The Dark Lord And The Unforgiven

The Dark Lord and his army of Hopium Guzzlers, go along Inferi, and Big Media false Prophets, maintained a death grip on the ministry bureaucrats in 2010. By “Dark Lord” we do not reference skin color but rather recall the malevolent Riddle at the center of the Harry Potter book series.

The Dark Lord, the horrid being called Lord Voldemort, is the vortex for evil against good in the seven part Potter books. The “good guys” in the series are wise Professor Dumbledore and young students Harry Potter, Hermione Granger, and the good-hearted but often dim-witted Ron Weasley. In the fifth chapter of the penultimate Harry Potter And The Half-Blood Prince we find Harry, Hermione, and Ron discuss a bit of Dumbledore wisdom.

For a long time in their young lives the trio of students and their Headmaster Albus Dumbledore have struggled to warn the world of the rise of the Dark Lord, Voldemort. For their efforts they are despised and derided, at the moment. Dumbledore understands why:

“And what about Percy?” asked Harry; the third-eldest Weasley brother had fallen out with the rest of the family. “Is he talking to your mum and dad again?”

“Nope,” said Ron.

“But he knows your dad was right all along now about Voldemort being back–”

“Dumbledore says people find it far easier to forgive others for being wrong than being right,” said Hermione.”

Those who were mocked for telling the truth without shame are harder to forgive than those who have been proved wrong because those who spoke up are a constant reminder that the truth was visible and ready to be spoken. The “no one could have known or foreseen” excuse cannot be employed by the duped or the deceptive as long as the “right” witnesses remain. Those who cannot be forgiven for being right – are a rebuke by our very presence.

Those few who have the right to say “I told you so” about destructive Barack Obama do not need or want or will accept “forgiveness” from the criminal and the insane who vouched for a Hope that we knew was false and a Change we knew was a turn for the worse.

One year ago, we wrote our prediction for 2010: “When you elect a boob, expect boobery. We expect a lot more boobery.” Unforgiven truth.

In that same article we unforgivably wrote:

“The boobery will continue with the Obama health scam. The boobery will continue. The insanity will not stop. The insanity will have to be stopped.

The insanity will be stopped with sanity. It will begin with massive Dimocratic defeats in November 2010.”

* * * * * *

But tonight and tomorrow are not the time to dwell on the evils in the night. These are the days to look to the lessons of the past in order to have a better future. Look to the lessons of the past and learn. Look to the future and rededicate.

So tonight we raise a glass full of good cheer and songs in praise of real hope for real change and unwavering love for the possibilities of tomorrow – and drink deep. We’ll think of those still with us, those in shadow, and those who one day we hope to see again.

In her column today, Peggy Noonan discusses Robert Burns’ Auld Lang Syne:

“And then they’ll play that song: “Should auld acquaintance be forgot and never brought to mind? Should auld acquaintance be forgot, and days of auld lang syne?” [snip]

“Auld Lang Syne”—the phrase can be translated as “long, long ago,” or “old long since,” but I like “old times past”—is a song that asks a question, a tender little question that has to do with the nature of being alive, of being a person on a journey in the world. It not only asks, it gives an answer. [snip]

The question it asks is clear: Should those we knew and loved be forgotten and never thought of? Should old times past be forgotten? No, says the song, they shouldn’t be. We’ll remember those times and those people, we’ll toast them now and always, we’ll keep them close. “We’ll take a cup of kindness yet.” [snip]

But “the interesting, more serious message in the song is that the past is important, we mustn’t forget it, the old has something for us.”

So does the present, as the last stanza makes clear. The song is not only about those who were in your life, but those who are in your life. “And there’s a hand, my trusty friend, and give a hand of thine, We’ll take a right good-will draught for auld lang syne.”

The past, the present, the future all merge every moment of our lives. It is on New Year’s Eve that we are reminded of this truth. It is on New Year’s Eve that we embrace those still with us, and embrace the memory of those not physically present. For Auld Lang Syne.

Happy New Year!


Run, Bo, Run

Now’s the time boy. Make a run for it. Head for the hills.

Avoid people. You won’t be able to tell the good guys from the bad guys. Some might harbor you and keep you safe. However others might turn you in for the publicity. You can survive on fruits fallen from trees. Stay under cover. Run, Bo, Run.

While you are kept captive, leashed to that horrible name, you have to be watchful every second. You don’t know what you are living with. None of us completely do.

For instance, your “master”, the one who promised once again for the third or fourth time to keep completely focused on the economy, turned his focus away from the economy to express compassion for this guy:

“The L.A. Times reports that Michael Vick has been released from prison, the rest of his sentence to be served at his 3,538-square-foot home in Hampton, Va., with the expectation that he will be officially released from Federal custody on July 20th.

There has been widespread speculation as to whether Vick will return to his lucrative football career, and which teams would be willing to take the PR hit involved in hiring him. Although NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell characterized Vick’s actions as “not only illegal, but also cruel and reprehensible,” he has declined to make a decision on whether Vick could be reinstated as an NFL player until his sentence is officially over.

Some commentators have argued that Vick should be allowed to play because he “made a mistake” and has now “paid his debt.” Perhaps these people are under the mistaken impression that all Michael Vick did was fight some Pit Bulls. But dog fighting, as cruel a crime as it is, is the least of what Michael Vick did.

According to the prosecutor’s statement of facts in the case, between 2002 and 2007 Michael Vick and his co-conspirators Purnell Peace, Quanis Phillips and Tony Taylor killed thirteen dogs by various methods including wetting one dog down and electrocuting her, hanging, drowning and shooting others and, in at least one case, by slamming a dog’s body to the ground.

Michael Vick didn’t make a mistake. He didn’t “make a bad choice.” Over a period of five years he forced dogs into deadly fights, and he personally killed, or conspired to kill, thirteen dogs. He didn’t pick a quick, painless method of killing, but instead chose a variety of means that qualify as torture. Pit Bulls are powerful dogs. Imagine how hard you would have to work to kill a Pit Bull by forcibly drowning him.”

That Vick guy was released and given a lucrative contract to play football. He’s now a celebrity hero. And your “master” Barack Obama thinks that is just grand.

“The Atlanta Journal-Constitution also reports, “Sometimes [the dogs] were starved to make them more vicious in the pit.”

And Michael Vick didn’t confine the abuse and killing to his own Pit Bulls.

According to a November 2008 news story, a report prepared by the USDA’s inspector general-investigations division revealed that Vick, Purnell Peace, Quanis Phillips and Tony Taylor also put family pet dogs into the ring with trained pit bulls. [snip]

Supporters say Vick apologized for his actions. But in his famous press conference apology, Vick admitted only to fighting dogs, despite the fact that he pled guilty to all charges, including the killings. He admitted to “making mistakes” and “immature acts.” But deliberately and repeatedly planning dog fights and repeated premeditated violent killings of dogs are not “mistakes.” They are not the acts of someone who’s merely immature. They are the acts of a sociopath and a predator.”

Birds of a feather, Bo. Your “master” took time out from his all important vacation to praise the “second chance” given the monster – the sociopath, the predator. We’re in Jeffry Dahmer territory here Bo.

We’re not saying that your “master” is a dog killing sympathizer. We’re not saying he is a dog killer or animal killer either. What we are saying is that no one knows who this guy is. Common sense tells us to watch out. You should watch out too Bo.

It’s gotten to the point that even your “master’s” strongest defenders and loin worshipers have begun to wonder who he is, why he does not release basic source documentation like his birth certificate.

After all these years “journalists” are beginning to ask for the most basic documentation about the guy who has you on a leash – what he stands for other than himself and celebrities – even if they are dog torturers and killers. Perhaps it is a WikiLeaks aftereffect that has awakened a desire for source documents. Perhaps some of these “journalists” have recalled that Richard Nixon episode when that president afraid of the full truth emerging tried to palm off Senator Stennis as a valid source of information (instead of the source documents themselves) in the failed “Stennis Compromise” which lead to the “Staturday Night Massacre”.

The newly elected liberal Obama Dimocrat Governor of Hawaii has even angrily promised to “prove” that he really knows who Obama is. Get the facts out Governor, whatever your motivations are.

Who is this guy, Bo? Do you know? Fouad Ajami makes a guess:

“What most engaged Mr. Obama before his rise to the highest office in the land was his own biography. He had stood aloof from the weight and the lessons of American history; where so many of his predecessors had sought comfort and guidance in the ordeal of presidents past, there was no great deference in him to the burdens those 43 men carried. He didn’t look like those other presidents on the dollar bills, he said early on in his political odyssey.

“Ghosts,” he said in one meeting with his national security advisers when the late Richard Holbrooke, his representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, tried to draw parallels between Lyndon Johnson’s dilemmas in Vietnam and the current American engagement in Afghanistan. Vietnam was not particularly relevant to him, he told Bob Woodward in “Obama’s Wars.” He was 13 in 1975, he said, when South Vietnam fell: “So I grew up with none of the baggage that arose out of the dispute of the Vietnam war. I also had a lot of confidence.”

In truth, his dilemma in Afghanistan was remarkably similar to that of Johnson. It was a “bitch of a war,” Johnson dubbed the Vietnam dilemma, a war he prosecuted without ever taking to it. By all appearances, there is an echo of all that in Mr. Obama’s view of Afghanistan.

Now and then Mr. Obama’s devotees nodded to American history with evocations of FDR’s New Deal and superficial parallels to JFK—the good looks, the glamour, the young children. But Kennedy had seen combat, was a Cold Warrior, and believed in the burdens of American power. Yes, he charmed Parisians and Berliners—but as the standard-bearer of an American empire of liberty. He never journeyed abroad to apologize on behalf of his country.

A president steeped in history would have never pushed ObamaCare on so thin a reed of public approval. In the great movement of American history, Americans haven’t worshipped at the altar of charismatic leadership. They have been the most skeptical of peoples. They may have trusted several of their presidents through wars and economic downturns, but they have insisted on the wisdom of the public and on the ability of this republic of laws and institutions—and precedent—to see its way out of great dangers. [snip]

To be sure, there was panic in the midst of the recession of 2008. That anxiety helped carry Mr. Obama to office; it bridged the gap between Mr. Obama and the white working class in the rust belt states. But it did not last. In their infinite wisdom, ordinary Americans caught in the grip of a terrible economic malady still cared about the direction of the country and the debt burden their children would come to carry.”

Ajami sees Obama as an alien creature devoted to nothing but his autobiographies and the narcissism therein. Certainly the obsession is not for core values and issues of importance:

“Mr. Obama had demonized the Bush tax cuts. They were, in the full length of his campaign, emblematic of the politics of greed and heartlessness. But he came around. There was no need to love or embrace them: It was enough that the president came down from on high to accept the logic of things and to step aside in the face of the popular revolt against big government and higher taxes.”

Tony Blankley, who fought side by side as Newt Gingrich’s lieutenant has his own assessment:

“In the first week or so, the president capitulated to Ronald Reagan’s supply side theory that tax cuts expand the economy, and tax increases contract it. The central policy was to not let expire the Bush tax cuts, not only because it would be tough on middle-class taxpayers, but also, the White House argued,because keeping tax rates down would be good for the economy.

Even the great triangulator, Bill Clinton, never conceded this point. In 1993, he raised taxes by about $400 billion to manage the deficit. And, while the economy slowed down briefly to a mere 1.9 percent GDP growth, the new dot-com technology business brought us the great economic expansion of the later 1990s — so Clinton never conceded to supply side theory.

And don’t think Obama merely took a week of embarrassment for that concession in December. We economic conservatives are still cheerfully reminding the public half a century later that President John Kennedy endorsed supply side marginal tax cuts. You can bet that Republicans will be reminding the public decades from now that “even Barack Obama” agreed to supply side tax-cut theory “way back in 2010.”

This is a historical intellectual capitulation of the first order by the Democratic Party president.”

Democrats will forever pay for the gifting of the nomination to this creature from Chicago. If in the off chance that the economy improves it will be Republicans who will take credit for their “supply side” success. There will be no Democratic or Obama Dimocrat success because the capitulation has been total.

To survive the party must run away from Obama.

You too should run away Bo. Run, Bo, Run.


How Not To Fight And ‘Win’

Laughs aplenty as we approach Christmas. Some are busy wrapping up cats. Some are busy thumping chests.

“It took President Obama fewer than 50 days to go from shellacking to swashbuckling.

Seven weeks earlier to the day, the president faced harsh questions about his leadership as he took responsibility for Democrats’ loss of the House in the previous day’s election. But the man who faced reporters Tuesday afternoon in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building was treated by his questioners as a conquering colossus – and Obama didn’t mind wearing those shoes. [snip]

He bestowed superlatives on his accomplishments:

“The most productive post-election period we’ve had in decades.”

“The most productive two years that we’ve had in generations.”

“The most significant arms-control agreement in nearly two decades.”

“The biggest upgrade of America’s food-safety laws since the Great Depression.”

“Al-Qaeda is more hunkered down than they have been since the original invasion of Afghanistan in 2001.”

More! Most! Biggest! And when he wasn’t praising his accomplishments, he was praising himself: “One thing I hope people have seen during this lame-duck, I am persistent. I am persistent. You know, if I believe in something strongly, I stay on it.”‘

He should have kept most of that, um, stuff, in the sack. But like the celebrity he is he cannot help but be persistent and go on television and jump on sofas. Now no matter how much he tries the box office is not what it used to be.

It is back to “messianic status”. It’s time to try to steal “comeback kid” from the holster of the real Houdini “comeback kid”. “And that was about as tough as the questioning got.”

“Obama even looked better: The makeup was heavy, the lip injury faded, his blue tie coordinated with the curtains. He gave his questioners only half an hour – which turned out to be more than enough for the gentle lines of inquiry. [snip]

Obama, minutes from departure for his Hawaiian vacation, played along.”

Another month, another vacation.

Some of us recall something Barney Frank said during the primaries when Obama and the Hopium Guzzlers were so into “turning pages”.

“This brings me to my particular concern with Senator Obama’s vehement disassociation of himself and those he seeks to represent from “the fights of the nineties.” I am very proud of many of the fights I engaged in in the nineties, as well as the eighties and before. Senator Obama also bemoans the “same bitter partisanship” of that period and appears to me to be again somewhat critical of those of us who he believes to have been engaged in it.

I agree that it would have been better not to have had to fight over some of the issues that occupied us in the nineties. But there would have been only one way to avoid them — and that would have been to give up. More importantly, the only way I can think of to avoid “refighting the same fights we had in the 1990’s”, to quote Senator Obama, is to let our opponents win these fights without a struggle.”

We miss that Barney. We miss a lot of our once friends who used to be interested in telling the truth and not polishing a lie.

Want a health care bill to tout as “unprecedented”? Surrender to Big PhaRma on profits, abort the concerns of women, and rob the elderly on Medicare. Want a painless budget resolution? Rob Social Security. That’s the way to win – don’t fight, just surrender.

“Hillary Clinton supporters’ Christmas message: We told you so.

After the worst two years any Democratic president has ever had, with Democrats, liberals, and moderates fed up with him and knowing there is nothing but coal in their political and policy stockings, and after Obama did to the Democratic Party in 2 years what it took George W Bush to do to the Republicans in 8, Hillary Clinton supporters Christmas message to all those responsible for the mess of a presidency that is Obama is undoubtedly ” we told you so”.

And it’s not like it wasn’t obvious from the beginning. Obama had displayed his entire political life, but especially during the Democratic primaries, that he was the most underhanded, unscrupulous, dishonest, untrustworthy politician since Richard Nixon. But with none of Nixon’s grasp on real politics, how government works, foreign policy and certainly none of Nixon’s toughness.

So why all of Obama’s supporters are complaining now is hard to understand. There was nothing, absolutely nothing from day one, to recommend Obama on any level or suggest to anyone that Obama had any business being president, from his flagrant political dishonesty on display daily during the primaries and continuing into his presidency, his complete lack of conscience when it came to anything except his own political fortunes and his lack of ability evidenced in the fact that he had accomplished exactly nothing — zero — in 13 years as an elected official. Democrats can now add to Obama’s resume that he absolutely wasted the biggest congressional majority any president has had in 50 years.”

But, but, but, according to Big Media and other Obama acolytes he is a colossus with a sack full of, um, stuff ready to unload on our heads next year after the great gifts he bestowed on America this year:

“Washington has rushed to declare President Obama a political Lazarus based on an active and successful lame duck session of Congress that saw tax rates extended for two years, the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” and will likely on Wednesday add the ratification of a nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia.

But Obama’s accomplishments are likely to be mere foothills compared to the heights that the president and Congress will be forced to scale in the months ahead. The impact of the lame duck on his reelection prospects in 2012 will almost certainly be small. [snip]

Van Hollen said he expects incoming House Speaker John Boehner, Ohio Republican, to push for reducing spending to 2008 levels in the new CR. Boehner, however, has not said when he will try to make significant spending cuts, and there is a good chance he could do so even sooner than March.

Also in the spring, the national debt is likely to be nearing its current ceiling of $14.3 trillion, requiring an act of Congress to raise it. Former Republican Sen. Alan Simpson, who served as a co-chair of Obama’s deficit commission, has predicted a “political bloodbath” during this debt limit fight.

In fact the debate over how to solve the nation’s debt problem and runaway entitlement spending will begin in February when Obama releases his proposed budget for the 2012 fiscal year that begins in October.

And it’s likely that the budget, CR and debt ceiling fights will be just the beginning of a tumultuous year that could make the lame duck’s relative bipartisan spirit a quickly forgotten relic.”

Republicans know what matters is budgets. How you spend your money, and how much money you have to spend is what governing is all about. But not to worry, Obama will score many “wins” as he begins bit by bit to loot Social Security to pay for his shiny objects and vacations. The Republicans will be all too willing to help Obama “win” many more such “victories”.

“I’m getting whiplash trying to follow the Democrats’ talking points. First, it was a disaster when Obama agreed to extend the Bush tax cuts. Obama was a wimp. Then it was a horrid error to allow the omnibus spending bill to die (and with it all that funding for ObamaCare). The White House, liberals complained, also blew it on the DREAM act. And now, presto: Obama has mounted a phenomenal comeback!

Not exactly. The sources of the left’s delight — repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” and ratification of the New START treaty — are irrelevant to the vast majority of Americans. Voters care, as the Democrats should have but refused to learn during the referendum of 2010 (the midterms results were, one wit cracked, “a restraining order” on liberal statism), about the economy, jobs and the growth of government. These are far and away the most important issues in every credible survey, and will be the focus of the Republicans’ 2011 agenda.

And if the highlight of Obama’s term, according to outgoing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, was the “historic” ObamaCare legislation, then the highlight could soon be extinguished. Obama’s central domestic achievement is facing judicial scrutiny, a Republican onslaught to repeal, or at least defund, it, and a public that has never “learned” to love the bill.”

“Follow the money” is more than just a Watergate relic. It’s called governing. Republicans are governing and Obama Dimocrats are only interested in the bright spotlights of fame and celebrity and a shiny golden calf.

“Only inside the Beltway could the passage of an arms control treaty and repeal of DADT consume so many for so long and result in such exaggerated punditry. Would Republicans have traded wins on DADT and START for their wins on the DREAM act, the tax deal and the omnibus spending bill? Not in a million years. [snip]

They also confuse legislative achievement with political success. If passing stuff was the secret to a political comeback, then the Democrats after ObamaCare and the stimulus plan would have had the greatest year ever.”

Yup. Conservative Jennifer Rubin sounds exactly like Massachusetts liberal Barney Frank:

“But as long as the left wants to succumb to conservatives on the issues that voters care most about — taxes and spending — I suppose conservatives should keep mum. So let’s keep this just between us.”

Republican/conservative Jennifer Rubin must be peering into our Big Pink crystal ball:

“… I don’t see how Democrats could have missed the implications of the defeat of the omnibus for ObamaCare. The aide, with obvious relish, dismissed the idea that Democrats in effect missed this one. He told me, “I think senators knew there was funding in the omni. That makes it all the sweeter: [Senate Democrats] would have had to force a fight to spend more and fund a bill that half the country not only hates, but wants to defund.” [snip]

How did Democrats wind up in this fix? A GOP operative and former Senate staffer e-mails me that “after the omnibus collapsed, [Senate Majority Leader Harry] Reid didn’t have an alternative. If conservatives are feeling bad about START, they should be really happy about this. With the new Congress in January, the GOP will be in a strong position on fighting ObamaCare.”

In other words, the loss of funding is directly attributable to the slothful behavior of House and Senate leaders who passed no budget or appropriations bills before the lame-duck session. They assumed, I guess, that Republicans would roll over and pass an omnibus spending bill after an election, one that everyone had assumed was going to go badly for the Democrats. Well, that was poor planning. The failure was then compounded by Reid, who dramatically overreached on the omnibus, making it impossible to round up votes for cloture.

Defunding ObamaCare is not a new idea that Republicans came up with during the lame duck. It has been the subject of intense discussion by lawmakers, pundits, advisors and activists since the law was passed. The opportunity to defund ObamaCare simply came sooner than expected. And for that, Republicans can only thank Reid and soon-to-be former Speaker Nancy Pelosi.”

Brilliant chess players this triumvirate of clowns – Obama, Reid, Pelosi.

Sounding very much like a Frank Sinatra song we love, even some in Big Media understand that Obama and his Hopium Guzzlers had a “terrible, horrible, no good, very bad year”:

“Obama’s terrible, horrible, no good, very bad year

WASHINGTON — Barack Obama’s terrible, horrible, no good, very bad year got off to a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad start.

There he was, on New Year’s Day, on vacation with his family in Hawaii, stuck on a secure phone with counterterrorism officials, trying to figure out what screw-ups had allowed a would-be terrorist to board a Christmas Day flight with explosives in his underwear.

Things only got worse for Obama when he returned to Washington in between a pair of epic winter storms.

From the start, 2010 delivered a string of setbacks that built up to an electoral shellacking come November, to use the president’s own word.”

But not to worry. It was a very good year we are told. ‘”This is what change looks like,” Obama said proudly, after the health care law passed.”

It was a very good year:


Unemployment rate: 9.7 percent. Presidential approval rating in Associated Press-GfK poll: 56 percent. Congressional approval: 42 percent.

The Jan. 19 election to fill the Senate seat vacated by the death of Obama’s ally and friend, Ted Kennedy, delivered a jarring result. [snip]

He was losing touch.

“Do they really get us and what we’re going through?” Obama wondered aloud.[snip]


Unemployment rate: 9.7 percent. [snip]


Unemployment rate: 9.7 percent. Presidential approval rating: 53 percent. Congressional approval: 22 percent. [snip]

In the fierce maneuvering for a health care law, Democrats rained favors in back rooms to placate deep-pocketed special interests and wavering lawmakers. Spring arrived like streaks of mud on the carpet.

It was a mess. [snip]

“This is a big f—— deal.”

Obama took his victory on the road. In Iowa he dared Republicans to try to repeal the law. You could say he taunted them.

“Go for it,” he said. “Be my guest.” [snip]


Unemployment rate: 9.9 percent. Presidential approval rating: 49 percent. Congressional approval: 28 percent. [snip]

Four days later, oil was found leaking nearly a mile below the surface. [snip]


Unemployment rate: 9.7 percent. Presidential approval rating: 49 percent. Congressional approval: 28 percent.

The oil slick was massive and growing. [snip]

Overseas, just before Memorial Day weekend at home, a roadside bomb pushed the U.S. military death toll to 1,000 in Afghanistan, the war that Obama decided to fight with escalating force while withdrawing combat boots from Iraq. [snip]


Unemployment rate: 9.5 percent. Presidential approval rating: 50 percent. Congressional approval: 24 percent. [snip]


Unemployment rate: 9.5 percent.

The administration called it “Recovery Summer” but people didn’t seem to be buying it. [snip]

Joblessness is now. [snip]


Unemployment rate: 9.6 percent. Presidential approval rating: 49 percent. Congressional approval: 24 percent. [snip]

Michelle Obama’s five-day trip to the south of Spain with daughter Sasha touched off a mini-firestorm stoked by questions about the wisdom of such a glamorous trip and over-the-top speculation about who was footing the bill. Suddenly the popular first lady was being labeled a “material girl” sponging off taxpayers. [snip]

“It’s time to turn the page,” he said. [snip]


Unemployment rate: 9.6 percent. Presidential approval rating: 49 percent. Congressional approval: 26 percent.

Restive voters were not waiting for November to have their say. [snip]


Unemployment rate: 9.6 percent. Presidential approval rating: 49 percent. Congressional approval: 23 percent.

Obama campaigned largely in urban areas in liberal states, his unpopularity such that many Democrats wanted to keep their distance from him in the home stretch. [snip]

If Democrats used the health care law in their campaigns, it was to dissociate themselves from it. [snip]


Unemployment rate: 9.8 percent. Presidential approval rating: 47 percent. Congressional approval: 26 percent.

Obama was reflective the day after. He was not looking for asses to kick. [snip]

Obama blew off some steam at a pickup basketball game, coming away with a gashed lower lip needing 12 stitches. [snip]


The year drew to a close with the government in a defensive crouch against the drip-drip-drip of WikiLeaks disclosures. [snip]

A burst of bipartisanship came back, this time with teeth. It has left liberal Democrats feeling bitten.”

‘”This is what change looks like,” Obama said proudly, after the health care law passed.”

Yeah. Change for the worse.


Census Apportionment Data – The Rise Of The Black Party

During the past few months we have slowly been working our way to writing several “painful discussion” articles focused on the census data which have been released today. Just about everyone wants to avoid the implications of what the census data tell us.

Chief liar or fool, take your pick, Robert Gibbs:

“President Barack Obama’s spokesman says he doesn’t expect the results of the new census to have a “huge practical impact” on national politics.”

Gibbs is either a liar or a fool because the census, a count of the population taken every decade, will not only describe the demographic face of the United States it will also be used to reapportion seats to the House of Representatives. But it is more than that.

The census will determine the practical day-to-day tactics and long-term strategies of political parties, political organizations, Big Media and just about every business that hopes to succeed or at least survive.

Today’s big news from the census report is which states gain House seats and which states lose House seats:



A business publication has the obvious analysis:

“First of all, there was a big shift in Congressional states from “blue” to “red” states. Texas is the huge winner, picking up 4 seats. NY and Pennsylvania both lost seats. California failed to gain any seats for the first time. [snip]

What’s also key is that the GOP had a monster 2010 election in state legislatures, where the actual of redrawing of districts will occur. So put it together, and you’re talking about gains that will last at least a decade felt across all levels of politics.

None of this will surprise our regular readers. In November of 2009 we discussed the Democratic dreams and schemes of the “10 year plan” which has been destroyed because of Barack Obama. The “10 year plan” is more than dead – it has been turned on its head and now the advantage, the very strong advantage, is in Republican hands.

We utilized data compiled by Michael Barone to explain how devastating the 2010 elections have been to Obama Dimocrats in the reapportionment battle. We utilized data from Steve Lombardo at the Huff n’ Puff site to further nail down the Obama Dimocratic coffin.

The big headline news from today’s census release are in many ways the least interesting. The big headline news is the continued growth of Latinos in the southwest and the consequent continued growth in electoral power of that region:

“New U.S. Census Bureau data released Tuesday will expand congressional delegations in the Southwestern region of the nation, reflecting a widespread population migration over the past decade that further erodes the political might of the Northeast and Midwest.

Fueled by an explosion in its Hispanic population, Texas will add four new House seats — a larger gain than for any other state — broadening its delegation to 36 members in the House of Representatives. Arizona, Nevada and Utah — all of which have also seen significant population increases over the past decade — will gain one seat apiece.

A few Southern states also will gain seats. Florida picked up two seats and will expand to 27 districts, while Georgia and South Carolina picked up one seat each.

At the same time, the data showed population diminishing in Northeastern states — several of which will shed seats in apportionment. New York and Ohio will both lose two House seats, while Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Michigan will lose one seat apiece.

A handful of Midwestern states will also lose seats: Missouri, Iowa, Illinois and Michigan will all shed one district apiece.”

This is all good news for Republicans:

“Republican-leaning states will pick up a half dozen House seats thanks to the 2010 census, which found the nation’s population growing more slowly than in past decades but still shifting to the South and West.

The Census Bureau announced Tuesday that the nation’s population on April 1 was 308,745,538, up from 281.4 million a decade ago. The growth rate for the past decade was 9.7 percent, a slower pace than the 13.2 percent population increase from 1990 to 2000.

Only one state, Michigan, lost population during the past decade. Nevada, with a 35 percent increase, was the fastest-growing state.

The new numbers are a boon for Republicans, with Texas leading the way among GOP-leaning states that will gain House seats at the Rust Belt’s expense. Following each once-a-decade census, the nation must reapportion the House’s 435 districts to make them roughly equal in population, with each state getting at least one seat.

That triggers an often contentious and partisan process in many states, which will draw new congressional district lines that can help or hurt either party. [snip]

Florida will now have as many U.S. House members as New York: 27. California will still have 53 seats, and Texas will climb to 36.

In 2008, President Barack Obama lost in Texas and most of the other states that are gaining House seats. He carried most of the states that are losing House seats, including Ohio and Pennsylvania. Each House district represents an electoral vote in the presidential election process, meaning the political map for the 2012 election will tilt somewhat more Republican.[snip]

Starting early next year, most state governments will use detailed, computer-generated data on voting patterns to carve neighborhoods in or out of newly drawn House districts, tilting them more to the left or right. Sometimes politicians play it safe, quietly agreeing to protect Republican and Democratic incumbents alike. But sometimes the party in control will gamble and aggressively try to reconfigure the map to dump as many opponents as possible.”

Digest that last sentence Robert Gibbs and Obama Hopium addled. Eat this too:

“Last month’s elections put Republicans in full control of numerous state governments, giving the GOP an overall edge in the redistricting process. State governments’ ability to gerrymander districts is somewhat limited, however, by court rulings that require roughly equal populations, among other things. The 1965 Voting Rights Act protects ethnic minorities in several states that are subject to U.S. Justice Department oversight.”

Only the truly stupid, unable to look around the corner, will think that last sentence is reassuring to Obama Dimocrats. Only the truly stupid, unable to look around the corner, will think that last sentence is anything but good news for Republicans. The irony is that in this battlefield of racial politics, the Republicans and the black Dimocratic leadership are now allies.

In Mistake In ’08, Part VI – The Republicans React we charted an easy path, via Marco Rubio and other powerful newly elected Republican Latinos, into Latino voters’ hearts.

But what is this “Rise of the Black Party” and why is that a problem? In June’s The Bitter Taste Of Words we quoted from serpentine Matt Bai:

“… redistricting based on the 1990 Census, after which Democrats were assured safe, urban seats in minority districts while whiter, more conservative districts were created in the suburbs.”

What this means is that Republicans, under guise of living up to the spirit of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, will redistrict blacks into majority minority districts. Black Obama Dimocratic leaders will love this because it will increase their power within the Dimocratic Party.

Republicans will enjoy creating majority minority districts because, while they herd Black Americans into congressional ghettos, the bottom line will be that the mathematics of the situation also mean many more Republican leaning districts will be created than majority minority districts. Added benefits include: black Dimocratic leaders for their own benefit will assist Republicans to create these districts; the inevitable shouts from these black leaders of “racism” if Dimocratic Party officials wise to the danger attempt to thwart this racial gerrymandering; and most important the increased marginalization of the Dimocratic Party as “the Black Party” as black Dimocratic leaders cement their hold.

Barack Obama’s coalition of “situation comedy” demographics will logically lead to a gated community located in the cities of coastal states. As we will explain in these last days of 2010, only those who idiotically think that blacks or young people have benefited from Obama in the White House, only those who want to be big fish in a little pond, will be happy with the rise of the Black Party and the congressional segregation to come.


One Dumb Black Man, One Smart Black Man

Before we get to the discussion of our African-American brothers, we need to discuss the “big news yesterday” – the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell as well as the wake-up from the DREAM Act.

Regarding DADT The Confluence has it right:

“The big winner, and “Democrats man of the hour“, in this effort is of all people Joe Lieberman: [snip]

If Joe is your party’s man of the hour, you’ve got one hell of a boring party. The Democratic party has long since jumped the shark, but this one takes the cake. Lest we forget, Joe supported John McCain in the general election. Some of us may have done something like that as protest, but Joe really wanted McCain as president. Obama of course could have stopped DADT on day one. And he could have not fought previous court rulings overturning DADT. And it seems clear Democrats in general would have been happy to drag this out another two years so it could be a campaign issue. But no more. Joe helped push this legislation through despite Obama and others best efforts to keep it a low priority and to not move it anytime soon.”

As gay-basher Obama attempts to take credit for the DADT repeal let’s not forget this pre-vote report from the dreadful Obama whorehouse called TPM:

“By now, you know what’s standing in the way of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell repeal in the United States Senate, the last obstacle before it can be signed by the president and the military’s ban on openly gay service members is finally scrapped.

Or at least you think you do.

Sources on the Hill are telling me a big reason DADT repeal isn’t moving faster comes right from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Despite President Obama’s public support for repeal, with DADT stacked up against the START nuclear arms reduction treaty that Obama carefully brokered with the Russians earlier this year, the White House is putting its legislative push behind START. [snip]

No one questions that Obama wants to see DADT end, or that he wants to see it end this year. The concern is over the priorities: Obama, it seems, wants START to come first. And with the White House pushing START (in daily phone calls from top White House officials, according to one source on the Hill), Obama could end up standing in the way of DADT getting done.

“The White House has been crystal clear that their number one priority in this lame duck session is START,” said one Senior Democratic aide.”

There are of course plenty of people that questioned whether “Obama wants to see DADT end”. Obama had promised during the campaign to immediately end DADT and pass immigration reform but those were just flowery words uttered by Obama without any real world meaning. After nothing got done on immigration and DADT (not to mention DOMA – the Defense of Marriage Act) in the 60 vote Dimocratic Senate the first year, Obama then promised to get these things done the second year. It was only after the anger post Bush tax cuts “compromise” that a lame duck Senate finally acted on DADT. The promised DREAM Act died and five Obama Dimocrats (6 counting AWOL Joe Manchin) voted against another Obama “priority”.

Add to the broken promises on FISA, of “repeal the Bush tax cuts“, the closing of Guantanamo Bay within the first hundred days (the Senate will soon join the House in measures that ban the transfer of prisoners from Gitmo).

Those were just campaign era words without meaning. Now Joe Biden continues the “repeal the Bush tax cuts” flim-flam by stating on “Meet The Press” that “They’re for two years. They’re for two years. And we’re comin’ back and goin’ at it again.” Yeah, right. More promises to keep making promises about repeal of broken promises.

* * * * * *

Now to our African-American brothers.

Is there anyone dumber than Charles Blow writing for a Big Media publication? We know there are many contenders, but Blow really is dumb. Yesterday Blow wrote more nonsense:

” Whose Party Is It?

The far left is foaming at the mouth.

The near-apoplectic level of agita within the liberal screeching class over President Obama’s tax-cut compromise has exposed a seismic crack in the Democratic monolith — outspoken liberal Democrats on one side and barely audible moderate Democrats on the other.

The lopsided optics raise the question: Is there a future for moderation, and especially conservatism, in the Democratic Party or is the party experiencing the beginnings of a purging akin to that seen on the right?”

After shouting “Yes, We Can” Blow is screeching “Yes, We Can Continue To Shill For Barack”. Part of the shilling is to continue to insist that long-term “demographics work in the Democrats’ favor”. To his credit Blow is beginning to see the flaws in the Obama “situation comedy” coalition.

Blow asserts correctly that “… liberals remain by far the smallest ideological group. For one thing, liberalism remains a coastal condition that leaves out much of middle America, especially the South.” That’s a tough reality exacerbated by the bumbling Obama and his cheerleaders. Those of us who consider ourselves “liberals/progressives” do not recognize a liberalism that mocks the white working class and abuses with false hope and lies the working class of the black community and other communities.

Blow wins his title of “dumb” with this:

“To adapt a phrase from Bill Maher, these far-left liberals would rather fight the friend who disappoints them than focus on the enemy who wants to destroy them. That’s not so for those on the right. They just want to win.”

Blow must have slept through 2010 because otherwise he would recall how Republicans preferred Christine O’Donnell over the then “sure winner” Mike Castle. Republican Senator Bob Bennett was also dumped in the primary even though he was a “sure winner”. Sharon Angle also was not viewed as the strongest candidate for Republicans either.

Anyone remember “sure winner” Charlie Crist dumped for the “sure loser” Marco Rubio? In election race after election race Republicans gave up a sure thing for someone who to them was not the lesser evil but rather their preferred candidate. Was this dumb of Republicans? Should they have gone with the “lesser evil but sure winners”? Was this all ideological purity tests or a long-term game plan to forgo official perks and majorities for a party that stands for something, anything? The answers to those questions are debatable but they certainly are not evidence of “They just want to win.” Agree with them or not, Republicans at least listen to their base and have the cojones to fight.

Bill Maher and Charles Blow should acquaint themselves with the term “friendly fire”. “Friendly fire” is when you are shot in war by your own side. Where the bullet came from does not matter you’re still dead. Barack Obama is shooting his own and Charles Blow cheers him on and tallies the dead as a “victory”.

While Blow and his Hopium Guzzling ilk blame the victims of the Obama bullets, “racist” Republicans are adjusting strategies and moving forward.

Though we don’t think he stands a chance of winning the nomination it certainly will be interesting to watch a Republican black man who is not nuts (think Alan Keyes) run for the Republican nomination for president:

“Former Godfathers Pizza chief executive Herman Cain says he’s definitely forming an exploratory committee — likely within the next several weeks — to test the waters for a possible Republican presidential run in 2012.

Cain, a radio talk show host and favorite of the Tea Party movement, confirmed the news in an interview with The Daily Caller. He suggested that a presidential campaign is likely, but said he hasn’t made a final decision.

“Bottom line is, all of the indicators and all of the benchmarks that I had laid out and we had laid out as a team are all moving in the direction of yes,” Cain said. “We haven’t gotten there yet, but we’re moving in that direction.”

He’s been particularly encouraged, he said, by the results of the midterm elections in November “because I wanted to make sure that this voter anger and frustration was going to convert into votes to change the political landscape, and it did.”

That gave him confidence, Cain said, that “people might be ready for an unconventional candidate” in 2012. [snip]

Tim Albrecht, the communications director for the incoming Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad, wrote on Twitter this week that, “Prediction: Herman Cain is going to have some serious legs when he begins visiting Iowa.”’

Albrecht might just be looking for a job or simply butt kissing. But maybe something else is going on. “Racist” Republicans surely will not even consider Cain, will they?

“I know the basics of his bio — accomplished CEO, talk-radio host, cancer survivor — but not much more beyond that. Even so, it got my attention a few days ago when he won Red State’s 2012 “tournament,” topping Mike Pence in the semifinal and Palin in the final. Is that because Cain’s a Red State favorite or is the grassroots support for him out there broader than anyone realizes right now?”

We’re not fans of multi-millionaire Cain but he is playing a very shrewd game. As a successful business owner of a very popular food product (we’re not fans of his pizza either but sales figures tell us it is tasty to many), he can easily vault to the top ranks of Republican grassroots leadership as a voice that potentially reaches black voters as well as Tea Party activists. And Cain can do so with a non race based appeal even as his race will certainly be a matter of discussion.

After Republicans dump the failure called Michael Steele the shouts of “racism” will be heard. Cain will provide a valuable counterpoint when the “racism” charge is heard. Cain also fills out (in a sane manner, unlike Keyes) the diversity menu for Republicans. On the Republican nomination debate stage will sit a front-running woman, several white males, and a Latino candidate who either will be on that stage or hovering over the proceedings as the VP pick, and Cain.

Republicans are playing a long term game and adjusting tactics with a eyes fixed on electoral votes and what must be done to get those votes. Obama Dimocrats are still bitterly clinging to the belief that Obama will save them. In a swim or sink world, Republicans are swimming. Obama and Obama apologists are sinking.


George W. Obama Strikes Again

It’s a Friday and we did so want to play music videos and amuse ourselves with stories of Christmas joy. Instead, a week before Christmas Eve Friday, we are reduced to gauging the depths of our contempt for Obama, Obama Dimocrats, as well as our fellow Democrats.

Will we, like Velma Hart, ever get “exhausted” as we pound our fists raw? Poor Velma, later to become one of the unemployed, became “exhausted” defending her Mess-iah Barack Obama. Will we ever become exhausted with reverse Velma Hartitis? After a week like this week, a day like yesterday, we are sure that the vaults of this earth which contain the world’s oceans cannot encompass our contempt for Barack Obama and Obama Dimocrats – yea all things “Democrat”.

Consider this morsel of evidence from JournoLister Dave Weigel:

262 votes so far for tax deal. Bush tax cuts passed House in 2001 with 230 votes.

The vote on this “core Democratic value” before the overwhelmingly Dimocratic House ended up at 277-148. As Republican/conservative Ed Morrisey noted, “more Democrats ended up voting to extend the Bush tax cuts than Republicans did.” Remember back in October 2008, even before election day 2008, when we were mocked for being the first to say “Obama is the third Bush Term” and that Obama supporters had to “prepare themselves for a stab in the back by Barack?” Remember when we first, before anyone else, wrote “George W. Obama”?

News for Big Media and Obama Hopium Guzzlers: Obama is the Third Bush Term only much worse than the first two.

Consider this tableau vivant painted by Journolister Politico:

“Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen, who will be the top Democrat on the Budget Committee come January, tried to funnel frustration with the overall bill into a focus on just the estate tax, which he portrayed as a political and policy winner for his caucus. But in the end, liberals viewed too many elements of the bill as odious — as painful giveaways to the rich—to target just one for change.

Republicans, on the other hand, remained on the sideline, giddy at the deal they were destined to secure.

I’m trying to remember something that we passed under Bush that was this good,” one senior House Republican aide said.

Indeed, the bill combines a series of tax breaks that Bush didn’t dare to put in one piece of legislation during his presidency – a cornucopia that took him several years to attain.

But with Democrats tripping over their own feet, Republicans enjoyed a view from the sidelines.”

Those chortling Republicans are not very smart, but they are honest, as they flick their cigar ashes onto the Democratic corpse in the coffin. Much smarter Republicans/conservatives (think Charles Krauthammer and Michelle Malkin) prefer the “pretend” tactic that this is somehow a Republican defeat and a victory for Barack Obama and his Hopium Guzzlers.

Krauthammer is particularly brilliant. In his latest column Krauthammer declares “Obama is back.” Krauthammer trumpets Obama more brilliant than Bill Clinton!

Say you own a dilapidated house, infested with mold, in a crime ridden neighborhood with a noisy road nearby which murderous drug dealers use to traffic their wares. The “house” has holes in the ceiling which allow the sun and the rain to break in. The “house” has holes in the floors which in areas allow for a basement-to-sky view. You want to sell the house.

You advertise the house as a “fixer-upper” for those with hope for change and lots of “elbow grease”. The neighborhood you describe as “lively” with “great access to transportation” and “outgoing neighbors”.

Dumb Dimocrats will buy the house. Smart Republicans/conservatives like Krauthammer and Malkin will complain about letting that house go for a “steal” and denounce the dumb Dimocrat buyer for taking advantage of them and getting such a great bargain and robbing them blind of their treasured and airy home. That’s what Krauthammer is doing in his latest smart column.

Bill Clinton, as we noted recently, moved the country in the direction he wanted to move the country and the Republicans hated his success. We quoted Republican/conservative Sean Trende in our article:

“… Clinton didn’t compromise.… he fought for his platform vigorously. He acquiesced to a shutdown in the government, gambling that because his position was the more popular one, that the Republicans would bear the brunt of the public’s ire. And he was right. Obama has, in essence, capitulated on the eve of the government shutdown.”

According to the very smart and wily Krauthammer though, Clinton – who got what he wanted and put a ring through the Republican nose is not nearly as brilliant as Barack Obama. This is the very same Obama who willingly ringed his own nose and then ran a rope through it and surrendered the rope to Republicans so they could enjoy a good pull.

Krauthammer, enjoying himself immensely at the expense of dullards further declares that surrender is really only “Obama’s repositioning to the center….” Charlie is funnin’ us.

Krauthammer is right when he declares that Obama gentry whites (“liberals”) will never abandon Obama. We like the following from the nimble, dancing Mr. Krauthammer, who, like a Tambourine Man, no chair can harness:

“The conservative gloaters were simply fooled again by the flapping and squawking that liberals ritually engage in before folding at Obama’s feet. House liberals did it with Obamacare; they did it with the tax deal. Their boisterous protests are reminiscent of the floor demonstrations we used to see at party conventions when the losing candidate’s partisans would dance and shout in the aisles for a while before settling down to eventually nominate the other guy by acclamation.”

The man who just sold a mold infested “fixer-upper” complains that he was taken advantage of by a wily buyer:

“Even as they were near unanimously voting for this monstrosity, Republicans began righteously protesting $8.3 billion of earmarks in Harry Reid’s omnibus spending bill. They seem not to understand how ridiculous this looks after having agreed to a Stimulus II that even by their own generous reckoning has 38 times as much spending as all these earmarks combined.”

Krauthammer wrote the last before the Republicans also won on the “omnibus spending bill” last night. Harry Reid lost, Republicans won. Prepare for more crocodile tears from the wise owl that is Krauthammer. Soon we’ll hear that the Republicans were outmaneuvered in the Senate as well as they beat dim Dimocrat drums.

Dean Baker once thought Obama’s New Deal was a good idea. Dean Baker eventually read, thought, understood what a mess the Obama New Deal is and pulled his support:

However, after further thought and conversations with people around Washington (first and foremost, Nancy Altman, the co-director of Social Security Works), I have become convinced that this deal would be a disaster. Paul Krugman does a nice job laying out the limited benefits of the stimulus, but my greater concern is what happens to Social Security in this story. Effectively, this deal would give us a permanent two-percentage point reduction in the payroll tax in a Washington climate very hostile to Social Security.

Krugman and Baker are greatly respected by Democrats. But we are tired of them. They supported Obama and continue to try to support the boob. Why would it ever take anyone who is “smart” more than a nanosecond to figure out that what is right for Obama is not right for America?

Krauthammer should know that Obama is indeed a great bargainer and wily buyer and seller – but only when it comes to his own personal advancement. Witness today’s just in time for Christmas stocking stuffers publicity stunt in which Obama reads a book to children. Unlike Bush the book Obama read is not about pet goats. Obama is much shrewder when it comes to self-promotion. Barack Obama instead chose to read a book written by… himself.

Krauthammer should hear the laughter at the Republican/conservative website HotAir. They are busy laughing at Politico. Politico wrote that the Bush Tax Cuts vote in the House was a win for… Obama! A big win for Obama because he “closed the most impressive sales job of his presidency”. HotAir laughs with justification:

“Well, it’s the product, not the sales pitch, that actually matters. And what mattered to Americans in the midterm elections was a Congress that quit taking more and more money out of their pockets instead of curtailing spending. The omnibus spending bill died for the same reason, which was that accountability returned with a vengeance in November, and those who are left on Capitol Hill know that the safety of incumbency has evaporated, hopefully for good.

The Democrats voted for Obama’s deal, but Obama’s deal consisted of endorsing the tax rates proposed by George W. Bush in toto. Not just the income tax rates, either, but also the capital-gains tax rates that Obama insisted on raising during the 2008 campaign to either 20% or 28%. In the end, those tax rates got more votes last night in a Democratic-controlled House (277) than they did in the GOP-controlled House in 2001 (230), and more Democrats voted to extend them than Republicans, 139-138.

If that’s a victory for Obama, may the next two years be filled with such victories.

Such victories! Oh, and remember that big demonstration against Obama planned by what passes for the left these days? We wrote about it earlier this week. Well, as predicted by us, without Glenn Beck or some comedians in attendance, it was a fizzle.

Somewhere, with rising popularity polls, with money streaming in from his book, with “My Pet Goat” bookmarked at a table near by, George W. Bush is laughing.


Zuckerberg And Steele – Lessons On Misogyny and Race

Mark Zuckerberg, the boy responsible for Facebook, has been named Time Man Of The Year. We’re not surprised. The sexists and the misogynists are two peas in a pod.

Time magazine lards its essay on Zuckerberg with blather about the “cerebral neocortex” and evolutionary biology. Also fascinating to Time’s editors are the “narcissism and voyeurism” of “social media” of which the editors confess on behalf of the human race “Most of us display a combination of the two….”

What Time magazine does not mention is the sexism and misogyny of their boy of the year. In all likelihood, Time magazine does not mention the sexism and misogyny of their boy because the editors don’t see as worth mentioning something they themselves display regularly.

Let’s recall a bit of Zuckerberg history which we wrote about in October of this year:

“This week we learn, via Aaron Sorkin as he defends the woman hate displayed in his latest film about the founding of Facebook, about Chris Hughes and his frat-boy friends:

“It’s not hard to understand how bright women could be appalled by what they saw in the movie but you have to understand that that was the very specific world I was writing about. Women are both prizes [and] equal. Mark’s blogging that we hear in voiceover as he drinks, hacks, creates Facemash and dreams of the kind of party he’s sure he’s missing, came directly from Mark’s blog. … Facebook was born during a night of incredibly misogyny. The idea of comparing women to farm animals, and then to each other, based on their looks and then publicly ranking them. …

More generally, I was writing about a very angry and deeply misogynistic group of people. These aren’t the cuddly nerds we made movies about in the 80’s. They’re very angry that the cheerleader still wants to go out with the quarterback instead of the men (boys) who are running the universe right now. The women they surround themselves with aren’t women who challenge them (and frankly, no woman who could challenge them would be interested in being anywhere near them.)”

The “Mark” that Aaron Sorkin describes above, is now Time’s Man of the Year – Mark Zuckerberg.

We’re not surprised that the geeks at Time magazine would choose Mark Zuckerberg as their Man of the Year. Two reasons for our lack of surprise that bear mentioning. The first is that Time magazine editors are well aware that their long time competitor Newsweek magazine was sold for one dollar. Time magazine editors know their days are numbered and they will soon join defunct Newsweek in the ash heap. So why not suck up to the boy with billions who might one day hire them? Career before anything to these creeps.

Careers and self advancement are what is important to these geeks. That’s part of the reason why they fell in love with the boy raised by wolves whose only goal has been self-advancement and his career – Barack Obama.

The second reason why Time magazine’s editors did not view Mark Zuckerberg’s sexism and misogyny as worth mentioning in their recognition essay is that they in all likelihood share, and therefore cannot see, the sexism and misogyny of the boy they hope to work for after the front cover fellatio.

Big Media is still a boys game and these little boys just don’t like girls as equals. The little boys of Big Media are big sexists and misogynists who admire other sexists and misogynists:

“Eight Jobs That Are Still Sexist.

1. Journalism
2. Law
3. Business
4. Science and Engineering
5. Film and Entertainment
6. Politics
7. Nursing
8. Academia

In March 1970, 46 NEWSWEEK employees became the first group of media women to sue for employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Time, Sports Illustrated, The New York Times, and a number of other publications would follow. But 40 years later, how much has changed? We may have two female anchors on network television, but in print journalism, male bylines still outnumber female bylines by a rate of seven to one—despite women being the majority of journalism graduates since 1977. They’re in the minority when it comes to sources, too: the Global Media Monitoring Project found that worldwide, women make up only 24 percent of the people “interviewed, heard, seen, or read about in mainstream broadcast and print news.”

The Tea Party, loathed by Big Media, won big in 2010 but was only a runner up to the boy sexist and misogynist.

Michael Steele

Michael Steele has been a spectacular success and a spectacular failure. Steele, like his Obama Dimocrat counterpart, Tim Kaine, was chosen as a token race symbol.

Tim Kaine is not really worth discussing. He has been a spectacular failure and nothing but a failure. Kaine was the Governor of Virginia who endorsed Barack Obama in February 2007. The hope was that Tim Kaine who had won in red state Virginia and who shilled shamelessly for Barack Obama would continue to turn Virginia “purple” and be a symbol to White people, particularly White Working Class people, that the Obama Dimocratic Party cared about them.

The White Working Class proved to be too discerning to fall for that fake posturing and Virginia elected a Republican governor to replace Kaine. Whites of all social strata have abandoned Obama’s Dimocratic Party. Kaine has been a mess and a total failure. Tim Kaine who once thought he would be Obama’s Vice President is a total loser.

Michael Steele was also chosen as a token race pick. After the 2008 elections Republicans knew they needed to play the race game and play it they have with amazing adroitness.

Having a Black Guy as the top guy at the Republican National Committee made it easier to criticize Barack Obama. Remember, back in November of 2008 and into January 2009, it appeared that Barack Obama would forever be protected by Big Media and that anyone who dared attack Obama would be punished and called a “racist”. By getting their own Black Guy to slap around the other Black Guy the Republicans managed to get a little space to go after Obama.

As we have written, the Republicans reacted creatively and energetically to the losses in November 2008:

“The obvious mistake that the massive “creative class” brains made when they created the Obama monster in a Chicago laboratory was that Republicans would remain static in their strategies and candidates. The stupidity was to think that Republicans would go to sleep and stick to an outdated playbook.”

As we will outline in days to come Republicans adjusted. Republicans became the party of diversity. Women, Blacks, Latinos, not only ran as Republicans but they won in 2010. Republicans also expanded their base in dramatic fashion as they grabbed senior citizens and women majorities to their now increasingly diverse appearing party. Obama Dimocrats increasingly retreated to the core Obama “situation comedy” demographics – blacks, gentry white liberals, and the temporarily young.

Like the “trophy wife” airhead who is selected to be “arm candy” for a powerful man Michael Steele had only one job – be a Black man. Like the “trophy wife” who gets in trouble by opening her mouth instead of just looking good, Michael Steele tried to turn his race-based job into something else. Steele talked and deluded himself into thinking he was hired to do more than be window dressing.

We doubt it was the presence of Michael Steele that helped the Republican Party get good candidates who are other than white males. But we will credit him for that diversity of skin color and skin shape which the Republican party is absorbing. That the Women, Blacks, and Latinos elected as Republicans have a more or less Republican/conservative philosophy and still managed to get elected is an achievement which should be respected and even admired. We’ll give Michael Steele, deserved or not, credit for all these achievements and call him a spectacular success.

But Michael Steele is also a spectacular failure. Politico has detailed some of Steele’s biggest flubs which include a recent dose of race-baiting:

“Those stumbles have come at such frequent intervals that it’s easy to forget some of his biggest doozies.

Forget the more serious criticisms of his tenure — the operational problems such as a cash crunch, the resignation of the respected political director and the flight of large donors. Or the embarrassing episodes that unfolded under Steele’s watch such as the revelation that the committee spent about $2,000 on “meals” at a bondage-themed club in West Hollywood, where topless women imitated lesbian sex. [snip]

“You know who needs a little leadership? Michael Steele and those at the RNC,” Limbaugh said on his show. “It’s time, Mr. Steele, for you to go behind the scenes and start doing the work that you were elected to do instead of trying to be some talking-head media star, which you’re having a tough time pulling off.” [snip]

At a July fundraiser, Steele questioned America’s involvement in Afghanistan, setting off a media firestorm.

The episode started with a criticism of Obama for relieving Gen. Stanley McChrystal of his command over controversial remarks he made to a Rolling Stone writer. [snip]

Using the language of the abortion rights movement, Steele told GQ magazine that he would oppose a constitutional ban on abortion.

“Are you saying you think women have the right to choose abortion?” GQ’s Lisa DePaulo asked in a Feb. 24, 2009, interview in his office.

“Yeah. I mean, again, I think that’s an individual choice,” he said.

“You do?” he was asked.

“Yeah. Absolutely,” he said.

Under fire from anti-abortion activists, Steele later issued a statement through the RNC saying, “I am pro-life, always have been, always will be.” [snip]

On Fox News, Steele said he would consider supporting primary challengers against Republican senators who voted for Obama’s stimulus package in early 2009.

“Oh, yes, I’m always open to everything, baby, absolutely,” Steele told host Neil Cavuto.[snip]

Vincent Jericho, the Missouri-based conservative talk show host, went off on a diatribe against Rep. Roy Blunt, a former member of Republican leadership running for Senate.

The host said Blunt epitomized why the party had lost its way and even accused Blunt of adultery, arguing that “guys like Papa Blunt makes us sick to our stomach.”

Steele, Jericho’s guest for the August 2009 segment, piled on.

“I agree with you,” Steele said. [snip]

In November 2009, on NewsOne’s Washington Watch, Steele was asked about criticism that some “white Republicans” are “scared of black folks.”

Steele answered in the affirmative.

“I’ve been in the room, and they’ve been scared of me,” the first African-American chairman said in an interview. “I’m like, ‘I’m on your side.’”

Michael Steele made the mistaken assumption that anyone cares what he thinks. That’s not why he was chosen. Steele was chosen as window dressing. Steele was chosen as a black shield from which to attack Barack Obama and to send a signal that the Republican Party was able and willing to adjust tactics to win the war. Michael Steel was the black in the box who tried to get out of the box and be just like Jack. But that is not what he was hired for. His job was to stay in the box.

Michael Steele as been a spectacular failure:

“We admire his pluck, but not his judgment. It’s time for someone else to run the RNC.

Steele is an infectiously likeable guy with an inspiring personal story. The adopted son of a laundress and a truck driver who credits his bootstrapping mother and Ronald Reagan with leading him to the GOP, Steele became one of the first in his family to attend college, and spent years at the Catholic seminary of Villanova before leaving to pursue a career in law and public service that would see him become the first African American to hold statewide office in Maryland and the first to chair the Republican National Committee.

We don’t doubt he will continue to be an asset to the party and to the conservative cause in any number of ways, but he has turned out to be ill suited to the RNC job.

His engaging manner on TV was one of his attractions as a chairman two years ago. It quickly went sour. Steele doesn’t have the discipline of a party operative. Whether it was lashing out at Rush Limbaugh or calling Afghanistan “a war of Obama’s choosing,” his gaffes distracted from the work at hand. Meanwhile, the $20,000-apiece corporate speeches, the Regnery book, and the accompanying media plugs all gave Steele, fairly or not, the whiff of the political profiteer.

Likewise, his tactical choices seemed at times driven as much by personal exigencies as by party priorities. In September, with midterms kicking into high gear and every piece of data indicating that Republicans could make substantial incursions into key blue districts, where was Steele? Speechifying and fundraising in Guam — no doubt in part because the party committeemen of Guam and other U.S. territories in the Pacific and Caribbean broke heavily for Steele in 2008. A similar calculus could explain why Steele sent $20,000 from his state parties’ budget to the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands, which has no voting members of Congress, zero electoral votes, and a population roughly the size of Scranton’s.

Steele has claimed credit for the historic midterm victories, but believing that he substantially contributed to Republican successes is no less delusional than Nancy Pelosi believing that she didn’t. In his resignation letter, RNC political director Gentry Collins — now a candidate for the chairmanship himself — painted a devastating picture of the fundraising mismanagement at the committee. The RNC raised $284 million for the mid-terms in 2002 and $243 million in 2006, a far better performance than the roughly $170 million for this cycle. The party’s neglect of big donors and its reliance on mass solicitations of small donors meant it spent a lot to raise this smaller amount of money.

This left it to third-party conservative groups to close the money gap and expand the field of seats in play. Even so, the RNC’s anemic grassroots mobilization and voter-turnout efforts — the kind of “ground game” that pushed Obama across the finish line in 2008 — almost certainly cost Republicans seats. No, Republican candidates had a big night despite the RNC, not because of it.”

We are very generous and will give Steele credit for the successes under his watch even as we agree with the Steele critics that it is unlikely Steele deserves the credit. But we are generous and kind. In either case Republicans do not care one whit, and they should not care, what Democrats have to say about their leadership choices. Republicans should care what their Big Donors think and many Republican Big Donors don’t think much about Steele:

“Some of the Republican Party’s most prominent donors reacted Tuesday with shock — and then fury — to Michael Steele’s decision to seek re-election, bluntly warning that they would not raise money for the party if the controversial chairman wins another term. [snip]

Al Hoffman, a longtime GOP contributor in Florida who did two separate stints as RNC finance chairman in President Bush’s first term, was just as withering: “The donor community has virtually no faith or confidence in Michael Steele’s to be the keeper of the keys.”

Originally a supporter of the chairman, Hoffman said he and many of his fellow contributors would sit on their checkbooks in a Steele sequel.

“The long and short of it is I have a hard time finding any major donor who would trust him to straighten out the RNC and run a principled and ethical fundraising operation,” said the Floridian. “Whose going to give to him as long as he’s at the helm? Not me. My own slogan is now, Anybody But Steele.”

Michael Steele, like Clarence Thomas and many white men for many years, got his job in large part based on the color of his skin. Hey, it happens. Sometimes that type of racial hiring works out, sometimes it does not.

In the case of Barack Obama, the racial hire has clearly not panned out. In the case of Michael Steele, the racial hire was a smart move. But Republicans don’t need Michael Steele anymore. Barack Obama is on the run, and there are smarter and elected Black Republicans that can now carry the fight. Michael Steele, like Barack Obama, has outlived his usefulness.

Both Barack Obama and Michael Steele are pawns in a game. Michael Steele leaves a stronger Republican party in his wake. Barack Obama leaves a devastated Dimocratic party in his wake.

For Michael Steele, the game is almost over. Barack Obama will soon enough also fall to defeat. Perhaps Mark Zuckerberg will hire them someday. Barack Obama will have the inside track for the job however.

Barack Obama and Mark Zuckerberg have a lot in common. They have both been Time Man of the Year. They are also sexists and misogynists.


More Obama Boobery Exposed: Judge Rules Obama Health Law UNconstitutional

The day ended with the death of Ambassador Richard Holbrook. It was a sad ending to a days long struggle on the operating room table to save the life of someone deemed critical to Afghanistan war strategy. Holbrook’s sad departure from life and the diplomatic scene was a personal disaster for himself and his family and friends. For those of us left behind things are about to get worse.

The long day began with other tragic comedies. The political world witnessed levels of boobery hitherto unknown. Arm in sleeveless arm, Barack Obama and Michelle Obama exhaled words about child obesity. Even those who agree on the desirability/need of children to have nutritious food will gag at the latest stretch into fear-mongering by the scowling, lantern-jawed Michelle Obama:

“Military leaders … tell us that when more than one in four young people are unqualified for military service because of their weight,” the first lady says in the prepared remarks, “childhood obesity isn’t just a public health threat, it’s not just an economic threat, it’s a national security threat as well.”

Go to the gym and do your stretches there Michelle. Childhood obesity is an important problem which parents need to address more than anyone else – but it is hardly a weapon of mass destruction which threatens “national security”. What’s next, Homeland Security buffoons scoping out kids eating Twinkies? Cut back on the fear-mongering. The problem is serious enough, without having to deal with Michelle Obama overkill.

Hamburger scarfing, ice cream licking, cigarette smoking Barack Obama should deal primarily with the “issues” on his plate and try to master competency on his job before telling parents how to do theirs. The government has an important role in safeguarding farming and food production as well as weighing in on nutritional issues but there is no need to make every issue a “national security” issue.

Along with the “national security” food scare from Michelle Obama, today a federal judge in Virginia threw a big log on the tracks of the Obama health scam railroad. With new polls showing most Americans in favor of repeal of the Obama health care scam the news for Obama cannot be worse (although with this Boob in charge do not be surprised at future boobery yet untapped).

The judges decision can be read HERE.

Not only did the judge rule the Obama mandate unconstitutional but there is a strong suggestion that many parts of the law will also be struck down. Specifically, although the judge noted that there was a presumption of severability (even though this simple boilerplate clause was not included in the legislation – ample proof of what a mess the law is) the judge poured this gravy onto the potatoes:

“However, the bill embraces far more than health care reform. It is laden with provisions and riders patently extraneous to health care-over 400 in all…. [at p. 38]

The final element of the analysis is difficult to apply in this case given the haste with which the final version of the 2,700 page bill was rushed to the floor for a Christmas Eve vote. It would be virtually impossible within the present record to determine whether Congress would have passed this bill, encompassing a wide variety of topics related and unrelated to heath care, without Section 1501. [at p. 39]”

Judge Henry Hudson, like his namesake, went on an exploration – this time to survey the vast expanse of the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The survey ended with boundaries set on the previously horizon-less section of the Constitution:

“Turning to the merits, this Court previously noted that the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision appears to forge new ground and extends the Commerce Clause powers beyond its current high water mark. [snip]

In addition, the Secretary points out that sanctions have historically been imposed for failure to timely file tax returns or truthfully report or pay taxes due, as well as failure to register for the selective service or report for military duty. The Commonwealth,however, counters that most of the examples presented are directly related to a specific constitutional provision-empowering Congress to assess taxes and to provide and maintain an Army and Navy, U.S. Const. art. I, §8, or requiring compensation for exercising the power of eminent domain. U.S. Const. amend. V. In the case of the landowner sanctioned for contamination of his property, liability largely stemmed from an active transaction of purchase. In contrast, no specifically articulated constitutional authority exists to mandate the purchase of health insurance.

A well crafted bill with all the necessary boilerplate clauses was beyond the ken of Obama and Obama Dimocrats. These people are simply not fit to govern.

Hillary Clinton ideas such as regional boards would also have ameliorated Commerce Clause concerns. And if necessary a Hillary Clinton suggested idea, such as point of contact (such as when someone seeks health care) enrollment would have vacated Commerce Clause concerns even if initially there would have been negative budgetary implications. But of course, Ted Kennedy and Barack Obama did not want Hillary to be a leading voice in the senate and blocked her from committee appointments that would have had her wise voice at the table. Elect a boob, expect boobery. Boobery begets boobery.

Meanwhile in the U.S. Senate, for all the caterwauling and threats from Obama Dimocrats, the latest Obama boobery which we have dubbed “Obama’s New Deal”, moved forward in an 85-13 vote. Compare and contrast FDR’s New Deal and the Obama New Deal to get a sense of how wrong those who hailed Obama the Mess-iah as “a new FDR” were. Ha!

Obama’s efforts to alienate Republicans by calling them “hostage takers” even though he had just concocted a deal in which their support is needed and alienation of Obama Dimocrats with new insults and deprecations have borne the hapless one the expected results:

“In a curious but predictable divergence, Barack Obama’s popularity dropped while the deal he cut gained a broad political consensus. A new Marist poll shows Obama hitting his lowest approval rating yet in their survey series, dropping to 42/50 from 45/48 during Thanksgiving week. Even a ridiculously tilted sample of registered voters didn’t help:

According to this national McClatchy-Marist Poll, President Barack Obama’s approval rating has dipped to its lowest point since taking office. Currently, 42% of registered voters approve of the job the president is doing while half — 50% — disapprove. Eight percent are unsure. When McClatchy-Marist last asked this question in its November 24th survey, 45% thought his performance was on the mark while 48% thought it was subpar, and 7% were unsure. Prior to this survey, voters gave Mr. Obama his lowest approval rating in early October. At that time, 43% of registered voters thought he was performing well in office.

The change has occurred among members of the president’s own party. 74% of Democrats think Obama is performing well in office while 21% do not, and 5% are unsure. Late last month, those proportions stood at 83%, 11%, and 6%, respectively. Among Republicans, most — 87% — disapprove of Mr. Obama’s job performance while 7% approve. Six percent are unsure. Similar proportions of Republicans held these views late last month when 84% disapproved, 11% approved, and 5% were unsure. There has also been little movement among independent voters. Currently, 52% disapprove, 39% approve, and 9% are unsure. Late last month, those proportions were 54%, 38%, and 9%, respectively.

In other words, Obama gained no ground on the Right or in the middle, while losing ground on the Left. That would be a particularly difficult problem in this Marist poll, which uses a sample that gives Democrats a nine-point advantage, 37/28, with 33% independents.”

Our sympathies tonight are with the family of Richard Holbrook and us, the American people, – as well as with those lexicographers at Roget’s and other thesaurus publishers. The American people suffer at the hands of this unqualified, inexperienced Boob but let’s pity the scribes at Roget’s. Picture the long hours required to search out novel expressions for the word “boob” and “boobery”. Words fail.

As a gift to the hard workers in the thesaurus business we suggest this best expression for unsurpassed boobery: Obama.


Racists Surround White House And Attack Mess-iah Obama – Obama Abdicates – President Bill Clinton Back In The White House

Remember when Bill Clinton was a racist? Remember when Obama said he would “turn the page” on all those pesky problems from the 90s? Remember when “Clinton” was someone to get rid of? Well, guess what?

Bll Clinton is carrying forty-four bricks in his briefcase. Yesterday he delivered them to drowning Barack Obama. So desperate is Barack Obama that he invited Bill and the briefcase to the White House. It was an uproariously funny and sad sight.

After the private meeting both the Boob and President Bill Clinton appeared before the White House press. Barack Obama abdicated the podium to President Bill Clinton because Obama had another party to attend. Bill Clinton waved him off with a “GO!” and took over the TelePrompTerless podium.

It’s hard to believe that such boobery can exist. But it does. As we say: “Elect a Boob, Expect Boobery“. Why would Obama invite Bill Clinton and why would Bill Clinton accept such an invitation from a boob? Bill Clinton has good reasons to attend such a meeting. But Obama? Perhaps Obama realizes that Bill is the positive resource we have always thought he is. But to abdicate the podium in order to go to yet another party???? Isn’t that the core Obama problem – a celebrity wannabe who wants to be adored and party in between vacations – and he takes off for a party after a week of horror and in the middle of a fight?

Can such boobery possibly exist? Are we imagining all this? [For a truly comic run down of the boobery, the New York Times account is a must read – Obama could not get past a closed door and was wandering the halls looking for a key – we are not making this up.] Looking at his watch, like Bush I, then running off! After this week the boobery is not imagined. It’s as if Big Pink vomited all over the front pages of every newspaper and news broadcast in the nation.

After years of writing about Barack Obama no one can deny how right we have been about this corrupt boob. We knew the DREAM Act was just an act. We knew the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was, for all the noise, a “Don’t Do” as far as gay-basher Barack Obama was concerned. We knew Obama cannot be trusted. We knew it would take a massive defeat in November for elected Obama Dimocrats to rehab at the Detox Party. We knew Obama is the Third Bush Term. Now as more Americans realize we have been correct, even the Hopium Guzzling boobs who supported corrupt Boob Obama have become racists attacking their golden calf for his “achievements”:

“Guantanamo Bay is still open. There is no public option for health insurance. Gay men and women cannot serve openly in the military. Obama has 50,000 troops in Iraq, and more troops in Afghanistan than George W. Bush had on his last day in office. The Patriot Act was renewed with no added oversight of surveillance. You still can’t buy reimported prescription drugs. And if Obama’s latest deal becomes law, Bush’s “tax cuts for the rich” will continue.”

Obama has been too busy to attend to his “promises”.

So there was another party at the White House. Many people at that party wanted to see the Boob. They would have waited. They would have understood that the economy is more important that socializing with sleeveless. But Obama cannot help but overtly betray where his priorities lay. Obama’s priority is parties, trips, vacations. The economy? Let them it cake.

Racist Bernie Sanders (he must be a Rat Bastard Racist with a white hood on right? – he’s not supporting Barack Obama after all and that is the new measure of “racism”) was at the Senate pretending to filibuster Obama’s New Deal, Obama Dimocrats are saying F*ck Barack Obama at a Dimocratic House caucus, and racist Jim Moran shouting “I don’t know where the F*ck Obama is on this”, Jerry Nadler borrows our catechism and says “Obama can’t be trusted” – and bleeping Barack Obama goes to a party. Unbelievable!

Again, inviting President Bill Clinton to the White House was a smart idea. But somehow Obama does not understand that it is called “television”. It’s not “talkatube”. What you see is what you get. The message from the entire good idea on paper blew up because Obama walked off. It was a horrible visual which sent out a message more eloquently than words can ever express: “I don’t care and I don’t care that you know I don’t care“.

Now, perhaps it is just that Barack Obama cannot stand Bill Clinton and could not bear another moment of a master, without a TelePromTer, at work. Perhaps Barack just could not stand the idea of watching Bill Clinton show him how it is done. Perhaps Barack did not want to have Michelle go on a sleeve yanking rampage at the party and he imagined Michelle assaulting the guests’ arms and stripping the screaming socialites of their arm covering. Perhaps. That makes much more sense than taking a hike.

Conservative website HotAir is as stunned as we are:

“Great news: Bill Clinton apparently now president again

The depressing truth: Given the alternative, it really would be great news.

I can’t do justice to what you’re about to see. The spectacle of the president bugging out of his own press conference to go to a Christmas party is weird enough, but having Clinton back at the White House podium fielding questions on the hottest domestic issue of the day shoots past deja vu and lands firmly in “am I hallucinating?” territory. (The good news: It turned Twitter into an hour-long snark free-for-all, with Michael Goldfarb taking first prize.) I get that The One’s trying to leverage BJ’s popularity to pressure Democratic fencesitters on the tax deal. What I don’t get is why he’d leave him alone to address reporters, suggesting either (a) that Obama doesn’t respect a former president — who’s doing him a favor — enough to change his schedule to accommodate him or (b) Obama’s confidence in his own ability to influence the caucus is now so low that he figures the tax deal will stand a better chance if he just gets out of the spotlight entirely. The second option seems implausible given what we know of The One’s ego, but after yesterday’s revolt in the House and after a full year of epic fail in selling ObamaCare to the public, who knows what he’s thinking anymore? As a presidential scholar said to McClatchy, putting it mildly, “He is not a great persuader.”

Adding to the exquisite oddness of the scene: Thanks to his op-ed this morning insisting that Obama totally rolled the GOP on the tax cuts deal, Charles Krauthammer is now “a brilliant man” in Clinton’s eyes. Exit question: The White House is very keen to reassure liberals that Obama is not, repeat not, trying to “triangulate” ahead of 2012. Er, is a big showy meeting at the White House with Bill Clinton really the best way to communicate that message? What’s next, a joint press conference with Dick Morris?”

At conservative Michelle Malkin’s website hill-arity:

“A few minutes in, President Obama excused himself because he had to “get to a Christmas party.” Clinton barely batted an eye while continuing to take questions for another half-hour under the “White House” backdrop, leaving onlookers with a palpable “let the adults take over now, Barry” feeling:

After the 2008 media deification of Barack Obama, that was like watching somebody who was billed as Zeus getting into a fight and responding by hiding behind his dad.

Why would Obama leave Clinton alone with the press corps under these conditions? A bigger mistake hasn’t been made since Eddie Fisher agreed to let Elizabeth Taylor share a makeup trailer with Richard Burton on the set of Cleopatra.

I always thought a “Hillary 2012″ challenge was a real possibility — I just didn’t think Obama would help usher it in so agreeably.”

Frankly, neither did we. We thought our strategy of “run him out” was going to take a bit more effort.

The self-styled “morons” at Ace of Spades rotated their heads 380 degrees:

There are no words.

That was the most surreal thing. Obama said he was keeping the First Lady waiting and had to go. That left Clinton to vouch for the tax deal and relive his glory days.

Obama has just announced what we’ve all known…he’s simply not up to the job.

It was equal parts funny, pathetic and quite frankly, a little scary.”

At other conservative websites it was noted that the “first black president“, the one who improved the lives of black people and was a trusted friends who later on became a “racist”, was back. In “Did Obama Just Quit?” Jim Treacher wrote “Say what you want about Sarah Palin quitting her job, but at least she finished her own press conference.” Palin, working in Haiti, could not be reached for comment.

It’s not just conservatives taking note of Bill Clinton working while Obama parties. At the back in the action PUMA P.A.C. the question is one of Czar Clinton – in charge of the Executive Branch. Jake Tapper had no words either – but he did have a picture.

While Bill Clinton tries to “help” the Boob-in-chief the racists are running amok. This church of latter day racists composed of Obama supporters during 2008 has written a letter calling for “civil disobedience” against Mess-iah Obama. Oh, the humanity. Let’s examine what the racists who dare attack “the One Termer” are whining about now:

“An Open Letter to the Left Establishment

by: By Chris Hedges, Cornell West, Noam Chomsky, et. al., t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed

With the Obama administration beginning its third year, it is by now painfully obvious that the predictions of even the most sober Obama supporters were overly optimistic. Rather than an ally, the administration has shown itself to be an implacable enemy of reform.”

We didn’t know there were any “sober” Obama supporters. We thought, and have been proven right, that these were Hopium Guzzlers tripping out in Cult headquarters. Now we see that after the consumption of mass quantities of Hopium the next step is donning of white hoods to attack “the One Termer”. Let’s continue with the racist whine against Obama:

“It has advanced repeated assaults on the New Deal safety net (including the previously sacrosanct Social Security trust fund), jettisoned any hope for substantive health care reform, attacked civil rights and environmental protections, and expanded a massive bailout further enriching an already bloated financial services and insurance industry. It has continued the occupation of Iraq and and expanded the war in Afghanistan as well as our government’s covert and overt wars in South Asia and across the globe.

Along the way, the Obama administration, which referred to us on the left as “f***ing retarded” individuals who required “drug testing,” stepped up the prosecution of federal war crime whistleblowers, and unleashed the FBI on those protesting the escalation of an insane war.

Obama’s recent announcement of a federal worker pay freeze is cynical, mean-spirited “deficit-reduction theater”. Slashing Bush’s plutocratic tax cuts would have made a much more significant contribution to deficit reduction but all signs are that the “progressive” president will cave to Republican demands for the preservation of George W. Bush’s tax breaks for the wealthy Few. Instead Obama’s tax cut plan would raise taxes for the poorest people in our country.

The election of Obama has not galvanized protest movements. To the contrary, it has depressed and undermined them, with the White House playing an active role in the discouragement and suppression of dissent with disastrous consequences. The almost complete absence of protest from the left has emboldened the most right-wing elements inside and outside of the Obama administration to pursue and act on an ever more extreme agenda.”

We’re all tea partiers now it seems. It took these dullards this long to figure out that Obama has a yellow streak down his back, or should we say an opportunistic streak? These dolts do not deserve to lead anything if it take them this long to get a clue. Here is what these “teed off baggers” want to do against Mess-iah Obama:

“We are asking you to commit yourself to actively supporting the protests of Obama administration policies which are now beginning to materialize.

In this connection we would like to mention a specific protest: the civil disobedience action being planned by Veterans for Peace involving Chris Hedges, Daniel Ellsberg, Joel Kovel, Medea Benjamin, Ray McGovern, several armed service veterans and others to take place in front of the White House on Dec. 16th.

Will Glenn Beck be there? If not they better get some comedians if they expect a crowd. Signatories to this racist screed include: Sen. James Abourezk, Michael Albert, Rocky Anderson, Jared Ball, Russell Banks, Thomas Bias, Noam Chomsky, Bruce Dixon, Frank Dorrel, Gidon Eshel, Jamilla El-Shafei, Okla Elliott, Norman Finkelstein, Glen Ford, Joshua Frank, Margaret Flowers M.D., John Gerassi, Henry Giroux, Matt Gonzalez, Kevin Alexander Gray, Judd Greenstein, DeeDee Halleck, John Halle, Chris Hedges, Doug Henwood, Edward S. Herman, Dahr Jamail, Louis Kampf, Allison Kilkenny, Jamie Kilstein, Joel Kovel, Mark Kurlansky, Peter Linebaugh, Scott McLarty, Cynthia McKinney, Dede Miller, Russell Mokhiber, Bobby Muller, Christian Parenti, Michael Perelman, Peter Phillips, Louis Proyect, Ted Rall, Michael Ratner, Cindy Sheehan, Chris Spannos, Paul Street, Sunil Sharma, Jeffrey St. Clair, Len Weinglass, Cornel West, Sherry Wolf, Michael Yates, Mickey Z,
Kevin Zeese.

Don’t be concerned – We don’t know who most of these people are either. Rat Bastard Racists. All they want is an invitation to a White House party and they won’t bother to attend their “protest”.

But let’s get back to The Boob and Bill. Did Bill Clinton really tell Obama “please go”?????:

“Former President Bill Clinton gave a statement after his meeting with President Obama about his tax compromise with the Republicans.

However, after his statement, Clinton began to call on and take questions from the press with Obama at his side. Obama leaves promptly after a few moments and said he had to see Michelle, as he was keeping her “waiting.”

I don’t want to make her mad, please go,” Clinton told Obama.”

What about Bill Clinton? Why would Bill Clinton go to the White House to support Barack Obama? First of all, Bill Clinton knows that every appearance side by side with Barack Obama is a plus for him and a loss for Barack Obama. Bill Clinton knows it is “television” and that the image matters. Bill Clinton knows that when he speaks with authority and deep knowledge and “feel your pain” language he is at his strongest. Bill Clinton knows that Barack Obama, wimpy and lurching with a smashed lip, desperately leaning on TelePrompTers is a total loser and that total loserhood is blatant when they stand side by side.

Bill Clinton knows that children eventually give up the little training wheels on their first bicycle and “go solo” without the safety net of the little wheels. It’s how they learn. But Barack Obama has not let go of his training wheels TelePrompTer and that is why he still has not mastered policy and how to explain complex issues in language that clarifies.

Bill Clinton knows all this and further knows the country is desperate for leadership – so think of yesterday as both a Christmas gift of leadership and a nasty reminder to the Dimocratic party and the electorate of the great Mistake In ’08.

Second of all, Bill Clinton knows that for all the complaints from the whiners in the Obama Dimocratic Caucus and in the Senate this Obama New Deal, a mockery of FDR’s New Deal, is going to pass because there will be sufficient Republican votes to make up for lost racist Dimocratic votes.

Third, Bill Clinton must know that the horrid Obama New Deal is not going to help the economy. We say that for the very same reason we opposed the Obama “stimulus” and the Obama budget in 2009: what is needed is a comprehensive plan for the economy not “deals” that ignore reality (and the deal are back “big time” for this stinking mess). The bottom line is that whatever “stimulus” this new mess of a plan provides will be negated by bankrupt state governments, the ever rising deficits (latest report has it at $150.4 Billion in November alone) and growth of the debt.

What is needed, as we wrote so long ago, is a comprehensive plan, comprehensively explained. Instead what we get is a Boob lurching over an economic balloon stepping here then having to step there but the economic balloon keeps flummoxing the Boob.

Fourth, Bill Clinton had forty-four bricks to deliver to drowning Barack Obama. Bill Clinton knows that in 2012 Barack Obama will not be able to run by promising to keep the promises he made in 2008 which are the same promises he broke in 2010 but promised to correct in 2012. So give the drowning man what he deserves – some heavy bricks to sink him further. For a smart pool/billards player or good chess player – positioning matters. The eight ball commeth.

Lastly, there is one more matter that Big Media outlets like Politico (which quotes Obama adviser Pfeiffer, a man who has not a clue about what he is talking about) do not understand: triangulation. There are a lot of stupid articles attempting to give Obama credit for doing what Bill Clinton did. But that is a false comparison. Sean Trende in an excellent article on why Obama’s New Deal makes no sense for Barack Obama explains triangulation and why Obama is not doing what Bill did:

“I will say that, while I might not always agree with his decisions, I can usually see the logic behind them.

Not so with the recent compromise on extending the Bush tax cuts. [snip]

The president then held a press conference where he blasted Republicans as “hostage takers,” derided liberals as “sanctimonious,” and reiterated his opposition to extending the Bush tax rates for higher earners as something the country couldn’t afford.

I can honestly think of no good reason for this behavior. To the extent that there might be some rationale for the deal, it was upended by the subsequent press conference. Here are four rationales I can think of, and why I don’t think any of them work. [snip]

(1) He thinks it is good policy — This is obviously not the case, given how heavily he blasted the deal at his press conference. [snip]

(2) He wants to look bipartisan [snip]

Simply put, if you are hoping to look bipartisan and mend fences with the other side, you do not turn around and blast them as “hostage takers,” and deride their goals. [snip]

(3) He wants to keep the issue alive for 2012 [snip]

By ultimately accepting all of the Bush tax cuts for another two years, it makes it very difficult for the president to turn around and deride them on the 2012 campaign trail. Perhaps most importantly, it becomes well-nigh impossible to use the issue to excite his base, which won’t trust him on the issue anymore.

(4) He is trying to triangulate — I think this is probably the most likely scenario, and it is certainly the angle most analysts have focused on. But if the president is trying to triangulate, he is doing so poorly. Bill Clinton famously “triangulated” against the GOP in 1995 and 1996 by fusing the most popular elements of the Republican agenda – like middle class tax cuts, welfare reform, and crime control – with popular elements of the Democratic agenda – protecting Medicare, Medicaid, Education and the Environment (the famous “M2E2” strategy).

In other words, Clinton didn’t compromise. His position was a defined point on the triangle, separate and distinct from the Republican and Democratic positions. He was in essence a third party, placed between the major parties, and he fought for his platform vigorously. He acquiesced to a shutdown in the government, gambling that because his position was the more popular one, that the Republicans would bear the brunt of the public’s ire. And he was right.

Obama has, in essence, capitulated on the eve of the government shutdown. What makes this so flummoxing is that he actually held a pretty strong hand. He easily could have waited for all of the tax cuts to expire, for the unemployment insurance benefits to run out (right before Christmas!!!), and pointed the fingers at the Republicans and their insistence on preserving tax cuts for Paris Hilton. Bill Clinton would have won that argument walking away. Instead of staking out a strong position, the president looks to have caved in to Republican demands, causing him to appear weak and diminishing his political standing.

I think the president may have made one more grave miscalculation. The left grumbled about Clinton’s triangulation, and sometimes broke with him (remember, the 1997 balanced budget agreement had about 70 nay votes in the House, most of which were Democrats). But they largely tolerated him, because they thought that he was the only thing standing between the programs that they held most sacred and the Republican Visigoths at the gate. Remember, in 1995, Clinton’s 1992 win looked very much like a fluke brought about by the economy and the Ross Perot win, and the conservative Republican wins of 1980-88 and 1994 looked more like the natural trajectory of the country.

I don’t think that’s the case today. The left is still feeling its oats, and believes that there is still an emerging Democratic majority, and a liberal one at that. I don’t think it has the same tolerance for triangulation that it did in 1996. [snip]

Even if he does get the bill through, the odds of a primary challenge have increased dramatically.”

The Mistake In ’08 is not only the gifting of the Democratic Party nomination to an inexperienced, unqualified, corrupt Boob. It is also the belief in crackpot theories of demographic destiny. These are theories and outrages that must be pushed into the depths of Lake Michigan to suffer a watery death.

We have come a long way in our strategy of running the Boob out of the White House along with his thugs, enablers, and Hopium addled army of zombies. Yesterday was an important day in our fight. The entire past week was good for our fight. The month after the November election has been good for our fight. The entire past year has been good for our fight.

We’ve come a long way baby. Even if only for a brief half hour, we saw a president Clinton in the house. Imagine that for four years – a leader – that’s a change we can believe in.


Rat Bastard Racists – Where’s The Party Unity Now?

Poor inexperienced, unqualified, Barack Obama. The very people who attacked us as “racists” and stomped their feet demanding “party unity” are no longer concerned about party unity. Now those who called us “racists” are proven to be racists themselves out to destroy the golden calf they worshiped – because he is black. Rat Bastard Racists.

How much damage are these Rat Bastard Racists doing to Obama – just because of his skin color – just because he is black? If we can stop shedding tears for a few moments, let’s game out what could happen so we can fully understand the harm the Rat Bastard Racists are doing to golden calf Mess-iah Obama:

Possibility #1 – Obama’s New Deal passes: Obama is seen as a total wimp and a treacherous one as well who cannot be trusted. Obama is then a dupe of wily and strong Republicans. Result: Republicans win, Obama loses. Congressional Dimocrats and the Obama Big Boy Blogs will be proven gutless and useless once again.

Possibility #2 – Obama’s New Deal does not pass: Obama is seen as a total wimp who has lost control of his own Obama Dimocratic Party. Result: Republicans denounce Obama Dimocrats as tax raisers and pass the bill in January when they take control of the House and effective control of the Senate. Obama loses. Obama essentially becomes a Republican president because he will have more support with Republicans than with his very own Obama Dimocrats.

But the anti-Obama racists don’t care how they now trash their black president. Rat Bastard Racists.

We know that the gutless wonders at the Obama blogs and the always willing to cave Congressional Dimocrats will not succeed in their racist plots. Anyone who recalls the many “progressive” “threats” against the Obama health scam knows deep in their heart that these hypocrites do not have the cojones, do not have the ovaries, to do more than whine and make empty threats. In the end these craven clowns will cave.

In reality the only way to stop the Obama New Deal is for either Harry Reid or Nancy Pelousy to refuse to bring the bill to the floor for a vote – call it a one person filibuster:

“Fox has learned that Reps. Peter DeFazio (D-OR), Jim McDermott (D-WA) and Jay Inslee (D-WA) are crafting a letter to share with the House Democratic Caucus that would try to prevent the Speaker from bringing the tax bill to the floor.

They hope to get 60 signatures on their letter (which is still being drafted) and then force a vote in the caucus. DeFazio says he thinks that if a majority of House Democrats are against this compromise, they shouldn’t bring it to the floor.

In other words, they are seeking a majority of the majority to move this and a senior House democratic source indicates they don’t know if they have a majority of democrats, saying they haven’t whipped this yet.”

Rat Bastard Racists. They hate the black man.

Racists are everywhere these days. We have discussed racist Bill Maher recently spewing racist remarks about black people. Rat Bastard Racist. It’s not only Bill Maher. Over at the DailyKooks website a 30 year old black women denounced the Rat Bastard Racists [please note, we are editing the “N” word used to such dramatic effect in the DailyKook “diary”] in “My Last Diary At DKOS, Good Luck White Progressives“:

“I don’t have much to say. This will be quick.

If the so-called progressive community is done with Obama, than the black community will most likely be done with you. We aren’t that worried about Republicans, we have certainly dealt with worse.

Now, you can take that shit however you want, but good luck with whatever you are planning because you will need it. Especially, since you haven’t been able to sway a majority of white voters to your ’cause’ in 30 years. Without us this party is nothing. Have fun planning your primary challenge and “progressing uprising” without us. We will be by and large standing with the president. [snip]

Whether I look to my left or my right I see nothing but white people acting like this country didn’t have any damn problems until there was a n#gger in the White House. I have had it and every black person I know has had it. We are getting increasingly into a “Goddamn America” kind of mood. You want the n#gger out of the White House fine, but don’t expect us to help you replace him with your new, and no doubt white progressive hero.

It’s been a real eye-opener for this 30-year old black female. The kind my parents warned me about not long after Obama got elected. Nothing like having a black man to blame for everything is it?

Go fuck yourselves and good luck, getting a new president without us.

P.S. That last line is my answer to anybody who disagrees and wants to call me an Obot, sell-out, or not a “real” progressive, tell me I don’t speak for all blacks, etc.”

You go girl! You tell those Rat Bastard Racists where to get off. How dare anyone attack Barack! Rat Bastard Racists.

When we Hillary Clinton supporters, Black and White, were called “racists” the word stung. We knew there was genuine and justified black rage at how black people are treated by white liberals. Here at Big Pink we have written frequently about PINOs (Progressives In Name Only) who treat black people like pets.

We have written frequently that Black people made a very big political mistake by voting for the black guy who never did anything for black people over the tried and true plucky blond lady. For that we were called “racists”. So forgive the smirk on our faces as those who yelled “racists” at Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and Hillary Clinton supporters of various melanin types now scream at their golden calf.

The 30 year old black woman quotes from black liberator and all around bro John Cole:

“BTW- when the Democrats lose the black vote because of what has gone on during this administration, don’t act all surprised. I’ve warned you all of the simmering anger just below the surface in the African-American community. They’re being blamed for everything (Acorn, the housing crisis, voter fraud- hell, the day after Prop 8 failed people rushed to blame black people), they are treated to a clear double standard in Congress (Charlie Rangel humiliated for what the panel concluded were small mistakes and not designed to benefit him while DeLay is a felon and no one blinks, Vitter and Ensign and hundreds of others go unpunished. And now they are after Waters. There is a reason the CBC wants to get rid of the ethics panel.), they’re watching their party elites savage the first black President when they have been the backbone for the Democrats for decades, and they are watching a President be submitted to racist smear campaigns by folks outside the party that make any and all of the bullshit the Clintons went through look like small potatoes, and NO ONE is raising any hell in defense of the President. It’s all go along to get along. The only congressman who called the Republicans out was defeated. The rest just sit there and whisper behind the scenes about how Obama won’t tell them what he wants. All of this while the AA community is the hardest hit by recession.

You go guy!. Rat Bastard Racists.

We were called “racists” when we stated clearly that the Obama organization was a top down scam. We wrote:

There is no way Obama will allow his minions to actually grab political power and give direction to him. True, Obama set up a corral for his prancing ponies. But the organization Obama Anonymous Organizing for America is a slaughter house. OA is not a place for political wannabees to set themselves up to challenge Obama when the Hopium wears off and they discover the Doctor wants to kill the monster.

We do excuse the Hopium addled, they don’t know better. But some should know better yet still making excuses for Obama instead of accepting the obvious: Obama can’t be trusted.”

In Pocket Change we wrote:

Obama does not want a rival power center to emerge when his supporters wake up and realize they have been scammed”

We told the Obama Hopium Guzzlers that OAF (our anagram for “Organizing For America” the old “Obama for…” organization) would never empower them and we were called “racists”. Now the Rat Bastard Racists at DailyKooks say the same thing:

OFA is a top-down operation from start to finish. It wants to be as successful as DFA (which is still thumping along, six years later), but it suffers from the same problem as its founder: all speaking, no listening.

Now the Rat Bastard Racists are attacking not only the Boob but OAF as well. Read it and weep:

“Mitch Stewart from Organizing for America ( just sent me an email suggesting that I should be happy about the President’s capitulation to Republicans. (The most recent one, that is…)

I think the last email I got from OFA asked us to support the President’s decision to freeze federal worker’s pay. [snip]

That’s not what I signed up for.

So I unsubscribed.

You’ll remember that I created and led the largest group, Get FISA Right, when Obama decided to go back on his word and vote for retroactive telecom immunity. Obama ignored us, at least substantively. But I don’t think it makes sense to give up; I remain hopeful that there is a progressive bone or two somewhere inside the President.

So I’m starting another movement. We need to let him know he needs to change course if he expects a second term. The quickest and most measurable way I know that the base can speak to him is for as many people as possible to unsubscribe from the OFA list.

Rat Bastard Racists. Now they are attacking the golden calf’s organization. Shocking.

Keith Olberman is a Rat Bastard Racist too. KO called BO’s New Deal comparable to “Nazi Appeasement”.

“I will confess I won’t fight if anyone wants to draw a comparison between what you’ve done with our domestic policies of our day to what Neville Chamberlain did with the domestic policies of his,” says Olbermann. The reference is to Neville Chamberlain who, as Prime Minister of Great Britain, infamously cut a deal with Hitler (that Hitler subsequently broke to the surprise of nobody except Chamberlain) and proclaimed “peace in our time.”

Et tu, KO?

It is easy to understand why some conservatives and Republicans are opposed to Obama’s New Deal. It’s the same reason they oppose the DREAM Act and other legislation – they oppose it on principle and after all, they are the opposition party and just doing their job.

But all these Obama supporters now attacking Barack Obama after they said he was such a brilliant political chess player (recall the picture of Obama saying “Don’t worry. I got this!” these clowns love so), and after they said he was so principled and so smart and so charismatic and the “One” – clearly they must be attacking Barack Obama because they are Rat Bastard Racists.

How else can anyone explain this shocking behavior other than racism? If it is not racism than they must be admitting that they were wrong. If it is not racism that is at the root of all these attacks on Barack from his supporters then it must be something else – a something like “inexperienced, unqualified, treacherous from Day One.”

Unlike the Obama cesspool of treachery and racism, Hillary Clinton supporters are all smiles. We’re sitting back watching the Obama Circus as the tent comes crashing down and the clowns run around… screaming.