No more bitter taste than having to eat your own words. Obama supporters have that bitter taste as they cling to their Mess-iah.
[h/t the ever vigilant NotYourSweetie]
The excuses don’t work anymore. Mess-iah Fatigue is taking a toll:
“President Obama is angry at God for making it rain in Chicago, and irked at the oil spill, making him pack up between his vacations and make trips down again to the Gulf. Ideologues argue about over whether corporations or government tend to be the least competent, ignoring the proof that the answer is both of them. And Democrats are having their own kind of crisis, a sort of buyer’s remorse at a very high level, which sounds like Messiah Fatigue.
Messiah Fatigue is what happens when your Messiah turns into a millstone, and the force that was supposed to boost you into divine and deep power seems more of an anchor instead. Democrats are bewildered.
“They are doing a lot of things, but a lot of people do not like what they are doing. Others do not know what they are doing. And hardly anyone likes the way they are doing it,” as the Los Angeles Times now says of the party.
“A lot of our people have no idea what we’re doing,” it quotes a House member. And David Obey complains that “Obama’s ability to use his bully pulpit to build support for health care and other crises had been eclipsed by the oil spill crisis,” causing James Taranto to note unkindly that, as the health care vote came a month before the crisis erupted, “the explosion created a disruption in the space-time continuum that is causing millions of gallons of oil to leak into the past.”
The Mess-iah Fatigue was evident to Creigh Deeds, Jon Corzine, and Martha Coakley. The article also notes that Obama is magic – for Republicans. On policy after policy anger and resistance grows. As the anger and resistance grows Republican success grows and needed Dimocratic defeat and doom looms.
With mounting evidence and justification the question is increasingly asked “Whose side are you on Barack?“ Barack Obama and his thugs are on the side of “party” – not political party necessarily – glamorous and expensive dinner parties, and cheap frat boy party.
Obama is magic for Republicans, for his pocketbook, for his criminal and tax cheat friends, for his frat boy graffiti writer clown posse, but death and doom for America and the once great Democratic Party:
“Obama’s mixed [she means losing] electoral record has perplexed operatives who thought his charisma and tactical skill would yield a stronger-than-ever Democratic majority,” reported Anne Kornblut. Instead, it produced a revival among the Republicans, who just a few months ago appeared moribund.
How did this happen, if he was the Anointed? Inquiring minds want to know. Inquiring minds have a few other questions, in light of the gap between promise and fact.
How did he turn health care into a wedge issue against his own party? Why are we awash in a sea of dead pelicans? Why has he so much time on his hands for fundraisers and galas? Why are our relations so much worse with all of our allies, while our — and their — enemies go on building bombs?
As we noted last night in the comments “The splashes of oil hitting his face appear to be waking up Joe Conosen.”
Usually a reliable Obama defender, even Joe Conosen is scratching his head and becoming only slightly aware that Obama is a death dealer to the Democratic Party, the Presidency, and the nation:
Among the most troubling themes in Tim Dickinson’s important new Rolling Stone investigation of the Gulf oil spill is how British Petroleum successfully compromised the federal government, from the obscure Minerals Management Service all the way up to the White House. The failure to respond aggressively and immediately will haunt the Obama presidency for years to come. And early promises of transparency seem to have been broken in this crisis because the administration allowed BP to take control of the narrative — and especially the video:[snip]
That’s clearly correct: The “unified command” in New Orleans, including Coast Guard and other federal officials along with BP executives and engineers, has had streaming real-time video of the Deepwater Horizon site available from the earliest hours following the disaster. Adm. Thad Allen, the incident commander, and other members of the unified command team have testified to that fact on several occasions. Testifying before the Senate on May 18, Allen told Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., that “we have had full access to the video footage in our command center since the event started.”
That testimony raises additional questions concerning BP’s steadfast refusal to release any video footage until more than three weeks after the explosion (and to withhold the vide0 stream from the public for an additional nine days). If U.S. government officials could see that streaming video from the beginning, then why did BP get away with keeping video from the public domain for so long? Or to put it another way: Why didn’t the government force BP to release the footage that media outlets and scientists had been requesting for weeks? Only after Sen. Nelson — with Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif. — used Allen’s testimony to publicly demand release of BP’s video footage did the company finally accede a few days later on May 21.
Finally, the Rolling Stone story raises the critical question of what the president saw and when he saw it. At his press conference on May 27, Obama suggested that early estimates of the spill’s potential damage were inaccurate because the oil company was not providing all the information it had:
“This is an area, by the way, where I do think our efforts fell short. And I’m not contradicting my prior point that people were working as hard as they could and doing the best that they could on this front. But I do believe that when the initial estimates came that there were — it was 5,000 barrels spilling into the ocean per day, that was based on satellite imagery and satellite data that would give a rough calculation. At that point, BP already had a camera down there, but wasn’t fully forthcoming in terms of what did those pictures look like” [emphasis added].
Yet according to Obama’s own crisis commander, those pictures in fact were available to the Coast Guard, the MMS and other agencies in the unified command center “since the event started.” Did someone neglect to tell the president?
Again the question comes up, on yet another issue, on yet another Jeremiah Wright type “who is this guy Obama?“, on yet another character question, on yet another job badly done, “What did Obama know, and when did he know it? We suggested Joe stop making excuses and accept the reality:
Obama simply cannot be trusted. Obama cannot be trusted on any issue. Obama cannot be trusted by his friends. Obama cannot be trusted by his enemies. Obama cannot be trusted.
Joe Conoson is not alone in beginning to question Mess-iah Obama. Matt Bai, the serpentine hack for Obama and the “creative class” Left, in an article to be published in the Sunday New York Times wonders if Obama is a Democrat, or the Democratic leader.
“A year and a half after they sat, shivering and awestruck, on a January morning and listened to the sounds of a million cheers careering off the marble walls of the Capitol, the Democrats who work under the dome can feel those same walls closing in fast. Throughout the dismal spring, it seemed as if every visiting delegation that drove up in a coach bus — Main Street merchants, family farmers, Rotarians and Elks — arrived with tales of angst and unrest back home. Every well-paid pollster who came through the door brought with him a stack of surveys and focus-group memos, each more dispiriting than the last, numbers portending an emphatic rejection of the majority in this fall’s elections. Every new thickly bound jobs report landed with a sickening thud on the desks of committee chairmen — a reminder that, despite modest improvements, time was running out to change people’s minds about the direction of the economy.
And then there was the president — their president — who for 17 months had cajoled them into taking tough votes on stimulus spending, on the trading of carbon emissions, on health care. Barack Obama, the postpartisan president. He continued to go out and shake his head disbelievingly at “the culture of Washington,” which to the Democrats in the House sounded as if he were saying that his own party was the problem, as if somehow the Democratic majorities in Congress hadn’t managed to navigate the bulk of his ambitious agenda past a blockade of Republican vessels, their ship shredded by cannon fire. And all this while the president’s own approval ratings fell below 50 percent — an ominous sign, historically speaking, for a majority party.”
According to Bai, in April there was a confrontation between Obama enablers like Nancy Pelousy, the race-baiting Jim Clyburn, and Obama thugs like David Axelrod and Jim Messina. It was too-clever Obama enablers versus too stupid Obama thugs. A pox on all of them and their houses.
There are been other, according to frat boy Bai, Seinfeldian “airing of grievances”. Only now do these blockheads like Bai and Pelousy discover that Obama is only in it for himself. Obama only cares about himself. Michelle Obama has said Obama is only in it for himself. Now these blockheads are surprised that Obama is only in it for himself.
“Unlike his predecessor and some of his own political allies, however, Obama has never betrayed much interest in building political empires. Obama ran on the notion of transcending partisan distinctions, rather than making them permanent, and the political identity that enabled him to draw millions of new voters into the process two years ago is both intensely personal and self-contained. It’s not clear that Obama can translate his appeal among disaffected voters into support for a party and its aging Washington establishment. Nor is it clear, as he looks ahead to 2012, how hard he’s going to try.”
Serpentine Bai has one contribution to make which will rattle the history hating Nutroots. Part of the Nutroots “airing of grievances” is what happened in 1994. The Nutroots blame Bill Clinton for the losses. Reality history blames Democratic corruption and the rising tide of Republican and conservative demographics and organization. Bai tells the Nutroots what really happened in 1994:
“It is difficult to overstate the role that 1994 plays in the tormented psyche of the Democratic Party. For those who went through them, those midterms were less a bunch of elections than a single, sudden event that they never saw coming until it was on them, like something out of “War of the Worlds.” Most of the Democrats who woke up firmly in control of American government on Nov. 8, 1994, had no memory of a time when they didn’t make all the laws, and they couldn’t really conceive of it; by nightfall, 40 years of near-total Democratic dominance in both houses of Congress had been washed away. The costs, for years afterward, were too painful to fully contemplate. Without the voter uprising of 1994, there would have been no Speaker Gingrich, no impeachment and almost certainly no George W. Bush, who, by winning election as the governor of Texas, found himself swept into office that year along with a lot of other political neophytes who might otherwise have disappeared into political obscurity.
Republicans in 1994 gained a net total of 54 House seats and 8 Senate seats and emerged with a majority of governors for the first time in more than 20 years, and state legislatures for the first time in a half century. This year, they need to gain 40 House seats and 8 Senate seats to regain control. Taking back the House is eminently doable; taking the Senate is remote but hardly unthinkable. [snip]
Meanwhile, Democratic governors are bracing for their own losses. The effect of a drubbing at the state level, while likely to garner less attention than what happens in Washington, could be devastating for Democrats, just as it proved to be 16 years ago. Governors have generally proved to be the intellectual catalysts for both parties, and it’s not incidental that four of the five presidents immediately preceding Obama sprang from their ranks. Parties that fail to hold governors’ mansions also fail to develop compelling candidates for national office.[snip]
The 1994 elections marked the culmination of a decades-long transformation. For 30 years before then, since the triumph of the civil rights agenda, Democratic strongholds in the South and in the working-class Midwest had been teetering toward the Republicans. Bill Clinton’s missteps no doubt hastened this process, but so did redistricting based on the 1990 Census, after which Democrats were assured safe, urban seats in minority districts while whiter, more conservative districts were created in the suburbs. The 1994 campaigns were the first waged on this map in a nonpresidential election year, and it all but guaranteed that many longtime Democrats would lose.“
Bai, does not mention the killing effect of Democratic congressional corruption in 1994 nor does Bai mention the hate of that Democratic congressional power structure against Bill Clinton because he did not allow them the goodies they craved and instead Bill Clinton opted to destroy the deficit and fix the economy.
Bai excels at coming up with excuses for Obama however. Obama’s lack of experience in party building is contrasted with the Bushes who either ran the Republican Party or Republican campaigns; Bill Clinton who helped George McGovern’s presidential run; and Jimmy Carter who was Chairman of the Democratic Party’s midterm campaign in 1974.
“Obama did his door-to-door campaigning as a community organizer, but he never worked in party politics until he ran for office, and as a presidential aspirant he never bothered with trying to remake his party or modernize its message in the same way that Reagan (a spokesman for the conservative movement) or Clinton (a leader of the centrist New Democrats) did. Other than to assert (dubiously, perhaps) that he wasn’t a “triangulator” like the Clintons, Obama did not run against the party establishment, as other candidates had before, but with indifference toward it.”
The obvious lesson from this history, which escapes the still in love Bai, is that Obama is interested only in himself. Instead Bai contorts himself with talk about “boomers” and “outsiders”.
“Obama, a good 15 years younger than our last two boomer presidents, is the opposite; he is a genuine outsider who spends a fair amount of energy reassuring Democrats that he really does care about the organization.
“Fundamentally, I just think he wants to be bigger than that,” says Cornell Belcher, who was one of Obama’s pollsters during the 2008 campaign. “It gets back to being a transformational leader. A party leader isn’t about transformation.”
What garbage! What stupidity! Obama only cares about himself but these “creative class” dullards and dolts can’t see what is right in front of their noses. Read more of this garbage and see how remarkably stupid the “creative class” and their Matt Bai’s are:
“Obama’s advisers have spoken of his brand, which is a stand-in for the party identity that defined other presidencies. Obama’s brand is about inclusivity, transcendence, a generational break from stale dogmas. Inevitably, Obama’s brand management runs up against the culture of his party. State activists are sometimes told their requests for the president to appear at a typical political event, in some ballroom with room dividers or at the local labor hall, aren’t going to fly. Aides know that if they bring that kind of thing to Obama, he’ll ask, “Can’t we do any better than that?” As a rule, Obama no longer speaks at the traditional Jefferson-Jackson dinners where state Democratic parties gather to raise money from the faithful. “For what?” a senior aide responded when I asked why. “To talk to the same people he already has?” Obama prefers venues, preferably outdoors or in large theaters, where he can reach voters who aren’t party regulars. He generally refuses to do “robo-calls,” those ubiquitous, recorded messages in which a politician asks you to go out and vote for the party. “He’s got a practical objection to them, which is that they’re irritating,” Axelrod explained to me.”
How stupid are these Obama Hopium guzzlers? Read those excuses and laugh. Obama, according to these dolts is “inclusive” which is why he loves huge audiences. Isn’t the more obvious reading of these character traits that Obama does not like to work, and loves the adoration of huge audiences? It’s like a music band with a popular hit that only wants to work in huge arenas, not small clubs. When the hit wears off, it’s back to small clubs or smaller venues and depression and break-up.
Obama’s uselessness and self agrandizement is viewed by clowns like Bai and the Nutroots as somehow endearing. Read this laugh riot stupidity:
“While Obama attended four times the number of fund-raising events that Bill Clinton did during his first year in office, he garnered a fraction of the contributions. “He is the worst Washington fund-raiser in the history of presidents,” a White House aide proudly admitted to me a few months back. All of this exasperates operatives on the Hill who are obsessed with keeping other Democrats in office, and who think maybe Obama should be a little more obsessed with it too. “When you go to the D.N.C., his picture is on that wall,” a longtime strategist who is working for a Congressional campaign told me. “There’s a reason.”
Obama does not care about anyone else but he loves big audiences who adore him (or pretend to) and applaud him and accept him (unlike his daddy). This obvious truth eludes the brilliant Bai and other Hopium Guzzlers.
Bai includes a vulgarity laden interview with Rahm Emanuel which is more an encyclopedia of excuses and blame distribution. But Bai does not include the obvious fact about the upcoming elections: Obama is Poison.
The fact that it is all about Obama emerges even as the attempt is made to obscure it:
“For Plouffe, the unstated goal is to lay the groundwork for Obama’s re-election campaign in 2012. [snip]
“Let’s be clear — these are not Democratic voters,” Cornell Belcher, the Obama campaign pollster, cautioned me. “They’re Obama voters.”
It’s all about Obama. There are the Obama deadenders who see a Mess-iah. There are those who see the clown for what he is.
“Some see him as having transformed both the electorate and the nature of campaigning in what could be a lasting and fundamental way, meaning that things are possible now — both in terms of liberal governance and winning elections — that did not seem possible before. Others view 2008 mostly as a cathartic election that had more to do with conditions in the country than with Obama’s peculiar magic, and they don’t think the party should assume that there are millions of new voters out there who can be tapped if you just knock on the right doors. These two worldviews coexist uneasily among the party’s elected officials and candidates, young and old, in every part of the country — sometimes just hours apart.”
Matt Bai and the Hopium Guzzlers will have to eat their own words, with a big dollop of Obama Crude. As Obama and his Hopium hyped thugs drag the nation down even lower the sense of helplessness grows as does the anger.
As the unrestrained Obama crude changes the political landscape, the economic landscape, and the geographical landscape, Americans stand by watching Obama and his incompetent thugs. Americans grow angrier every day as the helplessness of the situation strikes.
The needed Democratic Party no long exists and we all watch helplessly as the Obama Dimocrats wreak havoc. The economic life of the nation is strangled and we all watch helplessly. The Obama crude flows from once shining seas – and we all watch – helpless.
Helpless – until November.
Helpless – until November – when we will make them all, Obama too, eat their words.