A Smörgåsbord Of Treachery – Rahm, Rouse, Dashcle, And Rubio Debates Crist

It is not sleeveless dresses from “fashion don’t” Michelle Obama that is the style these days. Treachery, as we predicted long ago, is in vogue. It’s the latest political style brought from Chicago by Barack Obama.

So much treachery stinks out from Barack Obama we have to serve a buffet of highlights, not a full course sit down dinner.

On the last days of 2008 we warned repeatedly that the corruptions and debasements Obama practiced in Chicago would come to Washington. We warned thatThe multi-headed Hydra which is the Obama Chicago Culture of Corruption is growing another head in Washington, D.C….” Now the open sewer from Chicago floods freely through the streets of D.C.

In June of 2007 in our article Obama’s Dirty Mud Politics, which was attacked by Peggy Noonan and Tim Russert, we began to detail how Obama and David Axelrod won elections by smearing their opponents. The entire Obama /Axelrod strategy was to dig up dirt on opponents and leak the smears to a compliant Big Media.



We now see the Obama strategy in full flower. The entire Obama Dimocratic Party campaign is “fear and smear”. What Obama did in Chicago is now the official modus operandi of the Obama Dimocratic party.

In state after state the fear and smears by Obama Dimocrats are in full play. Dick Morris, who knows quite a bit about treachery, informs as to why the fear and smears campaign will not work in 2010:

“The Democrats are widening the enthusiasm gap against them by running exclusively negative campaigns against their insurgent Republican rivals. The vast proportion of Democratic and allied independent-expenditure media is negative, portraying Republican congressional candidates as tax evaders, spousal abusers, mob-linked, eccentric flakes, sexual molesters and absentee officeholders (all actual charges against key GOP candidates). While these ads may chip away at the Republican vote share in the polls, they do nothing to generate a Democratic turnout.

The Democrats are without a theme, a message or a positive reason to go vote. Negative ads are supposed to depress turnout — the last thing Democrats need. But when they come up against Republican enthusiasm, they may not do much to check the GOP rise.”

Morris is right. Negative ads suppress turnout so the entire Obama Dimocratic strategy is self-defeating. “Fear and smears” worked in Chicago and in 2008, but in 2010 the depress turnout strategy is make-up on a clown.

Treachery. Dig in, dinner is served:

Did Big Media out Rahm Emanuel? How else to explain the odd coverage of Rahm’s Chicago run? In a discussion of Rahm Emanuel’s strengths and weaknesses in the Chicago mayoral race the New York Times stuck in an odd “strength”:

“3. WHO SENT YOU? Mr. Emanuel arrives in Chicago without an obvious coalition to form the base of his support. Most candidates here start with one or more blocs: the black vote, the labor vote, the white ethnic vote, the lakefront liberal vote, the Hispanic vote. Mr. Emanuel’s supporters note how easily he carried his district when he ran for Congress, and say they expect he will have support from some gay voters and from Jewish leaders (although not all are happy with Mr. Obama’s policies on Israel).

Still, he will probably need more than that to head off a challenge from someone like Representative Davis, who is black, or Representative Luis V. Gutierrez, who may get strong support from Latino voters.”

Rahm Emanuel is Jewish so it is conventional wisdom that Jews will feel some affinity for this turncoat and persist in voting for him. African-American Davis can expect affinity votes from African-Americans and Gutierrez can expect affinity votes from Latinos. But why would Gay Americans feel any affinity for Rahm? Does the New York Times know something we are not being told explicitly?

The creepy Gay Blog Boys who trashed Hillary Clinton, fluffed for Barack Obama and betrayed Gay Americans by supporting the gay-bashing Obama certainly do not think that Rahm deserves support from the Gay community based on the issues of importance to Gay Americans:

“Can some enterprising reporter ask candidate Rahm his position on same-sex marriage? I suspect Rahm will be seeing and hearing a lot from LGBT activists as he campaigns over the next few months.

Also, I do wonder what Rahm Emanuel would say to any senior staffer who quit a key job with under five weeks to go before an election? I can’t imagine it would be pretty, unless said staffer was the kind of disaster that Rahm has been.”

Many Gay Americans in the “creative class” set think that after the November elections a concerted effort should be made to defeat Rahm Emanuel. So why does the New York Times give any credence at all to those who believe that Rahm will get Jewish and Gay votes? Any Gay or Jewish voter who supports Rahm Emanuel deserves a heaping helping of Treachery and that is what they will get on the issues from Rahm Emanuel.

* * * * * *

Treachery. All during the Obama health scam debate we refused to fool anyone by engaging in a discussion of the “issues”. We knew it was a scam. The public debate was a subterfuge for deceit. We knew that the Obama health scam would be the same asThe Obama Health Plan Obama Supporters Do Not Want To Discuss.

Tom Daschle, admits it was a scam:

“In his book, Daschle reveals that after the Senate Finance Committee and the White House convinced hospitals to to accept $155 billion in payment reductions over ten years on July 8, the hospitals and Democrats operated under two “working assumptions.” “One was that the Senate would aim for health coverage of at least 94 percent of Americans,” Daschle writes. “The other was that it would contain no public health plan,” which would have reimbursed hospitals at a lower rate than private insurers.

I asked Daschle if the White House had taken the option off the table in July 2009 and if all future efforts to resuscitate the provision were destined to fail:

DASCHLE: I don’t think it was taken off the table completely. It was taken off the table as a result of the understanding that people had with the hospital association, with the insurance (AHIP), and others. I mean I think that part of the whole effort was based on a premise. That premise was, you had to have the stakeholders in the room and at the table. Lessons learned in past efforts is that without the stakeholders’ active support rather than active opposition, it’s almost impossible to get this job done. They wanted to keep those stakeholders in the room and this was the price some thought they had to pay. Now, it’s debatable about whether all of these assertions and promises are accurate, but that was the calculation. I think there is probably a good deal of truth to it. You look at past efforts and the doctors and the hospitals, and the insurance companies all opposed health care reform. This time, in various degrees of enthusiasm, they supported it. And if I had to point out some of the key differences between then and now, it would be the most important examples of the difference.

Despite being “taken off the table” as a result of the “understanding,” the White House continued to publicly deny claims that it was backing away from the provision even as it tried to focus on other aspects of the bill. “Nothing has changed,” said Linda Douglass, then communications director for the White House Office of Health Reform in August of 2009 and many times thereafter.”

Linda Douglas was unwittingly telling the truth – “Nothing has changed.” All the Hope and Change was a fake. Obama made deals with Big PhaRma and Big Insurance, just like he did in Chicago. We were not fooled. Those who wasted their time chasing the fake public option goose should know:

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.

While we’re discussing tax cheat Tom Daschle let’s not leave out Rahm Emanuel’s replacement at the White House – Pete Rouse. Politico has a summary of “Who is Pete Rouse” which fortifies the fact that Obama was gifted the Democratic nomination by a treacherous crew.

Obama Hopium Guzzlers will live in the delusion that Obama was a grassroots type guy. But Obama was a treacherous Chicago creep from the get-go who as far back as 2004 was groomed by the Democratic establishment to be their stooge. Ezra Klein:

“Back in August 2008, Dana Goldstein and I reported out an article on Obama’s relationship with the existing powers in the Democratic Party, and our interviews quickly led me to see Rouse as the key figure in the Obama operation. Rouse’s background and connections were the only way to explain how a state senator who gave a great convention speech could, in two short years, build a national campaign operation able to credibly challenge — and eventually overcome — Hillary Clinton’s juggernaut. Here’s the relevent section from the piece: [snip]

The Obama campaign and Senate staff, by contrast, are full of Daschle and Gephardt veterans–an unexpected rebirth of the power bases and reputations of two politicians who had long been written off. Obama’s chief of staff is the aforementioned Daschle associate, Pete Rouse. His deputy campaign manager, Steve Hildebrand, managed Daschle’s 2004 campaign. His director for battleground states, Jennifer O’Malley Dillon, and his director of communications, Dan Pfeiffer, were both deputy campaign managers for Daschle in 2004. Obama’s foreign-policy director, Denis McDonough, was Daschle’s foreign-policy adviser, and his finance director, Julianna Smoot, was head of Daschle’s PAC. Many of those who didn’t come from the Senate minority leader’s office came from the House minority leader’s office. Obama’s campaign manager, David Plouffe, was Gephardt’s deputy campaign manager in 2004. His head of delegate operations, Jeff Berman, played the same role for Gephardt. His national press secretary, Bill Burton, was Gephardt’s Iowa press secretary. Dozens of others come from related arms of the party, in particular the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

It’s a tremendous operation for a first-term senator who hadn’t worked a day in Washington before 2004. But it’s exactly the team you’d expect a former chief of staff to the Senate minority leader to construct. “The person most responsible for this was Pete Rouse,” says Tom Daschle, sounding almost wistful. After all, Obama’s campaign was in part based on plans Rouse had drawn up for Daschle in 2004, before Daschle decided to sit out the presidential race.”

The myth that Obama rose because of his own efforts and accomplishments is risible. It was all a fix by establishment figures like Ted Kennedy and Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and Tom Daschle:

“Put simply, there were only two Democratic power centers capable of running a national campaign in 2008: the veterans of the Clinton campaign, and the staff around the congressional leadership. Obama had the good fortune to enter office in the very year when both Tom Daschle and Dick Gephardt left office, and then he had the good fortune to land Rouse, who knew that world of staffers.

This gave Obama’s campaign — and, eventually, his White House — a congressional character. Rahm Emanuel was subsequently plucked out of the House leadership, and legislative liaison Phil Schiliro, who is one of the leading candidates to replace Emanuel if the Rouse pick proves temporary, was taken from Rep. Henry Waxman’s office.

The Obama administration has often been criticized for adopting an overly deferential approach to Congress, but it’s staffed by longtime congressional hands who strongly believe that this is the right approach to take to Congress if you actually want to get anything done in it. Rouse’s ascension suggests that little is likely to change in that regard.”

As John Kass has written Rahm Emanuel was not a Clinton person, he was a Daley person, and a congressional person who did not forget being demoted by Hillary Clinton when he screwed up in the White House.

As we have repeatedly written, Barack Obama is the Frankenstein monster of the Democratic establishment.

Creeps like Harry Reid thought that Obama could be elected precisely because he had no record to run on. Obama was inexperienced and willing to be a blank slate for those wishing to use him – as long as he would advance in his career. All the crazy theories of a new coalition enticed 2×4 Chuck Schumer and others. The new Obama coalition would replace the tried and true FDR/Hillary Clinton coalition and that wacked out theory animated these fools in their treachery towards Hillary Clinton and the country – about to be foisted with a boob which would do their bidding:

“These were not the only senatorial voices importuning Obama. Daschle, too, was on the case, and so was a coterie of senators close to him, including Byron Dorgan and Kent Conrad, both of North Dakota. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Bill Nelson of Florida, Barbara Boxer of California, and even Ted Kennedy—all were nudging Obama to take the plunge. Their conversations with Barack were surreptitious, a conspiracy of whispers.”

The conspirators planted Rouse as the guide dog to Boob Obama. Politico links the Rouse history:

“–WashPost A1, “Emanuel’s replacement is known as a fixer,” by Anne E. Kornblut: “It was Rouse who arranged the presidential transition, hiring John Podesta to run it. … In late 2009, Obama asked [Rouse] to grapple with the administration’s policy for Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, after it became clear that the president would miss his self-imposed deadline to close the prison … More recently, Rouse helped create the administration’s new consumer protection bureau, navigating competing internal factions (including between Emanuel and senior adviser Valerie Jarrett) to make Elizabeth Warren a senior adviser to the bureau. … Rouse is single and famously fond of the Maine coon cats he keeps as pets. [snip]

N.Y. Times A1 teases an A13 Rouse profile with, “The Swearing Stops Now.” … Sheryl Gay Stolberg: “‘He puts fires out,” said Tom Daschle, who employed Mr. Rouse as a chief of staff when he was the Senate Democratic leader. ‘He’s the primary personnel negotiator. There’s constant friction, and he reduces the friction. There’s a constant need for somebody to do something for which there is no job description. He is that person.’ … Intensely private, Mr. Rouse is unmarried and lives alone in northwest Washington with his two cats. (He is a big cat person, friends say.) … [snip] Mr. Rouse … worked early in his career in South Dakota and also in Alaska, where he was chief of staff to that state’s lieutenant governor, Terry Miller, from 1979 to 1983. Sarah Palin, Alaska’s former governor, has sent unflattering Twitter messages about Mr. Rouse in the past week. ‘Alaska’s Pete Rouse (@ least he claims to be ‘Alaska’) finally comes out of the shadows,’ she wrote in one message. ‘Obama looks to appt him COS; strange doings in the WH. [snip]

WHITE HOUSE BIO: “Peter M. Rouse is Senior Advisor to President Barack H. Obama. He was a co-chair of the Obama-Biden Transition Project, a senior adviser to President Obama’s campaign, and chief of staff to then-Senator Barack Obama. Known as the ‘101st Senator’ for his extensive knowledge of Congress, Rouse served as chief of staff to members of the United States Congress for more than thirty years. Before joining President Obama’s Senate office in 2004, he was chief of staff to former Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) for 19 years. He also served as chief of staff to then-Rep. Dick Durbin of Illinois (1984-85) and Lt. Governor Terry Miller of Alaska (1979-83). [snip]

–SENATE BIO, 2008: “Rouse … has served as chief of staff to members of the United States Congress for more than thirty years. … Mr. Rouse, as Sen. Obama’s chief of staff, was part of a small group of advisors who helped Sen. Obama through the process that led to his decision to run for president in 2008.” [snip]

NYT’s “The Long Run” campaign series, “Obama in Senate: Star Power, Minor Role,” by Kate Zernike and Jeff Zeleny – After Obama was elected to the Senate in Nov. 2004: “Knowing he needed insider help, Mr. Obama cajoled Mr. Daschle’s former chief of staff, Pete Rouse, to lead his office. Mr. Rouse advised Mr. Obama about managing relationships on the Hill and helped engineer hefty assignments, including a Foreign Relations Committee Seat.” [snip]

WP’s “The Gurus” campaign series, “The Outsider’s Insider,” by Perry Bacon Jr.: “Rouse … first started work in the Senate in 1971, when Obama was a 10-year-old in Hawaii with basketball dreams. … Rouse … organized a presidential operation in 2002 for Daschle before the South Dakotan decided not to run.”

–“Game Change,” by John Heilemann and Mark Halperin,” on Obama’s first days in the Senate, in 2005: “Pete Rouse was a round man in his late fifties with a head of thick salt-and-pepper hair, a gruff manner, and a voice that sounded as if he gargled with gravel. The consummate insider, he had come highly recommended by Tom Daschle, after many years as the former Senate majority leader’s chief of staff. … Obama wanted to take advantage of his newfound prominence to build a larger brand. His staff was fielding three hundred speaking invitations a week. … Together with Axelrod and Gibbs, Rouse developed a strategic plan to capitalize on this outsize interest. The plan – which Rouse and the rest ingeniously dubbed ‘The Plan’ – called for Obama to dive neck-deep into fund-raising for his Senate colleagues. (They’ll be coming for you anyway, Rouse told him, so you might as well volunteer.)” (pp. 27-28)

–“Game Change,” on Obama’s appearance on “Meet the Press” on Jan. 22, 2006, when he said, “I will not” run for president or vice president in 2008: “A week before Obama’s face-off with Russert, Rouse, on a road trip to see his father in New Haven, Connecticut, had pulled off the highway in the middle of the night, ordered a coffee at a donut shop, and sketched out a memo, an update of his earlier strategic plan, that set forth two alternate paths for Obama in the year ahead: one if he was categorically rejecting a presidential bid, the other if he wanted to keep the door ajar, however slightly. Rouse knew he was being manipulative by framing the case this way. Even a year earlier, when they first discussed his future, Obama hadn’t definitively ruled out running, so why would he want to now? But, more than manipulative, Rouse was being methodical, which was his way. If there was any chance that Obama would end up in the race, there were steps he could and should take beforehand to put himself in the best possible position. He would need to spend more time on the road, showing his face in certain key states. He would need to devote more time to developing relationships with potential allies, something Obama lacked a feel for and had little interest in.” (p. 31)”

Even as Obama was denying Rouse was planning. Sarah Palin better watch out. Her fellow Alaskan is a treacherous fellow.

* * * * * *

Those who supported Obama will tolerate all the treachery Obama will dish out. All the humiliation in the world will not wake up those fools.

How do conservatives react to perceived treachery? Here’s how:

“On a chilly January morning in Erie, Pa., members of the anti-abortion group Susan B. Anthony List stood outside Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper’s office to thank her for opposing a health care bill that didn’t include stringent abortion restrictions.

Ten months later, Dahlkemper and other anti-abortion Democrats are at risk of becoming an endangered species in the House.

She and others eventually signed on to the health reform law, endorsing an executive order that barred federal funding of abortions. But SBA List and other anti-abortion groups opposed the executive order, contending it was too weak.

Now, SBA List is engaged in a multimillion-dollar attack on its former allies, replete with bus tours and billboards alleging that members “voted for taxpayer-funded abortion.” The group invested $1.5 million in its “Votes Have Consequences” bus tour in August, targeting anti-abortion Democrats who supported health reform. Just last week, SBA List spent $55,000 on 32 billboards dotting the districts of three vulnerable Democrats.”

The Republicans/conservatives will not tolerate treachery. They fight back. Whether they are correct on the abortion issue or not, whether they are correct on the executive order or not – perceived treachery will be paid back in full.

“In the 43 districts held by Democrats with mixed or complete anti-abortion voting records, as scored by the National Right to Life Committee, the outlook is bleak: four lean Republican, 12 are tossups and nine lean just slightly Democratic, according to The Cook Political Report.

Just 12 anti-abortion Democrats’ seats are considered safe.”

While Obama Dimocrats will pig out on treachery in service to their master, the new breed of Tea Party bridled Republicans are made of sterner stuff.

Yesterday we discussed the most important candidate in this November’s election. Tonight at 7:00 p.m. ET, Marco Rubio will again debate turncoat Governor Charlie Crist. We’ll witness how treachery is repaid by a Republican conservative. [The debate can be seen HERE and on the internet HERE.] Many will be watching to see how Rubio handles himself and how Rubio handles turncoat Charlie Crist.

We know how Obama handles himself. Today it was announced that Obama will skedaddle two days earlier than scheduled immediately after the November elections. By November 5, Obama will be out of the country inflicting himself on the good people of India while Obama Dimocrats bleed all over the country.

Already 21% of those that voted for Obama in 2008 fail to recollect that they did so. It’s either the brain forgetting a horrible memory or a subtle form of Treachery. Treachery, is in vogue these days.

Share