Call Him Shirley: Barack Obama, WikiLeaks, And Hillary Clinton

Leslie Nielsen is alive and well and vacationing in the White House. Don’t believe the reports that the actor who played stumbling, bumbling, characters died a few days ago. It’s not true. Plus the busted lip and higher melanin levels, the stumbling boob that Nielsen portrayed lives on in Barack Obama. Call Barack Shirley.

Yesterday’s WikiLeaks publicity bonanza brings so many memories from the 2008 primary/general election campaigns. Big Media back then was so impressed at Obama’s generational vigor. Why, back then there was astonishment expressed because the Obama campaign utilized the same fonts on the signage and literature.

Recall the amazement when Big Media discovered that Obama knew how to operate a Blackberry? Big Media JournoListers ran to the Thesaurus for additional words with which to praise Obama and his modern age genius. Social media? Big Media could not swoon often enough about Obama’s genius use of social media and blogs as campaign auxiliaries. But it was all a crock.

For all the vaunted expertise of Barack Obama and his campaign in their use of social media and Big Boy Blogs as propaganda tools, the fact of the matter is that social media and the blogs were only echo chambers for the larger echo chamber which was Big Media. For all the praise about the vaunted use of technology by the Obama campaign the bottom line is that it was all publicity tricks by the Obama campaign – which understood Big Media wanted to farm new fields in praise of Barack Obama. So, the Obama campaign pushed the line that they were so savvy in the ways of new technology. But now we know Obama and those that surround him have no idea, or don’t care, about the ways of new technology.

When Bill Clinton moved into the White House his staff discovered a lack of electrical outlets and equipment such as fax machines then needed ubiquitously in any modern office. It took a while but the White House was rewired and made ready for the explosion to come as the Internet Age came into being.

Bill Clinton rewired the White House to provide electricity for the new gizmos and contraptions and machines which not only helped bring about the Internet Age but spawned even more new gizmos, contraptions and whatchamacallits as the dot com boom boomed. Bill Clinton understood that the White House and the U.S. government had to be brought into 1992 and towards that end he requested many new computers and the infrastructure changes required to run efficiently.

By contrast Barack Obama moved into the White House, but instead of getting it up to speed from the start Obama proved what a fake his entire campaign had been. Further possession of his Blackberry became a matter of controversy and a minor victory when he was allowed to keep it but essentially not use it. Yesterday, the Obama incompetence and boobery came to the fore yet again, via WikiLeaks.

As we wrote yesterday, the latest WikiLeaks were not really secrets and in many instances should not have been categorized as secrets. Hillary Clinton in a presidential appearance appropriately lambasted the America haters at WikiLeaks but slyly noted the relative unimportance of what had thus far been revealed confirmed:

‘”She said Monday that she had talked to several foreign leaders over the course of the last several days, and has stressed to them that “official foreign policy is not set through these messages, but here in Washington.”

“Our policy is a matter of public record, as reflected in our statements and our actions around the world,” Clinton said in remarks at the State Department.

While some foreign government officials publicly criticized the U.S. for the leaks, Clinton said one of her foreign counterparts told her: “ ‘Don’t worry about it. You should see what we say about you.’

“So I think that this is well-understood in the diplomatic community as part of the give-and-take,” Clinton said. “And I would hope that we will be able to move beyond this and back to the business of working together on behalf of our common goals.”’

But however adroitly Hillary handled the WikiLeaks mess it cannot be denied that something is very very wrong. Today, Hillary Clinton took action:

“The U.S. State Department said on Tuesday it has severed its database of cables from one classified U.S. government network in the wake of a release of diplomatic documents by WikiLeaks but it declined to say which network.”

We’ll get back to Shirley Obama, but first a bit more on Hillary Clinton and WikiLeaks. DrudgeReport which cannot live without occasionally trashing Hillary Clinton. Matt Drudge was one of those who protected Barack Obama throughout the primary and general election campaigns and today he featured other Hillary Haters and idiots tried to drum up a Hillary angle to the WikiLeaks story – instead of staying focused on Barack Obama’s boobery and incompetence or worse. Drudge ended the day with yet another headline featuring Julian Assange’s call in Time magazine for Hillary Clinton to resign. Clearly Assange and Drudge have a lot in common.

JournoLister Marc Ambinder, now at National Journal which presumably will not tolerate Ambinder’s Obama love as much as his earlier employer, wrote a sufficiently accurate account of why the Hillary Haters are barking up the wrong tree when it comes to WikiLeaks. What is worth exploring is Hillary’s statement today in Central Asia:

“But two prominent women who came to hear her speak at a university laughed off the issue, saying that disclosures about high-living leaders were old hat in their country, and that these would hurt neither the standing of the United States nor its relationship with Kazakhstan.

“It’s very entertaining reading,” said one of them, Aigul Solovyeva, a member of Parliament who credits Mrs. Clinton with inspiring her to enter politics. The other female politician, Battalova Zauresh, went further, saying, “It’s a confirmation of American leadership in global political issues.”

Mrs. Clinton, however, did not dismiss the leaked material so lightly. Asked by a student about the WikiLeaks case, she repeated her condemnation of the release of the cables, saying it would threaten the lives of human rights activists, religious leaders, and antigovernment figures.

“This was a very irresponsible, thoughtless act that put at risk the lives of innocent people all over the world, without much regard for those who are most vulnerable, including journalists,” she said.[snip]

Still, Mrs. Clinton tried not to allow the leak to muddy her message of openness in this restrictive country. [snip]

In the Internet age, Mrs. Clinton said, it was difficult to balance freedom and responsibility. Some governments, she said, were overreacting by throwing bloggers in jail. At the same time, spreading information online can be harmful, she said, citing the recent case of a young man in New Jersey who committed suicide after a fellow student posted video of him in a gay sexual encounter.

We’ve got to support and protect freedom of expression, whether it’s from an individual or from a journalist,” she said. “But there also have to be some rules or some sense of responsibility that has to be inculcated.”

Which brings us back to Shirley Obama. Wasn’t he “the One” who understood all this technology? Wasn’t he the generational know-it-all who would integrate the modern needs of technology to let information flow yet at the same time keep “No Drama Obama” secrets? Does not seem like that anymore does it?

It’s not as if the WikiLeak from yesterday was the first one. There were two earlier mega-leaks from WikiLeaks featuring U.S. Government documents. Where was Shirley Obama? As Sarah Palin notedIt’s of course important that we do all we can to prevent similar massive document leaks in the future. But why did the White House not publish these orders after the first leak back in July? What explains this strange lack of urgency on their part?

Where has Barack Shirley Obama been for the past two years? Doesn’t he know about memory sticks, or smart phones with cameras, or all the other wonders and dangers of the hard-to-keep-a-secret networked technology world?

Where has Barack Shirley Obama been for the past two years? Didn’t he know that the mess called the “Homeland Security Department” with its directives to centralize information also made that centralized information easy to access for those with both legal and illegal, appropriate and inappropriate, intent? Perhaps it is time to get rid of the Homeland Security Department monstrosity with its 1930s name and its wide open databases. These databases are too often useless when you actually need them but are more than useful for those who have months to rummage through them before leaking them to WikiLeaks (not to mention foreign enemies).

Has anybody thought about that last sentence? Has anyone thought that maybe a lot of the information from these massive databases has been distributed to foreign governments or nomadic enemies or terrorist organizations and not to WikiLeaks and we don’t know it yet?

Has know-it-all Barack Shirley Obama dealth with the problem that in the modern age secrets stored in computers don’t necessarily remain secrets for long? Wasn’t Shirley supposed to be the expert on these issues? What has Shirley done? Nothing.

Next year WikiLeaks will target a major American bank and dump “tens of thousands of its internal documents”. It’s only the beginning:

“Admire Assange or revile him, he is the prophet of a coming age of involuntary transparency. Having exposed military misconduct on a grand scale, he is now gunning for corporate America. Does Assange have unpublished, damaging documents on pharmaceutical companies? Yes, he says. Finance? Yes, many more than the single bank scandal we’ve been discussing. Energy? Plenty, on everything from BP to an Albanian oil firm that he says attempted to sabotage its competitors’ wells. Like informational IEDs, these damaging revelations can be detonated at will.”

Corporations just now getting ready to block harvesting of documents found on networked computers are already too late.

“WikiLeaks “is high profile, legally ­insulated and transnational,” says former Commerce Department official James Lewis, who follows cybersecurity for the Center for Strategic & International Studies. “That adds up to a reputational risk that companies didn’t have to think about a year ago.”

Already U.S. laws wrapped into financial reform this year expand whistleblower incentives to offer six- and seven-digit rewards to staffers in any industry who report malfeasance. Wiki­Leaks adds another, new form of corporate data breach: It offers the conscience-stricken and vindictive alike a chance to publish documents largely unfiltered, without censors or personal repercussions, thanks to privacy and encryption technologies that make anonymity easier than ever before. Wiki­Leaks’ technical and ideological example has inspired copycats from Africa to China and rallied transparency advocates to push for a new, legal promised land in the unlikely haven of Iceland. It’s also fueling a race in the cyber­security industry and in Washington to find technology that can plug information leaks once for all.[snip]

In early October the site shut down its document-submission system; Assange says it was receiving more information than it could find resources to publish, thousands of additions a day at some points. The total is more gigabytes of data than he can count. “Our pipeline of leaks has been increasing exponentially as our profile rises,” he says, drawing a curve upward in the air with one hand.

If even a fraction of his claims are borne out, he’s already sitting on a crypt of data any three-letter spy agency would kill for.”

The private sector will turn its attention to the implications of WikiLeaks mega leaks soon enough. Heads will roll at technology departments and new rules will swiftly be implemented. But the problem is not going away.

The bottom line is that technology helps but also hurts. The idea that massive organizations can keep secrets on network computers open to thousands, if not millions, of users and keep those secrets is now proven false. The question now is what to do about this brave new world we have been in for at least a decade.

Don’t expect answers or action from Barack Obama.
Perhaps Leslie Nielsen knows what to do. But he ain’t talking.


WikiLeaks Wiki Wacky – The Case For Leaks

We’re doing our best to get furious about the WikiLeaks situation. We’ve tried everything including yanking sleeves and eating peppers to see if that gets us riled. But we keep coming back to some very basic questions such as “Why is this crap secret?” and “Is any of this crap secret?

We do understand that the WikiLeaks operation is an operation wholly dedicated to hatred of America. For all the high-minded verbiage coming from WikiLeaks the entire purpose of the organization is to hurt the United States. What WikiLeaks seeks to do is sabotage, if not destroy, American diplomacy.

LegalInsurrection makes the case against WikiLeaks:

“There have been many comparisons of Barack Obama to Jimmy Carter, focused on the economy. But the continuing leak of documents by Wikileaks has become for Obama what the Iranian hostage crisis was to Carter.

The Wikileaks folks trot the globe with impunity and funnel documents to the press at will, for the purpose of damaging U.S. relations with other countries, our war efforts, and our intelligence capability. And we do almost nothing about it.

Whether or not someone gets killed as a direct result of a Wikileaks disclosure, the damage to our country is deep, as allies and sources among enemies will stop cooperating with us for fear of exposure, our diplomats will be hesitant to speak frankly with headquarters, and our intelligence on al-Qaeda and others will be compromised.

We are the laughingstock of the world, an impotent superpower whose response to those who aid our enemies is to write a letter asking them not to do it.”

That might or might not be true. But we’re not convinced. As always in our analysis we go back to first principles and ask “what is good for the American people and the American system of government?” Our answer is that the American people deserve as much information as a sovereign people need in order to have a government of, by, and for, the people. Our answer is that American governments come and go but that the American system of government is what matters. In our system of government the American people are sovereign.

The American people elect American governments but over the centuries the American government often thinks more of its self-preservation and its benefits than what is good for the people. Secrecy is adored by governments which prefer to act with impunity and as little oversight as possible. Governments perpetuate secrecy and claim it is done to carry on the people’s business but too often the real purpose of the secrecy is convenience and ease – not to mention a way to avoid scrutiny. The American people are the rulers and government officials but the servants of the people.

As regards the “revelations” in the latest WikiLeaks document dump we do have to ask “Why is this material secret?” and “Is this material really secret?

Is it really a secret and should it be a secret that many Arab governments say one thing in public and say something else in private? Is it really a secret that there are a lot of stupid officials, a lot of corrupt officials, in countries all over the world? Are the names of the stupid and/or corrupt officials really unknown? The answer is that the only ones purposely kept out of the information loop and deprived of hard information are the ones that really matter – the American people.

Should the American people know the full complexity of the world around us? Perhaps if American had been better informed they would not have tolerated a boob in the White House, planted there by people like Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, etc.

Should the American people know and what is the cost of making that information available? In every instance of a “WikiLeak” we have read it appears that the American people should have the information and that the cost is minimal and at worse merely embarrassing.

For instance, should Americans know that “President Obama cancelled anti-missile shield plans in Poland and the Czech Republic to get Russia support for UN sanctions against Iran“? We certainly do think that this is something of consequence about which the American people should be informed and not allow Obama the Boob to decide by himself on this issue without high levels of scrutiny.

Should Americans know that Barack Obama boobed about Israel policy and Hamas/Palestinian interests although secretly (again, isn’t this an open secret that just about everyone knows?) Arab governments wanted an attack on – Iran? “Cut off the head of the snake” said the Saudi government. “The King, Foreign Minister, Prince Muqrin, and Prince Nayif all agreed that the Kingdom needs to cooperate with the US on resisting and rolling back Iranian influence and subversion in Iraq.

Isn’t it better to have the double dealing of Arab states exposed rather than protected? Is it better for states like Iran to be confronted publicly with the consequences of their rogue policies or to feel comforted by the cowardice of their neighbors?

In a completely unrelated development (for fools who can’t see what is right in front of their noses) there were non diplomatic actions in Iran today that were actually secret, actually consequential – not a WikiLeak:

Two separate explosions killed a nuclear scientist and injured another in the Iranian capital Monday morning, official news outlets reported.

Both scholars’ wives and a driver were also injured in the attacks, according to the news agencies. The slain scientist, Majid Shahriari, was a member of the nuclear engineering team at the Shahid Behesti university in Tehran, according to the official Islamic Republic News Agency, or IRNA.”

If the WikiLeaks had emerged before this non-diplomatic activity in Teheran then a stronger case can be made for suppression. But from what we can tell, there are no real secrets and nothing that should be a secret thus far revealed by the America haters at WikiLeaks.

Should Americans know that Israel comes out smelling like a rose? We think so.

Should Americans know that the American government believes Iran has missiles obtained from North Korea that can “strike at Western European capitals”? Is this why so many governments in Europe are afraid to support Israel and tell the truth in public about Iran? We think so. Let the information flow.

“WikiLeaks claimed that the documents show the extent of United States spying on its allies and the United Nations; overlooking or accepting corruption and human rights abuse in friendly states; doing backroom deals with supposedly neutral countries; and lobbying for American corporations. [snip]

The cache of a quarter-million U.S. diplomatic cables were obtained in turn by the Times, Der Spiegel in Germany, The Guardian in Britain, Le Monde in France and El País in Spain. The cables constitute the third bundle of classified material involving the United States released by WikiLeaks to selected news media in the past six months.

The cables, most of them from the past three years, reportedly reveal the Obama administration’s communications and discussions over foreign crises. Among startling revelations, The Guardian disclosed that Arab leaders privately urged an air strike on Iran and that American officials have been ordered to spy on the United Nations leadership.[snip]

Among disclosures that could potentially cause a problem for Washington, according to The Guardian, are fears in Washington and London over Pakistan’s nuclear program; suspected links between the Russian government and organized crime; criticism of British military operations in Afghanistan; and claims of inappropriate behavior by a British royal family member.

The Times cited “gaming out an eventual collapse of North Korea: American and South Korean officials have discussed the prospects for a unified Korea, should the North’s economic troubles and political transition lead the state to implode. The South Koreans even considered commercial inducements to China, according to the American ambassador to Seoul. She told Washington in February that South Korean officials believe that the right business deals would ‘help salve’ China’s ‘concerns about living with a reunified Korea’ that is in a ‘benign alliance’ with the United States.”

The Times also cited “suspicions of corruption in the Afghan government: When Afghanistan’s vice president visited the United Arab Emirates last year, local authorities working with the Drug Enforcement Administration discovered that he was carrying $52 million in cash. With wry understatement, a cable from the American Embassy in Kabul called the money ‘a significant amount’ that the official, Ahmed Zia Massoud, ‘was ultimately allowed to keep without revealing the money’s origin or destination.’ (Mr. Massoud denies taking any money out of Afghanistan.)”

Spying at the U.N. Imagine that. Anyone ever seen the film North By Northwest? Any diplomat that believes some silly treaty or agreement not to spy means they are not spied upon is a dolt. $52 million cash in a suitcase? Corruption in Afghanistan? Corruption in Russia? These are hardly secrets.

Hillary Clinton today appropriately denounced WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks is a lying, America hating organization, even though WikiLeaks officials cloak their words with high minded principles. WikiLeaks is not heroic or acting “on principle” in any way. Ditto American Big Media which has so many hypocrisies related to this WikiLeaks story we won’t catalog them today.

Bradley Manning, the gay soldier who leaked millions of documents to WikiLeaks, has not done gay people a favor. It won’t be long before the argument is made against gays in the military with Private Manning as Exhibit A of why “they” can’t be trusted. Out of three million men and women with access to this information it was Private Manning who decided to sneak the information out under the guise of Lady Gaga music. Private Manning, gay Private Manning, will eventually be a poster boy on rat poison bottles and for those who hate gay people.

Why Private Manning along with three million others had potential access to all this information that is now bemoaned as “damaging” will someday have to be answered.

Questions that the American public should demand answers to are many:

“• How the hacker attacks which forced Google to quit China in January were orchestrated by a senior member of the Politburo who typed his own name into the global version of the search engine and found articles criticising him personally.

• Allegations that Russia and its intelligence agencies are using mafia bosses to carry out criminal operations, with one cable reporting that the relationship is so close that the country has become a “virtual mafia state“.

• The extraordinarily close relationship between Vladimir Putin, the Russian prime minister, and Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian prime minister, which is causing intense US suspicion. Cables detail allegations of “lavish gifts”, lucrative energy contracts and the use by Berlusconi of a “shadowy” Russian-speaking Italiango-between.

• Devastating criticism of the UK’s military operations in Afghanistan by US commanders, the Afghan president and local officials in Helmand. The dispatches reveal particular contempt for the failure to impose security around Sangin – the town which has claimed more British lives than any other in the country. [snip]

The cables contain specific allegations of corruption, as well as harsh criticism by US embassy staff of their host governments, from Caribbean islands to China and Russia. The material includes a reference to Putin as an “alpha-dog” and Hamid Karzai as being “driven by paranoia”, while Angela Merkel allegedly “avoids risk and is rarely creative”. There is also a comparison between Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Adolf Hitler.

The cables names Saudi donors as the biggest financiers of terror groups, and provide an extraordinarily detailed account of an agreement between Washington and Yemen to cover up the use of US planes to bomb al-Qaida targets.”

Saudi donors financing terror groups – what a shock! WikiLeaks sought to hurt America and American diplomacy. Instead, WikiLeaks might unwittingly help to make America stronger.

The better informed the American people are, the better decisions the American people might make. That was the theory the Founders had when they protected the press and embedded those protections in the United States Constitution. Sadly, the founders’ vision and press protection is sorely tested by the incompetent weasels we call Big Media.

Information will flow. If Big Media does not provide the information, other sources will develop that will provide the information. In this case the information came from America hating WikiLeaks.

If WikiLeaks had integrity we would see a flood of information from the diplomatic cables of other countries. But WikiLeaks is first and foremost an enemy of the United States – however sometimes your enemies can be your very best friends.


Thanksgiving Holiday Miracle – Obama Smacked In Mouth

Atheists Beware! Deists have powerful new evidence that the Almighty Is Still On The Throne. It’s almost a Thanksgiving Holiday Miracle.

This proud and accomplishment blessed nation entered the long holiday weekend groped, radiated, exhausted.

The week began with international economic crises and with peace shattering deadly attacks from North Korean on South Korea. Barack Obama took to the airways, with crib notes at the ready (the TelePrompTer was on necessary holiday because Americans are noticing that even trivial announcements require presidential electronic tutoring) to announce a pardon of a pair of Thanksgiving turkeys named “Apple” and “Cider”.

At American tables thick with Thanksgiving prayers and hopefully laden with mouthwatering feasts of succulent dishes the nation celebrated yesterday. Along with the Thanksgiving prayers and silent reflections on the meaning of the holiday, millions of Americans whispered to their God a fervent wish: “Please Shut Obama’s Mouth“. Even a few seconds respite from the Obama drone of words would help sooth the oppressed nation. God Delivered.

And so it came to pass, that in the District of Columbia, a silence was delivered:

“White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said the President received a dozen stitches after getting hit with an errant elbow during a Friday morning basketball game with White House aide Reggie Love and some unidentified family members at the Fort McNair military base in Washington.

A senior administration official said the cut was not caused by Love, a former player for Duke University who serves as the President’s personal assistant, but the official was still checking for more details on who caused the accident.

“After being inadvertently hit with an opposing player’s elbow in the lip while playing basketball with friends and family, the President received 12 stitches today administered by the White House Medical Unit,” said Gibbs. “They were done in the doctor’s office located on the ground floor of the White House.”

Aides said Obama was given a local anesthetic while receiving the stitches, and doctors used a smaller filament.”

Joe Biden perhaps rejoiced and considered himself temporary president while Obama was under the local anesthetic. Ordinary Americans perhaps scratched their heads and asked “Does this guy Obama ever work?” It seems as if Obama is on vacation during holidays, on vacation during the work week, on vacation on the weekends. Does he ever work?

But what was truly extraordinary is the name of another potential candidate which came up as the nation’s great benefactor in silencing Barack Obama if only for a few seconds. Here is how the conservative website HotAir explained the identity of the wonderful person:

“It’s cute that they’re pretending that they’re not sure who elbowed him even though we all know who did it. You learned a lesson today the hard way, champ: When you drive the lane on Hillary, you come strong or don’t come at all.”

Thank you Hillary, the nation turns its lonely eyes to you – woo woo woo.

Obama was indulging himself with his usual way to escape the womenfolk:

“The president had gone to nearby Fort McNair to indulge in one of his favorite athletic pursuits, a game of basketball. It was a five-on-five contest involving family and friends and including Reggie Love, Obama’s personal assistant who played at Duke University.

Obama emerged from the building after about 90 minutes of play, wearing a short-sleeve T-shirt and gym pants, and was seen dabbing at his mouth with what appeared to be a wad of gauze. A few hours later, reporters who had gathered on the White House driveway for the arrival of the Christmas tree, saw the president in an upstairs window, pressing an ice pack against his mouth before he stood and walked away. [snip]

Obama had no public events scheduled during the long holiday weekend.”

Obama is too busy to actually work. Hillary Clinton worked today:

“Beijing held phone talks with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Friday on the tense situation following North Korea’s deadly bombardment of a South Korean island, the Chinese foreign ministry said.”

Hillary worked, Obama golfed basketballed. Perhaps Obama was thinking of his thumping in 2010 or the thumping to come in 2012 and went to play games and escape Michelle Obama.

Whoever is responsible for the few seconds of enforced silence – we thank you. Hillary or the deity or Love – Thank you. Thank you.

In 2012, Four More Years – of Silence.


The Great CamelRot Thanksgiving Opt-Out

Cancel Camelot, enter CamelRot. “Ask not what you can do for your country, demand what your country can do for you” is the poet/Messiah Obama’s slogan in the apocalyptic laugh riot which is America today.

We thought any and all Thorazine delusions which remained post primary season of Obama as JFK ended with a thud soon after his dreadful inaugural speech. We thought any and all acid trips that hallucinated Michelle Obama as a latter day Jackie ended badly at the sight of the inaugural bandage dress. But we are too rational. We are too sober. For those smoking the pipe it remained Camelot, not CamelRot.

We first mentioned CamelRot back in December 2008. Back then we thought a Special Prosecutor could save the nation and we quoted a nursery rhyme “There was a crooked man, And he walked a crooked mile….” So it was with great amusement that we saw today the headline “Michelle Obama’s White House is ‘not Camelot‘”

Now, we don’t know if this is a story which Politico saved for publication on a day few want to do any work. But yes dear readers, it’s not Camelot in that ghoul’s White House. Bear with us as we quote a few lines from Politico‘s brilliantly insightful essay originally written in crayon:

“She has glamorized kitchen gardening, spotlighted childhood obesity and invited thousands of students, many of them minorities, to official White House events.”

“[G]lamorized kitchen gardening?” Really? “[I]nvited thousands” is an achievement? Really? Put herself in a spotlight is an accomplishment? Really? But we are being pedantic. Let’s continue with the masterpiece from Politico:

“There has been no attempt to reach out to people they don’t see as their people,” said the wife of a senior administration official, who doesn’t have Chicago ties. “They don’t reach out to even people in the administration who aren’t from their inner circle.”

“It’s extremely business-like,” she added, before invoking a comparison with the early days of the Kennedy administration. “It’s not Camelot.”

And maybe that is the problem. The return to the White House of an attractive couple with two young children on a tide of idealism placed an impossible burden on both the president and his wife.”

Poor Barack and Michelle. The impossible burdens they bear. Jesus carried a lighter cross. Velma does not know what suffering is. Has the world ever witnessed such suffering as Barack and Michelle endure?

“Because of the campaign, people expected Obama and the first lady to revitalize some of the glamour of the White House and bring Camelot back to Washington,” said Julian Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University who has studied recent presidencies.

“But the realities of Washington make that difficult. We’re in an era where it’s hard to recreate Camelot. People are increasingly cynical about politics and it’s really a partisan world. I don’t think either party would allow the president of the opposite party and the first lady to enjoy that kind of existence.”

One telling indication of that reality: In the first few months in the White House, the Obama’s hosted half a dozen cocktail parties to get to know members of Congress. As the health care debate became more heated last spring and Obama became more of a Republican target, the cocktail parties were abruptly ended.”

Has there ever been such suffering? Compose yourselves dear readers as you learn of the sufferings Michelle carries on her very broad shoulders. In fact, take a break. Walk to your serenity room and light incense on your altars to Barack and Michelle. Take some deep breaths. ShamWow those tears away. Here’s a musical intermission to provide time while we all regain our composure:

Having dabbed our tears away, we may now proceed to bear witness to the sufferings of Michelle on the Cross:

“To be sure, the first lady has made a concerted effort to establish “the people’s house” by inviting thousands of guests to cultural shows at the White House including jazz, classical and Broadway performances. She also opened up “the backyard” to host a series of sports clinics and other outdoor activities to promote her “Let’s Move!” initiative and held more than a dozen events in her kitchen garden, which has garnered worldwide attention and praise.

And she and her husband have hosted Super Bowl parties for administration officials and members of Congress (and their families) on both sides of the aisle.

In 2009, according to a White House aide, the visitors office delivered “record breaking attendance and welcomed more guests than any year post 9/11″ with more than 600,000 people. In 2010, the aide pointed out that the office has already exceeded 2009 numbers.”

How can any other work get done when the staff has to prepare for so many parties and cope with Michelle’s tears at the same time? Such suffering! Such gallantry! And meanwhile the ungrateful and dreary jobless think only of themselves and not the travails of Barack and Michelle!

“And now with advent of the holiday season, the first lady is ramping up the social calendar, hosting more than a dozen parties for Congress, administration officials, press, military families and wounded troops as well as civic, faith and business leaders respectively.

“We plan on welcoming over 100,000 guests in December alone and our total guest count is projected to be slightly over 800,000,” the aide said.”

No more, please. We cannot bear to hear of the hardships any more. How can so much sacrifice come from just two people and their hundreds or thousands of staff people? We require another break to contemplate the suffering and our ingratitude. We’ll be right back.

We’re back, with dried tears, and quivering lips. More suffering from Michelle:

“Last summer, the first lady vacationed in Spain with her old pal Anita Blanchard, whose husband Marty Nesbitt is the president’s close friend. Chicago friends Eric and Cheryl Whitaker have joined the family on vacation in Hawaii and even at the president’s Nobel Prize ceremony last year.”

Perhaps we have been wrong. We had no idea life was so tough for Barack and Michelle. Perhaps we have been wrong. We just did not know.

For 500 years Michelangelo’s hidden image of a human brain on the Sistine Chapel remained a secret. But that centuries old secret pales in comparison to the secret torments of Barack and Michelle. What a revelation we have all unsealed today thanks to Politico!

Thanks to the Onion, usually a satirical multimedia organization, we can now more fully appreciate the genius of Barack’s genius. He’s a genius. When once we would have mocked the lugubrious drone of indecision; celebrated the growing awareness of the vapidity of the river of words; now we see the genius as “Obama Outlines Moral, Philosophical Justifications For Turkey Pardon“.

What American cannot sleep soundly knowing such a man, along with such a woman, reside in the White House?

What American, prepared to be groped on their way to Thanksgiving Day celebrations, secure in the knowledge that the privileged in government will not be subjected to indignities, does not feel something swell within them at the thought of such historic leadership?

Of course there are malcontents. This lot demands respect and has launched something called “National Opt Out Day“. They are not content to bow before TSA Chief John Pistole even as he warns the nation’s air travelers “against protesting the intrusive groping procedures now used at airports.

The disgruntled, willing neither to be radiated nor groped are planing to protest:

“Holiday travelers dismayed by airport body scans planned protests at bustling airports Wednesday, while the head of the nation’s transport security agency urged passengers to comply with searches to reduce the possibility of delays on one of the busiest travel days of the year.

A loosely organized effort dubbed National Opt-Out Day plans to use flyers, T-shirts and, in one case, a Scottish kilt to highlight what some call unnecessarily intrusive security screenings. [snip]

Robert Shofkom wasn’t too worried about delayed flights, maybe just strong breezes.

The 43-year-old from Georgetown, Texas, said he planned for weeks to wear a traditional kilt — sans skivvies — to display his outrage over body scanners and aggressive pat-downs while catching his Wednesday flight out of Austin.

“If you give them an inch, they won’t just take in inch. Pretty soon you’re getting scanned to get into a football game,” the IT specialist said. [snip]

One Internet-based protest group called We Won’t Fly said hundreds of activists would go to 27 U.S. airports Wednesday to pass out fliers with messages such as “You have the right to say, `No radiation strip search! No groping of genitals!’ Say, `I opt out.'”

How can anyone “Opt out” of this Camelot we inhabit? How can these “Opt Out” ingrates not realize the torments Barack Obama and Michelle Obama endure every moment? They think only of themselves.

As we all prepare to celebrate the blessings of liberty tomorrow, we should all remember the character and content of the occupants of the White House.

We’ll continue to “Opt In” for freedom and liberty and the right to speak out.

Happy Thanksgiving and safe travels to all.


The Age Of Fake In Full Bloom

Is everything fake now? Is anything really “real” anymore? Oh yeah, there’s real death and real rocketry and real danger in the Korean Peninsula produced by a Fake leader in North Korea and a naive flim-flam man in Washington, D.C.. But what about in America? Is anything real in America? Or rather is there no sphere of life left untouched by fakery in post-Obama America?

Since the moment we named the post-Obama apocalypse “The Age Of Fake” the label rings truer with every passing day. From the mundane to the significant we are in the Obama Age Of Fake. Let’s start with the mundane.

Dancing With The Stars

We view “reality shows” and televised “contests” and “professional wrestling” with the same disdain as soiled diapers – we know they are there but we want nothing to do with them. It is with a degree of self-loathing that we violate our intent never to discuss the Bristol Palin appearances on a show called “Dancing With The Stars“. But the situation with that show has become such an example of FAKE that we feel compelled to comment.

This past weekend the hysteria over this fake dancing show reached such a high level of discussion and hypocrisy that it is impossible to ignore any longer. We do know that many people enjoy these “reality”, “contest”, “wrestling” shows. We have no problem with anyone enjoying entertainments we find substandard. But in order to enjoy these fake “reality/contests/wrestling” shows the viewer must indulge in the “willing suspension of disbelief”

All the TV shows that bill themselves as “reality” shows or contests or “professional wrestling” are carefully choreographed entertainments in which the manipulations by producers create the entertainment. The “voting” by the public for these shows as well as the “judges” are all props in the hands of wily producers designed to hook the viewer one way or the other.

Imagine our paralysis when we read repeated articles by Obama supporters outraged by Bristol Palin’s appearance on the dance contest. It was as if we had been hit with the Cruciatus Curse.

The very websites and people who implored votes for celebrity Obama, the very same people who declared Obama the best choice in the 2008 primaries because he was a “media darling”, the very same people who promoted a candidate without any experience or ability in his field of competition – are now upset because a celebrity candidate without any dance experience is getting votes based on the popularity of her mom.

“Brandy got robbed” wailed these hypocrites. Somehow the reason (hint: viewers) escapes these dolts. Bristol Palin got invited to participate in the show because she brought what the producers wanted: eyeballs. These shows are designed to attract viewers not to promote “the best” or “talent”.

The moaning and groaning by the hypocrites is sure to continue until the current “competition” ends. It will do no good to complain about a “politicized” dance show contest while an unqualified, inexperienced, celebrity sits in the Oval Office. It’s little wonder that so many are saying “Vote Palin” to “Make An Obot Cry“.

TSA Fake Security

Dr. Ben Franklin saidThey who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” In the case of the TSA comedy reality shows at many airports around the country the security is utterly FAKE.

Little girls and little boys searched as if they are prison inmates (the boy in the video below had already undergone a metal detector). Adult women groped like Arnold Schwarzenegger dates. Adult men learning what it is like to be adult women.

It’s fake security in a land that is increasingly less “the land of the free and the home of the brave.” What is needed is selective profiling of the Tim McVeigh’s, the Islamic Jihadists, the lonely nuts, and the just plain nuts.

The Fake News

It is simply too late for Big Media to now write articles about the Obama Dimocrats, the white working class and the Cult of Obama. Elenor Clift is simply too late with too little. Her latest on the Cult Of Obama and the damage done is simply too too late. It’s too fake because it is so late:

“Democrats got the lowest share of the white vote in this midterm election than in any congressional election since World War II, losing key races in Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Michigan, and every contested election in Ohio, which spells trouble for President Obama’s reelection. No Democrat can win the White House without these Midwestern swing states, and they are all decimated by job losses that Obama has offered no road map to recover. [snip]

Part of Obama’s problem is that there’s too much hero worship around him, and that translates into a reluctance to fault him for anything, except maybe that he didn’t make a good enough case for all the wonderful things he’s done. [snip]

In his post-election press conference, Obama said there must be easier ways to learn the hard lessons of politics than getting the shellacking he and the Democrats got. There are, and if his aides weren’t so in love with him and wrapped up in the idea of him as a transformational president, they might have seen this coming. Obama’s problems with white working-class voters surfaced during the primaries, when he lost West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Ohio to Hillary, and those problems could prove lethal in 2012 not only for Obama but for the five Democratic senators who are up for reelection in the Midwest and the Rust Belt.

Obama is an undefined figure to much of the country, and to his fellow Democrats. Though he’s portrayed as a liberal, it’s not clear what he’ll fight for, and he keeps that deliberately vague, perhaps hoping to deliver on the post-partisan promise his election represented.

It’s too late. It’s FAKE. All this phony baloney “analysis” in 2010 about what was obvious in 2007. It’s fake “cover your ass” analysis from phonies who either did not know and therefore should not be listened to or did know and kept quiet.

Fake On Fake On Fake

We started with the mundane, dance contests on TV. We end with Fake meetings and Fake denials. The New York Times which propagandized for the Fake in Washington published yesterday about more fakery:

“A man leading the Taliban side of peace talks with the Afghan government was an impersonator, an Afghan close to the negotiations said Tuesday, an embarrassing revelation for Afghan officials who have promoted reconciliation efforts as the best chance for ending the war.

Quickly moving to do damage control, President Hamid Karzai dismissed the reports as “propaganda,” saying neither he nor any other members of his government had ever met with a man named Mullah Akhtar Mohammad Mansour — one of highest ranking members of the Taliban council leading the insurgency.

The report about the impostor first appeared in The New York Times and the Washington Post.

An Afghan familiar with the reconciliation efforts, speaking confirmed that a delegate claiming to be Mansour “was a fraud.” He spoke on condition of anonymity so as not to jeopardize his contacts with both sides.”

Oh, and they paid Mansour to attend the meetings as well as flew the fake on NATO aircraft.

Book Mansour on Dancing With The Stars. Team him up with Obama. They can dance and get all the applause they desire. Then the Obama enablers can vote for the fakes. We won’t watch.

We want the Obama reality show canceled. We’ve had enough of fakes.


The Smell Of Burning Toes – Obama’s Feet In The Fire

On the day after the presidential election in 2008 we asked “So what is next?” We answered that question by saying:

“As Americans, as Democrats, some as former Democrats, we hold Obama’s feet to the fire.”

Read our complete answer from that day to more fully understand how correct we have been. We said to the Obama Hopium guzzlers that “they will soon learn they are not part of the “we” in “we won”. We told the Hopium Guzzlers they “will soon be presented with the fine print of Obama’s promises. They will soon read Obama’s legal escape clause…. Like with FISA, Obama will soon forget all those campaign promises and crib drown them in a sea of flowery words and say “it can’t be done now”.”

But it was not just Obama that we knew had to be exposed. Also in need of disinfectant are the theories and tactics and crackpot ideas of people behind Barack Obama. We knew it was necessary to rid ourselves of Obama and Obamaism.

It’s not just Obama that must removed from the body politic. We also have to remove the hypocrites and crackpots that enabled him.

When we declared that the next president had to be a “fighter” not a naive sloganeer the counterargument from Obama and his army of Hopium Guzzling hypocrites and crackpots was that we needed a “uniter not a divider”. Today James Carville repeated our argument when he said,if Hillary gave (Obama) one of her balls, they’d both have two.”

Carville was repeating an argument from May of 2008 and this was Obama’s response, fully endorsed by the Hopium Guzzling hypocrites and crackpots:

“Well, you know, James Carville is well-known for spouting off his mouth without always knowing what he’s talking about,” Obama said on Nightline. “I intend to stay focused on fighting for the American people because what they don’t need is 20 more years of performance art on television. And that’s what James Carville and a lot of those folks are expert at … a lot of talk and not getting things done for the American people.”

Now the hypocrites and crackpots are demanding “performance art” from Barack Obama. In 2008 these hypocrites and crackpots denounced Hillary Clinton and George W. Bush, and anyone who did not attend services at the cult of Obama, as proponents of the “unitary executive”. Now these people demand a “unitary executive”. Hypocrite Katrina Vanden Heuvel writes this week in The Nation:

“With a Republican-controlled House, the chances of major legislation making its way to the president’s desk are, indeed, virtually nonexistent.

But the administration’s hands are not completely tied. On the contrary, the president still has the power to use executive orders, rulemaking and diplomacy to further the progressive agenda without ever consulting Congress.”

This is a total rejection of what these hypocrites once advocated. Vanden Heuvel was riffing off a report issued by John Podesta of the Center For American Progress. The hypocrites and Obama must be held to account. The promise to American voters in 2008 was that Obama was a “uniter not a divider” – now Obama’s feet must be held to the fire and his ridiculous promises must be held to account as well.

The hypocrites and crackpots and Obama himself do not want to admit that their governing theories, the ones Obama ran on are completely bankrupt. This country operates on the theory of a clash of ideas – it’s not pretty but it works. Now some Obama Hopium Guzzlers and hypocrites think the answer is censorship, less speech – enforced by the coercive hand of government. Obama promised to “turn the page” and reshape the way business is done. Now he must keep his promises. These were foolish promises but it is not enough to say “well he was just saying that to get elected.” The promises were made, the promises must be kept – feet, meet fire.

At HotAir, the conservative website, they are holding Obama’s feet to the fire:

“Remember when the term “unitary executive” got thrown around a lot by the Left as a way to argue that the Bush administration thought itself above the law and above Congress?   The criticism fundamentally misunderstood the phrase, but that didn’t keep progressives from arguing that a Republican President was making himself into a dictator through bureaucratic fiat By golly, the Left — and especially the Center for American Progress, headed by John Podesta — didn’t cotton to the notion that a President could bypass Congress and the normal checks and balances of the federal government.

Those were the days, my friends, those were the days:

Former President Bill Clinton’s chief of staff John Podesta, now the head of the Center for American Progress, called on President Obama to push forward with his agenda using  federal agencies and executive branch power Tuesday, even though Democrats were dealt a blow in the recent midterm elections. Podesta said the American people want the president to move forward with his agenda.


So when a President acts through executive orders in an area that the Constitution clearly leaves to the executive branch (prosecution of war), that’s a nascent dictatorship.  When a President acts through EOs and tells executive-branch agencies to circumvent Congress in areas of its jurisdiction, well, that’s just “mov[ing] the country forward.”  Good to know for future reference.  Thanks, Mr. Podesta!

Not only is this a work of stunning hypocrisy, it’s a dangerous piece of political advice.  Democrats had the field to themselves over the last two years and pushed their agenda over the objections of voters around the country.  That arrogant disregard for the electorate is the reason why House Democrats will be voting for a Minority Leader today instead of a Speaker in January.  If Obama takes Podesta’s advice and doubles down on arrogance and high-handedness after the voters sent Washington a split government in an overwhelming, historic wave, Democrats will likely lose the Senate and the White House in 2012 as well.”

Do we think Obama’s promises are naive and high foolishness? You betcha! But Obama and his army of hypocrites ran on these weird theories of governance and they must be held to account.

Recently Sean Wilentz dumped a ton of reality on “Obama’s Doomed Theory Of Politics“:

“More than candidates are defeated in elections. So are ideas. The Democrats’ heavy losses in the midterm elections may now force a reassessment and overhaul of the Barack Obama political experiment. Whether the president has the dexterity and fortitude to navigate through the harsher Washington political environment of the next two years will determine his survival. Clearly, the hopes and dreams that propelled Obama to the White House are in disarray. The social movement politics that some of his most fervent followers ascribed to him—the idea of electing a “post-partisan” president as the leader not of a nation or even of a political party but of a personalized social movement—has failed. [snip]

The point of the Obama campaign-as-movement was conceived differently: exciting people with the thrill of empowerment, and collective self-empowerment, by electing to the White House a community organizer who believed in “hope” and “change.” Why electing Obama was imperative required no explanation among the faithful; it was enough to get the spirit, share the spirit, and revel in the candidate’s essence, which, by definition, no other candidate possessed. The leader was the program.

Sketchy on specifics, such a movement would have been practically useless after Obama’s election, except as a cult-of-personality mass cheerleading squad to back the president over any decision that he chose to endorse. But then, it was always difficult to imagine exactly how the newly defined role of organizer-in-chief would play out. Even according to the social movement model, movements push reluctant leaders who are skilled in the intricacies of lawmaking, especially the president. How was this supposed to work when the chief executive was the movement leader, though vastly inexperienced in the ways of the White House, let alone of the hazards of Washington? Where was the crafty president who needed to be pushed, the president who would know how and when to use a movement to his advantage?”

It was always a cult. The flowery words were a scam. The entire enterprise one huge steaming stink.

Wilentz is much too kind to Obama. Wilentz gulls himself into believing that issues were ever a concern to the boy raised by wolves. But it was a cult and a cult only. There was never any concern for anyone but Obama.

Wilentz ends by stating that only a return to reality and a reversal on all his promises will allow Obama to escape from his self-created trap:

“It could well be that Obama’s survival as an effective political force for the next two years and his prospect for reelection—and any viable future for social movements—will require engaging cleverly and doggedly in what his movement theorists derided as “status quo” politics.”

That won’t do. Obama made promises and now his feet must be held to the fire. That the fire is blazing up his legs and the smoke filling Obama’s lungs is not our concern. Obama made promises and espoused naive ridiculous theories and now he must be held to account. We will not forget this little bit of history courtesy of Professor Wilentz:

“A good example of this way of thinking arose during the 2008 Democratic primaries, when Obama, campaigning in social movement mode, sought to claim the mantle of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. by celebrating oratorical force over grubby politics. His opponent, Hillary Clinton, noted that it took a president, Lyndon B. Johnson, to push through Congress the civil rights reforms for which Dr. King had fought, as well as the programs of the Great Society, and she pointed out that the job being contested for was president of the United States, not head of a social movement. For this, she got called a racist. But her deeper transgression was to run afoul of the movement conception of politics, in which the agitators are the true instigators of reform and officeholders the grudging instruments of pressure from worthy masses.”

We were all called “racists”.

This past Tuesday, Dimocratic Mandarins met in desperation. What to do about Obama? The Mandarins understand that Obama is their boob, but a boob nevertheless. The Mandarins are divided. Some want to continue to raise huge amounts of money for Obama’s reelection. Some want to build “infrastructure”. “Infrastructure?” HotAir has a valid retort:

“Oddly enough, I thought that “infrastructure” already existed and that its component parts were known to receive checks from George Soros from time to time, but evidently they mean a new, more robust infrastructure that will solve the problem that produced such a devastating loss two weeks ago. And what is that problem? Quote: “The main concern [at the meeting] was about messaging.” Of course it was.

Sean Trende, in an article we will discuss at length in the future, has a stronger assessment of what is fundamentally wrong:

“The Democratic Party is really a coalition of several semi-distinct parts. At its core, it is comprised of urban progressives and racial minorities, both of which were relative latecomers to the coalition. Layered over this base, with varying degrees of loyalty to the modern Democratic Party, are white working class voters (added by FDR in the 1930s), suburbanites (added by Clinton in the 1990s), and the oldest portion of the Democratic Party, rural voters. [snip]

Less well reported is the weakening of the Democratic coalition in suburban and working class areas of the country. These are areas that weren’t particularly warm to Bush-style Republicans, and had been moving toward the Democratic Party (in the case of working class voters, moving back toward the Democratic Party) since the 1992 election. That movement seems to have stalled, and even reversed.

Democrats in working class districts had their worst showing all decade – perhaps ever. The list of Democrats from white working class areas who fell to or below 60 percent of the vote is lengthy. Among the more notable examples: Anthony Weiner of Queens/Brooklyn (who fell to 59 percent of the two-party vote, from 71 percent in 2004, the last time he had major party opposition); James Oberstar of Duluth (49 percent, from 68 percent in 2008); Dale Kildee of Flint (54 percent, from 72 percent); Marcy Kaptur of Toledo (59 percent, from 74 percent); Peter Visclosky of Gary (60 percent, from 72 percent); John Dingell of Dearborn (59 percent, from 74 percent).

Few of these Democrats actually lost, but then again, few of them faced strong, well-financed opponents, making the fact that they faced competitive elections all the more remarkable. To put this further in perspective, every Democrat from a working class district that faced major-party opposition in 2008 saw their vote share diminished in 2010. [snip]

If Obama doesn’t figure out a way to bring enough white working class and suburban voters back into the Democratic fold to offset the loss of Jacksonian and other rural voters, it will be nearly impossible for him to be re-elected.”

It is not messaging or infrastructure that is the problem. The problem is Obama and his Hopium Guzzling hypocrites and crackpots who refuse to acknowledge the reality of the ditch they have driven themselves into.

At the meeting of Obama Dimocrat Mandarins with money, George Soros spoke in an extra private session.

“According to multiple sources with knowledge of his remarks, Soros told those in attendance that he is “used to fighting losing battles but doesn’t like to lose without fighting.”

“We have just lost this election, we need to draw a line,” he said, according to several Democratic sources. “And if this president can’t do what we need, it is time to start looking somewhere else.”

Some have interpreted these remarks as some sort of acknowledgment that Obama must be replaced and therefore this is good news. But all this really means, at best, is that another dupe will be groomed.

Another dupe will be groomed by the Mandarins. The Mandarins of money will not turn to logical choices to resurrect the Democratic Party. They want to a dupe and that is not Hillary Clinton or anyone capable of resisting their grasp.

If one stooge turns out to be a boob, get another stooge. The Big Money power will not be surrendered. That’s why Nancy Pelousy, is still a leader. The great poet Milton, writing about Satan (“Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heaven.“) is echoed by today’s Obama Dimocrats, hypocrites, and crackpots (“colleagues who would rather be the majority in a minority party than do what’s necessary to regain the only majority that matters“).

The crackpot theories are falling apart. Now new schemes are manufactured to keep the machine in the ditch operating. But we remember the promises. We will continue to hold Obama’s feet to the fire.

Burn, Baby, Burn.


What It All Means: Prince William Proposes; Charlie Rangel Disposes

It was a touching announcement. It was full of dignity. It was full of memory. It was disgusting. We’re talking about Charlie Rangel’s conviction today.

Whatever Rangel did or did not do is almost beside the point. The point is that his trail was held yesterday and his conviction announced today – all after the November elections. Whether Rangel would have been re-elected or not is irrelevant. The voters had a right to know before the elections – in Rangel’s district and in every other district and state.

If anyone wants to know why the American people are so angry, if anyone wants to know where Tea Party activists and the Left and the Right should come together, it is on this. Why is it that the majority in the House of Representatives thought more of themselves than the people they are supposed to represent?

The House of Representatives majority party cared more about their own fate than providing a full accounting to the people who voted in November. The People’s House acted more like a Royalist party than the democratic institution it is supposed to be. And we are sure that if the Republicans were the majority party they likely would have done the same.

Across the ocean, the royal Prince William, son of the “People’s Princess” acted with more dignity than the elected representatives of the American people.

At the White House, the recipient of the now cheapened Nobel Peace Prize gave the nation’s highest honor to a deserving soldier who acted above and beyond the call of duty.

First the Rangel story:

“A House ethics panel has convicted Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) on 11 of 13 counts of violating House ethics rules.

Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), the chairwoman of the adjudicatory subcommittee and the full House ethics committee, announced the decision late Tuesday morning following an abbreviated public trial of the 20-term lawmaker and nearly six hours of deliberations.

“We have tried to act with fairness, led only by the facts and the law,” Lofgren said. “We believe we have accomplished that mission.”

The full ethics panel will now convene a sanctions hearing to recommend a punishment. Serious sanctions — including formal reprimand, censure or expulsion — require a vote on the House floor. Expulsion requires a two-thirds vote, while a reprimand, which Rangel refused to agree to in July, or a censure would need just a simple majority. The ethics panel could also impose a fine and diminish some of Rangel’s privileges.”

Congressman Rangel responded without dignity and without responsibility. With tricks aimed at a delay of justice Congressman Rangel continued to stonewall the truth:

“In an official statement, Rangel slammed the ethics subcommittee’s “unprecedented” decision, saying his due process rights were violated since the panel ruled without him having legal representation.

“How can anyone have confidence in the decision of the ethics subcommittee when I was deprived of due process rights, right to counsel and was not even in the room?” Rangel said. “I can only hope that the full committee will treat me more fairly, and take into account my entire 40 years of service to the Congress before making any decisions on sanction.”

The congressman did not indicate he would seek to appeal the decision saying, “While I am required to accept the findings of the Ethics Committee, I am compelled to state again the unfairness of its continuation without affording me the opportunity to obtain legal counsel as guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.”

The decision comes one day after the panel rejected an emotional plea by Rangel to delay the trial because he lacked counsel. Rangel’s team of attorneys told him they could no longer represent him in mid-October, and Rangel said he could not afford to hire a replacement right away after incurring nearly $2 million in legal fees over the past two years.

The 13 counts stem from several House ethics violations, including improperly using his office to solicit donations for a school of public policy in his name at the City College of New York, using a residential apartment in Harlem for his campaign office, failing to report more than $600,000 on his financial disclosure report and failing to pay taxes on rental income from a villa he owns in the Dominican Republic.

Melanie Sloan, the executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, applauded the decision and called on Rangel to resign.

“All of Mr. Rangel’s theatrics aside, the facts were clear: Mr. Rangel violated numerous House rules and federal laws,” she said. “Whether these violations were deliberate or inadvertent, the American people deserve to be represented by members of Congress who adhere to the highest ethical standards. Mr. Rangel should resign.”

Rangel was not represented in the hearing because he walked out. Rangel has yet to explain the multiple rent controlled apartments he commandeered for his own wealthy use. The New York rent-control laws are not meant to provide cheap office space to wealthy members of congress. It is a disgusting royalist display of privilege:

“In this town of showmen, liars and big-time con artists, there has never been a more splendid vaudeville show.

It was a comedy of errors yesterday filled with surprise and farce and tragedy featuring a stunning dramatic performance by Charlie Rangel that would strain the acting abilities of the most accomplished Shakespearean player.

From grand bluster, he swung into thundering rage. Then brooding fury gave way to wincing openness. And then the wounded face of a crushed soul. Only to emerge fiery defiance.

All this from one lonely character in just a few minutes on a cramped stage in a room full of dupes.

The latest act in this endless play began yesterday, when Rangel entered the hearing room, a simple stage for his last stand.

He strolled in from the public hallway without the slightest wrinkle of worry creasing his face.

His striped tie and red pocket handkerchief were bright and cheery enough to attract hummingbirds.

On his finger, a glittering ring the size of a butter plate.

As he entered, all alone, a look of pleasant surprise crossed his face as if he had just stumbled upon his birthday party and there were so many familiar faces.

Smiling broadly, nodding deeply, winking here and there, he sauntered to the front of the room and stood proudly behind his prosperous girth.”

There was a months long, years long, delayed display of forced dignity by the committee that delayed justice for so long:

“The chairwoman began in the flat, hushed tones of a public-radio host — only to be drowned out by the sheer force of Rangel’s performance.

Denied counsel! Bankrupted by the committee! An endless two-year investigation! Justice for all! Due process!

His crimes were not as bad as they might have been, so where is the apology?

“All I’m asking for is time to get counsel,” Rangel implored with his arms flailing beside him.

And so he danced on that fissure between fact and fiction — reality and fantasy — so fluidly and convincingly that even Truth would not have known her own face in that room.”

Real dignity, came to this great republic in the form of Medal of Honor winner Staff Sergeant Salvatore Giunta. The award ceremony would have been more appropriate several days ago, on Veterans Day, but Obama was busy embarrassing the nation overseas.

A further pity is that the prestigious medal was presented by an unhinged national clown devoid of dignity.

A bit of vetting in 2008 would have kept the chickens away from the roost.

We know that Obama wasn’t vetted through the campaign, and now, you know, some things are coming home to roost, if you will, which is inexperience, his associations, and that ultimately harms our republic when a candidate isn’t — isn’t vetted by the media, that cornerstone of our democracy. So, you’re right, it’s not about me and whether you like my politics or not. You can push all that aside, and just pay attention to what that message is in this documentary, and that is that things have got to change for the better in the state of journalism. Otherwise, you know, it could be part of a demise of our democracy if that cornerstone erodes.”

True about Obama, true about Rangel, true about both parties and all candidates.

* * * * * *

Across the Atlantic happy news came in the form of a proposal of marriage by the eventual King of the British Isles, to a “commoner”. Prince William, son of Princess Diana of Wales remembered his mother on this happy day.

We don’t opine on the “People’s Princess” narrative but we do know why Princess Diana’s death resonates so. She was a pretty, young woman who lived a fairy tale life – which ended in a Shish-kebab horror death. That arc of her life is one every life on this planet can easily share. We never know when Fate swoops down and cuts even the mighty down.

So it was with great joy that many received the news that dignity and love were so vividly displayed in what was once our Mother Country.

“Prince William said of their engagement: “The timing is right now, we are both very, very happy.”

Explaining why he decided to give Diana’s ring to Miss Middleton, William said: “It was my way of making sure my mother didn’t miss out on today and the excitement, and the fact that we’re going to spend the rest of our lives together.

We can only hope that the wedding gift from the American people to Prince William and Miss Middleton is not a DVD collection of speeches from Nobel winner Obama nor a bag of discarded sleeves yanked off gaudy cocktail dresses.


A Boob Abroad – A Dangerous Narcissist Lost At Sea

You can’t spell “Boob” without “B.O.” The Boob was abroad for close to two weeks to escape the election results. Now the Boob is back, but not stone cold sober as a matter of fact. Indeed a drunk hobo would have done better than the American BoBo.

How bad was the Boob? Politico echoed that it was the “ten worst days of his political life”. He came home with “bupkis” wrote Ken Bazinet of the New York Daily News:

“WASHINGTON – President Obama is coming home from his overseas trip pretty much empty-handed.

After watching his party take a beating in the midterm elections, Obama wasn’t able to secure even a symbolic victory on a trip that was expected to give him plenty of opportunities to claim a win.

This certainly was the worst 10 days of his political life,” said Baruch College political scientist Doug Muzzio. “Given that he’s not going to be able to get any domestic achievements with the Republicans in control of the House … if he doesn’t do it in foreign policy that’s a big problem for him.

He came back with bupkis [Yiddish for ‘nothing’].”

Back in April 2009 we wrote “World Leaders And North Korea To Barack Obama: “Sucker“‘ In those days it was evident that Obama was a boob but most of Big Media praised him to high celestial choir heaven. We knew better. This is what we wrote that April:

The BOob is a pushover – that is the message from Barack Obama’s European vacation. The news from Asia is not much better as North Korea sizes up Obama and sees a dwarf.

World leaders sized up Obama and decided he is a celebrity wannabee. So world leaders gave Obama the soul craving celebrity he wants for himself and then smartly picked the pockets of Uncle Sam while Obama grinned.”

So who was right? Big Pink or Big Media? Last week world leaders treated the boob like the boob he is with a minimum of celebrity glad-handing. Soon even those displays of good will shall disappear and the Boob will be both literally and figuratively slapped in the face. It appears that Big Media has caught up to our analysis from way back. Here’s more from Bazinet on the missed opportunities and the boob in chief:

“Obama’s inauspicious 10-day, four-nation trip included a failure to land an anticipated slam dunk free trade agreement with South Korea.

It also included a botched effort to rally Western allies to press China to budge on a monetary policy that threatens to keep the U.S. economy in the tank.

Yet Obama appeared to shrug off the lack of results during summit meetings with the world’s most powerful leaders.”

This weekend Saturday Night Live added to the insults, citing Obama’s Chinese debt and even citing Glenn Beck’s gold promotion as wise.

By November 2007, we knew that Obama the Clown is a narcissist. By 2010 it was plain as the clown nose on his face that “Obama is a harmful Narcissist“. That once controversial analysis too is no longer absent from front pages. Indeed the front pages these days are loaded with insights from these Pink pages:

“Why has Barack Obama failed so spectacularly? Is he too dogmatically liberal or too pragmatic? Is he a socialist, or an anticolonialist, or a philosopher-president? Or is it possible that Obama’s failures stem from something simpler: vanity. Politicians as a class are particularly susceptible to mirror-gazing. But Obama’s vanity is overwhelming. It defines him, his politics, and his presidency.”

This latest article on Obama’s narcissism is filled with retreads of questions we raised years ago (such as why a barely 30 year old man writes, not one but two, autobiographies). There is the story about the “Obamameter” – a pretentiousness yardstick; the laughable “seal” from November 2008; the “Lebron” story; the reassurance that 2010 would be an electoral victory unlike 1994 because “Well, the big difference here and in ’94 was you’ve got me.”

The latest article on Obama’s narcissism does expound on the complete lack of understanding Obama has about the world as it actually is. Whether it is the history of the Cold War and the “Evil Empire” Obama somehow prefers to think of those events as somehow attached to his ascension.

As anecdotaly interesting as American Narcissus is, it pales when compared to this quote, from our own efforts, citing Marty Peretz:

“What I suspect is that the president is probably a clinical narcissist. This is not necessarily a bad condition if one maintains for oneself what the psychiatrists call an “optimal margin of illusion,” that is, the margin of hope that allows you to work. But what if his narcissism blinds him to the issues and problems in the world and the inveterate foes of the nation that are not susceptible to his charms? [snip]

I know that the president believes himself a good man. My nervy query to him is: “Does he believe America to be a good country?

Those questions raised by us so long ago, are now answered. Obama’s Narcissism is dangerous to America and blinds him to the reality that world leaders hold him in contempt:

“Despite Setbacks, Obama Confident on World Stage

President Says Relationships with Other Leaders Strong, Even as He Fails to Secure Trade Deal, Currency Agreement

President Barack Obama claimed a stronger hand on the world stage Friday despite electoral defeats at home, failure to get a free-trade agreement with South Korea and lackluster international support for his get-tough policy with China on trade and currency disputes.

“It wasn’t any easier to talk about currency when I was first elected and my poll numbers were at 65 percent,” Obama argued at the close of the G-20 summit, after bluntly accusing Beijing of undervaluing its currency.

The president flew to Japan for the APEC summit without the coveted trade pact with Korea or a united front with other countries against China’s currency policy. He also endured a gusher of criticism from other countries about a decision by the U.S. central bank to pump $600 billion into the U.S. economy, something China, Germany and others believe could weaken the dollar and lead to inflation. [snip]

Even so, the president contended that his standing with world leaders is not diminished.

“When I came into office people might have been interested in more photo-ops,” the president said, because of the “hoopla surrounding my election.”

This vain useless boob is dangerous to America. Not aware that his craving for celebrity is mocked by foreign leaders and employed as a doggie “treat” to distract and amuse him while real business is carried on without his boobish presence.

For Obama, American acquiescence is a good thing and powerful foes growing more powerful something that cannot be helped so therefore Obama applauds. ‘”We are now seeing a situation where a whole host of other countries are doing well and coming into their own and naturally they’re going to be more assertive … and that’s a healthy thing,” the president said.”

Bitterly clinging to the mistaken notion that he is popular, Obama is damaging American interests abroad.

Barack Obama is not only a Dangerous Narcissist. Barack Obama is a get “no respect” Rodney Dangerfield in a very dangerous world:

“But for the most part this was a shadow of the president who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 on the mere bet that he would somehow deliver the “old America” back to the world. And along the way, when it came to substantive issues such as trade, capital imbalances, currency policy, and Middle East peace, Obama encountered a faceful of rebuffs from allies and future rivals alike.

Much of the commentary in Washington has focused, predictably, on the devastating midterm election losses suffered by the Democrats, widely interpreted as a repudiation of Obama and his policies. But there is a much deeper dysfunction at work here.”

That “deeper dysfunction” is a dangerous blinding narcissism which Big Media enabled for years. Instead of scrutiny, Big Media offered adoration. Instead of vetting, Big Media fluffed pillows. Instead of reality, Big Media and the Blogger Boy auxiliaries, wove dreams and hallucinatory hopes. At the New York Times the Hopium induced flashbacks are the rule, reality is the rare breach past the incense smoke:

“I have faith in Barack Obama. Of course, I also have faith in the New York Mets.

I believe Obama is going to get his groove back and be the leader we elected, even though he is testing us sorely. This week he went to South Korea to negotiate a trade agreement, and the agreement fell through. The administration says this is because he was being a tough bargainer, but you don’t send the president overseas to fail to get an agreement. Wasn’t anybody taking notes when he went to Denmark to fail to get the Olympics for Chicago?

Hope springs eternal in the Times of New York. At the Post of Washington D.C. however, the Hopium is running low and the reality of a dangerous boob in charge is running high:

“President Obama asserted Friday that the punishment his party took in midterm elections has not damaged his ability to advance U.S. interests overseas, saying his Asia trip has shown that many countries still want to work with the United States.

In a news conference following the Group of 20 summit, Obama said the United States, while still the world’s most powerful economy, can no longer dictate the terms of how the world does business, especially after a global economic turndown that many blame on American policies.

But he said his relationships with fellow heads of state have evolved during his two years in office – relying less on the novelty of his election and the enthusiasm it generated than on a shared view of where the global economy should be heading. [snip]

It rests, however, on an untested premise – that nations are willing to act against their short-term interests for the good of other countries, in order to promote steady and persistent economic growth that will be better for the world overall.

The premise speaks to the president’s faith in a multipolar planet – that China, for example, might free some of its trillions of dollars in reserves in a way that puts Americans back to work and boost global growth. But Obama himself called some of the most important elements of the agreement “a work in progress.”

This is dangerous narcissism of the worst sort. It is the type of naivete Hillary Clinton lambasted in 2008. It is “no preconditions” Obama damaging America on a daily, nay hourly, basis. Even Nancy Pelousy’s home town newspaper recognizes the damage done:

“Shellacked at home, shellacked abroad. President Obama’s Asia trip is extending a losing streak with the latest setback – a refusal by other major financial powers to follow his lead to revive the global economy.

The president’s nostrums, which began with a call for stimulus-style pump priming by other nations, had evolved into a plan to ease wild swings in currency values and overboard trade imbalances. But he got next to nothing in showdown meetings with other leaders of the G-20 nations, or major economic powers. U.S. leadership, once taken for granted, has all but vanished, and no one’s in charge. [snip]

The mighty United States, abetted by Obama’s considerable charm, couldn’t crack Korea’s stubborn resistance to American exports.

A more profound dispute followed at the G-20 gathering. The president pitched other countries to hold down trade imbalances and avoid the temptations of tweaking currency rates to gain advantage in a sickly global marketplace. This argument took aim at China, which keeps its currency cheap to encourage exports, and Germany, which does much the same.

The fight was going to be difficult enough, but it got even tougher when the Federal Reserve Bank – which isn’t beholden to the White House – decided to dump $600 billion into the economy to spur growth. Well-intentioned as that sounds, it brought gasps overseas: Washington was in effect printing more money, weakening the value of the dollar, and then asking everyone else to behave.

That was the liberal San Francisco Chronicle. The conservative Washington Times editorial is not much better:

“Margaret Thatcher once said that being powerful is like being a lady. If you have to tell people you are, you aren’t. At the Group of 20 summit in Seoul, President Obama asserted that the results of the midterm elections have not diminished his power internationally and that in some ways, he is even stronger, thanks to the friendships he allegedly has developed with world leaders.

World leaders may indeed like Mr. Obama on a personal level, but that has little to do with his stature as a national leader. Machiavelli’s dictum that it is better for a head of state to be feared than loved still applies, and it is clear that there is no reason for any country to fear the affable Mr. Obama.

The president again casually confirmed his belief in the decline of America’s “outsized” influence in world affairs, noting, “We are now seeing a situation where a whole host of other countries are doing well and coming into their own and naturally they’re going to be more assertive.” The president thinks this greater assertiveness is “a healthy thing” but did not elaborate for whom it was healthy – certainly not the United States. For some inexplicable reason, Mr. Obama welcomes the decline of America’s role on the international stage. It is his most notable accomplishment.

Mr. Obama defended the relative lack of progress at this G-20 meeting by lecturing the press on the importance of maintaining perspective. “We should not anticipate that every time countries come together that we are doing some revolutionary thing,” he said. “Instead of hitting home runs, sometimes we’re going to hit singles. But they’re really important singles.” His Nobel Peace Prize notwithstanding, Mr. Obama has yet to prove that he is a power hitter in the league of nations. The world awaits his first home run. Mr. Obama’s Mideast peace effort hasn’t reached first base, he has achieved little of substance in dissuading Iran from pursuing nuclear-weapons capability, his trade policy is a slow-motion train wreck, and his vision of a nuclear-free world remains empty rhetoric.

The question is not whether Mr. Obama’s influence on the world is increasing or decreasing. It is rather whether he has any meaningful influence on important world events at all.”

Shorter Washington Times editorial: Obama is a boob, a dangerous boob.

Obama fluffing Time Magazine calls our previously dismissed reality a “New Reality”:

“A week after one of the biggest political wipeouts in nearly 60 years, the West Wing is conducting political triage, trying to figure out what can be saved and what must be discarded. Just two years ago, the Obama team arrived in Washington on a great wave of promise, with control of Congress and what it imagined was a limitless mandate. Now it finds itself trying to pick up the pieces after what Obama aptly called a “shellacking.”

The new reality — it is perhaps a measure of this White House’s way of looking at things that one aide called it “the new constellation” — means Obama’s team has to do several things quickly. [snip]

But amid all the efforts is a clear sense among senior staff that the midterms were not just another bad news cycle but a major obstacle that must be surmounted on the road to re-election in 2012. [snip]

As incoming House Speaker John Boehner put it on Nov. 4, “There seems to be some denial on the part of the President.”

No surprise here. We’ve long known that Barack Obama is The Queen Of Denial. The surprise is that so many agree that Obama’s performances of late are increasingly dreary and glum and not worthy of applause. The Wall Street Journal:

Has there ever been a major economic summit where a U.S. President and his Treasury Secretary were as thoroughly rebuffed as they were at this week’s G-20 meeting in Seoul? We can’t think of one. President Obama failed to achieve any of his main goals while getting pounded by other world leaders for failing U.S. policies and lagging growth.

None of this should be cause for celebration, because a world without American leadership is a more dangerous place. The U.S. is still the world’s largest economy, the issuer of its reserve currency, and its lone military superpower. No other nation has the will or capacity to lead the way the U.S. has for 70 years, so faltering American influence will produce a vacuum in which every nation can seek narrow advantage.

A narcissistic boob in charge is dangerous. A peripatetic boob who will travel long distances at any time for applause is dangerous and pathetic:

“After his meeting with congressional leaders on Thursday, Obama will head out of the country once again as he departs for a NATO summit in Lisbon, Portugal. The two-day Portugal trip will be another opportunity for the president to demonstrate that his foreign clout has not been weakened in spite of his party’s political defeats back home.”

This wandering boob is apparently not aware of the reality he faces, of the reality America faces. Or perhaps he is aware and is engaged in “get away from it all” vacation therapy. In Washington however, there are culture of corruption trialsdefendants ready or not, lawyers ready or not. The heath scam passed against the wishes of the American people and to benefit Big Insurance and Big PhaRma is breaking apart under a blizzard of waivers. Those waivers are for the SEIU and some of the most vocal health scam advocates.

It seems some days, with the boob in charge, that indeed the terrorists have won.

As we wrote long ago, “Abandon Ship! The Captain Is A Boob.


Redistricting Hell From The Pits Of Obama

As a prelude to our promised painful discussion we need to assess the implications of last week’s elections. The main implication is the redistricting Hell for Obama Dimocrats. Well before others focused on the redistricting issue we discussed how Obama destroyed the “10 year plan” in our very first “Mistake In ’08” installment.

After Tuesday, November 2, 2010 we know we have been right in our analysis and “The Only Question Left: Will The Detox Party Win And Dump Obama?” Even in the Obama Hopium dens the too late realization occurs to some that it is either Detox or Obama. Steve Lombardo at Obama lovin’ Huff n’ Puff details the damage in “It Was More Than Just A Wave”:

“A week ago today, voters flipped the Obama coalition on its head and voted for Republicans in a mid-term landslide that has the potential to be a transformational election. Notice how we used the word “potential.” That’s because every new majority can go in one of two directions: it can either cement its winning coalition or it can fritter it all away. History will be the judge, but the next 12 months will give us a pretty good indication of how this will turn out. Either way, what is clear is that this was a historic defeat for Democrats. And the depth and breadth of the GOP wave was greater than most people realize.

As of today, the GOP has recorded a net gain of 60 seats (seven races remain undecided). It is likely that the net GOP pickup will be around 63 seats. Either way, last Tuesday’s results are the greatest shift from one party to another in the House of Representatives since 1938 (in that year Republicans picked up 80 seats in a dramatic rebuke for New Deal Democrats). The GOP now controls the greatest number of seats (and conversely the Democrats the fewest) in the House since 1948. The GOP also picked up six Senate seats yet fell short of control of the Senate (more on this later). At the state level, the GOP gained seven Governorships and 20 state legislative chambers. These gains were not limited to the South, either. The entire Wisconsin and New Hampshire legislatures flipped to the GOP by wide margins. For the first time since 1870 the North Carolina state legislature is in the hands of Republicans. State Houses in key Presidential swing states like Ohio, Iowa, Colorado, Indiana, Pennsylvania and Michigan all flipped to the GOP. Republicans haven’t had this much power in state capitals since the 1920’s. This is something that really sets this year apart from 1994, in which the GOP wave was largely limited to federal elections. This year may have been much more than a wave.”

Indeed this year’s elections could easily be truly “transformational”. Obama Dimocrats and the idiot “creative class” never understood what we understand and that is that the Republicans would react and adjust to electoral and demographic circumstances. The idiot “creative class” thought they could ignore the white working class and craft a crazy quilt hodgepodge “situation comedy” coalition that would somehow lead to wide vistas of victory. They were wrong – very wrong – and they continue to resist reality.

More from Lombardo:

“Here are what we consider to be the key points about last week’s election:

1. This election was a correction and then some. Democrats didn’t lose because their base did not come out. Instead, Democrats lost because they were exposed in conservative districts that went to Obama in 2008 (and, to some extent, in 2006) and reverted to their traditional GOP norm this time around. Remember, Obama swept into office on the heels of the most catastrophic economic collapse since the great depression. On Labor Day of 2008, many polls had Obama either slightly ahead of or even with McCain. It wasn’t until the Lehman collapse on September 15th–and the subsequent market plunge–that the bottom fell out for McCain. Now, it is fair to say that perhaps Obama would have won without the economic freefall, but it is no sure thing (and it probably would have been a lot closer). The point is that dozens of Democrats came into office during this period of economic crisis and anti-Bush/anti-Iraq sentiment that would have never have won otherwise. These issues together formed what economists call a “black swan” event, a once in a lifetime situation. And what happened last week is that traditional Republican districts became red again.”

Black Swans are not like buses – they don’t come on a regular basis such that if you miss one swan you can hop on board the next one to Hoboken. True, candidate quality matters, as Lombardo notes. But what really matters is the quality of your coalition. The Obama “situation comedy” is a loser.:

“We have been saying for months that the “middle” of the electorate left Obama and on Tuesday they landed on the GOP’s doorstep. According to exit polls, Independents went with Republicans by a 16-point margin (55%-39%). In 2008 Independents broke for Obama 52%-44%. But Indies peeled off from the President in the summer of 2009 and never looked back. Independents went heavily for GOP gubernatorial candidates in Virginia and New Jersey and helped elect Senator Scott Brown in Massachusetts. Republicans didn’t win because their vote showed up and the Democrat vote didn’t. They won because the middle went their way. Look at it this way: in 2006 36% of voters were Republican and 38 percent were Democrats. In 2010, 36% of voters were Republican and 36% were Democrats. A slight drop off, sure, but not enough to explain the historic wave. This wasn’t about GOTV or tactics, it was about a broad sentiment that ran across the electorate.”

The problem is Obama and his party destroying “situation comedy” coalition. Lombardo:

“The GOP has retaken the American heartland and Obama needs it to win again in 2012. The new map looks a lot like 2004. As Jay Cost recently pointed out, 2010 reverted to the Bush majority. You can drive in a fairly direct line from New Jersey to California without ever having to cross into a Democratic congressional district. The new map is a sea of red. The biggest gains were in the heartland: Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin. Exit polling suggests that 54% of voters in the Midwest voted Republican while only 44% voted Democrat.

5. Democrats had a firewall and it worked in the Senate. Like a retreating army, the Democrats headed for the coasts and did well in Washington State, California and Connecticut, staving off a GOP Senate takeover.”

Angry voters (84% to 13% in favor of the GOP), the economy, and a reaction against the party in power all played a part in the disaster of 2010. But the most important lesson to be learned is that you cannot despise and snub huge segments of the American fabric such as the white working class and expect better results. Indeed, the New York Times recently noted that the losses would have been greater in 2010 save for tactical moves by Obama Dimocrats. That is no way to govern – with tactical schemes to claw together electoral margins of victory.

The tactical schemes will now be played out in full – by Republicans. We’ll have much more to add on this, but for now Michael Barone lays out the redistricting Hell to pay:

“According to the National Conference on State Legislatures, Republicans gained about 125 seats in state senates and 550 seats in state houses — 675 seats in total. That gives them more seats than they’ve won in any year since 1928.

Republicans snatched control of about 20 legislative houses from Democrats — and by margins that hardly any political insiders expected. Republicans needed five seats for a majority in the Pennsylvania House and won 15; they needed four seats in the Ohio House and got 13; they needed 13 in the Michigan House and got 20; they needed two in the Wisconsin Senate and four in the Wisconsin House, and gained four and 14; they needed five in the North Carolina Senate and nine in the North Carolina House and gained 11 and 15.

All those gains are hugely significant in redistricting. When the 2010 Census results are announced next month, the 435 House seats will be reapportioned to the states, and state officials will draw new district lines in each state. [snip]

Republicans look to have a bigger advantage in this redistricting cycle than they’ve ever had before. It appears that in the states that will have more than five districts (you can make only limited partisan difference in smaller states), Republicans will control redistricting in 13 states with a total of 165 House districts and Democrats will have control in only four states with a total of 40 districts. You can add Minnesota (seven or eight districts) to the first list if the final count gives Republicans the governorship and New York (27 or 28 districts) to the second list if the final count gives Democrats the state Senate.”

We discussed this Barone analysis before. It bears repeating because it is so significant to our coming discussions on what must be realized and what must be done to stave off endless defeats.

Hillary Clinton voters “deserted the party in droves on Tuesday“. We know about snubs and tactical electoral games designed to thwart the electoral will.

Obama Dimocrats will continue to delude themselves. Some will blame the “Blue Dogs”. Obama lapdog Matt Bai slapped that theory down.

“Even before the votes were cast, a counterargument was already taking hold — that it was the centrist Democrats, and not the liberals in Congress, who had imperiled the party’s majority.

“Democrats would be in better shape, and would accomplish more, with a smaller and more ideologically cohesive caucus,” Ari Berman, a writer for The Nation, argued in a New York Times Op-Ed in October. In an e-mail after the election, Jim Dean, who now runs the liberal group Democracy for America, founded by his brother Howard, told supporters that the progressive candidates who lost had been victimized by “corporate Democrats who refused to stand up and fight for real change.”

The theory here, embraced by a lot of the most prominent liberal bloggers and activists, is that centrist Democrats doomed the party when they blocked liberals in Congress from making good on President Obama’s promise of bold change. Specifically, they refused to adopt a more populist stance toward business and opposed greater stimulus spending and a government-run health care plan. As a result, the thinking goes, frustrated voters rejected the party for its timidity.

There are a few strange things about this argument, even beyond the contention that American voters — 41 percent of whom described themselves as “conservative” this year, compared with 32 percent in 2006 — somehow deem Congress to be insufficiently liberal.

For one thing, many of these same liberal activists were saying something very different in 2006, when Rahm Emanuel, who was then overseeing House campaigns for the party, recruited a slate of less ideological candidates to compete in more conservative districts. Some leading bloggers then — who are now proponents of the Blame the Blue Dogs theory — proclaimed themselves to be against ideological litmus tests, arguing that the most important thing was to choose candidates who could actually win.

This was the same moment when Howard Dean, the unofficial leader of the progressive movement, was telling anyone who would listen that the Southern guy with a Confederate flag in his truck, as Mr. Dean invariably described him, should be a Democratic voter, too. The whole point of Mr. Dean’s “50-state strategy” as party chairman was to find candidates who could win everywhere.

Apparently it was easier for liberal activists to countenance ideological diversity when they were out of power. Now that the party has had to make the requisite compromises in order to pass major legislation, such a “big tent” vision of governing no longer seems so appealing.

Second, while House Republicans have now managed to cobble together a majority that is more or less ideologically cohesive, history would suggest that the same feat isn’t so easy for Democrats, who have actually never succeeded in pulling it off. Even during the great heyday of Democratic government in the 20th century, when the party enacted Social Security and Medicare and civil rights legislation, its dominance was possible only because Democrats had shaped a majority coalition made up of Northern liberals and Southern conservatives.”

Yeah, those darn white working class voters sided with FDR/Hillary Clinton Democrats to support and have our representatives enact Social Security, Medicare and civil rights legislation. These are the very same white working class heroes despised by the Haiku writers of the “creative class”.

But, but, but, say the Obama “butt” worshippers, we’re the Mets and we’ll win next time! Not quite “creative class” klutzes. In 2012 the Senate contests will take place mostly in “Red” states. In those elections there will be 23 Obama Dimocrats up for reelection and only 9 Republicans – guess who wins with those odds? What about the House? Mark Greenbaum snuffs out the audacious dream of a Dimocrat takeover in his latest Salon article:

“To everyone’s surprise, Nancy Pelosi wants to return as the Democrats’ leader in the next Congress. But if she’s hoping for a big Democratic year in 2012 that would give her the speaker’s gavel back, she might want to look closer at Tuesday’s results: Based on the breadth and scope of their losses, it is going be almost impossible for Democrats to retake the House in the next 10 years.

While Democrats’ historic loss of at least 61 seats (results are still pending in a handful of districts) can be traced to a diverse set of factors, the majority of the Democrats defeated were either elected to Republican-friendly seats in the wave elections of 2006 and 2008 or were long-term incumbents who represented heavily GOP districts. The seats in that latter category are likely gone for good, while many in the former are clustered in a handful of states where GOP state-level gains will ensure that they are fortified in next year’s redistricting trials, making them even more difficult for Democrats to take back than they were entering the ’06 and ’08 cycles.

The losses of Democrats like Rick Boucher (southwest Virginia coal country), Lincoln Davis (increasingly conservative central Tennessee), Chet Edwards (College Station, Texas), Jim Marshall (Macon, Ga.), Earl Pomeroy (North Dakota), Ike Skelton (the Ozarks) and Gene Taylor (Biloxi and Pascagoula, Miss.) are particularly painful for Democrats, given the treacherous political terrain they face in those districts. Democrats were incredibly lucky to hold these seats as long as they did, and they were able to because incumbents like Skelton (elected in 1976), Boucher (1982), Taylor (1989), and Edwards (1990) had adeptly burrowed themselves in. Democrats were always going to lose these seats when these representatives stepped down, but the tidal wave of 2010 washed them all away in one fell swoop.

Put another way, of the 20 most Republican-leaning House seats held by Democrats on Election Day, 17 of them fell. With Partisan Voting Index scores ranging from R+9 in Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin’s South Dakota at-large district to an unfathomable R+20 for Edwards’ Texas seat and Taylor’s south Mississippi district, it’s a miracle Democrats held these seats for as long as they did. Altogether, Democrats dropped 25 seats this week with PVI ratings of R+6 or more. It’s difficult to envision the party winning many of these seats back in the short- or long-term future.

Looking at Tuesday’s results from another angle, around two-thirds of the seats Democrats lost were held by members elected in the ’06 and ’08 elections. With a small handful of exceptions, nearly all of these districts are Republican-leaning, though most not overwhelmingly so. They represented the spoils of Democrats’ own wave elections. As currently drawn, many of them could theoretically be competitive in 2012, but Republican state legislative and gubernatorial gains could help the GOP use the forthcoming redistricting to fortify many of them.”

That last sentence is one which we will focus on as our promised “painful discussion” continues next week.

Before ending we’ll debunk some other 2010 hogwash from the “creative class”. The Obama Hopium dens will have many excuses and fake celebrations over “victory” in the Senate. Obama Dimocrats cannot take comfort in the Senate results either. The bottom line is that Republicans will have effective control of that chamber, if not the fancy offices and perks of the majority.

An Obama victory in 2012? Politico yesterday regurgitated much of the obvious:

“Last week’s midterm elections saw the trio of conservative-leaning states Obama captured in 2008 — Virginia, North Carolina and Indiana — return to their Republican tendencies while more traditional swing states also broke sharply toward the GOP.

Perhaps most worrisome for Democrats, Rust Belt and Midwest states that had been trending toward the party even before Obama’s election saw Republicans pile up victories. In places such as Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, where the president won with double-digit margins two years ago, the GOP captured offices up and down the ballot and demonstrated that they remain politically competitive in those states. [snip]

“If Obama holds the Kerry states and carries only the states in which Democrats prevailed in 2010, he loses,” Begala said.

What many in the party believe — and more now are willing to voice publicly — is that 2008 may have been a referendum on President George W. Bush and that Obama’s victory was owed in large part to exhaustion with the outgoing administration.

We’ve been writing what Politico and “many in the party believe” for many years now. Sorry Obama Hopium Guzzlers, your Golden Calf is a fake. Even Nancy Pelousy who schemed and demanded Hillary Clinton drop out of the primaries, as she was winning primary after primary with astonishing margins in white working class districts and entire states, knows Obama is in trouble:

“Speaker Nancy Pelosi told Democratic leaders Wednesday afternoon that President Barack Obama has to be “perfect” to win a second term, several senior Democratic aides told Roll Call.

Pelosi told leaders on a conference call that Obama will have problems running for re-election because of the loss of governorships in Ohio, Pennsylvania and other states, several aides said. The soon-to-be-ex-Speaker also said House Democrats have many opportunities to take back 25 House seats and win back the majority, aides said.”

Pelousy does not understand how difficult Obama’s continued occupancy of perks and golfing trips is. Perhaps after the investigations begin Pelousy will get a clue. Perhaps after the massive waste of money is exposed, Pelousy will get a clue. And hint to Pelousy, read Mark Greenbaum’s article which we discussed above.

Policy-wise, Obama does not know what he is doing and what he does know is not what Americans want (as as on Israel). Perhaps the Scarborough 7 need to have a chat with Nancy.

Perhaps Nancy needs to sit down with Obama and read the Tea Leaves:

“To that end, we believe Obama should announce immediately that he will not be a candidate for reelection in 2012.”

We’ll continue our “chat” next week, as we stare into the Pits of Obama Hell, and describe what we see.


Veterans Day 2010

It finally ended a few weeks ago.

The misbegotten Treaty of Versailles stopped the fighting of “The Great War” on June 28, 1919. But that “war to end all wars” was merely act one in a world wide conflagration that is now numbered in two parts.

As wise statesmen have noted, the cessation of hostilities in World War I ended in an Allied victory but there was no peace. It required the second mass slaughter to give birth to not only a victory but to a peace as well – a peace that lasted for generations – interrupted repeatedly by a Cold War and lesser proxy wars.

Not much was resolved by the first bloody act of the carnage. Those of us who have visited the death fields of Verdun get but a glimpse of the horrors that occurred. The foolish Allies walked into a charnel house and declared “I won.” No peace could come from such as these – and they were supposed to be the “good guys”.

Finally, a few weeks ago, On October 2, 2010, the peace of Versailles finally came:

“The final payment of £59.5 million, writes off the crippling debt that was the price for one world war and laid the foundations for another.

Germany was forced to pay the reparations at the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 as compensation to the war-ravaged nations of Belgium and France and to pay the Allies some of the costs of waging what was then the bloodiest conflict in history, leaving nearly ten million soldiers dead.

The initial sum agreed upon for war damages in 1919 was 226 billion Reichsmarks, a sum later reduced to 132 billion, £22 billion at the time.

The bill would have been settled much earlier had Adolf Hitler not reneged on reparations during his reign.

Hatred of the settlement agreed at Versailles, which crippled Germany as it tried to shape itself into a democracy following armistice, was of significant importance in propelling the Nazis to power.

“On Sunday the last bill is due and the First World War finally, financially at least, terminates for Germany,” said Bild, the country’s biggest selling newspaper.

Most of the money goes to private individuals, pension funds and corporations holding debenture bonds as agreed under the Treaty of Versailles, where Germany was made to sign the ‘war guilt’ clause, accepting blame for the war.

France, which had been ravaged by the war, pushed hardest for the steepest possible fiscal punishment for Germany.

The principal representative of the British Treasury at the Paris Peace Conference, John Maynard Keynes, resigned in June 1919 in protest at the scale of the demands.

“Germany will not be able to formulate correct policy if it cannot finance itself,’ he warned.

When the Wall Street Crash came in 1929, the Weimar Republic spiralled into debt. Four years later, Hitler was elected Chancellor of Germany.”

Fools for leaders, endless debt, and we still have not learned.

* * * * * *

Today is Veterans Day 2010. Lucy Brewer is now but one of many names of women who have served on the battlefields.

Veterans Day. Today is a day the nation sets aside to honor all veterans – the quick and the dead.

To honor these men and women we turn to a day of great joy and great moment and great remembrance:

“65 Years Ago my Dad shot this film along Kalakaua Ave. in Waikiki capturing spontaneous celebrations that broke out upon first hearing news of the Japanese surrender. Kodachrome 16mm film: God Bless Kodachrome, right? I was able to find an outfit ( to do a much superior scan of this footage to what I had previously posted, so I re-did this film and replaced the older version There are more still images from this amazing day, in color, at”

Thank you Kodachrome. Thank you those who remember and chronicle our national and personal past:

“This is a spare and simple video consisting of WWII-era Kodachrome slides and film footage honoring the servicemen and servicewomen and the loved ones they left behind. The bare-bones recording was made by Vera Lynn as bombs fell upon Britain: the genuine sadness in her voice needs no violin accompaniment for effect. Enormous gratitude for all US and Allies who serve, yesterday and today.”

Thank you veterans.

* * * * * *

We’ll return to chronicle the foolishness of our current “leaders” tomorrow.