We have repeatedly warned Hillary supporters in our comments section to beware of signing up to any and all websites that purport to support Hillary Clinton. That is less of a problem now that Barack Obama Thugs (hereinafter, B.O.T.s) lull themselves into thinking that Hillary Clinton is a spent political force. But it certainly was a problem during the primary campaigns and the general election campaign when B.O.T.s set up websites purporting to support Hillary in order to garner user information and wreak havoc. We have always suggested that Hillary Supporters create new email accounts whenever they sign up to a new site, an email that is not the same as on other accounts.
This repeat warning is precipitated by an article published by Michelle Malkin today. Before we discuss that article a bit of history here at Big Pink.
Barack Obama supporters would attempt to post comments with a few sentences lavishing praise on Hillary Clinton and then immediately launch into racist attacks against Barack Obama. The “N” word was often and repeatedly used. We traced the writers of these comments to Nutroot sites and “gamer” sites who openly called on their cabals to “expose” us as “racists” by they themselves posting racist comments of the ugliest sort.
It was not just these Nutroot sites that indulged in unethical methods. One “news” website (yes we mean Politico) sent “infections” to us via email. Donna Brazile publicly declared that she was calling Hillary Clinton to complain about us and shut us down. Donna, in full nut mode even resorted to “I believe the vast right wing is also behind these rants.” Donna also declared Hillary unfit to be president because “no one who provoke [sic] this kind of anger in voters deserves to be President.” No word these days from Brazile regarding the anger stirred by Barack Obama.
On Nutroot website after website, calls were made to demand Hillary shut us down. Hillary’s campaign responded with a defense of free speech.
At least one website was created to torment our readers and to “expose” them for whatever reason the fool website owner deemed sufficient reason. We manged to trace most of these loons and warn them we knew who they were. Some of these thugs were computer students about to graduate or in graduate school. These people should not be allowed near computers let alone use school property and resources to carry on their thuggery.
Hillary Clinton Youtube videos were altered in vicious ways and the altered versions were deliberately, and in an organized manner by Barack Obama supporters, ranked high in order to suppress Hillary Clinton’s message. The strategy of Google bombs was devised by one particularly sad Obama apologist, currently on NothingLeft, whereby the few articles with positive comments about Hillary Clinton were buried and articles praising Barack Obama (were there any other kind?) were raised to high levels on the Google search lists.
All these tactics were mean to suppress information. Voters who sought information were deprived of that information by these Stalinists of the Dimocratic Left. Critical stories about the dubious histories of Nutroots leaders leaders were likewise suppressed. One blogger who engaged in “hump and dump” stock schemes was protected by the Nutroots cabal and we have yet to hear that story fully aired, even though we were always assured that the facts would someday be released by these Stalinists.
What these B.O.T.s have always engaged in is suppression of speech and attempts to distort the truth and rewrite history. These Stalinist B.O.T.s never cared about issues, it has always been a cult of personality with them.
The Hillbuzz guys have written repeatedly about their experiences with these B.O.T.s. Many pro-Hillary websites hosted by Google Blogger were shut down by Obama B.O.T.s.
We have repeatedly warned Sarah Palin supporters and indeed, back in 2009 we warned John McCain supporters, that the tactics employed by these Stalinist Obama thugs would be turned on them. We were correct on that and now there is proof.
Over the last week, conservative activists online have thoroughly exposed the loser behind an Internet call to “Crash the Tea Party.” His name is Jason Levin. To follow his trail, check Free Republic here, Canada Free Press here, and Velvet Hammer here. After failing to cover his tracks, Levin is now basking in the glow of attention on his tpartycrasher Twitter page and on his personal Twitter page (where he brags that he has hit the big time and “gone viral:”)
He’s infected alright — with an acute case of Wannabefamousitis.
Conservative blogs and talk radio have spread the word about possible shenanigans promoted by Levin, including this:
“We will act on behalf of the Tea Party in ways which exaggerate their least appealing qualities (misspelled protest signs, wild claims in TV interviews, etc.) to further distance them from mainstream America and damage the public’s opinion of them. We will also use the inside information that we have gained in order to disrupt and derail their plans.”
Levin registered his site under a phony name on April 3, 2010. He’s just the latest in a long line of left-wing leeches and anarchist clowns trying to discredit Tea Party activism and mask their roles as agents provocateur.
Time was we would call Michelle Malkin the nut, but experience teaches us she is on target here. Malkin leaves out the “Stalinist” but she is right about these “agents provacateur”. These Stalinists are the first to jump up and down when free speech is suppressed or point to CoIntelPro tactics used against the Left in bygone days. They have become what they used to fight. Now it is what passes for the Democratic Left that expends its resources on “infiltrating, disrupting, marginalizing, and/or subverting groups“. And don’t doubt that links to the Obama campaign/White House will eventually be uncovered.
Before them, it was Craig Varoga — a shady Democrat political operative and overseer of a convoluted, money-shuffling web of 527s. He launched “TheTeaPartyisOver.org” in January to target Republicans who supported the Tea Party movement and to prevent the “radical” and “dangerous” fiscal accountability agenda from “gaining legislative traction.” [snip]
Here’s how it works: What appears like a local groundswell is in fact the creation of two men — Craig Varoga and George Rakis, Democratic Party strategists who have set up a number of so-called 527 groups, the non-profit election organizations that hammer on contentious issues (think Swift Boats, for example).
Varoga and Rakis keep a central mailing address in Washington, pulling in soft money contributions from unions and other well-padded sources to engage in what amounts to a legal laundering system. The money — tens of millions of dollars — gets circulated around to different states by the 527s, which pay for TV ads, Internet campaigns and lobbyist salaries, all while keeping the hands of the unions clean — for the most part.
The system helps hide the true sources of funding, giving the appearance of locally bred opposition in states from Oklahoma to New Jersey, or in the case of the Tea Party Web site, in Illinois. And this whitewash is entirely legal, say election law experts, who told FoxNews.com that this arrangement more or less the norm in Washington. “It’s not illegal but it is, I think, dishonest on the part of the organizations,” said Paul Ryan, a legal counsel at the Campaign Legal Center. “And there’s a reason they do it: they know voters don’t like outsiders coming in to sway the vote.”
Calls and e-mails to the Maryland-based consultant firm Independent Strategies, run by Varoga and Rakis, were not returned.
Outside of that firm, the center of their activity appears to be a single office in Southeast D.C. — 300 M Street, Suite 1102 — which plays host to a sprawling political shell game they have established. Public records show at least seven political shops listed in Suite 1102, most of which are essentially clones of one another, but all of which have offered money — from measly thousands to game-changing millions — in state-level elections across the country…
Barack Obama holds another meaningless publicity stunt today. The publicity stunt is about nuclear something or other and always “protecting” America. But the best way for Obama to protect America is to get his B.O.T.s out of their Stalinist terror games and to get himself out of office.
Experience, quality, judgment, and credentials are, after the selection of Barack Obama, such anachronisms we can dispense with them as considerations for any job. So let’s get Zac Efron in the Supreme Court. As to that pesky diversity concern (which is usually restricted to concerns about race and almost never about religion, sexual orientation, gender, and class status) let’s realize that currently Americans are deprived of a Hollywood celebrity in the Supreme Court.
Of course we will hear some clamor to appoint a Miley Cyrus or one of the Jonas Brothers, if only to remove them from “entertaining” us any further (if that’s the top consideration we’ll nominate Selena Gomez or Demi Lovato). But those are foolish choices. Miley and the Jonas Brothers have country music (read White Working Class) and Christiany connections which won’t play well with the Obama loving “creative class”. Zac has all the right bi-coastal connections.
And Zac is so easy on the eyes… sigh….
Not even the meanest Republican will oppose Zac. And Zac (sigh!) would be a Supreme Court powerhouse. One of the concerns Obama Hopium guzzlers are whining about is the lost influence of Justice Stevens on his fellow Justices:
“As if Justice Kennedy did not wield enough influence on the Supreme Court’s decisions already, SCOTUSBlog’s Lyle Denniston explains why Justice Stevens’ retirement is likely to increase the swing justice’s effect on the Court. This is so for two reasons. First, Justice Stevens’ retirment means there are only two justices on the Court with seniority over Justice Kennedy — Scalia and the Chief Justice. As a consequence, Justice Kennedy will be the assigning justice more often than in the past, particularly where he joins the Court’s liberal justices and the conservatives dissent. Second, Justice Stevens was particularly effective at wooing Justice Kennedy — and could use his power to assign majority opinions to himself or Justice Kennedy — to keep Justice Kennedy on board in close cases. In Justice Stevens’ absence, it’s not clear what other justice can play this role. As Denniston explains, “There is, at present, no other member of the Court’s liberal bloc likely to match Stevens’ ability to persuade a sometimes-reluctant Kennedy to join with that bloc in a closely divided case. If Kennedy is to vote for liberal outcomes, it may well have to be more of a personal choice than it has seemed to be up to now.” This is significant because in cases like Boumediene and Massachusetts v. EPA, it appears that Justice Stevens was able to sway Justice Kennedy to forge a liberal majority.”
Zac could easily “woo” Justice Kennedy into whatever position Zac wants him to take. Who could tell Zac “no”?
“I, too, belonged to an inbred and wealthy men’s club cloistered behind walls and disdaining modernity.
I, too, remained part of an autocratic society that repressed women and ignored their progress in the secular world.”
Garbage scow Dowd is talking about her religion, not the New York Times, but even this inbred wealthy men’s club cloistered clown will be full of glee! with Zac on the High Court. Dowd might even heighten her interest in briefs with Zac on the Court.
Foreign policy experts who have never left their back yards and who believe that Hillary Clinton “has no base to keep, her political years [are] now behind her” will surely join garbage scow Dowd and jump on the Zac pack. These publicity craving armchair “experts” are upset with Hillary Clinton because she is making clear that Obama does not know what he is talking about – but they’ll forget all about that with Zac on the Court.
Zac will make the garbage scows and armchair foreign policy “experts” (those with nothing better to do than attend lectures and panels populated with panels of others who attend lectures and panels) forget war, peace, hunger, and health.
Zac Efron can unite us all. And he’s young and wealthy, the most important qualities for Obama Hopium guzzlers.
Just imagine a 22 yaar old Zac Efron on the court! Zac would be on the court for another sixty years at least! What a legacy for Obama! A 22 year old celebrity with zero experience in law – with zero judgment or credentials on legal matters – on the nation’s highest court – that would be Obama’s perfect, most revealing legacy.
The big news today, that will go unnoticed by Big Media, is Hillary Clinton in Kentucky. So forget Justice Stevens retiring and all the other shiny object bright light news. The big news today is Hillary Clinton in Kentucky. And don’t think Barack Obama does not know it.
Today Barack Obama will spin from his role as International Man Of Boobery to talk on camera about the coal mine deaths in West Virginia. Now why is Obama all of a sudden concerned about the deaths of ‘bitter and clingy’ Americans in West Virginia? Because Hillary Clinton is to speak today in Louisville, Kentucky.
Regular readers of Big Pink will recall that we have repeatedly written that the most important signal to us that Hillary Clinton is contemplating a run for president would be a visit to the states where she walloped Barack Obama in the primaries. That visit happens today.
The return of Hillary Clinton to a Hillary stronghold and the return of Obama to the bottom of the poll barrel, takes us to the other news of the day – the resignation of Bart Stupak.
“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.”
Bart Stupak will not be alone. Already there have been sixteen Dimocratic House retirements. The additional Dimocratic “retirements” to come by the end of this month and then defeats in November will grab the gavel of power from the hands of Pelousy in 2010 and pull the White House rug from Obama if he persists in a run in 2012.
As to the “news” of the Justice Stevens retirement, it is more ill tidings for the Domestic Man Of Boobery. Justice Stevens was the keystone of the liberal bloc in the court. The most Obama can do is to try to appoint another equally liberal justice to the court. That won’t be much of an accomplishment, more running just to stay in place, but even that we doubt is possible.
Obama has thus far slapped his PINO dupes in the face and with a bit of pressure from Republicans and Tea Party activists, Obama will easily cave.
Of course, if Obama does the remarkable and does not cave, he will further paint himself into the corner as Republicans denounce him as the reincarnation of Karl Marx all throughout the election season. And Republicans know why Stevens quit – fear of Dimocratic defeat in November and the need to get a vote before the big Republican wins (which might be bigger if the Supreme Court fight lasts through the fall).
November 2010 will be inventory day for the Dimocratic Disaster wrought by Barack Obama. We at Big Pink can already see the damage done.
Fox News is the dominant news outlet and all, Al Sharpton and Barack Obama included, bow to its power by appearing on Fox programs. Fox News increasingly, when compared to its dull rivals reeking of Lost Weekends on Hopium, is seen as “Fair And Balanced”. “Air America” whose hosts attacked Hillary Clinton and worshiped Obama, no longer exists. The “liberal/progressive blogosphere” is but a chorus of castrati now, singing unpopular tunes off key and off pitch. The once powerful Big Media outlets in print and broadcast are either dying or making moves to shift to Tea and away from Hopium.
But it is the political party futures market where we see the structural damage done. Before the treachery by the Democratic establishment to gift Obama the party nomination and trash Hillary Clinton, the future clearly belonged to the Democratic Party. Supposedly, the Democratic Party was positioned demographically for long term dominance and generations of electoral victory, IF the party provided experienced leadership which bettered the lives of Americans.
Sarah Palin managed to rouse at least 10,000 people to travel to see her in remote, hardscrabble, Searchlight, Nevada recently. Yesterday Palin appeared with Michelle Bachman, guns blazing. Tim Pawlenty was there too, but not many cared.
Palin obviously mocked Obama by praising those who love their freedom and “patriots who love their country”. Palin mocked Obama by praising those “proudly clinging to your guns and religion”. Palin praised Michelle Bachman and hockey moms too. The crowd of 11,000 loved the sisterhood on stage. But the story was the almost 100% crowd of women. Palin also noted, with a pride that should bring a chill to the hardened hearts of Obama Dimocrats, the role of women as the majority force and majority leadership of the Tea Party movement.
At some point, someone in the Tea Party movement will notice that the sexually charged mock “teabaggers” is a misogynistic assault. “Teabagging”, without getting overly descriptive, involves the “tea bag” appearance of the male scrotum especially as it is dominantly swung over a passive face. At some point, someone in the Tea Party movement should call out the misogynists and sexists who demean women of the Tea Party movement in the vilest of misogynistic terms.
Perhaps that someone will be Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachman. Sarah Palin last night quoted Margaret Thatcher “In politics, if you want something said, ask a man. If you want something done, ask a woman.” Palin added her own memorable and quotable “Behind every good and productive man, stands a very surprised woman.”
Other than Hillary Clinton on the Democratic side, is there another woman politician that garners the same audiences and ratings and star power as Sarah Palin and to a lesser extent, Michelle Bachman? Not Pelosi with her refrigerator talk, not M.O., not any of the Senators, not Ginsberg on the Court, not any talkers like Maddow or Huffington, not Caroline, none.
The “hot” women in politics today, other than a deliberately undercover Hillary Clinton, are on the Republican side. And by “hot” we are not talking sex, we are talking hot political firepower that can fire up a crowd, after having the ability of being able to gather a crowd (as Bart Stupak will soon find out when he gets Tea Partied).
The “hot” white guy is also on the Republican side. Scott Brown did not run in a Republican state but in THE Democratic state. And he won. Is there any white Dimocrat that can match Brown’s star power? Bill Clinton still has fire power but he is not running for political office. Al Franken is as close as it gets, but it is doubtful he can gather massive crowds in a Republican region they way Scott Brown is able to do in a clearly Democratic region. Al Gore, can he gather a crowd outside of Move-on members?
Howard Dean can tingle the legs of his Big Blog boys but few others. John Kerry could not gather a crowd at a Heinz factory. Kaine is a joke, Biden is a joke waiting to happen, as is the rest of the Dimocratic leadership. Reid of Searchlight? – can he attract anyone to his remote hometown?
Two weeks after President Obama signed the new health care bill, opposition to it remains strong. In addition, the president’s legislative victory did not help his job approval rating, which hit a new low in a Fox News poll released Thursday.
The poll also finds more voters would punish rather than reward incumbents who voted for the health care bill, and that the Democratic win did nothing to energize the party faithful for the midterms.
President Obama’s overall job approval rating dropped to a new low of 43 percent. Nearly half — 48 percent — disapprove. In mid-March, it was 46-48 percent. His current rating among Democrats (80 percent) and independents (38 percent) are among his lowest ratings with these groups. He is now in single digits among Republicans (7 percent). By comparison, former President George W. Bush’s approval among Democrats went as low as 4 percent.
The poll finds by a 54 to 39 percent margin, American voters oppose the new health care law. Just prior to the bill’s passage, 55 percent opposed, while 35 percent favored the overhaul.
Among the key group of independent voters, 38 percent favor the law and 55 percent oppose it. When voting this November, more than twice as many independents say they are less likely (39 percent) to vote for a candidate who favored the bill than say more likely (18 percent).
Even Democrats are drifting away.
It is the story of Latinos that is most intriguing. John McCain tried to woo Latinos and failed. George W. Bush tried to woo Latinos in Texas and in some part succeeded. George W. Bush tried to woo Latinos as President and even Karl Rove tried to woo Latinos. It’s the big growing demographic group which the Obama Dimocrats have pointed to as the key to generations of victories.
Obama Dimocrats thought for sure Latinos will vote Dimocratic in the future. But is that the case? Latinos are in some large part socially conservative. But there has never been a national Latino leader to gather that force. Bill Richardson had a rather “anglo” name but as a Latino had a shot at national leadership. But Judas Richardson finds himself hanging from a tree these days. Cesar Chavez has been long dead and was never an electoral figure. Henry Cisneros long ago was thought of as a potential national figure but his day has passed. Antonio Villaraigosa is also a spent force.
Marco Rubio’s remarkable fundraising haul — $3.6 million this quarter, he just announced — is a reminder of the scale of his stardom inside the Republican Party, all of whose core constituencies seem to like the guy.
He’s already hearing every day (and brushing it off) that he should run for president in 2012, and at the inevitable moment in the cycle (as in every party, every cycle) when Republicans panic about their field of nominees, he’s likely to be uniquely attractive: young, conservative, Hispanic and from a swing state besides.
Imagine Marco Rubio on a national ticket. Would Latinos, massed in key electoral states such as California, New Jersey, New York, Florida, Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado and Arizona consider a vote for the “hot” Latino with the best chance ever to place a Latino in the White House? Is such a possibility the ultimate nightmare for identity politics advocates in the Dimocratic Party? We saw in 2008 how African-Americans, except for the brave few, turned their collective backs on a tried and true friend to advocate for a never before seen pig-in-a-poke who every day damages them. Is it possible that Latinos scorn the Dimocratic Party in order to go with the “hot” Latino guy? You betcha!
The buzz for a Rubio candidacy is broad, and deep. Observers like Matt Lewis have made the case publicly, and my impression is that if a swath of conservative leaders haven’t talked up his candidacy, it’s only because they haven’t been asked. I was talking to the Southern Baptist Convention’s Richard Land earlier this year for another story when he brought Rubio up, unasked.
“The longer nobody catches fire, the more space there is for Marco,” he said. “It wouldn’t be unheard of for a freshman senator from Florida to be the nominee — particularly one who was speaker of the [Florida Assembly].
“He’s got more experience than Obama had,” Land continued. “There are a lot of Hispanics in this country who would find someone with Marco’s ethnic background very appealing. Although I like Sarah [Palin], I think Sarah’s got a lot more impediments to a nomination than Marco Rubio does.”
Obama Dimocrats trashed the value of experience in 2008, and now that trash can easily be dumped on their heads. A young, inexperienced, racially well positioned, good looking, well spoken elected official – that’s Marco Polo Marco Rubio.
The echoes of Obama are unmistakable, and the context of Obama both removes Rubio’s youth and inexperience as issues and intensifies the Republican need for a new face.
The argument is made that Marco Rubio needs an easy victory in Florida so that he can campaign around the country and collect “chits” if he wants to be a national figure. But Marco Rubio is already a national figure. Marco Rubio can raise as much money as needed.
What does Marco Rubio need as a next step that Obama had in abundance? Marco Rubio needs a compliant Republican leadership that will secure him the nomination and stab all others in the back the way the Democratic leadership stabbed Hillary Clinton in the back. And do not think that is such a far fetched scenario.
Other than Palin, the rest of the Republican field for president is dull as dish water. Romney? Does anyone other than a Mormon on the Romney payroll think that Romney has a chance of victory? Huckabee? We can never get past that comic name. Pawlenty? No one noticed he was in attendance at the Palin event. Paul Ryan? Too bookish and too Obamaish for Republicans. Jindal? New Orleans will rise above sea level faster than Jindal will rise to national stature. Only a McDonnell or a Brown have the glow to take top billing away from a Palin or a Rubio.
Obama Dimocrats thought they would profit from treachery and top of the ladder backstabbing. It benefited Barack Obama. But the Dimocratic Party gets no benefit. Barack Obama benefits Republicans.
Instead of respect for experience and trust in a true Democrats who fought for core Democratic principles all her life, the Democratic Party fell for a flash in the pan promoted by the treacherous Democratic establishment. Instead of attacking misogyny and sexism the Democratic establishment emboldened it.
Now we have the worse of all worlds: Experience is a devalued commodity instead of a necessary ingredient for leadership. Women leaders are headlining events on the Republican side while women iron shirts in the Dimocratic kitchen. The Tea Party movement is boiling while PINO Big Blog boys stew in their own frequently released juices.
The Damage Is Done. Hopium kills. It’s a setting sun.
It’s now three days after Easter Sunday and Mess-iah Obama has not yet ascended to Heaven. Quite the contrary. Obama and his Dimocrats have descended to a hot spot, and we don’t mean wireless access or Florida.
The promise from Mess-iah to his disciples was that because he, not Bill Clinton, reigned – they would be saved. “The big difference is me” But that’s not how matters have developed.
Iranian nut Mahmoud Ahmadinejad laughs at Clown Obama. “Mr. Obama, you are a newcomer (to politics). Wait until your sweat dries and get some experience” mocks Mahmoud – well maybe the nut has a point. Mahmoud spiced his analysis of Barack Obama by calling Obama “inexperienced and an amateur politician”. Wasn’t Obama the one who said he would talk to nuts like Ahmadinejad? Wasn’t Obama the one who bristled when Hillary Clinton labeled him “irresponsible and frankly naive” during the primaries?
Samantha Powers, who called Hillary Clinton a “monster” on behalf of Barack Obama during the primaries has all but called for an invasion of Israel by the United States in order to impose a “peace”. The words are ugly, but Hillary supporters expect ugliness from Samantha Powers.
“In March, the federal government began hiring census takers big time. These are six-month temp jobs, and they tell us nothing about underlying trends in the labor market. It’s hard to gauge precisely how many were hired — probably between 100,000 and 140,000, although some estimates put the hiring as low as 48,000. Almost a million census workers will need to be hired over the next few months. Subtract these, and today’s job numbers are good but nothing to write home about.[snip]
First, government spending on last year’s giant stimulus is still near its peak, and the Fed continues to hold down interest rates. Without these props, it’s far from clear we’d have any job growth at all.
Second, since the start of the Great Recession, the economy has lost 8.4 million jobs and failed to create another 2.7 million needed just to keep up with population growth. That means we’re more than 11 million in the hole right now. And that hole keeps deepening every month we fail to add at least 150,000 new jobs, again reflecting population growth.
A census-taking job is better than no job, but it’s no substitute for the real thing.
Those Dimocratic politicians who thought Obama would be their Mess-iah, or Noah, now see the water leaks ready to swamp the balsa wood ark.
“Before Congress left town for the spring recess, Speaker Nancy Pelosi urged rank-and-file Democrats to return home and tout the benefits of the landmark health care bill.
But instead of barnstorming their districts celebrating their historic accomplishment, some have been content to remain beneath the radar, reluctant to advertise their role in passing the centerpiece of President Barack Obama’s domestic policy agenda.
Rep. John Boccieri, who represents this conservative area in northeast Ohio, is one of them.
After announcing his intention to vote for the bill in a news conference televised live on CNN two days before the vote, Obama lauded his political courage. The president noted that the freshman Democrat sat “in as tough a district as there is,” a shout-out that prompted a standing ovation from the House Democratic Caucus.
For the past week, however, Boccieri has gone dark, surfacing only last Wednesday night — in New York City — at a cocktail party fundraiser to benefit his reelection campaign. Otherwise, the congressman had no public schedule.”
Boccieri and his fellow Dimocratic delusionals should drink as many of those New York City cocktails as they possibly can before they join the unemployment line:
“Boccieri is not alone. He’s one of a number of House Democrats who’ve kept a low profile over the recess, a group largely defined by the level of political jeopardy they face this fall.[snip]
One of them, Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-N.D.), has not held any events in Republican-oriented North Dakota to talk about health care, his staff acknowledged. This week, he’ll talk about Social Security.
The offices of other endangered members, ranging from veterans such as Reps. Alan Mollohan (D-W.Va.) and Allen Boyd (D-Fla.) to junior members such as Reps. Ann Kirkpatrick (D-Ariz.) and John Salazar (D-Colo.), did not return messages asking about how they had promoted health care last week. [snip]
“His back flip on health care simply dumps fuel on a fire that no amount of special-interest money or pats on the back from Speaker Pelosi will be able to put out,” said Jim Renacci, the front-runner in the 16th District’s contested Republican primary. “I think he knows that people are mad as hell, … and I think that concerns him.”
After the Obama promises that he would save them if they saved him with a “yes” vote on the health scam Big Media celebrated. Emotions would run cooler and dumb American would learn to love the Obama scam crowed Big Media. The test would be if the anger died down, according to Big Media. But the anger boils:
“If the experience of this state’s two Democratic House members is any indication, the raw emotion and mistrust emanating from last summer’s congressional town halls never really went away.
Instead, the unrest simmered over the ensuing months, only to return to a boil when Rep. Carol Shea-Porter and Rep. Paul Hodes, who is running for U.S. Senate, returned home to meet with their constituents here during the first week of the Easter recess.
Their public events provided a bracing reminder to Democrats that the political pivot from health care to economic and financial issues is going to be much more arduous than they expected.”
Only now as the water gushes into the balsa wood Obama ark, do these dumb Dimocrats begin to question whether their Mess-iah is a false prophet.
“At a senior center in Manchester Wednesday, one woman turned away when Hodes offered his outstretched hand for an introduction.
“I don’t want to shake your hand. You voted for health care, so just go,” snapped Carmen Guimond, as she refocused on her lunch of roast beef and mashed potatoes and waved him on. [snip]
While the landmark health care reform law is driving much of the hostility, at a handful of events here in the week after its passage, voters expressed profound cynicism and suspicion not just about the legislation but about Washington, government and virtually everything that came out of their legislators’ mouths. [snip]
For her part, at back-to-back town hall meetings in Bedford and Merrimack, Shea-Porter faced consistent boos, heckles and catcalls after almost every point she rattled off in defense of her vote. [snip]
“Why can’t we ask a question?” yelled one man, objecting to a format that randomly selected numbers out of a tub of tickets to choose questioners.
“Are you a princess or a representative?” chastised one woman.
Yet another man was miffed that he received a form letter from the representative’s office in response to six specific questions he sent her by mail.
“I expect a reply. I heard a position statement that did not answer any of my questions,” complained Ben Niles of Merrimack.”
Delusional Obama Dimocrats and their enablers assured themselves that the American public would not care about “process” and they would eventually love the stinking product (in the same way Obama used to say “to know me is to love me” – how has that panned out?).
“One question, though, is whether the unseemly horse trading that to many voters seemed to characterize the process has tainted the final product — and voters’ trust of Congress.
When Shea-Porter referred to the health care legislation as a bipartisan effort at one event and noted 200 amendments by Republicans, several in the audience jeered, “What a joke! You have got to be kidding me!”
When she said there was growing support for the legislation, even within her congressional district, a heckler taunted her, yelling, “How are your polls doing, Carol?” Another shouted, “That’s a lie! That’s a Pelosi line!”
Her statement that “the bill is paid for” led to a hearty round of laughs that made it seem as if she had delivered a joke.”
Carol Shea-Porter did deliver a joke, a bad joke no one is laughing at. Well, maybe Republicans are laughing.
American voters will laugh alongside Republicans because American still don’t know what is going on with health care.
“Questions reflecting confusion have flooded insurance companies, doctors’ offices, human resources departments and business groups.
“They’re saying, ‘Where do we get the free Obama care, and how do I sign up for that?’ ” said Carrie McLean, a licensed agent for eHealthInsurance.com.[snip]
McLean said the call center had been inundated by uninsured consumers who were hoping that the overhaul would translate into instant, affordable coverage.[snip]
“We tell them it’s not free, that there are going to be things in place that help people who are low-income, but that ultimately most of that is not going to be taking place until 2014,” McLean said.”
“But their fight to sustain the new law through the 2010 and 2012 elections – before key features such as subsidies and the health insurance “exchanges” take effect – could be as daunting as passing it.
One reason: House and Senate Republicans, who uniformly rejected the healthcare package, may well remain opposed.
“We don’t know a lot about what the long-term implications are of sustaining laws if they are passed on such partisan votes,” says Eric Patashnik, professor of politics and public policy at the University of Virginia.
Democrats upended conventional wisdom when they moved a major new social entitlement without a single Republican vote. The Social Security Act in 1935 and Medicare in 1965 passed with broad, bipartisan majorities. Call it a Senate mantra: No big bill moves unless it’s bipartisan. [snip]
During the next two election cycles, voters won’t have much to go on when judging whether they like healthcare reform. Many of the law’s key features won’t take effect until 2014. For Democrats, maintaining support for the law through those elections won’t be easy.
What sustained Social Security and Medicare through the years was that they came to be viewed as broad entitlements that helped the middle class as well as the poor.
“Even conservatives who had ideological concerns about these bills couldn’t oppose them because they developed such strong middle-class constituencies,” says Professor Patashnik. “It’s not clear this law will develop a similar level of support.”
Obama Dimocrats will continue to bamboozle the poor and the middle class, but as Abraham Lincoln observed, ‘you can’t fool all of the people all of the time’ and two elections cycles are a lot of time.
“Republicans, meanwhile, are already campaigning to repeal the law.
“The tax hikes, the Medicare cuts, the job-killing mandate, the accounting gimmicks, the backroom deals – we’re going to fight to repeal them at every single turn,” said House GOP leader John Boehner at a briefing on March 25.
“The American people aren’t going to take this lying down. The ink isn’t even dry and there’s a grass-roots revolt over this bill,” he added, referring to two states that have voted to reject mandates in the law and 37 others considering such measures or court challenges.”
As we pointed out last year, their is a very close historical analogy to the current Obama scam:
“Even a big, bipartisan vote is no guarantee that healthcare reforms can be sustained.
Case in point: the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act of 1988, which promised prescription-drug coverage and extended hospitalization benefits to seniors. Congress repealed the law a year after it was passed, after seniors objected to new out-of-pocket costs that kicked in before the law’s biggest benefits.
In 2003, House Republicans ground out a victory for President Bush’s prescription-drug reform. Sixteen Democrats in the House and 11 in the Senate gave Republicans at least a claim to be moving bipartisan legislation. Still, Democrats objected to GOP tactics to jam the bill through the House, including adding nearly three hours to a 15-minute vote. They also opposed GOP provisions to extend prescription-drug coverage to those who receive Medicare benefits through private plans (Medicare Advantage).
Now, in another twist, Democrats are using their majority to reverse that policy. The “fixes” that passed along with the healthcare reform bill cut $135.6 billion from the Medicare Advantage program from 2010 through 2019.
“It’s reasonable to speculate that [a partisan vote] is another factor that increases the risk of a law being appealed or eroded over time,” says Patashnik.”
Such is the level of Renunciation by the American public that some Republicans with long historical memories are reliving the great past triumphs and thinking it can happen again. Michael Barone:
“It is interesting to look back at the biggest Republican victory of the last 80 years, the off-year election of 1946. [snip]
Recent polls tell me that the Democratic Party is in the worst shape I have seen during my 50 years of following politics closely. So I thought it would be interesting to look back at the biggest Republican victory of the last 80 years, the off-year election of 1946. Republicans in that election gained 13 seats in the Senate and emerged with a 51–45 majority there, the largest majority that they enjoyed between 1930 and 1980. And they gained 55 seats in the House, giving them a 246–188 majority in that body, the largest majority they have held since 1930. The popular vote for the House was 53% Republican and 44% Democratic, a bigger margin than Republicans have won ever since. And that’s even more impressive when you consider that in 1946 Republicans did not seriously contest most seats in the South. In the 11 states that had been part of the Confederacy, Democrats won 103 of 105 seats and Republicans won only 2 seats in east Tennessee. In the 37 non-Confederate states, in contrast, Republicans won 246 of 330 seats, compared to only 85 for Democrats.
There are some intriguing similarities between the political situation in 1946 and the political situation today.”
Back in 1946 government was growing rapidly and Democrats threatened to grow it even faster. Government was taking 40% of the gross domestic product due to the war. There was talk of following the British example and create a “welfare state”. In 1944 Democrats controlled both houses of Congress (Senate 57-38, House 242-191) but not with such wide margins as today. Harry Truman was popular at first, but faded fast. The similarities have Republicans salivating.
“The prospect of losing two House seats in back-to-back special elections next month has sparked a vigorous, behind-the-scenes Democratic effort, designed to avoid an outcome that could lead to panic among the rank and file and stall the momentum generated by the recent passage of landmark health care legislation.
The trajectories of the two elections, which will take place in Pennsylvania and Hawaii over a span of four days next month, have raised alarm bells among top party officials who fear that a pair of defeats in the Democratic-held seats could amount to a Massachusetts Senate sequel, overshadowing President Barack Obama’s health care reform plan and reinforcing a narrative that the Democratic Party is on track for severe losses in November.”
In Hawaii Obama’s Washington thugs are backing the brother of Steve Case, the Dell CEO and Obama classmate, a man by the name of Ed Case against a Japanese-American woman, Colleen Hanabusa. Where are the charges of “racism”?
In Pennsylvania, John Murtha’s district might easily elect a Republican too.
“Locally, there’s a lot of anger, people know things aren’t right. And it taps into the general anxiety out there that things are on the wrong track,” Barbara Hafer, Critz’s onetime primary opponent and a former state treasurer, told POLITICO. “That could lead into a throw-the-bums out attitude.”
One Democratic operative following the race, noting that public polling shows Critz with a narrow lead over Republican businessman Tim Burns in a district with a significant Democratic voter registration advantage, was blunter in his assessment: “It’s easy to make an argument that he’s part of the problem. He was a Hill staffer; he asked for questionable earmarks. There’s a lot to beat him up on.”
Not only does Obama have to worry about a Republican winning in overwhelmingly Democratic Hawaii, there is also the problem of Deval Patrick. Deval Patrick in Massachusetts is in trouble and his puppet master David Axelrod, who used Patrick as a crash test dummy for Obama, might not be able to help:
“They are also trailblazing, post-civil-rights era African-American politicians of roughly the same age who rode similar hope and change themes to victory — “Yes we can” for Obama in 2008; “Together we can” for Patrick in 2006. Their messages were close enough that in one much-publicized 2008 speech, Obama even borrowed nearly exact phrasing from a 2006 Patrick speech.
It is precisely those thematic similarities — not to mention some shared political experiences — that have spawned theories that Patrick’s re-elect will be a bellwether for how Obama fares in 2012.
“Deval Patrick is the canary in the coal mine for Barack Obama in 2012,” conservative Boston Herald columnist Howie Carr wrote in January.
Mary Anne Marsh, a Democratic strategist in Massachusetts, believes that if Patrick loses, “many people would say, ‘This is the way to try to beat Barack Obama in 2012.’”
The time to beat Obama is in 2010.
For Obama no Ascension – only Renunciation remains.
First, our apologies to modern day sex workers of all genders – those who proffer their various bodily orifices and joints as sexual gratification devices, in exchange for pay. When we denounce “whores” and prostitutes, our intent is not to demean or debase those engaged in the sex trade. Compared to the “whores” and “prostitutes” we regularly denounce, sex workers are an entirely honorable lot.
Today, on Holy Saturday, a day sacred to Western Christians, sandwiched between Good Friday and Easter Sunday, what else can we discuss but Temple Prostitutes?
For those not well versed on Temple Prostitutes in the Biblical era there are many sources of information from which to learn. Temple Prostitutes were both male and female and they were certainly abundant. The books of Deuteronomy (23:17 – “None of the daughters of Israel may become temple prostitutes neither may anyone of the sons of Israel become a temple prostitute.”), Kings I (14:23, 24 “And they too kept building for themselves high places and sacred pillars and sacred poles upon every high hill and under every luxuriant tree. (24) And even the male temple prostitutes proved to be in the land they acted according to all the detestable things of the nations whom Jehovah had driven out from before the sons of Israel.” 15:12 “According he had the male temple prostitutes pass out of the land and removed all the dungy idols that his forefathers had made.” 22:46 “And the rest of the male temple prostitutes that had been left oven in the days of Asa his father he cleared out from the land.”), and Leviticus (19:29 “Do not profane your daughters by making her a prostitute in order that the land may not commit prostitution and the land actually be filled with loose morals.”) are replete with anecdotes. As much as we would enjoy a thorough discussion of Biblical era Temple Prostitution, the practices and variations, and meanings, we won’t engage. We have modern day Temple Prostitutes to worry about.
Modern day Temple Prostitutes are well known afflictions to Hillary Clinton supporters.
“There are good friendships between White House media and those they cover inside the White House — but they can’t be FRIENDS in the fullest sense. They are supposed to be rivals, wrestling over stories and the truth that is conveyed through the media to American citizens.
But an unhealthy pattern is developing in this White House — a trend that may very well have been a part of other presidencies as well — but what is happening today needs comment.
Some journalists seem to be putting their self interest above their responsibilities to the public as well as their employers.”
After some stroking of the Obama “communications” operatives, Clemons discovers “an unhealthy pattern is developing”. Clemons is playing dumb of course. “Developing” is the wrong declension. “Cemented” is the appropriate word. Clemons is also inaccurate in calling these creatures “journalists”. They are Temple Prostitutes.
“As Howard Kurtz and Glenn Greenwald have both commented, many White House correspondents and other top tier journalists want to write Obama books.
Anything with “Obama” on it is running at a huge premium in the book publication market.
But the kind of books that sell need “inside access” and this is something that the communications team at the White House doles out minimally, and increasingly, only when favors are part of the arrangement.
What I have learned after discussions over the last several days with several journalists who either have regular access to the White House or are part of the White House press corps is that there is a growing sense that access is traded for positive stories — or perhaps worse, an agreement that things learned will not be reported in the near term.”
They are Temple Prostitutes. Do not call them “journalists”.
“The White House is working hard to secure deals that yield fluffy, feel good commentary about the Obama White House. One American White House reporter used colorful terms to describe the arrangement. The reporter said, “They want ‘blow jobs’ first [in the press sense]. Then you have to be on good behavior for a bit or be willing to deal, and then you get access.”
“Axe” and “Gibbs” know who needs access to get their books pushed forward.
They know who will pay for play — and are taking notes on who has been naughty and nice in their reporting.”
Temple Prostitutes. Call them what they are.
“Edward Luce, Washington Bureau Chief of the Financial Times, who has been one of the few to resist the ‘you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours’ offers from the White House has found himself in a dust-up with the White House for his recent article co-authored with Daniel Dombey, “US Foreign Policy: Waiting on a Sun King“.
Luce was given access to one senior official for the piece, but because Luce reported that National Security Adviser Jim Jones may be on his way out and that Obama’s national security team lacks a top tier strategic thinker — other than Obama himself perhaps — Luce has been pummeled by the White House who think he violated a quid pro quo deal to do a fluff story in exchange for access.”
Clemons writes some whiny nonsense about how the White House should provide access for the public good not political benefit. But Clemons does not write what he clearly knows to be true. Temple Prostitutes.
“…Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter, NBC’s Chuck Todd, MSNBC’s Richard Wolffe, The Washington Post’s Bob Woodward and David Maraniss, the New York Times’ Jodi Kantor and two New Yorker writers — editor David Remnick and Washington correspondent Ryan Lizza. Time’s Mark Halperin and New York magazine’s John Heilemann, whose campaign chronicle “Game Change” became a huge bestseller, have just signed a deal with Penguin Press to chronicle the 2012 contest — for an advance reported to be about $5 million.[snip]
A White House official said Michelle Obama is granting no book interviews because it is difficult to pick and choose among authors who are seeking similar material. Left unspoken is that the first lady undoubtedly wants to write her own book when she leaves the White House.”
Greenwald gets dangerously close to Big Pink with this:
“Is it even remotely conceivable that this stable of access-desperate reporters would write negatively about the White House or the President, or conversely, refuse to do their bidding? Look at what Ryan Lizza writes to get the answer. They’re all vying for the lucrative position of unofficial royal court spokesman (which Bob Woodward occupied in the prior administration). How can one possibly purport to be a “watchdog” over the very political officials on whom one’s livelihood and hope for riches depend? This conflict between (a) a need for access and (b) adversarial journalism is already acute enough — perhaps even unavoidable — for those who report on a day-to-day basis on the White House and other officials. But to then purposely compound that conflict by putting yourself in such a dependent and needy position vis-a-vis White House aides (with these “behind-the-scenes” books) proves how inappropriate the word “journalist” is for them. They’re motivated by many things; journalism plainly isn’t one of them.”
They are not “journalists.” They are Temple Prostitutes.
This year is young, but the cesspools of foolery overflow. One Big Blog boy lunged yesterday to be crowned “Fool Of The Year”. In ordinary times he would be hard to beat. He is an exemplary fool. This fool describes himself as “an ardent environmentalist”. This fool is so “ardent” he has exerted himself and joined the Sierra Club along with a “climate non-profit”. So what was this “ardent environmentalist” fool’s reaction to Barack Obama’s announcement on offshore oil drilling yesterday? What expressions of outrage did our “ardent environmentalist” unleash? What thundering actions of Olympian rage did this Big Blog boy unleash? The fool in his own words:
I’m just thankful that the ban remains in effect for the west coast and fragile ecosystems in the northeast. I hope groups like Earthjustice and the NRDC don’t ignore the issue and put out statements of annoyed disappointment….
Whoa, hold on there little fella! Them’s a-fight’n words fer shur! Let’s not get too radical.
Is there any wonder why we laugh at these PINO Big Blog boys? Obama put on Sarah Palin’s saddle, and she rode him and broke him, yet our Big Blog “ardent environmentalist” boy hero mewls. What a man!
But our boy “ardent environmentalist” hero is not done yet with his claim to the crown of “Fool Of The Year”. Yesterday, this Big Blog boy also barked for money on behalf of Dimocrats, as the first quarter FEC filing deadline came to a close. As we wrote on this day last year:
These fools are giving money to the very officials who hold them in utter disdain and contempt. They are fools. They are rewarding the very people who treat them like dirt.
Can anyone take the crown from this fool? Surely, he must be “Fool Of The Year”. Well now, hold on. Before we continue to nominate others for “Fool Of The Year” let’s nominate ourselves for the prize. We here at Big Pink have been made fools too. Let’s slap ourselves as well.
In declining the title “Fool Of The Year” we plead stupefaction. Who would have thunk it possible? In our article discussing the lawsuits against Obama’s health scam we cited mostly “right wing” lawyers as thinking the lawsuits had a chance of success. Now comes Jonathan Turley, a liberal talking head lawyer to punk us. Writes Turley in USAToday:
“If the individual health insurance mandate survives court challenges, states’ rights will have withered before our eyes.[snip]
Across the country, lawsuits are being filed that could have sweeping implications, not just for health care but our constitutional system. [snip] Though the federal government has the clear advantage in such litigation, these challenges should not be dismissed as baseless political maneuvering. There is a legitimate concern for many that this mandate constitutes the greatest (and perhaps the most lethal) challenge to states’ rights in U.S. history.[snip]
It is an assertion of federal power that is inherently at odds with the original vision of the Framers. If a citizen who fails to get health insurance is an interstate problem, it is difficult to see the limiting principle as Congress seeks to impose other requirements on citizens. The ultimate question may not be how Congress can prevail, but how much of states’ rights would be left if it prevailed.[snip]
Though strong arguments can be made for health care reform and the individual mandate, these are matters that should not be decided by mere fiat of Congress but rather by the courts. Federalism was already on life support before the individual mandate. Make no mistake about it, this plan might provide a bill of good health for the public, but it could amount to a “do not resuscitate” order for federalism.”
Turley, you punked us. A Big Media favorite writing fairly about a constitutional question. Who would have thunk it?
But Turley is not the only one to make fools of us. David Letterman. Yup, David Letterman has punked us too. Who would have thunk it? We plead embarrassment.
“In a quietly remarkable piece of television, David Letterman interviewed Tea Party member Pam Stout on last night’s Late Show. “I know nothin’ about the tea party,” Dave began, saying Stout had come to his attention after the 66 year-old Idaho woman had been featured prominently in a Feb. 15 New York Times story on the Tea Party movement.
Letterman invited her on to ask about the movement and whether it aimed to become a “third party.” She said, “I don’t think it will become a third party,” but that its voice “can be pretty devisive” in some elections, and that locally, she wanted the Tea Party to “take over the Republican Party… [and] go back to the old ideas.” [snip]
Stout was the mildest of souls, calm and remarkably composed for someone probably not used to the glare of network TV cameras. And Letterman loves this sort of person — a Midwestern citizen, a non-celeb; while raising serious points, he made a point of keeping things light“.
But as foolish as we might be, let’s get to real contenders for the crown as “Fool Of The Year”. In the “diary” written by that “ardent environmentalist” there was this comment:
“My first thought was of taking a rolled up newspaper and bopping him on the head like I would scold a dog. I thought he’d learned?
But that was just my first thought. This is Obama we’re talking about, and as we learned with HCR, his brilliance is often well beyond the horizon of us lay bloggers.“
If that sad sack has written “us PINO bloggers” we could see the justice in the remark. But really, this is a high level of fool beyond measure. The level of foolishness is not restricted to comments on PINO blogs. Last year one of the contenders for “Fool Of The Year” was the head fool at what we call “NothingLeft”. Proving that experience is a great value, the head fool at NothingLeft catapults himself to the top ranks of contenders for “Fool Of The Year”. This year the experienced fool writes:
“I spent much of 2008 exasperated by a progressive Internet space that had seemingly reversed itself overnight on things like the value of triangulation, bipartisanship, appearing Fox News, allowing Joe Lieberman to keep his seniority, sending more troops to Afghanistan, retroactive immunity for telecom companies, replacing local state party organizers with ones who answer directly to the DNC, and much more. It seemed as though numerous policies and strategies that had held near-consensus stature within the progressive online ecosystem had been either scrapped or reversed simply because Barack Obama said it was a good idea to scrap or reverse them.
Back then, the urge to call people who reversed their positions lobotomized “sheeple” was almost impossible to resist–and I frequently did not resist it.
However, that is not an impulse I feel anymore. This is because I realized Barack Obama persuaded progressive activists to change their minds not because those activists are sheeple or because activist organization leaders operate in “veal pens,” but rather because Obama developed new messaging that was more convincing than the likes used by myself, or BTD, or anyone else on the left who was making contrary arguments. He just beat those old arguments, plain and simple, and the progressive Internet space changed.”
Perhaps “fool” needs to be modified for this extraordinary “fool”. Let’s add “whore”. A foolish whore. A foolish whore who is so desperate to become part of the corrupt Dimocratic establishment he will write the most foolish theories and think his PINO audience is so stupid as to believe him. Generally the PINO audience is either so gullible or so corrupt that they do believe this extraordinary and experienced fool. Lord, what fools these PINOs be!
At the end of the day the PUMAs were right to believe that Obama was NOT a feminist and that he would sell women out. They were right that Barack Obama had no intention on keeping his word on a universal health care system or the conscience clause. They were right about DOMA. They were right on the fact that the rules were manipulated and that half the party was hosed over to drag Obama over the finish line. Quite frankly I don’t understand how anyone would take being called a PUMA as an insult. They’ve so far been the freaking Cassandras on just about everything Obama and the Democrats stand for nowadays(which is pretty close to nil).
Last year, other contenders for “Fool Of The Year” were “women’s groups” such as NARAL. This year, just like the “ardent environmentalist” the “women’s groups” are top contenders yet again. Obama signs away their “principles”, signs an Executive Order codifying the Hyde Amendment which he promised during the election campaign to eliminate, and these fools write statements of “annoyed disappointment” – yet continue to raise funds for Obama and his Dimocrats. Somewhere Tony Perkins chortles.
But are there bigger fools than the Congressional fools who believe Obama will save them if they “Save Obama”? The polls say the Obama Dimocrats are indeed fools to believe Obama can save them:
“Barack Obama is getting more blame for what voters see as a lagging economy than at any other time in his presidency, according to a new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll out Thursday.
Additionally, 50 percent said Obama does not deserve reelection, with 46 percent saying otherwise.”
Obama cannot save himself, let alone other Dimocrats. Those in Congress and out that believe Obama scams and flim-flams will bring jobs are even bigger fools.
“In the USA Today/Gallup poll taken over the weekend, the President maintains a 47% approval rating, with 50% disapproving. Two-thirds of voters think the health care bill costs too much and expands the role of health care too far, 50% think passage is a bad thing, and 53% thought the Democrats’ tactics constituted an abuse of power. This is representative of most polling I’ve seen this cycle, where the President enjoys tepid approval ratings on the topline, but the secondary “issue” numbers are horrendous.”
“The president’s push to turn health care reform into a catalyst for the rest of his agenda is getting mixed early reactions on Capitol Hill, where Democratic leaders’ desire to take advantage of healthy majorities before the November elections must contend with lawmakers’ survival instincts.”
“Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg said Wednesday that if the 2010 election were held today, his party would be faced with a similar result to its catastrophic 1994 losses. [snip]
“We’re on the edge of it, but we’re not there. If the election were now, we’d have a change election, a 1994,” he said at a breakfast hosted by the Christian Science Monitor. “If the election were now, you would be there.”
Carville and Greenberg know enough to make excuses but the trajectory is clear.