypocrites with their complaints of raising the debt ceiling but the good news is that they are at least doing something to impede the hemorrhage of money. It is sad that such harsh measures, such as a 60 vote threshold, must be deployed in order to debate fiscal waste, but it is April and the fools are in charge.

More raises for the debt limit are in store and maybe some sanity will someday prevail. But don’t expect sanity or the fools to be rousted soon. This April Fools’ Day might last years.

Pending in the Senate already is a second House resolution raising the ceiling by about half this, or $925 billion. It’s now anticipated that this measure will be called up Jan. 20 and amended by Democrats to set a new unspecified target. And as part of Tuesday’s agreement, 11 potential amendments will be made in order, including five backed by Republicans. [snip]

A 60-vote threshold is also established for this amendment to be added, and the confrontation sets the stage for what could be a game-changing debate on fiscal policy — all within days of President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address and the release of his new 2011 budget in February.

We don’t really expect a “game-changing debate on fiscal policy”. We do expect a lot of flowery words, which will add up to a bunch of lies, and promises and more promises on top of promises.

All the promises will be broken however. The latest bit of news this April, just before Christmas, has to do with the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. Remember, Obama promised in January to close that durn thing down?

As a result, officials now believe that they are unlikely to close the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and transfer its population of terrorism suspects until 2011 at the earliest — a far slower timeline for achieving one of President Obama’s signature national security policies than they had previously hinted.

Here at Big Pink we are not surprised at all. We wrote today’s news back on January 12, 2009. Our crystal ball is still working it seems. This is what we wrote:

When Obama made his campaign promise to close Guantanamo the situation was just as complex as it is today. If anything the actual issue itself should be less complex because there has been so much more time to think about Guantanamo. Obama is simply hedging his bets and flim-flamming Americans with flowery words. Obama can’t be trusted.

The Obama flim-flams are very easy to predict. If Obama says it’s a sunny day, look out your window because it is snowing or raining. If Obama says “I didn’t campaign on the public option” you can bet he campaigned on the public option.

Well, looky here, Obama did say yesterday “I didn’t campaign on the public option”.

In the interview, Obama vigorously defended the legislation, saying he is “not just grudgingly supporting the bill. I am very enthusiastic about what we have achieved.”

“Nowhere has there been a bigger gap between the perceptions of compromise and the realities of compromise than in the health-care bill,” Obama said. “Every single criteria for reform I put forward is in this bill.” [snip]

Those elements are in the House and Senate versions of the legislation; their competing proposals will have to be reconciled in conference committee next year. The House bill includes a government-run insurance plan favored by progressive Democrats; the Senate version does not. “I didn’t campaign on the public option,” Obama said in the interview.

Even the Hopium guzzlers at the Gabor sister website are laughing at that Obama lie. In August, those Hopium guzzlers posted video after video and document after document (including from the Obama campaign promise website) detailing Obama’s lies on health care.

Our favorite category of Obama health care lies is the one about how he would block lobbyists and beat up on Big Pharma – before he made the deals with Big Pharma lobbyists.

And we can’t forget the attacks on Hillary over mandates. Obama was against mandates before he was for mandates. Hillary’s mandates made sense because they were part of a well thought out plan for health care and she would have fought for her sensible plan.

Expect more Obama lies in the coming week while Americans are distracted with family and deteriorating finances. Obama and the Dimocrats think Americans are fools. So expect more scams, bigger scams, scamier scams, before the new year.

The calendar says it’s December, but for Obama and his Dimocrats, it’s always April.


Obama’s Rezko Healthcare: Arrogant Audacity Dooms Dims

It is amazing how much of our Obama analysis (since April 19, 2007) now is no longer considered outré but rather conventional wisdom.

The past is prologue. From our first month of publication we noted that Obama cared more for the Rezkos of his world than for his own middle class and poor constituents. The Obama health care scam is Rezko healthcare.

“But fear not” say Obama and his Obama Dimocrats, “the stupid voters will never catch on.”

We are not being harsh. That indeed is the Obama Dimocrat strategy – that voters will forget and be bamboozled in the coming year. The Wall Street Journal details how “Democrats Pin 2010 Hopes on Bill”:

Slumping in the polls and struggling to pass climate and financial legislation, President Barack Obama and Democratic leaders are counting on an historic health care victory to buoy their electoral prospects in 2010. [snip]

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel has been telling Democrats a win on the health issue will reverse the slide in public opinion, just as passage of another controversial proposal, the North American Free Trade Agreement, lifted President Bill Clinton in the polls.

The Obama Dimocrats are betting that after a year of flowery Obama speeches and advertisements in 2010 that Americans will reverse opinion and reward Obama Dimocrats instead of the current vilification. Ordinarily that is a good bet. American voters are easily distracted, as evidenced by the 2008 primary elections. This is especially true when the Big Media Party decides to spearhead the bamboozlement.

But things might be different on the health scam because of reasons we have outlined earlier and because the Republicans intend to continue the fight at the ballot box next year:

“If Democrats want to run on this, then we invite them to go ahead and do so. The Obama-Pelosi agenda continues to feed into the emerging 2010 narrative that this is a Congress that spends too much, taxes too much and borrows too much,” Ken Spain, communications director of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said Sunday.

Last week’s Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll not only showed a substantial majority opposed to the plan, but for the first time, it showed a plurality favoring the status quo over passage.

The Obama health care scam will be closely watched, which bodes ill for Obama and his Dimocrats. Health care is a concern of all Americans and we suspect Americans will be closely watching for actual results, as opposed to listening to flowery words. The Obama Dimocrat promises on health care will not match the results and there will be a reckoning.

The Democratic leadership is particularly relying on a health victory as other domestic priorities struggle. The failure of the United Nations climate summit to reach a binding accord could cripple Mr. Obama’s chances of securing legislation to limit greenhouse-gas emissions, even after many House Democrats took a politically painful vote for legislation to cap carbon emissions.

Mr. Obama’s standing with American voters has fallen more dramatically in his first year than any recent president, in part because he was so popular at the outset, but also because voters perceive he has not accomplished much, said Democratic pollster Peter Hart.

His 47% approval rating is just the start of his problems, pollsters say. The Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll also found the first real evidence that Mr. Obama’s personal bond with Americans — his likability — has been battered by high unemployment, Democratic infighting and months of bickering over health care, Just 29% of Americans now say they feel “very positive” about the president, down from 36% in October and 47% in February.

And at least some of that bleeding is coming from Democrats; his 86% approval rating in September is now down to 79% among Democrats.

In an interview Friday, Mr. Emanuel expressed little concern for the president’s standing with the Democratic base. Mr. Emanuel said the liberal wing of the party is already coming back to the fold.

The Wall Street Journal report is confirmed by Politico:

There’s no point in the White House saying this, so it won’t.

But an official predicted to me the other day that Obama’s numbers would hit 60 after the health care bill passes, and Chuck Schumer seems to think roughly the same thing: that the public polling on the Democratic reform bill will turn around “soon.”

When people see what is in this bill and when people see what it does, they will come around,” Schumer said. “The reason people are negative is not the substance of the bill, but the fears that the opponents have laid out. When those fears don’t materialize, and people see the good in the bill, the numbers are going to go up.”

As we wrote, ordinarily the Obama Dimocrats are placing a good bet on Americans forgetting. But health care “reform” is what Americans expect and they are about to not only witness, but experience, a health scam fiasco costing individuals, in some cases, thousands of dollars. And the Republicans are going to make the Obama health scam an issue in 2010.

Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairman Michael Steele promised on Monday political repercussion for lawmakers who support healthcare reform.

Steele said that the GOP would seek to ramp up pressure on centrist lawmakers who could still oppose the health bill in Congress, but said they would more likely face a “pink slip” from voters if they stick with the legislation.

“The fact that they (the democrats) have total disregard for the concerns and interests of the American people by pursuing this boondoggle of a healthcare bill,” the party chairman said in a conference call on Monday. “I plan to have my foot on the throats of Democrats in this issue, and hold them accountable.” [snip]

“It’s game on. Harry Reid: Take comfort,” Steele said of the Senate majority leader, a Nevada Democrat who’s expected to face a difficult reelection battle next fall. “You’ve got a lot of friends but you and your friends are going to be looking for work in January 2011.”

“Guess what: you’re going to have a lot more to fear and a lot more to explain over the next year when you get home,” Steele said of lawmakers who support health reform. “Come next November, they’ll speak. And they’ll speak very loudly, and very clearly.”

Michael Steele is a bit of a blowhard so we take what he says with a plateful of salt. But we do believe that Republicans, at every level, will see that the health scam is a prime motivator for voters in 2010, which is why we believe the Republican threats.

Sean Trende at RealClearPolitics summarizes the situation:

But Democrats seem to have made the collective decision that, for better or for worse, their fate lies with Barack Obama succeeding with his legislative agenda. I think this is a gross miscalculation, but it isn’t entirely irrational either. Look at it this way: If nothing gets done in the next year, the Democrats are almost certainly in deep trouble in 2010. If the bill passes and Obama’s popularity continues to sag, the Democrats are potentially (probably, in my estimation) in even deeper trouble.

Their only hope for a good outcome is that the bill passes, and Obama somehow convinces the nation over the course of the next year that it was a good thing, that unemployment declines substantially, and that his popularity rises. This isn’t particularly likely, but it is the only path that offers some hope of survival for Democrats in marginal seats. To paraphrase Obama, if Obama is unpopular, the Republicans are coming after Democrats either way. Their only hope for Obama to become popular is probably to keep passing things and hope the economy turns around. And Nelson can afford to wait until 2012 for this to happen.

Republicans should beware, the American voter can be bamboozled. Hillary supporters know this all too well. But Americans are also capable of seeing the difference between promise and execution. Many Americans were bamboozled in 2008, but after a few months realized Obama was all flowery talk and bamboozlement and have turned on Obama.

Republicans have facts on their side and should employ the facts in the remainder of the year and in 2010. Republicans should hold Obama to his own flowery words standards and show Americans the difference between Obama words and Obama actions.

On health care, there are all the Obama promises in election season and the Obama actions this year. Jay Cost has a too brief review of Obama’s health scam actions:

It stinks of influence peddlers. Reviewing winners and losers in the Senate health care bill shows clearly that it was written with the full advice and consent of privileged interest groups. [snip]

Big corporations get nice paydays, too. Private insurance industries get the public option eliminated. Meanwhile, PhRMA made sure that there would be no significant prescription drug re-importation provision in the bill. Byron Dorgan said the FDA might have put the kibosh on it because of pressure from the White House.

Yet when it comes to big, wet kisses for entrenched interests, you can’t beat the individual mandate. People will soon have to buy health insurance from private companies, or else face a tax penalty from Uncle Sam. Democrats who think they can come back later to fix this perverse result are kidding themselves. The insurance lobby is already so powerful that Democrats couldn’t get the public option through now – what makes them think they’ll be able to later, after they’ve given insurers 30 million additional customers, and required every last American to do business with them? The insurance companies are going to be to the 21st century what Standard Oil was to the 19th.

Republicans also need to call this “reform” what it is – “Rezkocare”. We started to write about Antoin “Tony” Rezko in April 2007. In April 2007 we began to question the hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars funnelled by Obama to Rezko.

In The Case Of The Missing State Senator we asked about Obama “How did his experience as a “community organizer” inform his work as a state legislator?”

Our questions about Obama were easy to answer. Obama does not even have to choose, he is on the side of the Tony Rezkos and Big Insurance and Big Pharma.

When Obama constituents shivered and froze in Rezko owned housing, Obama was busy collecting campaign checks from the very same Rezko. This is a history that was never explored (other than here and other Hillary sites) during the primary elections nor in the general elections. African-Americans, poor and helpless, were ignored so that Obama could help landlord Rezko continue his scams and even obtain minority set-aside program status to continue his scams. The past is prologue, Republicans.

Republicans, the past is prologue. Obama did not care about his freezing constituents in Chicago and Obama certainly did not care about his constituents when it came to health care in Illinois or radioactive leaks in Illinois. Obama health scams nationally were imported from his Chicago days.

The Obama history on health care was first discussed on Big Pink in September 2007. On September 17, 2009 we again discussed that Obama history (The Obama Health Plan Obama Supporters Do Not Want To Discuss). It is an ugly history which has not been employed in election campaigns ever. It’s time for the Republicans to begin to discuss the Obama history we began to discuss in 2007:

For all the Obama flowery words the treacherous snake is always ‘neath the flower. The goal Obama killed then was “quality healthcare at costs that are reasonable”. What we know of current plans is that the costs will be unreasonable and that “quality” is not to be mentioned. The transfer of wealth to insurance companies with the IRS as the Chicago style fee payment enforcer terrorizing citizens on behalf of the insurance companies is the current Obama Hoped for Change.

What is now, is what was – in Illinois

Republicans, we think, will indeed fight the Obama health scam next year because it is in their interests. It is the way to win election. More and more Americans will see the connect of Obama’s scams in Chicago and Obama’s scams in Washington.

In 2008, Americans believed the Obama campaign words “Hope and Change”. Now Americans know they have been scammed. Even the Hopium guzzlers are getting a clue that “Hope and Change” meant only that Obama believed they were “Dopes and Deranged”.

Even on the website run by the fourth Gabor sister, reality is setting in. It is a reality we wrote about years ago.

As the president’s job performance numbers and ratings on his handling of virtually every domestic issue have fallen below 50 percent, the Democratic base has become demoralized, and Independents have gone from his source of strength to his Achilles Heel, it’s time to reflect on why. [snip]

It isn’t hard for them to see that the winners seem to be the same no matter who the voters select (Wall Street, big oil, big Pharma, the insurance industry). [snip]

What’s costing the president and courting danger for Democrats in 2010 isn’t a question of left or right, because the president has accomplished the remarkable feat of both demoralizing the base and completely turning off voters in the center. If this were an ideological issue, that would not be the case. He would be holding either the middle or the left, not losing both.

What’s costing the president are three things: a laissez faire style of leadership that appears weak and removed to everyday Americans, a failure to articulate and defend any coherent ideological position on virtually anything, and a widespread perception that he cares more about special interests like bank, credit card, oil and coal, and health and pharmaceutical companies than he does about the people they are shafting.

Americans were bamboozled in 2007 and 2008. But now reality has hit Americans between the eyes and they are not happy. What we wrote about, and were attacked for since 2007, is now conventional wisdom:

Consider the president’s leadership style, which has now become clear: deliver a moving speech, move on, and when push comes to shove, leave it to others to decide what to do if there’s a conflict, because if there’s a conflict, he doesn’t want to be anywhere near it.[snip]

Leadership means heading into the eye of the storm and bringing the vessel of state home safely, not going as far inland as you can because it’s uncomfortable on the high seas. This president has a particular aversion to battling back gusting winds from his starboard side (the right, for the nautically challenged) and tends to give in to them. He just can’t tolerate conflict, and the result is that he refuses to lead.

We have seen the same pattern of pretty speeches followed by empty exhortations on issue after issue.

The writer of the above was an Obama Hopium guzzler in 2008. Now he writes what we wrote years ago. What we have been saying all along is:

Obama is a Chicago flim-flam man who bamboozles with flowery words. Obama is weak and not a fighter. Obama is a stooge of powerful interests, such as the Big Media Party. Obama only cares about self advancement and will sell anyone out. Obama can’t be trusted and he is a boob. Obama is a treacherous, self-interested, boob.

The Obama Hopium guzzler from the Gabor website also seems to agree with us that Obama is the Third Bush Term:

Like most Americans I talk to, when I see the president on television, I now change the channel the same way I did with Bush. With Bush, I couldn’t stand his speeches because I knew he meant what he said. I knew he was going to follow through with one ignorant, dangerous, or misguided policy after another. With Obama, I can’t stand them because I realize he doesn’t mean what he says — or if he does, he just doesn’t have the fire in his belly to follow through. He can’t seem to muster the passion to fight for any of what he believes in, whatever that is. He’d make a great queen — his ceremonial addresses are magnificent — but he prefers to fly Air Force One at 60,000 feet and “stay above the fray.”

We thought a lifetime fighter for Americans, with intellectual heft and experience, was the president America needed. But she was called a “racist”. Her experience was denigrated. Her intelligence and maturity deplored. We were right.

When Obama said during the campaign he would televise meetings on health care reform on C-SPAN so that Americans could see who was carrying water for the insurance and pharmaceutical companies Obama knew he was lying.

Obama lied because he is the one carrying water for those he attacks with words. Obama’s actions speak differently.

Obama is on the side of special interests in Washington in the same way he was on the side of the Rezkos in Chicago.

Obama Dimocrats are audaciously betting that Americans will not catch on to the flim-flam in 2010, as in 2008. But audacity often goes hand-in-hand with arrogance. Audacious arrogance will doom the dims in 2010.


Obama’s Health Care Hell

Shortly after midnight Dimocrats in the Senate will build a mausoleum commemorating their stupidity – to house the suicided corpse that once was the great Democratic Party. There will be a vote to end the debate and pass a Senate version of Obama’s health care scam and it will likely pass.

Long ago we stated that we did not know what was worse for Dimocrats – to pass the health scam they call “reform” or to fail to pass the health scam. We believe that failure to pass will be worse because it will effectively end the present administration Dimocrats are heavily invested in.

These same Dimocrats decided last year to destroy a great woman from becoming president in 2008 because she knew what to do and she would lead the nation, not them. These same Dimocrats decided to inject Chicago corruption into the national bloodstream because they would then be in charge, not the neophyte, unqualified, inexperience flim-flam man from Chicago.

There are voices who disagree with us that stopping the health scam is worse for Dimocrats than passage. Matthew Dowd, the chief strategist for George W. Bush is one such voice. Ordinarily, such a voice is suspect, but Dowd makes a strong case. Dowd argues:

Unlike many other pundits and political experts in both parties, I think that passage of a bill by the Democrats at this point will be politically damaging to both the president and congressional Democrats. Conversely, defeat of the legislation is much more likely to hurt Republicans in Congress.

Dowd’s discusses the drop in support for Obama among independent and swing voters who oppose the legislation.

As Wednesday’s Post-ABC poll shows, a majority of Americans believe that if this bill passes, their health-care costs will rise, the federal deficit will increase, the costs of the overall health-care system will climb, and their own care would be better if the system stays as is.

Dowd’s main point is this:

If this legislation passes, Democrats will be held accountable for any failures or problems in the system. So if Americans’ insurance premiums rise, they will blame the Democrats. If patients have to wait in line at emergency rooms, it will be seen as the Democrats’ fault. If health-care costs don’t drop, the Democrats will face the wrath of the electorate.

The other side of the coin according to Dowd is this:

If the legislation fails, Democrats can blame Republicans by saying reform was in sight and the GOP blocked it without offering a real alternative to decrease costs and increase access.

Dowd, recalling George W. Bush’s Pyrrhic victory in the Iraq War bestows this curse for the future:

Democrats pushing so hard for success on health care could find themselves in a situation resembling President Bush’s situation on Iraq. They could topple the statue and win the day, but lose politically over the coming months and years.

Dowd does mention Bill Clinton’s second statement in support of the legislation,

Democrats (including former president Bill Clinton) claim that they need this bill to pass for political reasons. But let’s examine that. At present, a majority of Americans are against the effort, the legislation lacks bipartisan support, the costs of the reforms are upfront, and the benefits won’t kick in until after the 2012 elections. When has that ever been a formula for political success?

On Bill Clinton, we believe that “the medium is the message”. Bill Clinton has spoken in private, behind closed doors, to Senate Dimocrats (the same ones who stood by while Obama supporters called Bill a “racist”) and also issued a statement. Bill Clinton has not been campaigning or touring and giving public speeches at rallies to support the legislation. This pro forma, almost ministerial, verbiage is interpreted by the desperate as a full-throated battle cry. It isn’t. When Bill fully supports a cause, it’s full throttle, not half measure, or half statement, as in this case.

Bill does understand that failure to pass the Obamination will be Obama’s Waterloo. But the question remains, is Obama’s Waterloo preferable for Democratic interests to passing the Obaminable legislation? A conservative Republican is sure passage will be a Pyrrhic victory. Bill Kristol:

When a fellow conservative tried to cheer me up this morning by assuring me that the Senate Democrats’ victory on health care was going to be a Pyrrhic one, I realized I didn’t remember much about Pyrrhus.

I went of course to Wikipedia. That fine reference work defines a Pyrrhic victory as “a victory with devastating cost to the victor.” It also provides this quotation from Plutarch’s Life of Pyrrhus, describing the aftermath of the battle of Asculum in 279 BCE:

“The armies separated; and, it is said, Pyrrhus replied to one that gave him joy of his victory that one more such victory would utterly undo him. For he had lost a great part of the forces he brought with him, and almost all his particular friends and principal commanders; there were no others there to make recruits, and he found the confederates in Italy backward. On the other hand, as from a fountain continually flowing out of the city, the Roman camp was quickly and plentifully filled up with fresh men, not at all abating in courage for the loss they sustained, but even from their very anger gaining new force and resolution to go on with the war.

So: Pyrrhus’s victory became Pyrrhic because the victorious party lost many of its supporters–but also because the opposition didn’t abate in courage, was able to gain new recruits, and had the force and resolution to go on.

Kristol cites facts to affirm that Obama has lost supporters already. Kristol then makes these shrewd suggestions:

1. Keep fighting on health care. Fight for the next few days in the Senate. Fight the conference report in January in the Senate and the House. Start trying to repeal the worst parts of the bill the moment it passes, if it does. [snip]

Making the 2010 elections a referendum on health care should work–if Republicans don’t let up in the debate over the next year.

2. But don’t fight only on health care. Republicans need to expand the battlefield. The rest of the past week’s news–some Gitmo prisoners being released back to the battlefield, while others are to be brought to the U.S.; the Copenhagen farce and the EPA CO2 regulation; an Obama-appointed “safe schools czar” who’s more interested in safe sex than safe schools–reminds us that there are many fronts for conservatives and Republicans to fight on, ranging from economic policy to social issues to national security. The criticism of the Obama administration needs to be broad-based, because you never know just what issue is going to take off, and because the opposition needs to knit together all those who object to the Europeanization of America.

3. And broaden the base for the fight. Many Republicans–especially Republican elected officials–fret that the Republican party remains unpopular. Don’t worry about that. It will take a while longer to repair the damage that’s been done in recent years. So what if the GOP has a favorable/unfavorable rating in this week’s NBC/Wall Street Journal poll of 28-43 percent? The good news is that, for the first time in more than two years, the Democratic party has a negative favorable/unfavorable rating, of 35 to 45 percent. The Democrats’ decline is evening up the playing field between the two parties.

The most striking result in the NBC/Journal poll is that the Tea Party movement has a net-positive 41 percent to 23 percent score. The American public is in a populist/conservative/libertarian mood. Republicans need to adopt that mood, channel it into sound policies, and learn to trust the people, without worrying that they haven’t all yet signed up to GOP orthodoxy.

So: Fight on with respect to health care. Fight on other fronts. And recruit new fighters. In a word: Fight.

We use the word “resist” because we’re Democrats. “Fight” will do just as well.

Some Dimocrat “intellectuals and writers” argue that repeal will never happen. That’s because these Dimocrats don’t understand the concept of “fight”. Steve Benen has made the “repeal will never happen” argument:

For one thing, if anyone thinks the year-long effort to pass reform was difficult, just imagine trying to un-pass it. Are Republicans going to craft a new health care plan that can pass the House, get 60 votes in the Senate, and gain approval from some other, future president? They shouldn’t count on it.

For another, any Republican “replacement” health care plan would invariably want to curtail efforts to cover the uninsured — which is exactly why it’s a political impossibility. There will be precious few politicians willing to proudly proclaim to tens of millions of Americans in 2012, “Know that health coverage you’re about to get for you and your family? I’m about to take it away.”

It’s why conservatives have spent the year fighting, lying, and screaming — they know how limited their options will be going forward. Republicans might be able to gut a public option, undermine consumer protections, or make it harder on middle-class families to afford coverage, but those efforts would be difficult, and bring their own political penalties.

Once this bill is done, changes will be incremental and a major overhaul will be all but impossible anytime soon.

A commenter on that site make the logical and obvious counter-argument, which we agree with:

Repeal is NOT difficult. It takes a majority in both houses. You think Republicanms would not go to a nuclear option if they wanted to repeal. You’re in LaLa land. Republicans may be insane and not know how to govern, but they do have guts that Democrats lack.

It’s sad but true. Dimocrats have not guts, just weakness to offer. We also have no doubt that after the 2010 election losses Obama will fold like a cheap whore, a broken tent, a bad gambler. We’ve seen Obama “fight” when he has overwhelming majorities. Imagine the weakness we will see when the majorities are removed.

Sean Trende at RealClearPolitics thinks the Obamination health scam is political suicide too:

If Democrats need to appeal to Independents and moderates to hold their majorities, then passing this bill is a terrible idea. The most recent polling shows that 81% of Republicans and 69% of Independents oppose the healthcare plan (with 74% of Republicans and 57% of Independents strongly opposing it). With majorities of Independents strongly opposed to the bill, it’s really hard to imagine any boost in Democratic turnout from passing the plan being enough to surpass the ensuing backlash from Republicans and Independents.

It isn’t even clear that there will be a boost in Democratic turnout. The latest version of the Senate bill holds little appeal for progressives. As I noted on the blog, without a public option, this bill becomes a wet, sloppy kiss to the insurance industry. It doesn’t even represent a substantial triumph for liberalism by significantly expanding government through taxing the wealthy; there are large new subsidies, but for the most part the subsidies are paid for by gouging Medicare and taxing union health benefits. It really reads like a bill a moderate Republican would propose; it is a slightly stronger version of RomneyCare at this point. In other words, the only remaining group that might have even arguably been excited to vote for Democrats on this bill is now at best lukewarm on it.

This bill may encourage a few Democratic policy wonks to run to the polls, but this trickle will be nothing compared to the flood of angry Republicans and Independents. And this is all analysis conducted before election ads begin to run telling voters about how the Democrats will jail them if they don’t buy health insurance. To which the Democrats will respond “no, you see, it’s only a big fine.”

I suspect that most of the left intuits this. That’s why the other argument you’ll see – and this is especially true of the Administration and the leadership – is that the Democrats should pass this bill because they have a chance to make history: Do something the Democrats have wanted since the Truman Administration. [snip]

They’ll even let the press start describing them, with reason, as allies of Big Pharma to achieve the win. The train is simply running out of control at this point, and all Pelosi can do is stand at the front and repeat increasingly out-of-touch talking points about the American people wanting them to enact this bill and standing up to the insurance industry.

I don’t think they’re close to finding their Grail. I think the better analogy is probably that they’re close to their Moby Dick. And we all know what happens to Captain Ahab once he finally harpoons his white whale.

In defense of the Obamination, Jacob Hacker, the “thinker” most associated with the public option is back urging passage. Hacker deludes, or is deluded, when he states the bill must be fixed then passed. Then, the defender of this legislation writes this, which to us hardly sounds like a positive for the scam:

The federal government is the only entity big enough and powerful enough to ensure a highly consolidated private insurance industry follows the law. It can and must demand transparency and obedience to the new rules. Insurers must open their books, and subject their rates, administrative costs, and profits to federal review. These new rules must apply to all plans, not just those within the exchange. And states should have authority not only to enforce these rules, but to innovate beyond them as well.

These are not politically unrealistic goals. Most are already embodied in the House bill. In bridging the differences between the two bills, Democratic leaders and the President must insist on a final bill that delivers on these fundamentals.

If it does not deliver–if the new options offered through the exchange do not attract broad enrollment, if insurers continue to undermine health security with impunity–then the worst fears of progressives will come true. Coverage will be too expensive because only those with the highest health costs will sign up. Fewer Americans will obtain insurance than expected. Small employers won’t want to take advantage of their ability to buy insurance through the exchange. And Americans will become increasingly disillusioned with the promise of reform. [snip]

So a bill must pass. Yet it must be a better bill that passes.

That is hardly a rousing, or inspiring, battle cry for passage.

Jay Cost writes the rousing, inspirational battle cry – for the Republicans:

Then, in an instant, simply to win the vote of Joe Lieberman, the Senate leadership drops the public option element. There was no talk about whether what was left was perverse, whether this is a compromise in the worst sense of the word. And now, there is a push to get the bill passed before Christmas, not because that’s best for the country – but because the startlingly irresponsible 44th President correctly intuits that health care is pushing his numbers down, and he wants to move on to talk about jobs.

Amazingly, this bill has produced the broadest political coalition I have seen in my lifetime. Peruse the liberal blogs and you’ll discover widespread disgust at this corporate boon. Cruise over to the conservative sites, and you’ll encounter much the same thing. Then, check out the opinion polls and you’ll find a mass public that is staunchly opposed to this bill.

And yet Democrats in the Senate have decided that all of us – left, right, and center – are wrong. We need this bill.

Cost summarizes the Obamination:

This has to be one of the biggest giveaways to corporate interests in the nation’s history.

Andrew Jackson must be spinning in his grave this evening. The Democratic Party was founded in opposition to “corrupt bargains” among entrenched interests that Democrats believed were undermining the will of the people. Today, such interests are called “stakeholders.” They are to be wooed, bought off, and neutralized. Can’t afford a K Street lobbyist? Sorry, you’re not a stakeholder. Don’t like this bill? Eh…you don’t know what’s good for you. You’re either a tea-bagging moron or a gutless liberal who will fold sooner or later.

Like I said, Jackson must be spinning.

Cost does not understand that the Democratic Party committed suicide in Denver in 2008. What we have now is the Obamination Party, the Dimocrats. The winning FDR/Hillary Clinton coalition is despised by the new Obama situation comedy coalition.

I wonder what FDR and LBJ would think of this, too. As we all know, the Democrats plan to cut nearly $500 billion from Medicare to fund this monstrosity. Medicare is a single-payer system for seniors. It’s the ultimate “public option,” a product of Johnson expanding Roosevelt’s social insurance concept to medical care for the elderly. Today’s Democrats plan to reduce its revenues by $500 billion to pay for subsidies that will ultimately find their way over to…private insurance companies.

Again, the Pyrrhic victory is sounded by Cost:

Many Democrats on Capitol Hill have talked themselves into the absurd notion that this is better than doing nothing. That kind of myopia is a typical symptom of the Swamp Fever, so I’m not surprised. Still, they had better look out. Above all, they are grossly underestimating the wisdom of the American people, and they are ignoring the power that the Constitution grants them. This is a grave error. When the people catch wind of the full scope of this bill, and they will, there will be hell to pay. The public has been known to vote against big business and big government. Somehow, this compromised bill manages to deliver both – big government and big business, joined together, with the little guy forced to participate.

Here is what will happen if the Obamination passes:

If the Democrats pass this bill, the Republicans will pound them relentlessly and mercilessly in next year’s midterm campaign. All across the country right now, would-be Republican candidates can sense that this is their chance finally to get into Congress. They’re already starting to toss their hats into the ring. Many more will follow because they know what the public thinks of this. They know that they’ll find plenty of donors to bankroll those ads talking about the individual mandate, the insurance company giveaways funded by Medicare cuts, the victory for special interests, and how it all happened behind closed doors. And they know what kind of effect these ads are going to have.

Democrats were bound to lose seats next year because it is a midterm and they’re in charge. They were bound to lose extra seats because it’s a recession. But if they pass this bill, God help them. The people sure as hell won’t.

To borrow from Obama’s mentor, Jeremiah Wright, “God Damn This Obamination”.

Even the “creative class” dunces at Nothing Left write: “…every outcome to the health care fight will have severely negative political consequences for the Democratic Party. There is no happy political ending at this point; it is a matter of picking your poison.

The battle against the Obamination health scam will continue. It is not yet over. Even congressional leaders know the battle is not over by a long shot:

Congressman Bruce Braley expressed doubts today about the chances the Senate health care compromise bill, as it now stands, could pass the House. [snip]

Braley said he respects what Harkin, a fellow Democrat, is trying to do to get the bill passed. But, he said, “I can tell you I think the bill the Senate is talking about passing is not very likely to pass in the House, at a conference committee, if that’s the final product.” [snip]

“But I think the real test is going to be at the conference committee and if it doesn’t improve significantly, I think health care reform is very remote based on what I’m hearing in the House.” [snip]

He also said they need more leadership from President Obama and the White House: “I think there’s been great frustration about when the White House and the president are going to set their clear expectations about what it is going to take for them to have a health care bill that meets their criteria for meaningful and comprehensive reform.”

Braley belongs to the majority party. Howie Dean, in the Washington Post simply says “kill the bill”, and this time he does not mean Bill Clinton:

Real health-care reform is supposed to eliminate discrimination based on preexisting conditions. But the legislation allows insurance companies to charge older Americans up to three times as much as younger Americans, pricing them out of coverage. The bill was supposed to give Americans choices about what kind of system they wanted to enroll in. Instead, it fines Americans if they do not sign up with an insurance company, which may take up to 30 percent of your premium dollars and spend it on CEO salaries — in the range of $20 million a year — and on return on equity for the company’s shareholders. Few Americans will see any benefit until 2014, by which time premiums are likely to have doubled. In short, the winners in this bill are insurance companies; the American taxpayer is about to be fleeced with a bailout in a situation that dwarfs even what happened at AIG.

Dimocrats will continue to build their mausoleum tonight. But tomorrow, as Scarlet O’Hara said, “is another day.”


Christmas Is Coming, The Boob Is Getting Flat

We’re not talking about his manboobs – those seem to be getting bigger. We’re making our list, checking it twice, gonna find out who’s naughty and nice.

Hillary Clinton – most assuredly – nice.

Bill Clinton – nice.

Chelsea Clinton – nice. Chelsea gets a name addition too in her future.

Obama – it’s almost year end and he’s still not ready. Not ready on Day 1, still not ready. Get the bag of coal!

John Edwards and “Hillary’s marriage is not as happy as mine”, Elizabeth Edwards –

New documents prove beyond all doubt that John Edwards is the father of his mistress’s love child — a development that puts an exclamation mark to the ex presidential candidate’s cheating and lying while his wife battled cancer.

RadarOnline.com has obtained the documents, which details the money battle between Edwards and Rielle Hunter, as she seeks more than $17,000 per month from him.

Hugo Chavez, waiting for his No Preconditions meeting with Obama, still smells sulphur:

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said he “still” smelled sulfur after President Obama made a keynote speech at the Copenhagen climate conference Friday, accusing the American president of carrying same satanic Chavez believes followed Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush.

Chavez, who was not included on the original list of speakers for the final day of the summit, ended the proceedings with bitter references to the Peace Prize-winning Obama as the “Nobel Prize of War.”

“The Nobel Prize of War just finished saying here that he is here to act. Well, show it sir. Don’t leave by the back door,” he said.

Three years after Chavez likened Bush to the devil during a speech at the United Nations General Assembly in New York, the socialist strongman tore into Obama, claiming Friday that “it still smells like sulfur in the world.”

Assembled world leaders cheered on Chavez….

“Hope” and “Change” – False Hope, Chump pocket Change. Keep it. Keep the change.

Chicago Thugs, still thugs:

Personal calls from Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and former Vice President Al Gore couldn’t persuade him to vote for the Speaker’s climate change bill. He also opposed the $787 billion stimulus, citing concerns that only 7 percent was devoted to infrastructure spending.

DeFazio was one of only two Democrats to vote against those measures and the $700 billion bank bailout. (The other was Rep. Gene Taylor (D-Miss.) a Blue Dog conservative.) [snip]

“Don’t think we’re not keeping score, brother,” Obama told DeFazio during a closed-door meeting of the House Democratic Caucus, according to members afterward.

More bags of coal needed.

The Nutroots and the Kooks, who maligned and smeared Hillary for the greater glory of their Mess-iah, are now lying in their filth. More bags of coal for them.

Hillary supporter websites which stood by Hillary and respectfully refused to back Obama (“Accept No Substitutes) – Nice.

Losers who first supported Hillary on their websites then tried to erase everything they wrote in order to dupe American voters into voting for unqualified, inexperienced Obama – who now realize we were and are right – coal for them.

Backstabbing Senator Chris Dodd – coal and election loss.

Backstabbing Bill Richardson – coal and obscurity and ruin (and failed diet).

Backstabbing Donna Brazile and Oprah, who backstabbed women and the best candidate – coal and failed diets and misery.

Howard Dean – coal and exile in opposition from Mess-iah land.

Big Media – coal and the unemployment line.

Republicans who trashed Hillary and now are faced with the horror of their hypocrisy – coal and toil to restore themselves.

Copenhagen – insults Obama when it counts, praises Obama only to his face – an empty stocking (no coal, but no gift either).

Nobel Peace Prize Committee – coal and the discount bin for their formerly prestigious trinket.

Michele Obama – coal, the punishment of sleeves, and banishment from Whole Foods.

Backstabber Greg Craig – coal and job as hotel bellhop.

MSNBC – bags of coal, no ratings, no viewers, no Mess-iah, and a knife in the back with the initials B.O.

Lady Lynn Forester De Rothschild – nice. Continued classiness is it’s own reward.

Andrew Sullivan and Gay-Americans who trashed Hillary – bags of coal and no marriage and no divorce from the reality of the gay-basher they enabled.

The “Peace Movement” activists who trashed Hillary as a “war-monger” and enabled the boob – bags of coal and Afghanistan and Iraq and Gitmo.

We’ll continue with our list checking as Christmas approaches. It won’t be pretty. We’ll be distributing so much coal we’ll be blamed for global warming.

Big Pink supporters – nice.

For friends and family we have not seen in a while:


ByrdLock – How To Stop The Health Care Bill And Waterloo Barack Obama

If you want to stop the Obama scam called “health care reform”, which is nothing but an IRS enforced massive transfer of wealth to the Big Pharma and Big Insurance companies, we have one word for you: ByrdLock.

The Byrd Rule with its Byrd Baths and associated roadblocks to fiscal scams has effectively stopped Dimocrats from using the short circuit of “reconciliation rules” (Obama’s Bluff) to pass the Obamination called “health care reform”. We know this Obamination is yet another scam by the Chicago flim-flam man.

What is the “ByrdLock”? Back in January 1995 when Newt Gingrich and the Republicans wanted to ram through the “Contract For America” Senator Robert Byrd mobilized. Byrd used all his arcane knowledge of the Senate Rules to slow down the Republican train. ByrdLock can be used now to block the Obama health scam.

Republican websites should ask their congressional leaders why ByrdLock is not being used to block Obama and the Big Insurance Dimocrats. We’ll post a phone number below to call and ask why ByrdLock is not out of the Senate Rules arsenal and in use to block the scam.

Here is what happened in 1995 according to “Time” magazine:

In the Senate, “Byrdlock”

Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, the Democrats’ parliamentary ace and self-appointed guardian of the Senate’s deliberative role, launched an all-out effort to slow down what he called the Republican “steamroller.” Byrd’s filibuster-like maneuvers reduced to a snail’s pace the Senate’s debate of a bill that would restrict the ability of Congress to impose unfunded regulatory mandates on the states. His exploitation of an arcane rule regarding committee meeting times also forced the Judiciary Committee to halt-if for only one day-its consideration of a balanced-budget amendment. Majority leader Bob Dole was sufficiently ruffled to grumble about the Senate’s “Byrdlock.”

Obama and the Dimocrats who support the health scam, a dwindling group, want to get rid of the health scam debate in order to rescue themselves with the next phase of the Obama flim-flam: endless words, words, words, about job creation. There won’t be job creation but Obama wants to talk talk talk about jobs to bamboozle Americans. ByrdLock will ensure that the health scam debate will go on and on and on until it dies or Obama and the Dimocrats have less supporters than Bush did at the end of his term.

Here’s the New York Times from January 19, 1995 on ByrdLock:

Over in the House, Republicans are intent on defying the traditional, ever-so-stately pace of the legislative process and pushing through their “Contract With America.” But between the Republicans and their dream of a 100-day revolution stands the Senate.

More specifically, Senate Democrats. And most specifically of all, Senator Robert C. Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia.

Mr. Byrd, who has spent 36 of his 77 years in the Senate, reveres the deliberate gait of the legislative process. He boasts on the Senate floor of never having read the Contract With America, the campaign manifesto written by Speaker Newt Gingrich and other House Republicans, and which drives much of political Washington these days. He says he is not about to see his beloved institution fall victim to the “steamroller” of an upstart House, and rush through sweeping legislation without adequate debate and deliberation.

Since Mr. Byrd has served as majority leader, minority leader and President pro tem of the Senate, not to mention whip and committee chairman, he is steeped in the deep magic of the Senate’s rules. Even in the urgent Age of Newt, he knows how to slow things down.

“We should not be cowed like whipped dogs,” he said this afternoon in an interview that he occasionally interrupted to give arcane instructions to his staff on the filing of first- and second-degree amendments, marshaling his forces for the latest skirmish on the Senate floor. “We should be senators.”

This week, Mr. Byrd was helping to lead the slowdown on a Republican bill to make it more difficult for Congress to pass “unfunded mandates” — laws and regulations that impose new costs on state and local governments without their consent. Senator Bob Dole of Kansas, the majority leader, has scheduled a vote for Thursday to try to shut off debate, complaining that the Senate was in the grip of “Byrdlock.

Bring back ByrdLock. SHUT DOWN THE SENATE!

Senator Byrd fought the bad legislation called the Balanced Budget Amendment with ByrdLock. His reasons echo today:

The amendment, of course, is a top priority for the Republicans, and some Democrats as well; it is anathema to Senator Byrd, who describes it as a gimmick being rammed through without giving the public “any idea of how we are going to enact over one trillion dollars of spending cuts and tax increases over the next seven years.”

Mr. Byrd also argues that this amendment and the line item veto, which would allow the President to eliminate specific items from the budget, represent a fundamental shifting of power from the legislative to the executive and judicial branches of the Government.

Asked this afternoon how hard he will oppose the balanced budget amendment, the Senator replied in the gentle cadence of the West Virginia coal fields: “To me there is no 50 percent of the way, or 75 percent. It’s 100 percent with me. I have reasons based on weeks, months, years of study.”

Few relish the idea of matching wits and rules with Mr. Byrd. Senator Dirk Kempthorne, the 43-year-old Idaho Republican who is managing the unfunded mandate bill on the floor, acknowledged that he was on a “steep learning curve” but added, “I think I’ll learn by watching him maneuver.”

Learn from Byrd. Block the new steamroller.

Bring back BYRDLOCK:

There are an array of rules that an individual senator can invoke to work his will, and Mr. Byrd is said to know more of them than almost anyone. This week, for example, he relied on a little used rule that said committees could meet freely only until the third hour of the Senate’s legislative day, after which a senator could stop them by objecting.

He is also noted for his ability to structure amendments, which was at the heart of the battle over the Clinton Administration’s economic stimulus package. In that case, Mr. Byrd’s tactics helped stiffen opposition that ultimately scuttled the bill.

Mr. Dole vowed today to “try to keep up with Newt and the House Republicans,” although asserting, “Senator Byrd feels so strongly about the balanced budget amendment that he’ll do anything he can to prevent that coming to the floor.”

Mr. Byrd, for his part, seemed unperturbed by the coming struggle. “Time is in the interest of good legislation,” he said, coolly.

HERE is more important information on ByrdLock.

The Deseret News on ByrdLock HERE.

Republican Senator Judd Gregg (the one Obama wanted in his cabinet) recently wrote what Dimocrats term “an obstruction manual”. The “manual” does not address ByrdLock.

Sen. Judd Gregg, (R-NH) has penned the equivalent of an obstruction manual — a how-to for holding up health care reform — and has distributed the document to his Republican colleagues.

Insisting that it is “critical that Republican senators have a solid understanding of the minority’s rights in the Senate,” Gregg makes note of all the procedural tools the GOP can use before measures are considered, when they come to the floor and even after passage.

He highlights the use of hard quorum calls for any motion to proceed, as opposed to a far quicker unanimous consent provision. He reminds his colleagues that, absent unanimous consent, they can force the Majority Leader to read any “full-text substitute amendment.” And when it comes to offering amendments to the health care bill, the New Hampshire Republican argues that it is the personification of “full, complete, and informed debate,” to “offer an unlimited number of amendments — germane or non-germane — on any subject.”

The details of Gregg’s outline are a clear reflection of the extent to which Republicans are turning to the Byzantine processes of the Senate chamber as a means of holding up reform. And doing so with eagerness. Take for instance, the section on offering a “point of order.”

“A Senator may make a point of order at any point he or she believes that a Senate procedure is being violated, with or without cause,” he writes. “After the presiding officer rules, any Senator who disagrees with such ruling may appeal the ruling of the chair–that appeal is fully debatable. Some points of order, such as those raised on Constitutional grounds, are not ruled on by the presiding officer and the question is put to the Senate, then the point of order itself is fully debatable. The Senate may dispose of a point of order or an appeal by tabling it; however, delay is created by the two roll call votes in connection with each tabling motion (motion to table and motion to reconsider that vote).”

Use ByrdLock Senator Gregg.

Below is Senator Gregg’s full letter that does not include Byrdlock as a prime option. Notice the phone number included by Judd Gregg. “I hope you find the attached information helpful. If you have any questions, please contact my communications office at 202-224-6011.” Maybe the Gregg communications office has an answer why ByrdLock is not in use.


As we wrote, Obama and the Dimocrats (now opposed even by Howie Dean and many former Hopium guzzlers) want to get off the health topic because it is killing them with the American voting public. The polls are going down and so are the Dimocrats who backstabbed Hillary for the Chicago flim-flam stooge of Big Media.

Keep the argument going, just like we did in August, and we buy Obama a one-way ticket to Waterloo.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s plan to pass the Senate health care reform bill by Christmas looked increasingly in doubt Wednesday, as Republicans launched an offensive to stall the legislation and Democrats had yet to strike a 60-vote compromise.

Senators privately considered one scenario Wednesday that would have them casting a final vote at 7 p.m. Christmas Eve.

Surprising Democrats, Republicans brought the debate to a standstill and forced the Senate clerk to read a 767-page amendment on creating a government-financed health care system. Democrats pulled the measure as the reading entered its third hour, but the move was the start of the GOP’s attempts to use every procedural tool necessary to delay the bill.

Away from the floor, Reid (D-Nev.) continued wrangling with the Congressional Budget Office over a cost estimate, which Democrats had initially hoped to receive by Monday.

Without the analysis, Reid has been unable to lock down votes for the bill. And Democrats on both ends of the political spectrum remained uncommitted, saying they had problems that needed to be addressed.

Stop all committee meetings. Stop all proceedings and focus the nation’s attention on the health care scam. Shut down the Senate.

And let’s not forget: there is no written legislation that anyone but Harry Reid has yet seen.

Taken together, the obstacles created rising concerns among Democrats that their self-imposed Christmas deadline was slipping out of reach.

“They still have a plan for how to do that,” Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) said. “Whether that is implementable, I am not certain.”

The Christmas deadline is a political target. Democrats want to finish the bill so they have a few weeks to move it through a House-Senate conference committee and deliver it to the president by the State of the Union address in late January or early February. After months of health care dominating their domestic agenda, Democrats are eager to shift to other issues early next year — mainly a focus on creating jobs.

But as Wednesday’s showdown on the floor revealed, Republicans do not plan to acquiesce. They want the debate to spill past Christmas, hoping the longer the bill hangs out there, the less likely it is to pass.

“We want to do what we can to defeat the bill,” said South Dakota Sen. John Thune, a member of the Senate Republican leadership. “We are going to do everything we can in terms of the rights we have to stop the bill from passing.”

Why not use ByrdLock Senator Thune? Why not use ByrdLock Senator Coburn?

Reid is operating under a tight timeline.

Under the rosiest scenario, he needs to begin taking the procedural steps by this weekend to end the debate — and it would still take until Dec. 23 or Dec. 24 until the bill reaches final passage. Democratic senators have received assignments to preside over the Senate floor through Christmas Eve. This scenario depends on whether Reid receives the CBO cost analysis within the next day, which is not guaranteed.

Sanders, a liberal holdout, was seeking concessions on the other end of the political spectrum. He said he remains in negotiations with the White House and the Senate leadership about the bill.

“I have real concerns with this bill as it stands right now,” Sanders said. “So, I’m not on board yet. At this moment, I am an undecided. I would like to support it, but I’m not there yet.”

Harboring complaints similar to those of Sanders, top labor leaders met Wednesday to weigh action on the bill. But most insiders say they’ll most likely find a way of expressing their distress that comes short of actually opposing the legislation.

Labor unions are now considering opposing the Obamination health scam:

The AFL-CIO and the Service Employees International Union gathered to discuss the bill, but the absence of final legislative language made it difficult to chart a course forward, representatives said.

“Labor is looking to make the bill better,” American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten said after the meeting.

The AFL-CIO has aired television ads supporting the bill but attacking a provision that would raise taxes on expensive health care plans like those held by many union members. Some labor leaders have hinted at flat opposition to the bill emerging from the Senate. In September, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka pledged to work against any bill that lacked a public insurance option and taxed health care benefits.

Another labor official warned that while labor leaders will very likely grudgingly support the legislation, some may be bitter enough to sit out the midterm elections, dealing a blow to Democrats.

Time is on our side. Let’s fight for time. Stop all Senate business. Use every tool available with imagination and determination.

ByrdLock might be the way to block the Obamination.