The Politics Of Ugly: Arizona, Immigration, Obama’s Birth Certificate, Rezko, Cap And Trade, Jobs, – And The Beautiful Hillary Clinton

After today, Americans will be more disgusted than ever. We predict the disgust will mean even bigger wins for Republicans this November. That does not mean that Obama’s Dimocrats will not try every gruesome trick to gin up voters with extra bamboozlement. It’s the Politics of Ugly. Let’s survey the battlefield of “no Red State, no Blue State” America, under the heel of “uniter not divider” Barack Obama.

Before the Big Ugly, let’s bask in a little bit of Hillary Clinton sunlight. Regular readers will note our increased attention [HERE, and HERE] to matters Hillary. We are not alone (the Big Media types read Big Pink) and others have noted the same phenomena we do. Although, some back yard know-little bloggers proclaimed Hillary Clinton “has no base to keep, her political years [are] now behind her” and Obama lover Ben Smith of Politico proclaimed “Game Over – The Clintons Stand Alone” in his Hillary political obituary, we opened the coffin and found Hillary had broken free.

Today, less infatuated Politico writers abandon the old silly Ben Smith narrative and adopt a much more sober, Big Pinkish, narrative. According to Politico today, political Hillary lives:

“Nearly two years after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ended her losing presidential campaign and endorsed rival Barack Obama, Clinton’s allies maintain a triad of groups that have continued to make her presence felt in the political world — and could serve as a platform for the next phase of her public life. [snip]

The three entities operate almost completely apart from Clinton, who is barred by protocol from active involvement in outside groups (particularly those involved in partisan politics). But their operations are intertwined, sharing the same Washington offices and drawing from the same pool of supporters and staff.[snip]

“No Limits has allowed a core group of Hillary supporters who were with the campaign from the beginning to the end to continue to interact with each other, and that’s important, because if you don’t keep them together, then they are going to go off and do other things,” said Kevin Thurman, who, as deputy new media director for the Clinton campaign, helped build and manage Clinton’s online presence, including the e-mail list. [snip]

The group’s first conference in November was described in a story circulated by No Limits as “really more of a reunion” for supporters of Clinton’s presidential campaign.[snip]

Clinton has said in a series of interviews that, though she loves being secretary of state, she finds the job grueling and can’t imagine doing it beyond one term. “It wears you out,” she told Esquire.

Doug Hattaway, a senior aide in her presidential campaign, said “her brand is as strong as it ever has been. Her approval rating is as high as anyone in Washington, and she’s building a global following.”

As for what that future would be, Clinton told PBS’s Tavis Smiley that she could imagine “ going back to private life and spending time reading, and writing, and maybe teaching, doing some personal travel … just focusing on issues of women, girls, families, the kind of intersection between what’s considered ‘realpolitik’ and real life politics, which has always fascinated me.”

All the disclaimers by the Hillary campaign operation to what has always “fascinated” Hillary appear in the article. But clearly Big Media is aware that something is up, and it’s not poll flaccid Barack Obama.

On a side note, Politico yesterday whined about how Big Media is hostile to Barack Obama. A certain Rabble Rouser observed what any and all sentient beings thought: “I hadn’t noticed that they were “down on President Obama,” had you?” No, Big Media mostly continues to protect Barack Obama. What the real complaint by Big Media outlets amounts to is that they want the Obama thugs to feed them, not just the New York Times, the articles to publish. No sympathy from us, Big Media – you bought him, you own him.

Now the ugly.


Are we the only ones that notice the lack of attention to a certain birth certificate and other missing papers in the whole debate about the new Arizona law and the issue of immigration, as well as in the Blagojevich subpoena of Obama? If Obama had his official documents open to public inspection maybe he would feel less anxiety about the “undocumented” (both alien and incorporated) in the United States and would have more credibility when asking corporations for their papers and documents. (If ever he had actually worked Obama would not try to tell people when they have made enough money.)

And where are the boxes of Illinois Senate papers that Obama has yet to produce? These papers would answer questions about the freezing tenants and whether these abused African-Americans called Illinois State Senator Obama to complain about the tenements Obama “real estate fairy” Antoin “Tony” Rezko purchased with the assistance of Obama. Maybe that’s what those bags of cash from Rezko to Obama (the latest allegations from the Blagojevich subpoena of Obama) were for? [Hey, Big Media, this is not a story that Obama will feed you, you will have to find it out for yourselves. That’s right. “Work”, that thing you hate to do.]

Barack Obama’s Illegal Alien Aunt

Are we the only ones that notice the non-mention of Obama’s illegal alien Aunt Zeituni in the entire illegal immigration and the Arizona debate? Isn’t that sort of pertinent? You know, illegal aliens (“undocumented aliens/workers” for the politically correct), and an Aunt of Obama who was invited to the Obama inaugural? Isn’t that at least a point of interest?

But of course when it comes to Obama we don’t expect questions to be asked. Especially not about the Aunt that Obama exploited then dumped – at least publicly. As we wrote long ago, Aunt Zeituni seems to be a very nice woman and the sins of her vile nephew should not be held against her. But she did donate money to the Obama campaign even though she is very poor and in the United States illegally and supposedly not eligible to donate money to political campaigns. Questions anybody? Big Media? Anybody?

Barack Obama’s Birth Certificate

Questions? That is so old hat. Today we find that instead of answers, what Americans get about Obama is – “shut up with your questions”. This is probably the third or fourth time we have written about Barack Obama’s birth certificate. Our view on the Barack Obama Birth Certificate issue was enunciated in July 27, during the Gates “racist” Crowley period of Hope and Change. We are in favor of full source materials and full documentation. Today Hawaii Dimocrats say “shut up”:

“The Hawaii legislature has now officially passed a measure that would allow state officials to legally ignore each month’s dozens of repeated requests by persons or organizations seeking to see the infant Obama’s actual birth certificate.

For personal privacy reasons the certificate resides under government lock and key in Hawaii and, as is his right, Obama has never authorized its release.

That’s a refusal that has only inflamed conspiracy theorists who theorize that if it’s really legit, what’s Obama’s problem with disclosing it? The repeated non-response of spokesmen has been that’s a silly issue. [snip]

Tuesday Hawaii’s Legislature approved a bill that would allow state officials to make a surgical exception in the state’s public records law allowing the state to ignore any such repeated requests, meaning, of course, those for the sitting Democratic president. Since not too many other Hawaiian babies have been involved in such stubborn situations.”

For years Big Media protected Obama with the lie that the actual Birth Certificate has been released. Hawaii’s action makes that Big Media narrative a lie. Maybe it’s time for a new Big Media narrative from those allegedly pissed off Big Media types? And hey, don’t forget that box of State Senate documents we need to see. Maybe Blagojevich will get some of these documents.


Gay Leaders must be chagrined with Obama’s position on the new Arizona immigration law. When it came to gay issues in the U.S. courts, Barack Obama filed ugly briefs stained with his hatred of Gay Americans. The Obama justification for filing those ugly briefs is that as President he has to uphold current law. But when it comes to Arizona’s immigration law, Barack Obama is arms akimbo with “it’s misguided” and ‘let’s do what we have to do to prevent Arizona from enforcement of federal law’. Of course this is all just words and Latinos will get what Gay Americans got – NOTHING, but words.

Now, understand, we know that all this Arizona business is all politics all the time. John McCain in trouble and Harry Reid in trouble so both seek political advantage from the situation from opposite directions. McCain needs to prove his conservative credentials and Reid needs to do something to get voters to not hate him. Obama and his Dimocrats see ginned up liberals and ginned up Latinos and ginned up donors as a way to prevent the November flood. Republicans see the polls with majority support as a way to gin up their base too. It’s all politics and it is ugly.

No one doubts immigration needs to be reformed, but the NObama Coalition distrusts Barack Obama and there are simply not the votes to pass honest immigration reform at this time. It’s all politics and it is ugly.

Those “illegals” in the United States are in a difficult position because of this ugliness. Yes, they are here illegally and meanwhile legal immigrants get the short end of the stick by following the law. But, we do feel sympathy for those in this country for jobs and a better life who fear the knock on the door. This is emotional and we do not like siding with law enforcement over these sympathetic “illegal” immigrants. However, they are in the United States illegally and that is always a precarious situation to be in no matter what country you are in. Again, we feel the fear in our bones for these “illegals” and that is an emotional response on our part.

But we do recognize that the fear and the laws and the problems are mostly political. Arizona citizens who fear murder or drug dealers have a legitimate concern that for political reasons the Dimocrats and the Republicans will not respond. Instead of solving the problem (secure all the borders, keep drug dealers and munitions out of the country) and then arrive at a sane immigration policy we are all stuck in the mud.

The final step, not the first, in immigration policy has to be what to do with the “illegals”, and clearly tens of millions of people cannot be thrown out summarily. But neither can Big Business be allowed to import workers with impunity and keep wages low, nor can a “I broke the law and came here so I must be allowed to stay” mentality be rewarded. To complicate matters, any attempt to have “illegals” come from the shadows and accept conditions (“the path to citizenship”) in order to stay here will mostly be ignored, because that is what they have been doing anyway.

This is a tough nut to crack because “illegals” are not stupid and are not going to accept “back of the line” conditions when they can simply do what they have been doing all along. Bottom line, as much as everyone protests about illegal immigration, officials will not ever do anything meaningful to address the issue. The most officials will do is exploit the issue for political advantage. In that sense, we truly are all in the same boat.

As to the Arizona situation:

“ON Friday, Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona signed a law — SB 1070 — that prohibits the harboring of illegal aliens and makes it a state crime for an alien to commit certain federal immigration crimes. It also requires police officers who, in the course of a traffic stop or other law-enforcement action, come to a “reasonable suspicion” that a person is an illegal alien verify the person’s immigration status with the federal government.[snip]

“Now, suddenly, if you don’t have your papers … you’re going to be harassed,” the president said. “That’s not the right way to go.” But since 1940, it has been a federal crime for aliens to fail to keep such registration documents with them. The Arizona law simply adds a state penalty to what was already a federal crime. Moreover, as anyone who has traveled abroad knows, other nations have similar documentation requirements.[snip]

While it is true that Washington holds primary authority in immigration, the Supreme Court since 1976 has recognized that states may enact laws to discourage illegal immigration without being pre-empted by federal law. As long as Congress hasn’t expressly forbidden the state law in question, the statute doesn’t conflict with federal law and Congress has not displaced all state laws from the field, it is permitted. That’s why Arizona’s 2007 law making it illegal to knowingly employ unauthorized aliens was sustained by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[snip]

Arizona is the ground zero of illegal immigration. Phoenix is the hub of human smuggling and the kidnapping capital of America, with more than 240 incidents reported in 2008. It’s no surprise that Arizona’s police associations favored the bill, along with 70 percent of Arizonans.

President Obama and the Beltway crowd feel these problems can be taken care of with “comprehensive immigration reform” — meaning amnesty and a few other new laws. But we already have plenty of federal immigration laws on the books, and the typical illegal alien is guilty of breaking many of them. What we need is for the executive branch to enforce the laws that we already have.”

Nothing will be done, except exploitation of the voters.

Immigration And Cap and Trade

Oh, it’s more ugly. Hey, it’s politics and when you have someone in charge who does not know what he is doing or how to get jobs for ordinary “others” – bamboozlement is the order of the day:

Elementary prudence would seem to dictate that the leadership would quickly pivot to the economy and would sustain that focus through the spring and summer. [snip] But now, the leadership is moving toward, or backing into, months dominated by some combination of immigration and climate change—and of course there will also be a Supreme Court confirmation battle to fight. It is hard to believe that the people will respond favorably.

No doubt strategists on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue will point out that intensity is the key to midterm elections and that right now the intensity gap strongly favors the Republicans. The only way to counter-mobilize a somewhat demoralized Democratic base is to target the issues its components care about the most—immigration for Hispanics, climate change for young people—or so the argument runs.

That sounds too clever by half.”

It is too clever and won’t work. We suspect the Republicans will benefit. While liberals are the target vote in the immigration debate (illegals are not supposed to vote) we doubt they will be as energized by this debate as much as the more conservative Republicans in the illegal immigration battlefield, which is the Southwest. There is also the probability of failure:

“In the first place, it’s very unlikely that either immigration or climate change legislation will succeed in this congress. If passing health care did not increase public support for Democrats, why will failing to pass immigration reform or climate change legislation work any better?

Second, Democrats seem to assume that they have nothing left to lose—that all the people who will vote against them this November have already made up their minds—so that focusing on non-economic issues dear to the base will be all gain and no pain. Again, I wonder. Might it not reinforce the message that Democrats are out of touch and unwilling to heed the people’s concerns? Over the past nine months, many independents who supported Democrats in 2006 and 2008 have moved away from the party. More could follow.”

“Cap and Trade” is a sure loser for Dimocrats this November. Coal producing states will run from Dimocrats if there is even a debate on this issue. Even groups like Greenpeace are against the current proposal. Immigration is a sure loser for Dimocrats too this November.

“Granted, in the long term, the politics of immigration will certainly work in favor of the Democrats. Look at California: Republicans have never recovered from the legislation and rhetoric of Pete Wilson’s governorship. In the short term, however, the issue could push in the opposite direction. While the immigration debate of 2006-2007 divided Republicans, it also divided Democrats, and this year the issue will most hurt endangered Democrats in tough districts.[snip]

Here’s why: 90 percent of the electorate is not Hispanic, and 85 percent is not young. Relatively modest shifts in voter sentiment outside these two groups could easily swamp increased turnout within them and turn all-but-certain Democratic losses into a rout of historic proportions. While the temptation to adopt a strategy of targeted micro-politics is understandable, Democrats should instead espouse a strategy of macro-politics focused on broad-based public concerns. If that means that Senate Democrats will have to choose a new majority leader next January, so be it. At least they’ll still have a majority.”

Yes, the whole, “policy” agenda for Dimocrats is a way to avoid discussing the economy and jobs. The Hill has a list of those hurt and helped by the debate on the immigration issue, but overall, it is a loser for Dimocrats this November. Harry Reid might be helped, but not enough, and many other Dimocrats will be hurt.

“An aggressive and polarizing push for comprehensive immigration reform could bolster the chances of vulnerable House Democrats who need a high Latino turnout to keep their seats this fall.

The move to thrust immigration ahead of climate change legislation on the Senate agenda has been seen as a strategy to boost the imperiled reelection bid of Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). [snip]

The immigration effort comes as President Barack Obama is trying to reunite the coalition that helped elect him in 2008. [snip]

Yet it is unclear whether incumbents in tough 2010 races will embrace the new push on immigration, even in districts with significant Hispanic populations.

The key question for Democrats is whether the potential benefit in turning out Latino voters in many races will offset the difficulty that vulnerable incumbents will face in districts that favor a hard-line approach to illegal immigration.

For many Democrats — particularly Blue Dogs in the Rust Belt and the South — there is clearly little appetite for legislation that provides a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

More than 30 House Democrats signed on last year to the SAVE Act, a bill sponsored by Rep. Heath Shuler (D-N.C.) that enhances border security and enforcement mechanisms but does not provide a path to citizenship.[snip]

For party leaders, the rationale in tackling a politically explosive issue in an election year might be that there’s limited risk because the conservative GOP base is already riled up.”


Charlie Crist

Charlie should call Arlen Specter. Yesterday Specter had this to say:

“Well, I probably shouldn’t say this. But I have thought from time to time that I might have helped the country more if I’d stayed a Republican.”

Specter became an Obama Dimocrat in order to keep his job. Most Americans would love to keep their job by switching political parties (something which might be a rationale for many this November). Today Charlie Crist joins the Lieberman and Specter desperation brigade. Crist will learn that Obama will not help him nor will becoming a Dimocrat get him elected. Political desperation alone explains Charlie Crist’s move today:

“While Crist, lagging badly in his Senate primary bid, is sure to pin the blame on a party-that-left-him, his move can’t simply be chalked up as a response to an ongoing purge of moderates.

The more complicated truth, say top GOP officials from both wings of the party, is that an ornery conservative base is expressing its disgust for Republicans who have both flagrantly defied the party and who represent a distrusted political establishment.

It’s not just that Crist has veered from party orthodoxy, though that’s part of it. Rather, he and his fellow endangered GOP centrists have been tagged as insiders at a time when voters are disgusted by Washington specifically and incumbents generally.”

Yes, Americans are disgusted. Americans are disgusted with all political parties but it is Dimocrats who are the target of the ire. A leader, like a certain plucky blond lady, would understand the disgust and listen to it. A flim-flam artist only exploits the anger even as it consume his erstwhile political allies. The self-interested opportunist will divide not unite. The self-interested opportunist will wear whatever political clothing cheapest:

“This is what gives elected officials a bad name – when they abandon long-standing principles for their own selfish political gain,” Upton said. “He’s gone from public servant to a political hack.”

Cole said Crist’s jump would suggest only that, “’My political survival is more important than the party I’ve been aligned with.’”

He added: “It reduces politics to egotism and that’s not going to play well.”

Charlie Crist is an ugly picture of desperation.

In Merry Old England, the politics presage American politics. Does this sound familiar?:

“We haven’t had a campaign, of course – just a few telly programmes – but we didn’t need one to form the key conclusion about the state of our politics: that the Government to which we are preparing to say farewell is the most abominable in living memory, exceeding even John Major’s and Ted Heath’s in its destructiveness, stupidity, dishonesty and incompetence.

I need hardly say why, but I shall. Its destruction of our prosperity and its barely concealed and irrational hatred of wealth-creators; its infantilisation of people through the welfare state and its cultivation of a taxpayer-funded clientele; its sundering of the United Kingdom by devolution; its contempt for Parliament; its reduction of state schools to third-rate child-minding operations, and of our universities to underfunded vocational training colleges; its deliberate subversion of our culture and way of life by uncontrolled immigration; its surrender to the forces of anti-democracy in Europe; its imperilling of our Armed Forces, aggravated by the hypocrisy with which it praises them; its disdain for our countryside and its people; above all its naked tribalism and gerrymandering, and its leech-like attitude towards the productive sectors that must pay for it. It has been a disgrace, and the man who leads it is to blame.

Many Americans will agree with the above statement from Britain and will apply it to America. In November, Barack Obama and his Dimocrats are going to learn just how ugly, ugly can get.


Mistake In ’08, Part V – The Revelation

This past Sunday Barack Obama went to West Virginia – not to mourn the loss of coal miners but to try to block Hillary Clinton. On April 9, we noted our long ago crystal ball prediction that the moment Hillary Clinton appeared in “states where she walloped Barack Obama” that would be a signal to us that plans were afoot for a move on the electoral front. [Our Hillary in Kentucky thesis is HERE.] On the day Hillary Clinton went to Louisville, Kentucky Barack Obama finally decided to actually say something about the coal mine deaths of West Virginians.

Hillary Clinton went to Kentucky and soon thereafter Barack Obama put aside his hatred of those “bitter” and “clinging” small town Americans – ones who mined the coal Obama vowed to destroy – and finally pretended not to snub those Americans he snubbed repeatedly during the election campaigns of 2008.

We were wrong on April 9, 2010 about one thing. We wrote that Hillary’s visit to West Virginia would “go unnoticed by Big Media”. But after that article by us appeared, a bunch of other articles appeared in Big Media outlets speculating on Hillary (‘Hillary’s tired and won’t be SOS for a full four years!’ and ‘Hillary can beat Barack Obama’ and ‘the unthinkable – a challenge to Mess-iah) running for president in 2012.

The scenarios from those Big Media articles track faithfully those described by us: (1) a collapse of Dimocrats in 2010 elections; (2) awakened elected officials running for office in 2012 to the fact that Barack Obama is poison; (3) explosive Republican investigations of Barack Obama (what happened to that bag of cash Rezko now says he gave you Barack?) in 2011; (4) a Hillary Clinton resignation AFTER the 2010 elections (so she does not have to campaign for treacherous Dimocrats in 2010); (5) a continuous stream of Barack Obama cave-ins to Republicans after they win congressional elections; and (6) a total and complete collapse of the Barack Obama “situation comedy” coalition.

While we maintain the position we posited in 2009:

“While we don’t think Hillary Clinton will directly challenge Obama for the nomination in 2012, we do think it is the job of sensible Democrats and smart Hillary supporting websites to drive Obama from the 2012 race. It is also the job for American citizens who care about the country.”

we do think the collapse of the “situation comedy” is increasingly obvious.

Yesterday, the dunderheads who describe themselves as the “creative class” (we call them the “creative clueless”) finally came to grips with the reality we at Big Pink have described for so long. Donna Brazile and David Axelrod described the Barack Obama base as:

A new Democratic coalition is younger. It is more urban, as well as suburban, and we don’t have to just rely on white blue-collar voters and Hispanics.

Axelrod has declared The white working class has gone to the Republican nominee for many elections, going back even to the Clinton years. This is not new that Democratic candidates don’t rely solely on those votes.

It took all these years for the clucking clown who leads the “creative clueless” to finally have the truth “revealed”! The clucking clown thinks he leads the “creative class” but he is a clown who fell for the machinations of Harry Reid, Nancy Pelousy, and particularly the defunct tank of woman-hate called Ted Kennedy. Here’s the revelation of the clucking clown of the “creative clueless”:

The weakness of the Obama coalition, revealed.

In a video message to Organizing for America’s 13 million members today, President Obama announced that targeting people who voted for the first time in 2008 would be the top tactical priority for OFA 2010. This makes perfect sense. Compared to Gore and Kerry, young voters and first-time voters where [sic] President Obama’s top demographic groups. Obama’s margin among those two groups surpassed Gore’s by over 30%:

Young voters and first-time voters are absolutely Obama’s base. McCain actually won voters age 40 and over, and Obama only won non-first-time voters by 2%. Compared to other recent Democratic coalitions, Obama relied far more heavily upon young voters and first-time voters.

However, this also reveals a fundamental weakness of the Obama electoral coalition, especially during midterm elections. Turnout is way down during midterm elections, and there is no group where turnout declines during midterms more than it declines among young voters:”

No kidding you clown? Now you realize this? Only know does your brilliant “creative class” mind grasp the damage your foolishness inflicted? To build a party on ephemeral first time voters and young voters is foolishness. That foolishness is akin to a store which sells baby clothes only to virgins – there might be some curiosity value and foot traffic but the business model will not work.

Only now does the clucking clown of the “creative class” at NothingLeft realize the foolishness of party building based on a group of political virgins and soon to grow up and change their views young people. That’s not to say that those groups should not be courted, but to build a party on a one time only group of voters is monumental foolishness.

This clucking clown restricts his (yup, it’s a Big Blog boy who writes such foolishness) analysis to the midterm election demographics. But the damage is long term and much more than just limited to the midterms. Here’s more clucking from the clown:

“When young voters and unlikely voters form such a central pillar of a presidential electoral coalition, then that coalition is going to face huge problems in midterm elections. While it is absolutely the correct move for Organizing for America to try and get those voters back to the polls in 2010, they are unfortunately faced with an almost impossible task. Overall turnout drops by more than 33% from presidential elections to midterm elections, and by much more than that among young voters. No GOTV operation, however strong, can reverse trends on that massive scale. Whatever efforts OFA ends up making will only limit the amount of damage Democrats will suffer by basing their coalition on younger voters and irregular voters.”

Laughably, comments to the clucking clown call out for: Help From Hillary!

“In the 2008 primary campaign, there was a huge generation gap between Obama voters and Clinton voters. Thus, it’s not exactly rocket science to hope that Hillary Clinton will have a political role in 2010, especially to help some of her endangered former colleagues. Traditionally, of course, Sec’s of State have been above the political fray, but Hillary has broken barriers before. One way or another Democrats need to bring some habitually high voting senior citizen voters back home in November or else its going to be really ugly.”

Ha! Ain’t ta gonna happen, dude!

And a woman responds wisely to such clownish clucking:

“Hillary’s voters were always more from the traditional Democratic base..popilist, blue collar. older and even had more white males. Barack Obama as candidate did not engage them. Hillary was the traditional mashed potato Democrat who had always won presidiential primaries before over the likes of the quiche Democrats like Gary Hart or Paul Tsongas. Until Barack Obama came along. African American Democrats had always before voted to the mashed potato Demcorat. He changed that voting pattern.

He did bring in young voters and independents, but another reason they are unreliable is that even before midterms, during the 2008 campaign they also were there much more for Barack Obama himself, then they were for the Democratic party, the Democratic brand or even other Democrats. That was a weakness I long saw. It was one of the reasons that I did not support him in the primary.

It was also a weakness, that at least during the presidential campaign and even as he has governed he has not done much to rectify. He has given mmore props to Republicans for their good ideas….an oxymoron if I ever heard of one….than he gives to Democrats or progressives.

He has failed to make a contrast for these sometime voters that it matters that THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND DEMOCRATS get elected to office. That voting for him alone is insufficient.

It is why his aversion to ideology is harmful to the polical health of the party he leads. Because Democrats do have a better ideology which can and will make life better for most people. But by not making that contrast he has not built a case for why it matters who gets elected in November 2010.

It’s not just who went to the polls in 2008, it is what their motivation for going was. We need voters to go to the polls for Democrats in 2010 who think Democrat Jo(e) is better than Republican John because they are Democrats.

So I agree he needs to get Hillary out…because she has always known that, and can take that message to the voters.

It’s too late for that. Hillary saying good things about Obama only hurts Hillary and does nothing to help Obama or his clown posse of Dimocrats. So abandon the idea that Hillary will help you now. Barack Obama is poison and there is no antidote. Painfully, Hillary Supporters will have to tolerate Hillary as Secretary of State (imagine how bad thing would be without her there, even as bad as they are now), with a minimum of justified griping, in order to keep Hillary safely away from the campaign trail (waiting is always the most painful duty).

Once Obama snubbed the White Working Class, that destroyed him. Bill Clinton, John Kennedy, FDR, and even Jimmy Carter respected the White Working Class and worked to get those votes. Obama and his clucking “creative class” clown posse insulted Appalachia America and now the favor is returned. The White Working Class will not return to the Dimocrats while Barack Obama politically exists, not because of the color of his skin but rather because of the corrupt content of his character.

We’re not the only ones who laugh today at the late day “revelation” to the creative clueless. Sean Trende noticed too:

“Gallup’s latest polling shows why this is such a problem for Democrats. 47% of voters aged 18-29 were not very enthusiastic about voting this fall. This is almost double the number of voters aged 65+ (29%) that are unenthusiastic about voting and well over the number of voters aged 50-64 that are unenthusiastic about voting. This is highly problematic for the Democrats because younger voters plan to vote for a Democrat by a 51-39 margin, while voters in the 65+ demographic break 50-41 for Republicans. In equal numbers these groups would cancel each other out, but a flood of elderly voters would swamp a less enthusiastic youth vote.

Most analysts have assumed that this will change in 2012, and that Obama’s coalition will rear its head again. I’m not so sure. 2012 is a long way off, and I’m not making any predictions here. But part of Obama’s appeal was the freshness surrounding his candidacy. The prospect of “change,” the excitement surrounding electing the first black President, the posters, baseball hats, t-shirts and all of the iconography contributed to Obama’s outsized showing among these groups.

I think recreating that excitement is going to be like trying to catch lightning in a bottle. Re-electing the first black President is exciting, but not nearly as exciting as doing it the first time. By 2012, Obama will have a difficult time running as the candidate of change, especially if he continues to make substantial accomplishments in his first term. He’ll have been on the scene for five years then, probably will have endured at least one scandal, and may have been forced to compromise with Republicans repeatedly if they take control of Congress in 2010.

And even if Obama can re-energize his base in 2012, what then? His is a uniquely personal coalition, and whomever comes next is going to have a hard time filling the shoes of a rather unique candidate. If the damage done to other parts of the Clinton coalition is permanent, then the Democrats are going to have to make some major changes to retain their electoral coalition.”

Trende trades the blunt “cult” with “uniquely personal coalition” but it is still a “cult”. And a cult is not a political party except in countries where the people are slaves, not sovereign. Trende intelligently notes that if the Clinton coalition is permanently damaged and not restored, the Dimocrats are doomed for sure and the hope to restore the once great Democratic Party of FDR and Hillary Clinton will be doomed as well. Hopes to replace the White Working Class with Latinos will not work out. Election year politics on immigration reform will prove to be a disaster for Dimocrats as well. Watch out for what you wish for. But that is a story for another day.

The warnings are shouted every day now and not just from Big Pink. Democrat Brent Budowsky dreams dreams that will not be but he assesses the situation well:

“Democrats need to take an ice-cold shower and view the coming election with cold, clear eyes. At this moment, at best, Democrats will lose enough seats to destroy any working majority for any substantial agenda in the next Congress.

The No. 1 issue in the 2010 campaign, by far, is jobs. Americans want jobs, not talking points about jobs.”

Once November elections take place and Dimocrats are defeated, Dimocrats better assess the 2012 elections with “cold, clear eyes.” The old Obama flim-flams will not work, flim-flam videos will not work.

“It’s the same message Obama used to pitch Creigh Deeds for governor in Virginia, Jon Corzine for governor in New Jersey, and Martha Coakley for Senate in Massachusetts. It’s also the same pitch he made for health care—the one instance in which it actually worked, at least on the Hill, but health care’s numbers are still about on par with Corzine’s, Deeds’, or Coakley’s.[snip]

In this video, he is Barack Obama. He is the man whose problems are still inherited. He is the man who fights the health insurance companies… whose product he’s requiring that every American buy, battles the big banks… who bankrolled his campaign, and stifles special interests… with whom he meets behind closed doors to hash out deals on legislation. And, he posits, all of this should inspire those who voted for the first time in 2008 to vote again on behalf of all the uninspiring Corzines, Deedses, and Coakleys who will in some unspecified way guarantee the uplifting change at sometime in the unspecifed future that Obama himself has not delivered. Fired up and ready to go![snip]

Obama once reassured Democrats that “the big difference” between the disastrous 1994 mid-term elections and 2010 is “you’ve got me.” This newly narrowed version of his inspirational message suggests even he doesn’t believe that anymore.”

“You’ve got me” is no longer a promise full of hope. It’s a threat, full of danger and foreboding, and death.

The Obama health scam has proved a “no bounce” mess as even James Carville now admits. Latest surveys demonstrate that even “safe” Senate seats (such as Patty Murray in Washington State) are no longer safe. The latest flim-flam Obama video (which mentions women and Latinos but is really a race-based appeal) is Obama flapping his arms in the water as he knowingly drowns:

“This report tells us a lot about where Obama stands politically and the degree to which he has frittered away the promise of his candidacy:

The Democratic National Committee this morning released this clip of the president rallying the troops, if rather coolly, for 2010. Obama’s express goal: “reconnecting” with the voters who voted for the first time in 2008, but who may not plan to vote in the lower-profile Congressional elections this year.

Obama speaks with unusual demographic frankness about his coalition in his appeal to “young people, African-Americans, Latinos, and women who powered our victory in 2008 [to] stand together once again.”

Several things are noteworthy. First, so much for the post-racial presidency. We are back to naked pleas for racial solidarity. This comes from a man who told us that there were no Blue States or Red States, and that we should stop carving up the electorate into ethnic and racial groups. It was moving and appropriate and now it’s inoperative.

Second, this also suggests that just about everyone else in the electorate is a lost cause — whites, men, independents, and older voters. The Obama coalition has fractured — a little later than Hillary Clinton predicted, but it has. It seems he is reduced to the core left, not a recipe for successful governance or re-election.

And finally, the Democrats are in big, big trouble if they are banking on casual voters, especially young people, to turn out in large numbers in a midterm election. I’ll go out on a limb (I really don’t have to, because you can look at the turnout in New Jersey and Virginia) — the electorate in 2010 is not going to resemble the 20o8 electorate. It will be older and more conservative. In other words, the Democrats are throwing a Hail Mary.”

In Woodstock Nation: Barack Obama’s Situation Comedy, Part IV published in August 2009, we noted that the “Woodstock Nation” of young idealists who in 1968 would have loved to support an African-American candidate with real Democratic qualifications to be president are now the ones protesting at Tea Parties against unqualified Dimocrat Barack Obama. We wrote:

“Simply put, the trade off of the white working class which was a bulwark for successful Democrats was traded by Obama and his Dimocrats for the evanescent youth voter. That is no way to grow a political party. That is no way to run a political party.

The crop of 2008 young are now a year older and supposedly a year wiser (though it’s tough to teach a B.O.T. new tricks). When a young, unemployed B.O.T. discovers the world of taxes and health insurance, and property responsibilities and taxes and family, they lose that new B.O.T. glow.

As the 2008 crop of young grow into middle age many will begin to identify not with the latest fad or rave – whether hoola-hoops, or mp3s, but rather with aging parents and the infirmities of age.”

It’s no way to grow, or run, a political party:

“Younger voters remain less enthusiastic about voting in this year’s midterm elections than those who are older, underscoring the challenge facing the Democratic Party in its efforts to re-energize these voters, who helped President Obama win the presidency in 2008.

The fact that voters under age 50 — and particularly those under 30 — are less enthusiastic about voting this year is not a new phenomenon; voter turnout typically skews older. The current data, based on Gallup Daily tracking conducted April 1-25, confirm that so far, 2010 provides no exception to this traditional pattern.

It thus is not surprising that President Obama and Democratic Party leaders on Monday launched an effort to stoke enthusiasm among young people and other voting groups that helped support Obama in the 2008 presidential election. Obama issued a new online video that includes this exhortation to his supporters: “It will be up to each of you to make sure that the young people, African Americans, Latinos, and women who powered our victory in 2008 stand together once again.” [snip]

The good news is that younger voters disproportionately lean to Democratic candidates. The bad news is that younger voters have a historically bad track record in terms of turning out in big numbers on Election Day.

The current data confirm that at this juncture, both of these patterns continue to play out in this year’s midterm elections. Democratic leaders have apparently recognized these realities, and are attempting to re-create the enthusiasm for Democrats among younger voters that was apparent in 2008.< "

It took this long for the Big Blog boys “creative class” young clods to learn the obvious. FDR and Hillary Clinton supporters, of all ages, knew what only now the “creative class” clowns find to be a revelation.

It used to be said that “you can’t teach an old dog new tricks”. Updated for accuracy: “you just can’t teach a Hopium guzzler new tricks.” Dogs are easy.


2X4 Treacherous Chuck Schumer Against Virtuous Hillary Clinton, Israel, Obama’s Muslim Tropism, and the 2010 Elections

Our crystal ball is still working and Chuck Schumer is still afraid and reacting to what we see. When on February 5, 2010 we wrote “No Dimocrat Is Safe” it was to congratulate the New York Times for catching up to us on the terror the New York Terror Trials held for Chuck Schumer. Almost immediately Chuck turned tail on the Terror Trials and left his dreamboat Barack Obama upriver without a paddle, on that issue.

Our crystal ball foresaw the current mess in foreign policy as well. In January 2009 we stated that Hillary Clinton as the leader of the United States Department Of State would be very successful, with one caveat:

“Hillary should make it clear that Obama will not interfere with his harebrained schemes and plots in foreign policy. Hillary Clinton should make it clear that Obama will be too busy making a mess in the U.S. to get in her way.”

Unfortunately, unlike a worm in an apple, Barack Obama decided to mess up the whole batch of both domestic and foreign policy apples. The Corrupt Bow To The Corrupt and Obama loved bowing to foreign potentates, insulting American allies, and smooching America’s opponents. Barack Obama took particular delight in snubs, insults, slaps and treacheries, told and untold, against American ally Israel.

The Barack Obama treacheries and plots against Israel are not perpetrated with Hillary’s complicity. Indeed, Hillary Clinton “praised Prime Minister Netanyahu” for his policy on construction in the eastern precincts of Jerusalem. Praise one day and condemnation the next – not quite the full story.

Little did Hillary Clinton know that her dress down phone call to Netanyahu, a phone call no doubt prompted from Biden (who felt personally treated like a buffoon when on his visit to Israel the announcement on Jerusalem building was made and therefore required a reprimand phone call from the Secretary of State – to protest Biden exposed publicly as a buffoon outside his usual habitats of buffoonery) and Barack Obama – was part of an Obama plot against Israel.

After snaring the Hillary Clinton phone call to Prime Minister Netanyahu, Obama proceeded to the second part of his plot – a public humiliation and snub of the Israeli Prime Minister and a “smell ya’ later” Simpsons cartoon style “Chicago diplomacy“. These vile treacheries by Barack Obama against Israel are part of Obama’s desireto serve as the Arabs’ lawyer” due to his Arab and Muslim world tropism.

So toxic and nauseating are Barack Obama’s smears, slurs, and snubs against Israel that we recalled when our crystal ball glowed with this prediction:

More nastiness from Barack Obama towards Israel and Chuck Schumer will have to do more than just merely distance himself from Obama. Chuck Schumer will have to take a 2×4 to Barack.”

As with the Terror Trial prediction by our trusty crystal ball, Chuck Schumer bowed yet again to its wisdom. By then we had already seen Hillary Clinton’s crafty moves to counter Obama’s earlier attempt to turn Hillary into an Obama cats-paw against Israel, when all she did was agree to defend American prestige and America’s image against even the slightest perceived slight.

But the full story is that Chuck Schumer smeared Hillary Clinton and protected Barack Obama. That’s typical 2×4 Hillary Hater Chuck Schumer behavior and it recalls exactly the secret “hit her with a 2×4” treachery of Chuck Schumer.

On the Nachum Segal radio show, Treacherous Chuck, attacked Hillary Clinton while the real culprit is Barack Obama. The gullible saw it as an attack on Obama, but the real target was Hillary. Here’s Politico’s gullible take:

“New York Senator Chuck Schumer harshly criticized the Obama Administration’s attempts to exert pressure on Israel today, making him the highest-ranking Democrat to object to Obama’s policies in such blunt terms.

Schumer, along with a majority of members of the House and Senate, signed on to letters politely suggesting the U.S. keep its disagreements with Israel private, a tacit objection to the administration’s very public rebuke of the Jewish State over construction in Jerusalem last month.

But Schumer dramatically sharpened his tone on the politically conservative Jewish Nachum Segal Show today, calling the White House stance to date “counter-productive” and describing his own threat to “blast” the Administration had the State Department not backed down from its “terrible” tough talk toward Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.”

Notice how the Obama treacheries became the problem of the State Department? Notice how the entire problem became a State Department problem? Yet Treacherous Chuck did not have a word to say about the personal Obama snub and slap at Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. Amazing isn’t it? Obama slaps the ally Israel’s Prime Minister but that is not a problem to Schumer but instead Treacherous Chuck demands an apology from a State Department spokesman. Here is the rest of the Politico story:

“Schumer, a hawkish ally of Israel since his days as a Brooklyn Congressman, described “a battle going on inside the administration” over Middle East policy.

“This has to stop,” he said of the administration’s policy of publicly pressuring Israel to end construction in Jerusalem.

“I told the President, I told Rahm Emanuel and others in the administration that I thought the policy they took to try to bring about negotiations is counter-productive, because when you give the Palestinians hope that the United States will do its negotiating for them, they are not going to sit down and talk,” Schumer told Segal. “Palestinians don’t really believe in a state of Israel. They, unlike a majority of Israelis, who have come to the conclusion that they can live with a two-state solution to be determined by the parties, the majority of Palestinians are still very reluctant, and they need to be pushed to get there.

“If the U.S. says certain things and takes certain stands the Palestinians say, ‘Why should we negotiate?‘” Schumer said.

Schumer described the recent confrontation over construction in Jerusalem as a “kerfuffle.”

“Israel apologized and when Biden left, and Biden is the best friend of Israel in the administration [and] everything was fine,” Schumer said. “But then what happened is the next day Hillary Clinton called up Netanyahu and talked very tough to him, and worse they made it public through this spokesperson, a guy named Crowley. And Crowley said something I have never heard before, which is, the relationship of Israel and the United States depends on the pace of the negotiations.”

Schumer was referring to State Department spokesman PJ Crowley’s description of Clinton’s conversation with Netanyahu, in which he said that Clinton “made clear that the Israeli government needed to demonstrate not just through words but through specific actions that they are committed to this relationship and to the peace process.”

“That is terrible,” Schumer said today. “That is the dagger because the relationship is much deeper than the disagreements on negotiations, and most Americans—Democrat, Republican, Jew, non-Jew–would feel that. So I called up Rahm Emanuel and I called up the White House and I said, ‘If you don’t retract that statement you are going to hear me publicly blast you on this,'” Schumer said.

Schumer said the White House had backed off that statement, but that now “many of us are pushing back, some of the Jewish members will be meeting with the President next week or the week after, and we are saying that this has to stop.”

“You have to show Israel that it’s not going to be forced to do things it doesn’t want to do and can’t do. At the same time you have to show the Palestinians that they are not going to get their way by just sitting back and not giving in, and not recognizing that there is a state of Israel,” Schumer said. “And right now there is a battle going on inside the administration, one side agrees with us, one side doesn’t, and we’re pushing hard to make sure the right side wins and if not we’ll have to take it to the next step.”

While it is clear (we know this because of the President Bill Clinton negotiations in which the Palestinians would have had a homeland but decided to persist in hatred of Israel) that the Palestinians leadership and most likely Palestinians too, do not want a two state solution. And while it is clear that the Arabs and Muslims and Palestinians want Barack Obama to be their lawyer and hammer against Israel, these are facts that Treacherous Chuck Schumer of the 2×4 does not publicly condemn. For Treacherous Chuck Schumer it’s “Hit Hillary, Protect Obama“. The conservative website Hot Air noticed the obvious in the Treacherous Chuck diatribe:

“He let The One off the hook a bit by not touching on his repulsive treatment of Netanyahu at the White House or his harebrained idea to propose a Palestinian state himself, but otherwise he’s on target — especially vis-a-vis the Palestinians’ willingness to adjust their demands to exploit disagreements between the U.S. and Israel. As Yossi Klein Halevi put it, “Obama is directly responsible for one of the most absurd turns in the history of Middle East negotiations. Though Palestinian leaders negotiated with Israeli governments that built extensively in the West Bank, they now refused to sit down with the first Israeli government to actually agree to a suspension of building. Obama’s demand for a building freeze in Jerusalem led to a freeze in negotiations.”

It’s not just Schumer who’s souring on Obama on this point either. According to Quinnipiac, his approval rating on the Israeli/Palestinian issue stands at a robust 35/44, with — wait for it — two-thirds of Jewish voters saying they disapprove, down from 55 percent approval last month. Good work, champ.

Not a word from Treacherous Chuck Schumer on the direct insult to the Israeli Prime Minister delivered first hand with a slap from Barack Obama. Instead Treacherous Chuck Schumer of the bloody 2×4 focuses on a second-hand statement from a press spokesman about a conversation he was not a party to. Something is very wrong with Chuck Schumer.

We noted (in Thanks For Nothing Barack!) the problem Treacherous Chuck Schumer of the 2×4 has: Ron Lauder.

For Treacherous Chuck Schumer the chickens are coming home to roost. Recall this quote from the book Game Change:

“More intriguing were the entreaties he was receiving from New York’s Chuck Schumer. Schumer’s relationship with Hillary had always been fraught with rivalry and tinged with jealousy; though she was technically the junior member of the New York team in the Senate, she had eclipsed him in terms of celebrity and influence from the moment she arrived on the Hill. [snip]

The political handicapper in Schumer was fascinated by Obama’s potential to redraw the electoral map, a capacity Clinton surely lacked. In conversations with other senators and strategists in 2006, Schumer would make these points over and over. He made them to Obama as well, and repeatedly; in one instance Schumer even double-teamed him with Reid. Although Schumer was careful to signal that home-state decorum would prohibit him from opposing Clinton publicly—“You understand my position,” he would say—he left no doubt as to where his head and heart were on the question.”

Jealous and Treacherous Chuck Schumer did not have our crystal ball or he would have seen that indeed it was and is Hillary Clinton who had and has the capacity to change the electoral map (exit polls demonstrated that Hillary Clinton would have beaten John McCain by 11 points compared to Obama’s 7 point margin; also 16 percent of McCain voters would have voted for Hillary) Today the New York Times echoes our No Dimocrat Is Safe article of February 5, with its version “Republicans Threatening Congressional Seats Long Held By Democrats”:

“Representative David R. Obey has won 21 straight races, easily prevailing through wars and economic crises that have spanned presidencies from Nixon’s to Obama’s. Yet the discontent with Washington surging through politics is now threatening not only his seat but also Democratic control of Congress.

Mr. Obey is one of nearly a dozen well-established House Democrats who are bracing for something they rarely face: serious competition. Their predicament is the latest sign of distress for their party and underlines why Republicans are confident of making big gains in November and perhaps even winning back the House.

The fight for the midterm elections is not confined to traditional battlegrounds, where Republicans and Democrats often swap seats every few cycles. In the Senate, Democrats are struggling to hold on to, among others, seats once held by President Obama and Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.”

Chuck, you keep right on reading from our crystal ball. You’ll see how wrong you were and how catastrophic your blurred vision has been not only to the United States, but to the once great Democratic Party.

Keep on playing your games Chuck. The next 2×4 you see will be headed the Dimocrats way this November. Treachery will beget treachery.


Gangster Government – Blagojevich, Obama, Giannoulias – Can I Get A Witness?

Update: Going down. We’re not talking about the “teabagger” slur nor the SEC porn watchers. And it’s not Barney Frank blaming Republicans for the SEC porn watching. And it’s not that super secret spacecraft/airplane X-37B OTV either.

It’s Obama boy pal mob bankster Alexi Giannoulias:

A worker at the main Broadway Bank branch on Broadway and Granville says “it’s over.”

The bank is open now — but the worker says they’ve been told at close of business “that’s it.”

Black curtains have been put up today. You can’t see in.

The Giannoulias campaign says the curtains are to “block the sun”, although the sky is overcast and rain is predicted all weekend.

Remember how we always say, half in jest, that if Obama says the sun is shining look out the window because it’s raining. Um, right again.


What need we fear who knows it, when none can call our power to account? Yet who would have thought the old man to have had so much blood in him?

The blood from the crimes continues to flow. Today is William Shakespeare’s birthday – heralded yesterday with Shakespearean level drama from Chicago, about Obama.

[We postpone our Bill Clinton Tea Party series (as well as the latest Hillary Clinton developments) in order to discuss the latest from Chicago because you can be sure, the Big Blog boys want this story to be Hidden News and won’t discuss it (if at all) with any intention other than to protect Barack Obama.]

Chicago Clown

* * * * *

Yesterday, as the corrupt bowed to the corrupt yet again – this time it was yet another Obama publicity stunt before the banksters that looted the economy gangster government proved us correct. On December 12, 2008 we called for a special prosecutor to investigate Barack Obama. We wrote:

“A Special Prosecutor needs to investigate the role of the government funded Obama transition members and contacts between the mothership of Chicago’s Culture of Corruption and its expansion to the nation’s capital.”

We called for a Special Prosecutor before the “multi-headed Hydra” of Chicago Corruption could grow heads in the nation’s capital. Too late now. The corruption is suffused in the DNA of the DNC and “gangster government” rules.

In our first week of publication we published our first mention of Antoin “Tony” Rezko. We thought then that Big Media would investigate Obama’s connections with Rezko but instead Big Media protected Obama.

Does the birth of Obama corruption matter? Of course it does. As we made clear (The Case Of the Missing State Senator) Obama’s behavior and character in Chicago foreshadowed his behavior and character in Washington (The Obama Health Plan Obama Supporters Do Not Want To Discuss).

Our first mention of Obama boy pal Alexi Giannoulias was in June of 2007. Our latest mention of boy pal and mob banker Giannoulias (but not our last mention as we still intend to publish our tutorial for oblivious Joan Walsh) informed our readers of Giannoulias as the prototype banker for the mob in the Batman – The Dark Knight film (Chicago’s Dark Night – Giannoulias, Stroger, And The Crown Of Corruption).

It was truly a celestial joke played on the people of Chicago and America when Blogojevich and then Obama came to office as self-proclaimed “reformers”. Now the latest Chicago “reformer” is Alexi Giannoulias, mob banker boy. Today mob banker boy Alexi Giannoulias has an FDIC deadline too – get $85 million Alexi or go swim with the fishes. It’s eat or be eaten day in Chicago:

“If a bidder has not been found for the Giannoulias family’s Broadway Bank, today could be the day federal and state regulators walk in and shut it down.

Nearly 90 days ago, the bank entered into a consent decree with government officials in which bank officials agreed to try to raise $85 million to recapitalize the bank.”

* * * * * *

So what happened yesterday? Well it started with the Capital Fax Blog in Chicago. Our readers will recall when Capital Fax Blog called good ol’ Big Pink “brutal” because of our news reports on Rezko and Obama. Capital Fax discovered we are not so “brutal” after all, especially when compared to Obama’s “reformer” doppelganger Rod Blagojevich. Instead Capital Fax found a way to read secret portions from a redacted court filing by Blagojevich.

Oh, the Obama Drama! [PDF file of the Blagojevich motion is HERE.] Capital Fax was “brutal” in describing the Blagojevich filing. “Blagojevich hurls allegations at Obama in bid to force testimony.” And:

“Blagojevich’s lawyers allege that Tony Rezko admitted to violating the law by personally contributing “a large sum of cash” to a public official’s campaign, which the Blagojevich people say is Obama.

The lawyers claim that Obama may not have been telling the truth when he said Rezko never relayed a request from a lobbyist to hold a fundraiser for Obama in exchange for favorable legislative action (Obama, however, refused to agree to the offer, Rezko allegedly says).

They also claim that Obama allegedly lied when he said he didn’t have any conversations with Rezko about a casino license… [snip]

There is also an allegation of an attempted quid pro quo on the Jarrett Senate appointment… [snip]

Obama allegedly shot down former Senate President Emil Jones’ name when it was floated by the Blagojevich team as a possible Senate appointment. And Rahm Emanuel floated Cheryle Jackson’s name…”

Just imagine the reaction from Emil Jones (Jones is the Harry Reid of Illinois – the guy who got Obama promoted to the U.S. Senate after Obama wooed him for the job and now Jones got stabbed in the back apparently by Obama) when he heard his stooge “shot down” his name. Oh, the drama!

The Confluence has a good wrap-up of the day’s events. [Mrs. Smith has linked to some good information too HERE, HERE, and HERE.] But let’s face it, at these Obama comic moments we rush to read John Kass:

“Rod Blagojevich finally made good on a promise: He put President Barack Obama right in the middle of Blagojevich’s own political corruption case.

And now it’s finally clear why, from the moment of Blagojevich’s arrest in December 2008, White House spinners loudly portrayed our former Gov. Dead Meat as some drooling, raving lunatic.

A lunatic is not to be believed, and Dead Meat will continue to be characterized as such by Obama defenders. But raving lunatics care little for their own survival. And in an amazing defense motion filed Thursday, Blagojevich proved once again that he is quite sane.”

Blagjoevich, in the words of the wonderful gangland film, The Godfather, is going to the mattresses. And he’s going there with guns loaded, and ready to fire. More Kass:

“He wants Obama to testify in his federal criminal case. The feds allege that Blagojevich conspired to sell off Obama’s old U.S. Senate seat, among other charges.

Obama’s former patron and real estate fairy, the convicted influence peddler Tony Rezko, is a key player in the government’s case. Blagojevich’s aim is to undercut what Rezko has told investigators.

And now Blago wants the president to do the undercutting from the witness stand, with the nation riveted to his every recollection of his days in Chicago politics, hanging with Tony and the guys, with the midterm November elections approaching.”

Oops! The elections. They forgot the elections. Giannoulias the mob boy banker gets bumped off today by the FDIC (“the Feds” in gangland parlance) and then in June Obama gets dragged to Chicago, whether the judge rules in favor of the motion or not (we bet the judge protects Obama).

“President Obama has pertinent information as to the character of Mr. Rezko,” the Blagojevich filing states. “President Obama can testify to Mr. Rezko’s reputation for truthfulness, as well as his own opinion of Mr. Rezko’s character. Based on the relationship that President Obama and Mr. Rezko had, President Obama can provide important information as to Mr. Rezko’s plan, intent, opportunity, habit and modus operandi.

That’s right, birds of a feather flock together – and those corrupt birds loved getting together. If the Chicago judge would actually insist on giving the defense its day, Obama and Rezko and Blagojevich would be reunited. Our tears would flow.

More Kass:

“Though Thursday’s new information is quite fascinating, remember that it comes from the same defense team that has turned the case into a circus from day one.

And demanding the president take the stand in a corruption trial is all three rings, and the dozens of tiny little clowns pouring out of the diminutive car, and the bearded lady. Oh, and let’s not forget the dog-faced boy.

Thursday’s filing quotes an account by Rezko suggesting that when Obama was an Illinois state senator, his campaign received political cash from Rezko. It also points to assertions by Rezko insinuating that he and Obama had conversations about a casino deal in Rosemont that Rezko stood to make a killing on.

“Rezko has stated to the government that he and the public official [believed to be Obama] had certain conversations about gaming legislation and administration, which the public official denies having had,” the filing states.

President Obama is the only one who can testify as to the veracity of Mr. Rezko’s allegations above.”

The “public official” is no doubt lying. The “public official” is Barack Obama. The ones protecting the “public official” includes windbag LeftTalkers who will not tolerate one bad word about Mess-iah (Confluence has information on the suppression of information by LeftTalkers), and of course the inbred cousins of Big Media:

“It’s no secret that some in journalism get offended when anyone dares mention that the president was involved in Chicago politics. But the filing is not only a legal document, it’s a political message from Blagojevich to Obama. So allow me to translate the Chicago Way.”

Oh, that is so true John. It’s just like in The Godfather when the fish is delivered announcing the death of Luca Brasi.

Helpful John Kass with the gangland translation:

“Dear Barack, my old friend. I want you to use all your powers, all your skills, to make me an offer I can’t refuse. I’m Mr. Celebrity-get-me-out-of-here, and you better get me out of here. Thanks, Rod.”

The most interesting portions of the filing were supposed to be kept secret. Whole sections were redacted (i.e., blacked out) and remained so for hours.

But there appears to have been a clerical error. And Rich Miller of The Capitol Fax Blog revealed a way to unlock the redacted parts. So we followed Mr. Miller’s easy instructions, pressed a few keys on the computer, and presto!

All the redacted material was magically reinstated.

U.S. District Judge James Zagel surely isn’t happy. He hauled lawyers from both sides into his chambers for a little private chat Thursday evening. There were no reports of piteous shrieks emanating from behind closed doors, but I’ve got to think that Blago’s guys left the room whimpering and biting their lips.

While this is believed to have been a technical glitch by the defense, the thing is, this is Chicago. Do you believe in coincidence?

No, we don’t believe in Chicago coincidence nor celestial choirs involved in Chicago politics. Just when you thought you were out… they pull you back in.

“It’s not good for Obama. But whether you agree or disagree with his politics, it’s clear that he’s in a difficult position.

His former close buddy, Rezko — “That’s not the Tony Rezko I know” — still swings like some albatross from his neck, and it’s getting quite stinky. It’s hard to transcend the old politics of the past with that dead bird weighing you down.

And his political guys, who were sent from Mayor Richard Daley’s City Hall to run his administration, have served him poorly. They shouldn’t have let this get anywhere near the president.

In January 2009 — just weeks after the FBI came knocking at his door — Blagojevich threatened to bring everyone down with him.

As he was being booted from the governor’s office in his impeachment trial, Dead Meat complained that he wanted to call witnesses to clear his name.

“I’m talking about every single witness named in the criminal complaint,” Dead Meat said. “I’m talking about (White House Chief of Staff) Rahm Emanuel, and Sen. (Dick) Durbin … and others who were engaged in conversations with me on a variety of different things, all appropriate and all legal, and I’d like every one of them to testify under oath here at this impeachment trial.”

The judge and the prosecutors should insist Obama testify. After all, Dick Durbin has been subpoenaed and will likely testify. Obama supporters should insist Obama testify. After all, he says he doesn’t have anything to worry about and his supporters always say he has nothing to hide. So why hide? Testify.


Volcanic Bill Clinton And The Tea Party Movement, Part II

Why all the “racist” smears against the Tea Party movement? Easy to answer – as in the primary elections in 2008, it’s a way to pump up the Obama Dimocratic vote – in a year with all the energy and enthusiasm coming from the NObama Coalition. It’s a Chicago Thug way to pump up the Dimocratic vote and (as we wrote a year ago) bring down the Tea Party – and if that means race-baiting, then race-baiting it is.

Barack Obama does not have much going for him other than a near monolithic but unenthused and drifting African-American vote along with the comfortable White Liberal vote represented by unthinking, screaming Big Blog boys. So the strategy is demonize the Tea Party activists as “racist” and scare off potential supporters while at the same time race-baiting to pump up the black vote and the liberal white vote. It’s race-baiting for fun and profit just like we had during the Democratic primaries in 2008.

And where there is Barack Obama race-baiting, gay-bashing is sure to follow. Recently, protests by a group of Gay activists (remember when we Democrats loved protests and booing establishment liars?) who care more for the Gay community than Barack Obama, were announced. Soon thereafter, the usual Obama tricks came to the fore. Obama quietly (so only Gay activists -and no one else – would know) signed a memorandum which tried to head off the protests – but as usual the memorandum was meaningless.This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.”

The protests, despite the flowery worded memorandum, proceeded and Obama was rightly heckled in California as he campaigned for the drowning Senator Boxer. It’s what we have advised Women, Gays and Jews to do because the mainline organizations for these groups are more interested in protecting Obama than in protecting their constituents.

Obama, as can be seen by the video did not like being heckled.
Obama was clearly angered at the challenge from the Left and not the easier to demonize Right. The Hopium guzzlers in the California audience, the ones who gave farm animals more respect than gay people on election day 2008, instead of defending the Gay activists, defended Barack Obama. Retaliation from Obama followed against the boo happy Gay people.

In a report from Politico sarcastically called “Most transparent White House ever…” Gay activists in the military chained themselves to the White House fence and the White House tried to erase them from history. From the hypocrites on the Left – silence. Silence as in Silence = Death. Gay-bashing is back on the Obama menu and the hypocrites of the Big Blog Left are sitting at his table.

This story is far from over because these genuine Gay activists will not protect Barack Obama in the same way the mainline and useless “Gay” organizations and the hypocrite Left and the Big Blog boys protect their object of adulation. Do not be surprised if these Gay activists are branded as “racists”, even if they are black, brown, yellow, red, or green. They will soon become “Teabaggers” and not in a way they will like. Which brings us, as we promised, to a discussion of the Tea Party movement, so we can finish tomorrow with a final discussion about Bill Clinton’s recent comments on the Tea Party movement.

* * * * * *

To understand the Tea Party movement we will quote from Leftist Noam Chomsky and borrow liberally from a thoughtful article at the Left oriented Third Estate Sunday Review.

What did Noam Chomsky, lion hero of the Left have to say about the Tea Party movement? The Progressive on a recent Chomsky speech:

The level of anger and fear is like nothing I can compare in my lifetime,” he said.

He cited a statistic from a recent poll showing that half the unaffiliated voters say the average tea party member is closer to them than anyone else.

“Ridiculing the tea party shenanigans is a serious error,” Chomsky said.

Their attitudes “are understandable,” he said. “For over 30 years, real incomes have stagnated or declined. This is in large part the consequence of the decision in the 1970s to financialize the economy.”

There is class resentment, he noted. “The bankers, who are primarily responsible for the crisis, are now reveling in record bonuses while official unemployment is around 10 percent and unemployment in the manufacturing sector is at Depression-era levels,” he said.

And Obama is linked to the bankers, Chomsky explained.

“The financial industry preferred Obama to McCain,” he said. “They expected to be rewarded and they were. Then Obama began to criticize greedy bankers and proposed measures to regulate them. And the punishment for this was very swift: They were going to shift their money to the Republicans. So Obama said bankers are “fine guys” and assured the business world: ‘I, like most of the American people, don’t begrudge people success or wealth. That is part of the free-market system.’

People see that and are not happy about it.”

He said “the colossal toll of the institutional crimes of state capitalism” is what is fueling “the indignation and rage of those cast aside.”

“People want some answers,” Chomsky said. “They are hearing answers from only one place: Fox, talk radio, and Sarah Palin.

We don’t know what “shenanigans” Chomsky refers to and the use of that word clearly violates Chomsky’s own advice. But where Chomsky is correct is in lucidly cataloging the rational response from the electorate to what they are witnessing – with their own eyes – while Big Media describes an ‘all is right in Barack World’ fakeness.

We wrote repeatedly on the “financilization” of the American economy and the consequences of that hijacking of the American economy. [See The Rise Of The Obama Crimelords and Celestial Dirge] We quoted Kevin Phillips in the former article saying:

Asked if he was at the point of “despairing”, Phillips replied “my sense of histories previous goes to the one or two percent leading world economic power is you don’t get back on the right track.”

It is that rational anxiety that drives the Tea Party movement. In that Obama Crimelords article we also quoted Simon Johnson from his article The Quiet Coup:

But there’s a deeper and more disturbing similarity: elite business interests—financiers, in the case of the U.S.—played a central role in creating the crisis, making ever-larger gambles, with the implicit backing of the government, until the inevitable collapse. More alarming, they are now using their influence to prevent precisely the sorts of reforms that are needed, and fast, to pull the economy out of its nosedive. The government seems helpless, or unwilling, to act against them. [snip]

The invention of securitization, interest-rate swaps, and credit-default swaps greatly increased the volume of transactions that bankers could make money on. And an aging and increasingly wealthy population invested more and more money in securities, helped by the invention of the IRA and the 401(k) plan. Together, these developments vastly increased the profit opportunities in financial services.

Not surprisingly, Wall Street ran with these opportunities. From 1973 to 1985, the financial sector never earned more than 16 percent of domestic corporate profits. In 1986, that figure reached 19 percent. In the 1990s, it oscillated between 21 percent and 30 percent, higher than it had ever been in the postwar period. This decade, it reached 41 percent. Pay rose just as dramatically. From 1948 to 1982, average compensation in the financial sector ranged between 99 percent and 108 percent of the average for all domestic private industries. From 1983, it shot upward, reaching 181 percent in 2007.

The great wealth that the financial sector created and concentrated gave bankers enormous political weight—a weight not seen in the U.S. since the era of J.P. Morgan (the man). In that period, the banking panic of 1907 could be stopped only by coordination among private-sector bankers: no government entity was able to offer an effective response. But that first age of banking oligarchs came to an end with the passage of significant banking regulation in response to the Great Depression; the reemergence of an American financial oligarchy is quite recent.

Third Estate Sunday Review
sums up the “Tea Party racism” fakery quite nicely:

It wasn’t racism when Democrats tapped into for victories and it’s not racism now that it’s turned against the Democrats.

And yet that’s what the left has repeatedly and wrongly insisted upon screaming. When not, of course, using homophobic terms to describe Tea Party activists (thereby implying that there is both something wrong with them and wrong with the LGBT community — the left scores a double on the insult playing field!). We’ve heard it from Lila Garrett (KPFK), we’ve heard it from Kris Welch (KPFA), we’ve heard it from alleged radical attorneys. Yeah, we’ve heard it from everyone and, guess what, so have other people.

That’s the Tea Party activists, that’s the middle. And when they want to look to someone to listen to, you really think that Lila Garrett’s going to be a go-to for them after all those insults? After all the hate she’s spewed?

We like this summation too:

“The left needs to take a moment to recall the way they recoiled in horror during 2001 and 2002 as Midge Decter, Jonah Goldberg and assorted others crawled on their bellies to worship at the feet of George W. Bush. That right wingers might be predisposed to like Bush, a Republican, wasn’t surprising. That they would disgrace themselves with the kind of political whoring for a leader that is rarely seen off mainland China was astounding. [snip]

When we on the left behave that way, we don’t just provide laughter for the right and the middle, we ensure that we will never reach them with anything we say because we have demonstrated we’re nothing but whores who will bash Bush with Guantanamo, for example, but rush to justify and excuse Barack breaking his promise (and his timeline) to close it.

You don’t come off as honest brokers when that’s how you present to the public.

Noam Chomsky is warning about the anger. The anger itself isn’t the problem. Even Chomsky notes that it’s justified. The problem is only one side is currently able to speak to the angry. The left has ensured that the angry have no reason to listen to them. They’ve done that by insisting they were just uneducated, they were racists and every other insult in the book. That’s not how you persuade anyone to listen to you.”

Bob Somersby at DailyHowler howled about the Tea Party denigraters (E.J. Dionne) too:

“During the reign of the last Democratic president, Dionne deferred to his colleagues in the mainstream press—to the Clinton/Gore-haters who gave us George Bush. In this era, he has made a switch—like Chris Matthews, he is now deferring to the views of the newly-emerged liberal world. But what follows is a peculiar analysis, however one might explain its provenance. This was the start of yesterday’s column, which we’d call “Death Wish Too:”

DIONNE (4/19/10): The Tea Party is nothing new. It represents a relatively small minority of Americans on the right end of politics, and it will not determine the outcome of the 2010 elections.”

Somersby notes Dionne’s contention that both parties will lose this November due to Tea Party anger. Somersby also mocks the notion of Tea Party activists as a “small minority”:

“In a two-party system, it’s odd to be told that both parties stand to lose if some notion gains purchase. But the basic assessment which opened this column strikes us as simply bizarre. The Tea Party is “a relatively small minority of Americans,” Dionne says, using a helpful weasel word. And not only that! This relatively small minority “will not determine the outcome” of November’s elections.

We have no idea why Dionne feels he can make that prediction. We were especially puzzled after he got more specific about the size of this group:[snip]

Uh-oh! This “relatively small minority” actually “accounts for about one-fifth of the country!” And not only that: Being disproportionately white, aged and affluent, this group is likely to vote at a disproportionate rate. Given the very low turn-out rates which characterize our off-year elections, we have no idea why Dionne would say that this group will not determine the outcome this fall.

(Turn-out rate in 2006: 36.8 percent.)

By the way, is it true? Is the Tea Party just the “old anti-government far right that has always been with us?” Surely, there’s a large overlap. But the last time this group got disproportionately motivated, it blew the doors off the Democratic Party in the 1994 off-year elections. (This was, of course, just two years after the last Democrat reached the White House.) And by the way: Are you happy the hear that the “far right” now comprises one-fifth of the nation? Good God! If that’s the size of just the far right, what makes us think that liberals and progressives have any chance at all?

As with Matthews, so with Dionne: If you thought it was bad when he pandered against you, it may be worse when he starts pandering to you. That said, we thought the unhelpful analysis only continued when Dionne stopped predicting November’s outcome and started telling us who these Tea Party supporters—this small minority—actually are.

Much of Dionne’s assessment of this question can be reduced to an absurdity: He marvels at the fact that supporters of a conservative (“far right”) movement adopt more conservative political positions than the population as a whole. In the following passage, for example, Dionne is shocked to learn that the “far right” is generally opposed to higher taxes and to increased federal spending! Incredibly, the far right oppose these approaches more than the rest of us do!”


“Pandering to you and yours, Dionne presents these preferences as “a tendency of Tea Party enthusiasts to side with the better-off against the poor.” He fails to note that many other voters share these views—many voters who don’t (yet) say they support the Tea Party. But that is because Dionne’s whole column is designed to insult the motives of Tea Party folk. This strikes us as another Death Wish—a good route to election defeat.

Pandering to you and yours, Dionne spends a good chunk of his column discussing the racial motives of Tea Parry supporters. Unlike the more clownish Rich-and-Blow, he does offer the standard disclaimers.”

And the coup de grace:

“Dionne’s prediction seems absurd; his discussions of motive are pure pander-jobs. [snip]

According to Dionne, “white Americans are reluctant to discuss” the idea that “part of the anger at President Obama among Tea Partiers does appear to be driven by racial concerns.” Too funny! In fact, white “liberals” seem inclined to discuss nothing else; [snip]

When we say and imply that these people are racists, it makes us ratty white liberals feel good—but we’re playing with electoral fire. You see, based on that “19 percent” figure, about 30 million additional voters also think that too much has been made of black problems in recent years—30 million additional voters who don’t (currently) describe themselves as Tea Party supporters. When we keep assailing the motives of Tea Party supporters, we’re assailing these peoples’ motives as well. This means there are 30 million additional people we are inviting to vote against us, added to the 36 million Dionne says are already lost. At this point, even Dionne might see an electoral problem looming in November: Could 66 million voters possibly tip November’s election?

In 2006, only 81 million people voted in all.

Dionne has picked-and-chosen his way through the data, selecting responses he can use to play his race and privilege cards. These cards make us soft-headed liberals feel good, but they’re very dangerous. Just read through that survey’s questions! Tea Party folk are different (on balance) from everyone else, but tens of millions of people who aren’t Tea Party supporters believe the same damn-fool things that are driving numbers against Obama. [snip]

What do we tell these people instead? We tell them the Tea Party people are racist privilege-lovers. In the case of tens of millions of other voters, this means that we are assailing their basic instincts too. Or those of their relatives.

Our side loves to assail the other tribe, telling ourselves that they’re very bad people. We love to hear ourselves call them racists. We love to hear how selfish they are.

And so what! That “small minority” can’t beat us, we say, as our fantasy lives grow even greater.

Could we possibly get any dumber? Have a more flagrant death wish?

Somersby can be classified as a supporter of Obama policies but he sees the race-baiting for what it is – and it is coming from “our” side.

Is there any wonder then that the Republican Party is seen as “hero” in this disgusting saga? Republicans know their need is to co-opt the Tea Party movement. This is what Bill Clinton did in 1992 and beyond when he co-opted the aims and language of the Perot movement.

* * * * * *

After the astounding New York Times/CBS News poll on Tea Party supporters (“very angry, generally well-educated, financially secure and deeply pessimistic about the direction of the country“) the Times asked “political analysts and historians what they found most illuminating about the poll’s findings and whether the views of the Tea Party backers have commonly run through American politics.” Many of the responses were slaps at “angry white men”, but David Gergen had this to say:

“I actually witnessed Wednesday’s rally in Boston. And while there was some tough rhetoric from the platform, contrary to the notion that these rallies are filled with anger and bitterness, the mood was festive and friendly.

There were lots of homemade signs protesting taxes, health reform and big government — and notably, several proclaiming that being anti-Obama does not mean a white person is a racist. Clearly, many feel stung by what they see as misrepresentations in the press.

My overall impression was one that was fortified by The New York Times/CBS News survey: these Tea Partiers seem an awful lot like the Ross Perot voters of 1992. Those who supported Mr. Perot were mostly white, a little better educated than the general population and much more concerned about government deficits than government peeking into bedrooms. They were also more from the West and South but had pockets of support scattered around the country.

While there are differences, that is also the profile of the Tea Partiers. And get this: 18 percent of the public identify themselves as Tea Party supporters; Mr. Perot attracted 19 percent of the national vote.

There has always been a populist strain in American politics — in Massachusetts, stretching back to the Shays’ Rebellion in the 1780s. Harsh times deepen personal insecurity and frustration, and spirit of rebellion pushes to the surface. Many of these Tea Partiers are fearful of how the country is changing. Some circles look down upon them; it would be far wiser to listen, understand and find ways to heal.”

That’s what Bill Clinton did in the 1990s – listen, understand, heal.

Opposite Gergen, Rick Perlstein, was in the majority with his Glenn Beck obsession and preferred insult to clear-headed analysis and understanding. After noting his frustrations with a movement that “is ugly and seeks to traduce so many of the values I hold dear“, Perlstein drops this pearl of venom:

“…the Tea Partiers are overwhelming Republican or right-of-Republican — they are the same angry, ill-informed, overwhelmingly white, crypto-corporate paranoiacs that accompany every ascendancy of liberalism within U.S. government.” [snip]

There will be shrieking. It will be the shrieking of a small minority. Democrats stand nothing to gain by paying overmuch attention.”

Forget that they are voters, insults are so much more satisfying.

Other commenters chose derision and noted that well-off Tea Party activists support programs, like Social Security, which benefit them. That voters will approve of programs that genuinely benefit them, and are not looting schemes, is a shock to the intellectual “creative class” at the New York Times.

Steven Hayward preferred to look to the data in the poll, not his prejudices. Hayward noted:

“This populist movement is not your father’s culture war; in fact, 57 percent (question 67) favor gay marriage or civil unions, 65 percent favor access to abortion; an equal number (question 70) support some gun restrictions.” [snip]

Second, the poll offers only scant evidence that racism or racial animosity is a dominant factor of the Tea Partiers, though there is some evidence of polarization that is a problem for the Tea Party as a movement.[snip]

The fact that so many Tea Partiers are new to political participation suggests that, like the Perot voters of 1992 who were said to represent the “angry middle,” a plurality of Tea Partiers are moderates who are simply shocked by Obama’s great leap forward in the size of government.

The difference between 1992 and today is that the person — Perot — came first, and a weak movement followed for a time. This time the Tea Party came first, and it is unclear if it will coalesce into a clear movement or unite behind a political figure.”

Paul Butler, an African-American egghead, apparently unaware that the first Tea Party related violence was an attack on an African-American man called the “N” word by union thugs, has this contribution:

“If I were an old white Republican, and had money, and a young black man took over the government talking about change, I’d be scared too. My problem with Obama is that, so far, he hasn’t given wealthy white Republicans enough to be scared about.”

Eugene Robinson, not to be undone by the New York Times in unwarranted hysterics has his own contribution on “trust” in the Washington Post:

“The overhyped tea party phenomenon is more about symbolism and screaming than anything else. A “movement” that encompasses gun nuts, tax protesters, devotees of the gold standard, Sarah Palin, insurance company lobbyists, “constitutionalists” who have not read the Constitution, Medicare recipients who oppose government-run health care, crazy “birthers” who claim President Obama was born in another country, a contingent of outright racists (come on, people, let’s be real) and a bunch of fat-cat professional politicians pretending to be “outsiders” is not a coherent intellectual or political force.”

The race-baiting from Robinson is well known to Hillary Clinton supporters, even as Robinson bemoans the “lost trust in institutions”. And let’s not forget that it was African-American Hillary supporters who carried the heaviest burden for Hillary because Obama Dimocrats demanded support for Obama based on the color of his skin. Now, as Ani has taken note of, African-Americans who support the Tea Party are denounced in the vilest terms possible, because they dare speak their minds and call out the race-baiters. You don’t have to be a member of, or support, the Tea Party movement to feel the sting of the “racist” or “Oreo” charge, you just have to remember when it was done to us. [And for the record, the gentleman in the yellow T-shirt is right about the heartbreaking “Uncle Tom” in Harriet Beecher Stowe’s monumental abolitionist work Uncle Tom’s Cabin.]

What matters to the Tea Party people today is a problem Bill Clinton knows how to address:

“So why are the American people so angry and frustrated with their government?

It’s the economy, stupid.

Millions of Americans have lost their jobs and their homes, and millions more Americans are on the verge of losing their jobs and homes.

There are approximately 5.5 unemployed Americans for every job opening. RealtyTrac projects that there will be 4.5 million home foreclosures in 2010. The economic nightmare just keeps going from bad to worse.

The result is a massive horde of pissed off American voters.

As long as Americans are fat and happy and their wallets are full, most of them really could care less how involved the government is in their lives. But when things go bad economically, all of a sudden the government becomes a major annoyance.

And this is not a Republican v. Democrat thing either. The truth is that both parties have been radically expanding the size of the U.S. government for decades. Both parties have been spending taxpayer money like there is no tomorrow. Both parties have mortgaged the future of America to please their constituents. Now average Americans from both parties are alarmed at how large the government has become and how badly it is screwing things up. Just consider the following quote from….

“The government’s been lying to people for years. Politicians make promises to get elected, and when they get elected, they don’t follow through,” says Cindy Wanto, 57, a registered Democrat from Pennsylvania who joined several thousand for a rally in Washington on April 15 — the tax filing deadline. “There’s too much government in my business. It was a problem before Obama, but he’s certainly not helping fix it.”

We’ve written before in our continuing series “Mistake In ’08” about the historic mistake the Democratic Party made when the establishment gifted Barack Obama the nomination. There was a chance with Hillary Clinton as the nominee to heal the breach in the FDR coalition – and unite the White Working Class with African-Americans – a breach caused by the necessary passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. But from what we read at the New York Times, the Hopium guzzler strategy is an intolerant attack on those that do not worship at the footstool of the Mess-iah.

A Bill Clinton pollster has sounded the warning already:

“To turn a corner, Democrats need to start embracing an agenda that speaks to the broad concerns of the American electorate. It should be somewhat familiar: It is the agenda that is driving the Tea Party movement and one that has the capacity to motivate a broadly based segment of the electorate.

To be sure, great efforts have been made recently to demonize the Tea Party movement. But polling suggests that the Tea Party movement has not been diminished but, in fact, has grown stronger. The Winston Group found, in three national surveys conducted from December through February and published April 1, that the Tea Party movement is composed of a broad cross-section of the American people — 40 to 50 percent of its supporters are non-Republicans. Indeed, one-third of self-identified Democrats say they support the Tea Party movement.

The electorate’s dissatisfaction with the established political order has led the Tea Party movement to become as potent a force as any U.S. political party.”

As Somersby, Chomsky and others have noted, the Tea Party is at least as popular as the Obama Dimocratic Party and garners broad public support “extending well beyond the movement”. And – it’s the swing voters, stupid:

“The swing voters, who are key to the fate of the Democratic Party, care most about three things: reigniting the economy, reducing the deficit and creating jobs.

These voters are outraged by the seeming indifference of the Obama administration and congressional Democrats, who they believe wasted a year on health-care reform. These voters will not tolerate more diversion from their pressing economic concerns. They view the Obama administration as working systematically to protect the interests of public-sector employees and organized labor — by offering specific benefits such as pension protection and tax reductions at the expense of all taxpayers.

Democrats must understand that voters will not accept seeing their tax dollars used to pay for higher wages and better benefits for public-sector employees when they themselves are getting higher taxes and lower wages.”

Instead of taking care of ordinary Americans and restoring the economy and bringing back jobs Barack Obama and his circus of Congressional Dimocrats are busy breaking their word on budget discipline.

Instead of taking care of ordinary Americans, not insulting them as bitter and clingy, Barack Obama is busy with all his many friends at Goldman Sachs. And by “busy” we mean Obama privately collecting cash from the ones he is denouncing in public – the typical Obama conflict between flowery words and dirty actions.

For all the flowery corporate bashing words, it is the Obama Dimocrats who are now the allies of Wall Street. Even Judas Greg Craig has announced he is at Goldman Sachs. The Republicans are allies of Wall Street too, but they are not hypocrites about it.

Flowery words but dirty actions from Obama? It’s why we repeatedly write “Obama can’t be trusted – he simply can’t be trusted”.

[Part III next]


Volcanic Bill Clinton And The Tea Party Movement, Part I

Today is our third year anniversary, the 15th anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing, the anniversary of the Battle of Lexington and Concord, as well as the 17th anniversary of Waco. Big Pink began publication on April 19, 2007 and we can’t celebrate today, because too much is going on. We’ll celebrate on another day.

What is the “much” that is going on? There is a volcanic eruption in the news and it is called Bill Clinton.

Bill Clinton has been saying and doing some strange things lately which we do not take at face value. Bill has the usual suspects up in arms as well as some allies. Ditto Hillary. What is going on?

Recall our years long critique of the Obama health scam, which was not such an outré viewpoint: 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.” That was conventional wisdom in the best sense because it reflected polling reality. We also noted repeatedly that “the medium is the message” when asked about where Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton stood on the Obama health scam. Our contention was that if Bill or Hillary Clinton wanted to express support they had the means, opportunity, and knowledge to do a full court press. We wrote:

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.

Our case was quite simple: health care was not popular and if it failed to pass would be Obama’s personal Waterloo and if it did pass it would be the Dimocrats Waterloo. We also noted the eerie silence from Bill And Hillary Clinton.

And there was almost complete silence from Bill and Hillary Clinton on health care. The few times either of them spoke on the issue was when asked in private or when asked explicitly in a public interview. There were no mass rallies, no ceaseless round of interview, no speech tours, no fusillade of published articles. There was one e-mail sent out on Bill Clinton’s behalf, but not much else. There was another very odd thing Bill Clinton said publicly and repeatedly.

The most prominent political prognosticator who predicted a post-reform bump for Obama was President Bill Clinton – who told reporters last year that Obama would add 10 points to his approval rating “the minute health reform passed.

We were not the only ones who thought Bill Clinton was saying something odd. Tom Jensen of the Democratic polling firm PPP (Public Policy Polling) scratched his head and said, “I don’t know why Bill Clinton is out there saying there’ll be a ten point bounce.”

Our answer to the Bill Clinton puzzle at the end of March wasBill Clinton is no dope and he usually lowers expectations, not heightens them. Now, why would Bill do the contrary in this case?

Was Bill Clinton delusional and did he actually believe, contrary to all the evidence displayed for months and months that Obama’s health scam was hated, that there would be joy in the streets and in the polls for Barack Obama post scam passage? Or was Bill Clinton doing something much more sly? Your answer to that question will color reaction to Bill Clinton’s latest statements.

Bill Clinton is clearly proving us right that when he wants to communicate something he does so with gusto. Our question now that we have witnessed repeated interviews, and a big speech and a New York Times Op-Ed from Bill Clinton is – what is Bill up to? It’s almost as if Bill Clinton is on a one man “sink Obama Dimocrats” in November tour.

Bill Clinton respects polling. That is something both enemies and allies agree on. Bill Clinton respects polling and understands political strategy, but yet he raised expectations beyond the reasonable and said that Obama’s numbers would rise the moment the health scam passed? Bill Clinton respect polling and understands political strategy, but yet he decides to poke at the hornets’ nest which is the Tea Party movement? Our eyebrows arch.

* * * * * *

Has Bill Clinton lost all interest in polls and the information they provide? It’s possible of course, but somehow we think not.

Today is the Patriots Day holiday in Massachusetts. There are lots of polls published today and in recent days for Bill Clinton to consider – polls which we do not doubt Bill Clinton has thoroughly digested.

“Public confidence in government is at one of the lowest points in a half century, according to a survey from the Pew Research Center. Nearly 8 in 10 Americans say they don’t trust the federal government and have little faith it can solve America’s ills, the survey found.

The survey illustrates the ominous situation President Barack Obama and the Democratic Party face as they struggle to maintain their comfortable congressional majorities in this fall’s elections. Midterm prospects are typically tough for the party in power. Add a toxic environment like this and lots of incumbent Democrats could be out of work.[snip]

This anti-government feeling has driven the tea party movement, reflected in fierce protests this past week.

“The government’s been lying to people for years. Politicians make promises to get elected, and when they get elected, they don’t follow through,” says Cindy Wanto, 57, a registered Democrat from Nemacolin, Pa., who joined several thousand for a rally in Washington on April 15 – the tax filing deadline. “There’s too much government in my business. It was a problem before Obama, but he’s certainly not helping fix it.”

Majorities in the survey call Washington too big and too powerful, and say it’s interfering too much in state and local matters. [snip]

Trust in government rarely gets this low,” said Andrew Kohut, director of the nonpartisan center that conducted the survey. “Some of it’s backlash against Obama. But there are a lot of other things going on.”

And, he added: “Politics has poisoned the well.”

The survey found that Obama’s policies were partly to blame for a rise in distrustful, anti-government views. In his first year in office, the president orchestrated a government takeover of Detroit automakers, secured a $787 billion stimulus package and pushed to overhaul the health care system. [snip]

“I want an honest government. This isn’t an honest government. It hasn’t been for some time,” said self-described independent David Willms, 54, of Sarasota, Fla. He faulted the White House and Congress under both parties.[snip]

In the short term, the deepening distrust is politically troubling for Obama and Democrats. Analysts say out-of-power Republicans could well benefit from the bitterness toward Washington come November, even though voters blame them, too, for partisan gridlock that hinders progress.

In a democracy built on the notion that citizens have a voice and a right to exercise it, the long-term consequences could prove to be simply unhealthy – or truly debilitating. Distrust could lead people to refuse to vote or get involved in their own communities. Apathy could set in, or worse – violence.

Democrats and Republicans both accept responsibility and fault the other party for the electorate’s lack of confidence.

“This should be a wake-up call. Both sides are guilty,” said Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo. She pointed to “nonsense” that goes on during campaigns that leads to “promises made but not promises kept.” Still, she added: “Distrust of government is an all-American activity. It’s something we do as Americans and there’s nothing wrong with it.”

Sen. Scott Brown, a Republican who won a long-held Democratic Senate seat in Massachusetts in January by seizing on public antagonism toward Washington, said: “It’s clear Washington is broken. There’s too much partisan bickering to be able to solve the problems people want us to solve.”

And, he added: “It’s going to be reflected in the elections this fall.”

We’ve always said it’s about trust. And we don’t trust Barack Obama. Most Americans increasingly agree with us.

Claire McCaskill thinks it is “nonsense” those pesky “promises made but not promises kept”. Claire should also realize that delegitimizing people by calling them “racist” (a favorite past time by Obama thugs against Hillary Clinton supporters and Tea Party activists) is also a pesky problem – especially when the “racist” shouters are doughy white boys or work at doughy white boy institutions.

Calling people who express themselves legitimately by the anti-gay and simultaneously misogynistic “Teabagger” epithet can also rile people up. And tit-for-tat never works because for every “Oklahoma City” shouted by the Left, the right will shout “Waco”.

Before continuing with our discussion of Bill Clinton and what he is up to, we need to exactly understand why the Tea Party movement is such a threat to so many people. And the Tea Party movement is indeed a great threat to established institutions. It might be the real thing. It might be the same thing as what they celebrate today in Massachusetts.

We’ll discuss exactly why the Tea Party movement is so important and so feared in our next thrilling, Bill packed, episode.


Hidden Stories – Health Care, Economics, Gay Supreme Court Candidates

One would think that a newspaper called the NEW YORK Times would have thought this bit of “news” was important to publish before Obama’s health scam was perpetuated on the nation. We heard a lot of disjointed information about Massachusetts health care but never about New York health care.

Only now, as the scam is still rejected by a majority of Americans does the New York Times decide to publish a story that is relevant to the health care debate. The allegedly New York Times writes today:

“When her small executive search firm in New York City canceled its health insurance policy last year because of the recession and rising premiums, April Welles was able to buy her own plan and still be covered for her cancer and multiple sclerosis.

She was lucky to live in New York, one of the first states to require insurance companies to offer comprehensive coverage to all people regardless of pre-existing conditions. But Ms. Welles, 58, also pays dearly: Her premium is $17,876 a year.

“That’s a lot of groceries,” she said.”

Only now, in April of 2010 does the New York Times decide to inform readers that New York State is a “laboratory for the core provision of the new federal health care law”.

New York’s insurance system has been a working laboratory for the core provision of the new federal health care law — insurance even for those who are already sick and facing huge medical bills — and an expensive lesson in unplanned consequences. Premiums for individual and small group policies have risen so high that state officials and patients’ advocates say that New York’s extensive insurance safety net for people like Ms. Welles is falling apart.”

Is that not a rather relevant series of revelations that should have been put before the public months, if not years ago? Where was the New York Times? The New York Times was, and still is, shilling for Obama. The publication of “news” so late in the day as to render it “not news” is a key reason why Big Media is losing its grip on the American public – although it still has a great hold on those that bow to its power. Here’s more:

“The problem stems in part from the state’s high medical costs and in part from its stringent requirements for insurance companies in the individual and small group market. In 1993, motivated by stories of suffering AIDS patients, the state became one of the first to require insurers to extend individual or small group coverage to anyone with pre-existing illnesses.

New York also became one of the few states that require insurers within each region of the state to charge the same rates for the same benefits, regardless of whether people are old or young, male or female, smokers or nonsmokers, high risk or low risk.

Healthy people, in effect, began to subsidize people who needed more health care. The healthier customers soon discovered that the high premiums were not worth it and dropped out of the plans. The pool of insured people shrank to the point where most of them had high health care needs. Without healthier people to spread the risk, their premiums skyrocketed, a phenomenon known in the trade as the “adverse selection death spiral.”

Where was the New York Times with this relevant information when it mattered? Here at Big Pink and anywhere where the concern was about action, not words, it was clear that the Obama plan was nothing but a scam. Now the New York Times finally does what should have been done a long time ago – write about the facts. Here’s more which encapsulates in the first sentence what we wrote about from the very beginning (because we actually care about the issues not the glorification of Mess-iah Obama):

You have a mandate that’s accessible in theory, but not in practice, because it’s too expensive,” said Mark P. Scherzer, a consumer lawyer and counsel to New Yorkers for Accessible Health Coverage, an advocacy group. “What you get left clinging to the life raft is the population that tends to have pretty high health needs.”

Since 2001, the number of people who bought comprehensive individual policies through HMOs in New York has plummeted to about 31,000 from about 128,000, according to the State Insurance Department.

At the same time, New York has the highest average annual premiums for individual policies: $6,630 for single people and $13,296 for families in mid-2009, more than double the nationwide average, according to America’s Health Insurance Plans, an industry group.”

Should not the New York Times have examined the New York State insurance system before all Americans became laboratory rats in the Obama health scam? And the Obama claims that “regulators” will solve the problems? Not quite if the New York Times is accurate about “regulators” in New York State.

“The new federal health care law tries to avoid the death spiral by requiring everyone to have insurance and penalizing those who do not, as well as offering subsidies to low-income customers. But analysts say that provision could prove meaningless if the government does not vigorously enforce the penalties, as insurance companies fear, or if too many people decide it is cheaper to pay the penalty and opt out.

Under the federal law, those who refuse coverage will have to pay an annual penalty of $695 per person, up to $2,085 per family, or 2.5 percent of their household income, whichever is greater. The penalty will be phased in from 2014 to 2016.

“In this new marketplace that we envision, this requirement that everybody be covered, that should draw better, healthier people into the insurance pool, which should bring down rates,” said Mark Hall, a professor of law and public health at Wake Forest University. But he added, “You have to sort of take a leap of faith that that’s going to happen.

As part of the political bargain to get insurance companies to support insurance for all regardless of risk, called community rating, New York State deregulated the market, allowing insurers to charge as much as they wanted within certain profit margins. The state can require companies to retroactively refund overcharges to consumers, but it seldom does.[snip]

Mark L. Wagar, the president of Empire BlueCross BlueShield, said New York’s problem was not deregulation of rates, but the lack of an effective mandate for everyone to buy insurance. To illustrate, he offered a statistic on how many people in the 18-to-26 age group, who are largely healthy, have bought individual insurance coverage through his company: 88 people out of 6 million insured by his company statewide.

New York is “the bellwether,” Mr. Wagar said. “We have the federal health reform on steroids in terms of richness and strictness.”

Where was the New York Times with this information before the Obama health scam vote? Why didn’t the New York Times note that Big Insurance wants more laboratory rats which is what Obama gave them? Troy Oechsner, the deputy superintendent for health at the State Insurance Department, is one of the regulators the laboratory rats are supposed to rely on to keep premiums down.

“To a large extent, insurance companies police themselves, according to Mr. Oechsner. From 2000 to 2007, insurance plans reported that they exceeded state profit allowances just 3 percent of the time, resulting in about $48 million in refunds to policyholders, Mr. Oechsner said. Yet subsequent Insurance Department investigations found that insurers should have refunded three times as much.”

So much for the “regulators” on health care. What about financial reform, the latest pet project of the Obama bamboozlement squad? We heard cheers yesterday because of regulator action against Goldman Sachs. But what is the real story? Maybe its more collusion:

“In his self-styled war against Wall Street, President Obama appears to have a powerful ally: Goldman Sachs.

The nation’s largest investment bank, famously cozy with top government officials in both parties, has tipped its hand to its shareholders, indicating that major financial “reform” proposals will help Goldman’s bottom line.”

Watch the actions, not the words.

“These are the very “fat cats” to whom Obama directed his trash talk in January: “If they want a fight, that’s a fight I’m willing to have.” Well, it looks like they don’t really want a fight. It looks like they want more regulation. The question is: What’s in it for Goldman?

If you take Blankfein and Cohn’s word, stricter federal liquidity and capital requirements would amount to regulators doing Goldman’s work for Goldman. They want Uncle Sam to mitigate “uncertainty about counterparties’ balance sheets.” That is, they want the government to reduce the risk that Goldman’s debtors or insurers will run into trouble.”

Actual regulation is needed, but we need to be careful of yet another scam perpetuated with flowery words. If there is not real regulation that protects ordinary Americans but rather scams Americans into once again becoming Wall Street laboratory rats then count us out.

As impossible as it is to say, Republicans are winning the battle on the economic front as well as the health front. That’s not us talking, that’s Ron Brownstein. Brownstein writes in the National Journal:

“The ferocity of this week’s Senate Republican attack on Democratic financial reform legislation was the surest sign yet that the GOP believes it is winning the argument over the economy.

Last year, amid the aftershocks of the most catastrophic financial meltdown since the Depression, opposing tougher financial regulation might have seemed a suicide mission to all but the most safely entrenched conservatives. And enough Senate Republicans might still recoil at being portrayed as defenders of Wall Street to eventually allow Democrats to pass a strong bill. But the fact that so many Republican senators feel comfortable starting with “Hell, no!” resistance to the Democratic plan demonstrates the GOP’s confidence that it has convinced voters that Big Government poses a greater threat to prosperity than Big Business, especially when they can portray the former as the servant of the latter.

More than a few Democrats worry that such Republican confidence is eminently justified. When Democracy, a center-left journal, recently asked leading liberal thinkers to assess President Obama’s performance, a recurrent theme was fear that he had lost control of the economic debate. Robert Reich, President Clinton’s Labor secretary, lamented that Obama’s failure to provide “a larger narrative” to explain the causes of the crash and his response to it had left the public “susceptible to [conservative] arguments that its problems were founded in ‘Big Government.’ ”

The Republicans’ “narrative” about Obama’s economic agenda — articulated again in Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell’s attack on financial reform — has been straightforward and unrelenting. In their telling, Obama is transforming the United States into a sclerotic European social-welfare state; forcing the strained middle class to fund both a “crony capitalism” of bailouts for the powerful (the charge McConnell leveled against the financial bill) and handouts for the poor (through health care reform); and impeding recovery by smothering the economy beneath stultifying federal spending, taxes, and regulation.”

Brownstein’s lament is that Obama is not emitting words fast enough. Brownstein calls it a “narrative gap”. Brownstein parenthetically notes about Bill Clinton “During Bush’s two terms, the economy created only one-fourth as many jobs as it did under Clinton; poverty rose sharply; and the median family income declined, after rising 14 percent under Clinton.” We repeat that information to amuse ourselves as we watch the current bumbler in chief. Brownstein, wants more campaign words from Obama to allow himself to forget the Obama record:

“When Obama first arrived, he often arraigned his predecessor’s record. The first chapter of Obama’s initial budget document was “Inheriting a Legacy of Misplaced Priorities.” Obama still delivers some similar jabs. But more often, he diffuses blame for the downturn across “a perfect storm of irresponsibility… that stretched from Wall Street to Washington to Main Street.” Obama, at other points, has emphasized his continuity with Bush’s approach, particularly on financial bailouts. (Liberal critics such as Reich believe that link extends beyond rhetoric to policy.) The result is that Obama has mostly shelved what political scientist Stephen Skowronek of Yale University calls “the authority to repudiate.” That’s the effort, employed by consequential presidents, such as Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan, to build support by portraying their agenda as the remedy for their predecessors’ failures.

Absent such a framework, public opinion about the economy is clearly shifting toward the GOP as the downturn persists. Obama’s economic approval rating has sagged to around 40 percent, and his lead over congressional Republicans on managing the economy has virtually evaporated.

These trends are compounding Democratic anxiety about the November election and fueling the Republican confidence apparent in the financial debate.”

The American voter too has the power to repudiate – a power which will be exercised in November.

What Obama says and what Obama does are always two different things.

* * * * * *

A few brief comments on Elena Kagan one of several potential Gay Supreme Court nominees. When we wrote our tongue-in-cheek call for Zac Efron to be nominated to the Supreme Court (if not Zac, we’ll take Cate Blanchett for the same reasons) we were going to mention the gay angle to the Elena Kagan candidacy. We choose not to because we wanted to take a more humorous look at the nomination to come. But we knew, about the rock solid rumors about Kagan. Most everyone did.

At the time we researched Kagan the “gay” stories were all over the place. The stories were posted at mostly “gay” websites but could be found just about anywhere for many years (this one dating back to May 2009 from a Left gay website). This was almost uninteresting news that we would write about if Kagan was nominated. Then the White House decided to denounce the gay rumors about Kagan and has now turned this non story into a story.

CBS news, which had reported that Elena Kagan is gay did the White House bidding and scrubbed the story – making the news “hidden”. It reminded us of the outrage from Lynne Cheney (who had written some Lesbian scenes in her earlier books) when the story of her daughter Mary Cheney being a Lesbian became public fodder years ago. Mary Cheney promoted gay events when she worked at Coors Beer and her long term relationship with a woman was well known. Alan Keyes also has a gay daughter who helped him in his campaigns even as he denounced gay people. Keyes eventually disowned his daughter but not much was said about that hideous display of “family values”. Instead it was all hush-hush hidden news. It was odd then, and it’s odd now.

These are sensitive issues but it’s the White House that has now made this a story. The many articles on Kagan being Gay were well handled. There was no right wing attack on Kagon on this issue. Now there will be because the White House has tried to kill a story which is in all likelihood true. Ben Smith writes:

“The flap began with a conservative blogger on CBS’s website mentioned in a rumor that she was a lesbian (something that has been hashed out at some length on gay blogs), saying it made her more likely to be nominated. When the chatter hit CBS, the White House decided to kill it, going hard at CBS and calling the claim “inaccurate” and even “a false charge,” as though she’d been accused of something bad.

Now Human Rights Campaign is piling on, calling the flotation of the rumor a trick “straight out the right-wing playbook.”

That’s ridiculous. The gay blog Towleroad, not typically an arm of the right-wing conspiracy, has been cheerfully speculating for months. Republicans on the Hill decided last year, when two open lesbians were considered for the court, that they wouldn’t make an issue of it. And that’s a good political decision: Most Americans don’t think sexual orientation should be a factor in hiring.”

We were denounced in our comments section once for noting the many hypocrisies of Arianna Huffinton, including her attacks on the validity of Hillary Clinton’s marriage, while Arianna used her openly “gay husband’s money and reputation to advance herself”. We thought the openly gay husband was public news and worthy of discussion and necessary to put the Arianna years of lies into context. We’ll continue to discuss hidden news whether it brings us catcalls or cheers.

Hidden news is the order of the day in the Age Of Fake but not here.

[No Hidden news for us here. We’ll discuss Bill Clinton’s comments on the Tea Party movement in our next article.]


Thanks For Nothing Barack!

Why are corporate profits up? Why is Sarah Palin smart? Why is Chuck Schumer worried?

Let’s solve more mysteries. Earlier this week we took note of several mysteries such as why the Dow Jones is up while volume is down. Today we easily solve the mystery of why corporate profits are up. The CNN money unit reports this:

“The long-awaited recovery is now under way, but it’s a slow, painful slog that’s short on animal spirits and long on a drumbeat of numbers that mostly shift from dreadful to less depressing.

Twenty-seven months after the recession began, unemployment is stuck at 9.7%. Housing starts are dragging near half-century lows. Consumers are finally spending again, but they’re still too fearful about their jobs and homes to crowd malls and auto lots with the buoyant abandon that heralds a full-rigged revival, the kind Americans are used to.

Amazingly, as consumers struggle, U.S. corporations are staging a nearly unprecedented comeback that’s largely escaping notice. The gargantuan, dispiriting job cuts that seem to dominate the news have also been the spur for an epic resurgence in profits. [snip]

Hence, the 500’s profits virtually returned to normal after years of extremes — bubbles in 2006 and 2007, collapse in 2008 — despite a feeble overall recovery that’s far from normal.”

Falling from the Fortune 500 list of top companies by revenue are manufacturers and home builders (from 14 companies listed in 2007 down to 0 today). Health care companies in 2009 took 9 spots on the list. GM is no longer in the top ten and even energy companies are drifting down. But the big mystery is why, or rather how, “the Fortune 500 managed that jump in earnings when the number that usually pulls profits up or down — revenues — dropped sharply?” The answer:

“The crucial reductions came in the item accounting for two-thirds of their costs: labor. In 2009, the Fortune 500 shed 821,000 jobs, the biggest loss in its history — almost 3.2% of its payroll. By mid-2009, companies were making fewer goods with far fewer workers.

A pivotal turn began midyear. Sales bottomed, then began to rise gently, as headcounts continued falling. “The largest part of the gain came from lower payrolls rather than the sluggish rise in sales, but they both contributed,” says Dirk van Dijk of Zacks Equity Research. The result was a wondrous surge in productivity, defined as the hours needed to make a bicycle, a PC, or a ton of insulation.

At the same time, wages rose only slightly. So for all of U.S. industry, the labor costs of creating a good or service — a measure known as unit labor costs — fell by 4.6%, according to the U.S. Department of Labor. That’s the sharpest drop in postwar history.

As sales started rising in the second half of 2009, all of the extra revenues and cost reductions fell to the bottom line. Today employers are maintaining the super-low cost regimes they imposed during the crisis while the economy is finally growing. That explains the explosion in Fortune 500 profits.”

Get rid of your workers, the people that should buy your products, and you make a profit on paper. You won’t see Henry Waxman investigate this. Waxman jumped on companies because legally required disclosures on health costs mocked the euphoria of Dimocrats on their health scam. Waxman threatened hearings to intimidate the corporations that followed the law. Waxman won’t call hearings on jobless workers and the solved mystery of corporate profits.

Toymaker Mattel cut 10% of employees along with other cost cutting measures. This resulted in a cost cut of $669 million which more than offset the $487 million revenue drop. Mattel did what it had to do to survive – something American governments will fail to do. The workers won’t be able to afford the products in the same way the citizens will soon not be able to afford their myriad levels of government.

And for those that doubt our label “Obama health scam” there’s this:

“The star of 2009 is undoubtedly health care. The sector’s earnings jumped to an all-time high of $92 billion, placing it second behind tech at $94 billion. Health-care earnings rose by $23 billion, or 33%. It wasn’t the band of new arrivals that accounted for most of the bounty, but extremely strong earnings from two groups, one surprising — medical insurers — and the other more predictable, pharmaceuticals.”

Don’t hold your breath waiting for a Henry Waxman investigation of strong earnings from insurers and pharmaceuticals. These companies also cut cost and “they raised premiums”. Henry, where’s the investigation? Look at what’s happening because of the Obama health scam:

“For the carriers, stringent state regulations tend to dampen price competition, giving them latitude to increase prices — a pattern that’s now causing a political uproar. The insurers are losing employee customers as small companies drop their plans and layoffs rise. But they’re partly compensating by booking new customers from Medicaid, the federal and state program for the poor, and Medicare Advantage, a plan that allows seniors to choose private insurance. That business, along with cuts in interest expense, helped UnitedHealth lift its sales by 7% and its profits far more, by 28%, to $3.8 billion.

For the drug industry, it’s as if the recession never happened.”

You betcha the recession never happened for those Obama cut deals with and can raise prices at will thanks to Rezko Obama. You can almost see the job openings for Michelle.

Don’t expect Waxman hearings or public inquiries into today’s Securities and Exchange Commission charges of “fraud” against Goldman Sachs either. Friday announcements are meant to be buried, not publicized.

Corporate profits mystery solved.

* * * * * *

Why is Sarah Palin smart?

When we last posted a video of Sarah Palin at a Boston Tea Party we missed a very smart gesture on her part.

Big Pink readers will recall our regular advice to Republicans to employ a powerful, but secret, weapon when discussing Barack Obama. Time after time the one reliable Republican who takes our advice is Sarah Palin. We are sure Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin will someday, when the time is right sit down together. They’ll get together and have a “cup of coffee” as Palin described it, or perhaps a cup of Tea.”

So even though we missed it on first viewing, we are not surprised that Sarah Palin said this when she was in Boston:

“The voters are coming. Now, we’ve all learned a lot of lessons, I think, this past year. I don’t want anybody to feel bad if they had supported some of those on the Left in that last election. Because how would a lot of folks have known? We had a complicit media that did not do its job completely. Some tried, but some did not. Not vetting the candidates of the intentions there. Now, don’t feel bad though. Because most Americans were busy, We’re busy living our lives, raising our families and running our businesses. So, how are some to know? But now we do know. That’s the point. Now we do know, we know what the problem is. And now we’re going to fix the problem.

That’s a very sophisticated style of wooing from Sarah Palin. It’s very welcoming to those who fell for the Obama/Big Media claptrap. It’s also not a defensive crouch but instead an aggressive camaraderie. ‘You were duped,’ says Palin ‘but don’t worry about that but instead join us in our fight.’ That’s a smart lady at work.

Compare the Sarah Palin approach to the nasty Barack Obama remarks about Tea Party activists. Obama thinks, on April 15 tax day, while talking about trips to Mars and asteroids, that Tea Party activists should “thank” him. No taking into account the questions and doubts legitimately asked. Instead, Obama says once again ‘worship me’. “You would think they’d be saying thank you” Obama says. What a nasty creature! And he says this at a Miami fund raiser of over $30,000 a head. The only thing missing is the “bitter and clingy” from the San Francisco fundraiser.

Obama demands worship and thanks from those darn Tea Party activists in much the same way that King George III thought the Boston Tea Party activists should worship and thank him. Obama Dimocrats and Big Media are more than happy to worship and thank their golden calfas well as attempt to disrupt and divide Tea Party activists. Obama Dimocrats will also assist their golden calf by smearing as “racists”, now “Tea Klanner” those they disagree with.

* * * * * *

Why is Chuck Schumer worried?

We’ve been deadly on target regarding Chuck Schumer. In 2008 we uncovered the Chuck Schumer machinations in New York State’s senate appointment fight. Caroline Kennedy did not just self-destruct. Chuck did not want to campaign with an unproved product and Chuck certainly did not want to be second fiddle again – to a woman. As much as we were attacked, we were proven right.

The crazed Ted Kennedy schemes with Barack Obama to make Caroline president did not stop Chuck Schumer from hitting Caroline with a 2×4. By the time we wrote Treachery, Fear, And Loathing, In New York, we sounded like lunatics, but the lunacy was not on our part – we were accurately describing the schemes and plots of Chuck Schumer.

By January of this year, it became apparent that the Chuck Schumer 2×4 wielded against Caroline Kennedy, still had the bloodstains of Hillary Clinton on it. The evidence mounted that Chuck Schumer plotted along with the rest of the Dimocratic leadership, including Harry Reid (who looks more a loser every day and another potential Clinton Karma recipient), to get rid of Hillary Clinton.

Chuck’s self-interested machinations with the Dimocratic leadership helped Barack Obama but destroyed the Democratic Party because it destroyed the FDR coalition. In November we’ll know for sure if Chuck was right or whether we are right. [But when a Democratic polling firm declares Obama behind Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee as well as barely ahead of Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich, the Hopium guzzlers should not bet against us.]

By January 21st of this year we began to note the polling weaknesses of Chuck Schumer. If only a candidate would appear to run against him Schumer was vulnerable. We not only noted how weak Chuck was in the polls, but we also demonstrated how the then scheduled terror trials in New York could be used to defeat Chuck Schumer in the same way that terror trials as an issue helped Scott Brown defeat Martha Coakley in Massachusetts.

Almost as soon as we published our Terror Trial article, Chuck Schumer went on the warpath against the terror trials to be held in New York. Now a new, equally threatening issue has arisen that has Chuck Schumer worried.

New polling is raising questions about Jewish support for Barack Obama and his policies in the Middle East. Enter Ron Lauder.

Ronald Lauder of the World Jewish Congress (and son of cosmetics megastar Estee), wrote a letter:

“Dear President Obama:

I write today as a proud American and a proud Jew.

Jews around the world are concerned today. We are concerned about the nuclear ambitions of an Iranian regime that brags about its genocidal intentions against Israel. We are concerned that the Jewish state is being isolated and delegitimized.

Mr. President, we are concerned about the dramatic deterioration of diplomatic relations between the United States and Israel.[snip]

Our concern grows to alarm as we consider some disturbing questions. Why does the thrust of this Administration’s Middle East rhetoric seem to blame Israel for the lack of movement on peace talks? After all, it is the Palestinians, not Israel, who refuse to negotiate.

Israel has made unprecedented concessions. It has enacted the most far reaching West Bank settlement moratorium in Israeli history.

Israel has publicly declared support for a two-state solution. Conversely, many Palestinians continue their refusal to even acknowledge Israel’s right to exist.

The conflict’s root cause has always been the Palestinian refusal to accept Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people. Every American President who has tried to broker a peace agreement has collided with that Palestinian intransigence, sooner or later. Recall President Clinton’s anguish when his peace proposals were bluntly rejected by the Palestinians in 2000. Settlements were not the key issue then.

They are not the key issue now.[snip]

The Administration’s desire to improve relations with the Muslim world is well known. But is friction with Israel part of this new strategy? Is it assumed worsening relations with Israel can improve relations with Muslims? History is clear on the matter: appeasement does not work. It can achieve the opposite of what is intended.

And what about the most dangerous player in the region? Shouldn’t the United States remain focused on the single biggest threat that confronts the world today? That threat is a nuclear armed Iran. [snip]

Our great country and the tiny State of Israel have long shared the core values of freedom and democracy. It is a bond much treasured by the Jewish people. In that spirit I submit, most respectfully, that it is time to end our public feud with Israel and to confront the real challenges that we face together.”

Don’t think Chuck Schumer did not read that letter in the same way he read the writing on the wall regarding terror trials in New York. Chuck knows when he is threatened.

“Republicans have still failed to land a top-tier challenger to Kirsten Gillibrand, but comes now word of a billionaire to considering a run at her safer senior senator, Chuck Schumer.

Maggie Haberman reports that Ron Lauder, heir to a cosmetics fortune and a former candidate for mayor of New York, is making noise about a run.

The likelihood is that Ron Lauder is taking out his own 2×4 and warning Chuck on Israel. Lauder financed a successful term limits initiative in liberal New York City and has run for public office before. Lauder is not a particularly user friendly candidate, but unless Chuck gets his act together and distant from Barack Obama, he might get the race he does not want. A race against Lauder would put the significant Jewish vote possibly at play.

More nastiness from Barack Obama towards Israel and Chuck Schumer will have to do more than just merely distance himself from Obama. Chuck Schumer will have to take a 2×4 to Barack.

Obama is already acknowledging failure in advance of the November elections:

“President Barack Obama acknowledged Tuesday that, despite the expenditure of substantial political capital by his administration, progress may not be made on Israel-Palestine peace. The AP quoted his reply to a question about how recent successes in negotiating nuclear arms reduction with Russia — and getting 48 nations to sign on to a nuclear material security agreement — might translate into diplomatic successes elsewhere.

The two sides “may say to themselves, ‘We are not prepared to resolve these issues no matter how much pressure the United States brings to bear,'” Obama said.”

Already, Obama can (again) see Palestinians saying “Thanks for nothing Barack“. The Palestinians will be on a long line.

There will be many Jews, Palestinians, workers, the unemployed, budgeteers, companies, politicians, Democrats and Dimocrats, young people, black people, white people, and celestial choirs screaming “Thanks for Nothing Barack!”


Tax Time Tea Party With Oprah, Kitty Kelley, Sarah Palin, And Hillary Clinton

Someday a book will be written which will actually examine who Barack Obama really was and is. That future book will very much be a Xerox copy of what we at Big Pink have written for years. Since April (yup, another anniversary coming up) 2007 we’ve been picking at the Barack Obama scab. Recently we noted how Tiger Woods traded magazine covers for hushed silence and we speculated that is a reason for Obama’s ubiquity on magazine covers as well.

It took years for the Tiger Truth to emerge from its crouched hidden-ness. Now it’s Oprah’s turn. And in the very same way Big Media has protected Barack Obama and Tiger Woods, Oprah is underneath the Big Media nuclear umbrella. Lesbian flings, prostitution & abuse lies” Oh my! – is the Oprah coming oozing out of Kitty Kelley’s new book.

Oprah’s life story, hidden thus far, notes she shares Barack Obama’s use of cocaine. Also like Barack Obama, the truth has never been told about childhood life (Oprah made up a lot of that sexual abuse stuff she “suffered”). And all that poverty and roaches and stuff, is also mostly made up by Oprah and eaten up by those who love that type of fake oppression narrative (which makes Oprah’s acceptance of James Frey’s book that much more enlightening). The lesbian/Graham Stedman tales are included and garnished with a diamond toe ring for romance target Diane Sawyer (yup, the ABC network news anchor). It also appears that Oprah engaged in activities that could qualify as a “teen prostitute”.

And now we all know that the Oprah that is so “open” and “caring” and gives so much advice about forgiveness and family and relationships, does not even talk to her own mother. Oprah does not know who daddy is (hey don’t the Barack problems duplicate themselves in Oprah?), but Kitty knows but won’t tell. Kitty also lampoons the oft told tale that Oprah was so poor she had two cockroaches as pets (Melinda and Sandy). And apparently Oprah did have dresses and dolls.

Oprah’s family says Oprah was “spoiled” as a little girl.

“Where Oprah got that nonsense about growing up in filth and roaches I have no idea,” said the relative, Katherine Carr Esters. “I’ve confronted her and asked, ‘Why do you tell such lies?’ Oprah told me, ‘That’s what people want to hear. The truth is boring.’ ”

A friend of Esters added that the manipulation of her past is a key to her success.

Every move is calculated to further her brand and lift her image, which is why she does good works,” Jewette Battles said.

As a teen, Winfrey was a wild child, promiscuous to the point of prostitution, her relatives said.

The future star would steal from her mother’s purse, pawn her jewelry and even turn tricks.”

Hey, sounds just like Obama!

Hey, Hey, remember when Obama trashed his grandmother, the one who raised him, as a “racist”? Well, hereeee’s Oprah:

“Where Oprah got that nonsense about growing up in filth and roaches I have no idea. (Oprah’s grandmother) kept a spotless house.”

Like us with Obama, Oprah’s Aunt Katherine says, “I do not understand the lies that she tells. She’s been doing it for years.” For years and years, Big Media has fed the hogwash to the masses. And there is this bit of Oprah news, Big Media did not inform Americans about, until now:

“A former boyfriend, Randy Cook, reportedly lived with Oprah in Chicago from January to May of 1985, not long after she’d moved to town. Kelley writes that Cook wanted to make their relationship public in a proposed tell-all book with chapters called “Oprah Introduces Me to Smoking Cocaine,” “Oprah: Drugs, Sex, Out of Control” and “Oprah and Gayle.” Cook “wrote graphically that they became ‘carnally driven monsters’ and indulged in ‘animalistic sex,’ ” Kelley reports. No one would publish Cook’s book, and Oprah “called him ‘a liar’ and ‘a drug addict’ who could not be trusted or believed,” Kelley writes. After Oprah weepily revealed her drug use on the air in early 1995, Cook filed a $20 million lawsuit against her for slander and emotional distress. “Oprah was forced to respond to his interrogatories,” the book says. “In her answers, she finally admitted to what she had so long denied: That she and Cook had sexual relations, and that she and Cook had used cocaine on a regular and consistent basis.” Cook ultimately dropped his suit.”

This is why Americans increasingly do not believe Big Media. Oprah/Obama tell a completely hyped story that Oprah/Obama themselves created, Oprah/Obama lash out at the truth tellers as “liars”, the truth tellers are mocked and excoriated, and not one bit of analysis or fact check is undertaken by Big Media.

But Big Media hatethrob, Sarah Palin had an armada of fact checkers unleashed on her book. We like fact checkers and want more (but honest ones, not the usual flacks) unleashed on every book. But Oprah/Obama/Tiger get away with their fairy tales and anyone who calls the fairy tale a fairy tale (yup, we’re talking Bill Clinton) get burned as a “racist”.

Indeed, anyone who disagrees with the Big Media fake “reality” is called a “racist” or worse (if there is “worse” than “racist”). The Tea Party activists are called “racists” by those who want to sabotage the Tea Party rallies with racist signs of their own making. With tomorrow’s tax day Tea Parties nationwide, the race-baiting “racist” signs are increasingly attributed to the Dimocratic Party itself.

As Any Stern made his farewell to SEIU official, via video, in Boston, Tea was brewing. In preparation for the nationwide Tea Party rallies tomorrow, Sarah Palin the hatethrob of Big Media appeared in Boston at a rally today. Sarah Palin spoke the truth when she said:

“A roaring Tea Party crowd cheered on Sarah Palin on the Boston Common today as she slammed President Obama promising it’s “nothing a good old fashioned election can’t fix.”

By “old fashioned election” we presume Sarah Palin means elections in which the will of the voters determines the winner candidate – something lacking of late in what used to be the Democratic Party.

We like “old fashioned elections” and can’t wait until November to exercise our great right to throw the bums out. And we can’t wait to run Obama out of office either. It’s a good idea for sure. Run Obama out of office is a good idea.

* * * * * *

Recently we restated our oft stated prediction, from way back when, that when Hillary set foot in one of the states where she walloped Barack Obama, a decision on 2012 was near. The fact that Hillary’s recent visit to Kentucky was to discuss nuclear strategy – while all the action was in D.C. – struck us as additional reason to doubt the visit was anything but a warning shot.

And, as Obama blunders into foreign policy more and more and Michelle Obama is now taking foreign policy trips, on her own, as well, and the American foreign policy posture is increasingly out of whack to even the most oblivious observer (see the latest letter on Israel) – it’s time for a change. No one reads these tea leaves better than Hillary, which is why she went to Kentucky, we think.

Obama’s slip is polling and his polling is slipping to the point that “anybody” is better than “somebody”. We at Big Pink are not the only ones noticing. We’ll repeat what we have written before: Hillary will not primary Obama, but if November results are ugly for Dimocrats, those Dimocrats running for reelection in 2012 will not want Obama at the top.

We know, that like a python, the Obama machine has strangulation-coiled around the once great Democratic Party and that now the Obamination is the Obama Dimocratic Party. But things have a funny way of changing real fast. We noticed and others are noticing too:

Red flag for a sinking Obama: Americans now prefer Hillary Clinton

It is, of course, a really silly thing to even think about, given the clout of the Chicago Machine boys currently occupying the White House.

But, just say, the Real Great Talker continues his spiraling descent in the polls over the next 12-18 months; already the Democrat is barely tied with Any Republican in opinion polls looking toward 2012.

Even worse, a majority of Americans have already decided they don’t want Obama to have a second term.

And just say under Obama’s leadership and insistence on his unpopular healthcare bill over jobs, all the spending and exploding deficits, plus the certainty of new taxes to cover his costs, the Democrats in Congress get thoroughly thrashed by the GOP come November. Maybe they even lose control of both houses.”

Is that not the same series of scenarios we wrote about well over a year ago? Let’s continue with the echo scenario:

This week a new poll showed Americans now preferring the GOP on a generic congressional ballot. And despite eagerly optimistic recent administration economic claims, the unemployment rate is likely to hang high, and now comes a new ABC News Poll finding national consumer confidence actually waning, not building.

Do you think then maybe by a year from now some Democratic Party bigwigs and money people might be whispering to each other that this arrogant Illinois guy is pulling a Jimmy Carter, constructing a disastrous….

…single term that teed up 12 straight years of Republican White House rule?

Well, it turns out, there is another Democrat — another former senator, in fact — hanging around now free of political tussles with an enhanced resume burnished on the world stage, thanks to Obama himself.

And a new CNN/Opinion Research Poll has just revealed that even today Americans like that other Democrat more and dislike that other Democrat less than they do the incumbent Democratic president.”

The answer to “who?” brings that cold chill to Michelle’s arms and to Obama’s heart:

“That other Democrat is, of course, Hillary Clinton, who fought and scratched her way mightily but unsuccessfully through those bitter, belligerent Democratic primaries and caucuses of 2008. The former first lady and current secretary of State professes no intra-mural interest in challenging her White House boss, as she must as long as she’s an administration team member.

The published CNN article focused on an Obama matchup with Sarah Palin. But within the data were Favorable/Unfavorable ratings for numerous prominent politicians of both parties. Here are the surprising new poll numbers for Clinton:

61% now think favorably of the former senator and only 35% unfavorably, both numbers improved from the 56% and 40% she had during the Democratic National Convention in late August of 2008.”

“But what about Mess-iah?”, choke out the Hopium guzzling clowns:

“By comparison, in the same CNN poll, 57% of Americans now think favorably of Obama, down from 78% just before his inauguration; and 41% now think unfavorably of him, more than twice his unfavorable rating of early 2009.

Clinton’s numbers also beat all other both Democrats and Republicans in the new poll. [snip]

Among Republican names, Mike Huckabee’s favorable-unfavorable rating is 43-29; Mitt Romney 40-34; Newt Gingrich 38-38 (see his recent speech video here); and Sarah Palin 39-55, up from her other recent numbers. See Palin’s recent speech video right here.”

Oh ye of little faith!

“Loyal Ticket readers may remember this item of ours from last December when USA Today and Gallup found the two most admired females in America were Clinton and Palin — and only 1% separated them.

Even more loyal Ticket readers will recall our item from nearly two years ago here revealing that the day after she surrendered to Obama upon losing the party primary race and said she heartily supported him, Clinton associates purchased a Web domain name: HRC2012.

Probably just an over-eager staffer, wouldn’t you think?”

Oh heavens, those over eager staffers!

We’ll continue to defend women (yup, we mean Sarah Palin) even if they are Republicans against sexism and misogyny. We’ll also continue to defend the Tea Party movement as a legitimate grassroots response to repeated abuses, albeit one that is very sympathetic to Republican aims and one that Republican bureaucrats want to python coil. We will continue to denounce Obama and Oprah as the race-baiters they have proven themselves to be too.

And we will continue to admire a certain plucky lady. In 2012 we might have a Tea Party of our very own.


For Once, Congress Screws Itself

If we knew this in advance, we could have said something nice about Obama’s health scam. But boobery on such an epic scale is far beyond mortal ken. It’s like a dog chasing it’s own tail, catching up with it’s tail, and then biting the tail off.

Now we knew we were absolutely correct when we wrote that Eric Massa’s behavior patterns were well known back in the days before he was elected. We also know that it was only when Eric Massa threatened to vote “No” on Obama’s health scam that he was “outed” by Pelousy/Obama Dimocrats, in the full sense of that word. And we know Massa continued his behavior almost immediately upon becoming Congressman Massa:

“Just three months after Eric Massa was elected to Congress, his young male employees on Capitol Hill began complaining to supervisors that the lawmaker was making aggressive, sexual overtures toward them, according to new interviews and internal documents.[snip]

In one instance, a staffer said he alerted Joe Racalto, Massa’s chief of staff, in March 2009 that Massa tried to fondle a young colleague in a hotel room during the 2008 campaign. Racalto told staffers he believed their complaints, because he had heard similar stories, according to staffers. Two sources said that Racalto told staffers he himself had been a victim of Massa’s advances.”

Dimocrats did nothing to assist the victims because Massa was on “our” side. Dimocrats kept Massa on board until Massa wasn’t on board and then it was onto the gangplank for a long walk on a short plank. After all the health scam had to be passed. And it is and has always been a scam – by Barack Obama – it’s the Obama history.

It was such an epic scam that even the current scammers and Obama enablers did not know the scam would bite them in the tail:

“It is often said that the new health care law will affect almost every American in some way. And, perhaps fittingly if unintentionally, no one may be more affected than members of Congress themselves.

In a new report, the Congressional Research Service says the law may have significant unintended consequences for the “personal health insurance coverage” of senators, representatives and their staff members.

For example, it says, the law may “remove members of Congress and Congressional staff” from their current coverage, in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, before any alternatives are available.”

Poor Obama enablers. But what about the American people? If the scammers got scammed, what about the dupes?:

“The confusion raises the inevitable question: If they did not know exactly what they were doing to themselves, did lawmakers who wrote and passed the bill fully grasp the details of how it would influence the lives of other Americans?

That last sentence is the point. The ultimate dupes are the American people. Congress did not know the junk they approved or at least pretended not to know because they had to protect their own. The health scam came from one of “our own” so they voted to “Save Obama” and they not only screwed themselves politically, they screwed Americans and even themselves:

“The law promises that people can keep coverage they like, largely unchanged. For members of Congress and their aides, the federal employees health program offers much to like. But, the report says, the men and women who wrote the law may find that the guarantee of stability does not apply to them.

“It is unclear whether members of Congress and Congressional staff who are currently participating in F.E.H.B.P. may be able to retain this coverage,” the research service said in an 8,100-word memorandum.

And even if current members of Congress can stay in the popular program for federal employees, that option will probably not be available to newly elected lawmakers, the report says.

Moreover, it says, the strictures of the new law will apply to staff members who work in the personal office of a member of Congress. But they may or may not apply to people who work on the staff of Congressional committees and in “leadership offices” like those of the House speaker and the Democratic and Republican leaders and whips in the two chambers.”

Congress will take care of its own. It’s regular Americans who will be screwed. Don’t worry about Congress, they will scam some more to help themselves and maybe even their staffers:

“These seemingly technical questions will affect 535 members of Congress and thousands of Congressional employees. But the issue also has immense symbolic and political importance. Lawmakers of both parties have repeatedly said their goal is to provide all Americans with access to health insurance as good as what Congress has.

Congress must now decide what steps, if any, it can take to deal with the problem. It could try for a legislative fix, or it could adopt internal policies to minimize any disruptions.

In its painstaking analysis of the new law, the research service says the impact on Congress itself and the intent of Congress are difficult to ascertain.

The law apparently bars members of Congress from the federal employees health program, on the assumption that lawmakers should join many of their constituents in getting coverage through new state-based markets known as insurance exchanges.”

The usual Obama “rush-rush and pass the scam” did not fool anyone who was actually watching what they did, not what they said:

“But the research service found that this provision was written in an imprecise, confusing way, so it is not clear when it takes effect.

The new exchanges do not have to be in operation until 2014. But because of a possible “drafting error,” the report says, Congress did not specify an effective date for the section excluding lawmakers from the existing program.

Under well-established canons of statutory interpretation, the report said, “a law takes effect on the date of its enactment” unless Congress clearly specifies otherwise. And Congress did not specify any other effective date for this part of the health care law. The law was enacted when President Obama signed it three weeks ago.

In addition, the report says, Congress did not designate anyone to resolve these “ambiguities” or to help arrange health insurance for members of Congress in the future.

This omission, whether intentional or inadvertent, raises questions regarding interpretation and implementation that cannot be definitively resolved by the Congressional Research Service,” the report says. “The statute does not appear to be self-executing, but rather seems to require an administrating or implementing authority that is not specifically provided for by the statutory text.”

Congress will take care of themselves and “theirs” but regular Americans will suffer. Where are “our” representatives?

“Representative Jason Chaffetz, Republican of Utah, said lawmakers were in the same boat as many Americans, trying to figure out what the new law meant for them.

“If members of Congress cannot explain how it’s going to work for them and their staff, how will they explain it to the rest of America?” Mr. Chaffetz asked in an interview.”

And recall Congress forgot to require that uninsured kids with preexisting conditions be covered. Is it any wonder that Rasmussen polls now reflect the fact that 58 percent of Americans want the Obama health scam repealed?

Now that the Obama health scam has been passed, and doctors are disappearing, Andy Stern of SEIU is planning to run away and retire. No doubt Andy will have a great health care package to take with him paid for by the poor who pay union dues. Andy Stern will not have to worry about rising premiums because he will have a great health plan. But Americans will have to worry about rising premiums, which was supposed to be resolved by the Obama health scam:

“Public outrage over double-digit rate hikes for health insurance may have helped push President Obama’s healthcare overhaul across the finish line, but the new law does not give regulators the power to block similar increases in the future.

And now, with some major companies already moving to boost premiums and others poised to follow suit, millions of Americans may feel an unexpected jolt in the pocketbook.

Although Democrats promised greater consumer protection, the overhaul does not give the federal government broad regulatory power to prevent increases.

Many state governments — which traditionally had responsibility for regulating insurance companies — also do not have such authority. And several that do are now being sued by insurance companies.

It is a very big loophole in health reform,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said. Feinstein and Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) are pushing legislation to expand federal and state authority to prevent insurance companies from boosting rates excessively.”

Feeling duped yet?

“The irony here is that it was the Anthem rate increase that breathed new life into the healthcare bill,” said Jerry Flanagan, medical policy director of Consumer Watchdog, a longtime supporter of tougher premium regulation. “But there is nothing in this bill to guarantee that it doesn’t happen again.”

The lack of muscle is stoking concerns that more rate jumps — and an angry backlash from ratepayers — could undermine support for implementing the healthcare overhaul.”

Feeling angry yet?

More scams and publicity stunts are on their way:

“The president will stump the country talking about government’s eagerness to force insurance companies to get rid of pre-existing conditions as an obstacle to getting health coverage. He will highlight Medicare rebates. He will tout ending the closing of the federal drug benefits’ “doughnut hole” for seniors.

He will, in short, promote the ways in which government forces business to do the average person’s bidding in the hope of stirring more support for his programs than he’s been able to find so far.

The problem is that stubborn anti-government force defined, at least for now, as the Tea Party movement.

Both the current and former chairmen of the Federal Reserve spoke out recently about the need, finally, for fiscal restraint – in other words, for less government and, sadly, for tax increases.

The big danger is runaway budget deficits, they say, and the need for government, like families, to live within its means for a change.

That’s as much a battle cry (without the tax-increase part, of course) of the growing band of anti-Washingtonians out there who see themselves as part of the Tea Party movement.

Mr. Obama will need to adopt some of that thinking if he has any opportunity to prevent a wave from washing over his Democratic Party during November’s midterm elections.”

Where was the Left? Is our only hope now the Tea Party movement?

More scams are coming and more publicity stunts scheduled. The latest is the “economy is great” scam:

“Some of the talk about the state of the economy lately has grown downright giddy. [snip]

America’s Back! (So says the new cover of Newsweek.)

The economy is certainly growing, as it has been since last summer. And that growth appears more durable than it did just a few months ago, making a dip back into recession appear highly unlikely.

But the buoyant talk has gotten far ahead of the reality on the ground of the American economy.

That great March job number, for example, received a short-term boost from temporary Census Bureau hiring and the rebound from February snowstorms, so the underlying employment growth was somewhere around 50,000 jobs — not the 162,000 that made headlines, and far below the 130,000 or so jobs needed to keep up with population growth. The number of people filing new claims for jobless benefits each week has remained stubbornly around 450,000, well above the levels expected in a hiring boom.

And while the stock market is up a lot, it has rebounded from generational lows. Much of the gains of the past year reflected the investors’ conclusion that the economy wasn’t going to collapse, not a harbinger of boom times ahead.[snip]

But that rate of expansion won’t be enough to pull the economy out of the deep hole it is in, given a 9.7 percent unemployment rate, and is merely enough to keep the hole from getting any deeper. By contrast, after the last recession of similar depth, in 1981-1982, the economy experienced five straight quarters of growth in the 7 to 9 percent range from the spring of 1983 through summer of 1984.

On Monday, the semiofficial arbiter of economic cycles said it would be “premature” to conclude that the recession that began in December 2007 had ended, as economists widely believe, in the summer of 2009. [snip]

Moreover, as the recovery progresses, major government supports for growth will eventually be pulled away. The boost from stimulus spending will start waning in the second half of this year, while the Federal Reserve, which has already ended its unconventional programs to prop up the economy, will eventually raise interest rates. [snip]

“Most of the deeper recessions in postwar U.S. history have been followed by strong recoveries, but this is a housing-bust experience,” said Hatzius, who expects growth to taper off to only a 1.5 percent rate in the second half of the year. “And if you look at international evidence, those have generally been much more moderate.”

Let’s not forget interest rates:

“Even as prospects for the American economy brighten, consumers are about to face a new financial burden: a sustained period of rising interest rates.

That, economists say, is the inevitable outcome of the nation’s ballooning debt and the renewed prospect of inflation as the economy recovers from the depths of the recent recession.

The shift is sure to come as a shock to consumers whose spending habits were shaped by a historic 30-year decline in the cost of borrowing.

“Americans have assumed the roller coaster goes one way,” said Bill Gross, whose investment firm, Pimco, has taken part in a broad sell-off of government debt, which has pushed up interest rates. “It’s been a great thrill as rates descended, but now we face an extended climb.”

The impact of higher rates is likely to be felt first in the housing market, which has only recently begun to rebound from a deep slump. [snip]

Along with the sell-off in bonds, the Federal Reserve has halted its emergency $1.25 trillion program to buy mortgage debt, placing even more upward pressure on rates.[snip]

Another area in which higher rates are likely to affect consumers is credit card use. [snip]

Similarly, many car loans have already become significantly more expensive, with rates at auto finance companies rising to 4.72 percent in February from 3.26 percent in December, according to the Federal Reserve.

Washington, too, is expecting to have to pay more to borrow the money it needs for programs.”

Some will say, “Big Pink, put on some Pink colored glasses. Look at the stock market you naysayers.” But…:

“Think Dow 11,000 is a big deal? Think again.

The Dow Jones industrial average briefly hit the milestone Friday for the first time in 18 months before closing at 10,997.

But Wall Street analysts who study key stock index levels say all the attention paid to 11,000 is more like a big distraction. They worry that investors are ignoring another number at their peril: The surprisingly low volume of trading. As stocks have risen over the past year, the volume reflects the vulnerability of a rally riding on the shoulders of relatively few participants.

And that’s given pause even to the bulls.

“It worries a lot of us,” says Wellington Shields’ Frank Gretz, a technical analyst who specializes in pinpointing market levels at which stocks might suddenly rise or fall. He wonders whether the volume signals that the rally could soon peter out, like the big surges that preceded steep declines in the 1930s in the U.S. and in Japan more recently.

Louise Yamada, a 29-year veteran of technical analysis who heads an eponymous firm in New York, says she’s not just concerned but confused.

“Why is the market going up?” she asks. “You usually don’t see advances without volume.”

Spend your money in Las Vegas instead of the stock market. It’s safer and much more honest.

“The widely cited Dow index, which tracks stocks of 30 companies, is up 70 percent from its lows of more than a year ago. The climb has been one of the strongest in history, and it may herald a strong recovery. But it’s been propelled by relatively few trades.

The 200-day moving average volume on the New York Stock Exchange is now at 1.2 billion shares, down from 1.6 billion, or nearly 25 percent, a year ago.

In other words, if there is wisdom in crowds, the stock market is getting dumber.”

Dumb and dumber in the age of fake:

“But the hangover from the Great Recession and the lagging unemployment numbers will make it impossible to focus on improving the Internal Revenue Code.

Come 2011, however, the demand to start dealing seriously with the overhang of deficits and debt threatening the nation’s future will become irresistible. Whether we like it or not, we have been warned.

On Tuesday, Paul Volcker, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, told a New York audience that the time is coming when new taxes will have to be considered. “If at the end of the day, we need to raise taxes, we should raise taxes,” he said.

On Wednesday in Dallas, Ben Bernanke, who now holds the same job, said “Inevitably, addressing the fiscal challenges posed by an aging population will require a willingness to make difficult choices. The arithmetic is, unfortunately, quite clear. To avoid large and unsustainable budget deficits, the nation will ultimately have to choose among higher taxes, modifications to entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare, less spending on everything else from education to defense, or some combination of the above.”

The next day, at a breakfast with reporters in Washington, Douglas Elmendorf, the head of the Congressional Budget Office, confirmed that his economists have begun studying how to write a value-added tax, a form of national sales tax, because of growing congressional interest in drafting such a measure.

Elmendorf reminded the journalists of the grim news contained in his agency’s analysis of President Obama’s budget proposals. Agreeing with Bernanke that the current course is “unsustainable,” he said that unless something changes, the U.S. will emerge from the Obama years spending one-quarter more than it collects in revenue — 25 percent compared to 19 percent of the gross domestic product.

Closing the gap “can’t be solved through minor changes,” he said. Revenues projected under current laws would barely be sufficient to pay for Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, defense and interest on the national debt. Everything else would depend on finding new revenues — or borrowing.”

While the country worries about “racist” canines, and African-Americans are called “racist” for belonging to the Tea Party, Obama plots new scams and publicity stunts. The new scams and publicity stunts will cement the “tax and spend” label that Bill Clinton stripped from the Democratic label. But “tax and spend” is back with a vengeance, and with justification, from Republican play books.

But fear not, there will be bread and circuses – now updated to scams and publicity stunts – by Barack Obama.

Barack Obama will bow to dictators (the latest bow to the Chinese leader) and snub what used to be friends and allies in order not to offend the dictators.

But fear not, there will be Obama bread and circuses and scams and publicity stunts.

In November 2010 we get to screw Congress now that they screw us.