Hillary Clinton’s Dilemma

Hillary Clinton has a dilemma to resolve. Like Sandra Bullock in the film Speed Hillary is driving a bus she must not stop but also cannot stay on.

What is Hillary to do? If she stays on as Secretary of State she fights, from the inside, Obama’s incessant boobery and treacheries and helps to do what she can to save the world. However, by staying on she legitimizes and empowers the treacherous boob.

If she leaves, it will be seen as a clear vote of “no confidence” in Barack Obama, and the NObama Coalition will gain another public voice. But what happens to the world then? This is not a messianic “save the world” cult worship Hillary figure we are writing about. When we talk about “save the world” it is in the sense that someone has to be around to talk sense when American ally Mubarak is flung out and a wide open invitation to the Muslim Brotherhood is issued by Obama.

The bus might blow up this September and someone must be there to prevent treachery and boobery from killing us all. But at the same time, the bus must be stopped and there is only one person who can stop it and not blow it up too.

* * * * * *

Every American should be agitated by the prospect of no Hillary to block or inside-organize against Barack Obama, particularly as September approaches. Hillary Clinton will be indispensable this September when at the United Nations plots to destroy Israel will rise once more and there must be someone genuinely committed to the security of Israel.

But Hillary Clinton might not be able to thwart Obama’s treacheries anymore. Every American should be chilled to the bone marrow by the latest news that Barack Obama will remove all sensible advice from his “in” box in favor of planned and organized treachery/boobery:

The Los Angeles Times reports that Barack Obama has decided to shed his consensus approach to leadership and start making decisions on his own:

In the first two years of Obama’s presidency, his top aides had grown accustomed to a process in which Obama drew out and explored the views of his full team and searched for a consensus — decision by ballot, some called it.

Increasingly, however, that process has changed, according to a wide group of Obama’s personal friends, informal advisors and top aides interviewed during the spring. In recent months, they say, the president has been relying more heavily on his own instincts and feeling less impelled to seek accord among advisors. …

“I think he reached a point where he had to trust his instincts, and there was nothing left to inform his decision except to do that,” said one advisor who is intimately familiar with the president’s thinking on foreign policy matters and spoke on the condition of anonymity.

What that chilling passage means:

“The subtext to this meme is that Obama’s team is apparently not creating much consensus any longer, or that the President is outside of whatever consensus develops. This might explain the slow march of Obama’s economic advisers out of the administration, as Obama insists on continuing the economic policies that have led to stagflation. The story might be that Obama is getting increasingly isolated from his team on policy decisions, which is a little easier to believe than turning up one’s nose to coordination and support.”

Obama operating on “gut instinct” recalls a Richard Nixon era joke: Nixon is offered drugs by a hippie who advises Nixon to “turn on.” Nixon replies “Turn on who?” With Susan Rice at the United Nations, Israel and friends of Israel will quickly learn the answer as to which nation Obama will “turn on.”

Ben Smith of Politico is every ready with a bucket to drop into the excuses-for-Obama well. Smith has typed his fingers raw with declarations that Obama’s support among Jews is solid as week old West Side bagels. But today Smith writes that all might not be well as some Jews recognize that Obama is not a friend and not to be trusted:

“David Ainsman really began to get worried about President Barack Obama’s standing with his fellow Jewish Democrats when a recent dinner with his wife and two other couples — all Obama voters in 2008 — nearly turned into a screaming match.

Ainsman, a prominent Democratic lawyer and Pittsburgh Jewish community leader, was trying to explain that Obama had just been offering Israel a bit of “tough love” in his May 19 speech on the Arab Spring. His friends disagreed — to say the least.

One said he had the sense that Obama “took the opportunity to throw Israel under the bus.” Another, who swore he wasn’t getting his information from the mutually despised Fox News, admitted he’d lost faith in the president.

If several dozen interviews with POLITICO are any indication, a similar conversation is taking place in Jewish communities across the country. Obama’s speech last month seems to have crystallized the doubts many pro-Israel Democrats had about Obama in 2008 in a way that could, on the margins, cost the president votes and money in 2012 and will not be easy to repair.

JournoLister Smith, like all JourniListers, spends a great deal of text as a WORM (What Obama Really Meant), assuaging any fears that the electoral damage from Obama’s “Auschwitz borders” treacheries is anything more than “marginal.” But Smith cannot cover up the Obama stink with a Politico burka:

“Based on the conversations with POLITICO, it’s hard to resist the conclusion that some kind of tipping point has been reached.

Most of those interviewed were center-left American Jews and Obama supporters — and many of them Democratic donors. On some core issues involving Israel, they’re well to the left of Netanyahu and many Americans: They refer to the “West Bank,” not to “Judea and Samaria,” fervently supported the Oslo peace process and Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza and believe in the urgency of creating a Palestinian state.

But they are also fearful for Israel at a moment of turmoil in a hostile region when the moderate Palestinian Authority is joining forces with the militantly anti-Israel Hamas.

“It’s a hot time, because Israel is isolated in the world and, in particular, with the Obama administration putting pressure on Israel,” said Rabbi Neil Cooper, leader of Temple Beth Hillel-Beth El in Philadelphia’s Main Line suburbs, who recently lectured his large, politically connected congregation on avoiding turning Israel into a partisan issue.

Some of these traditional Democrats now say, to their own astonishment, that they’ll consider voting for a Republican in 2012. And many of those who continue to support Obama said they find themselves constantly on the defensive in conversations with friends.”

It’s going to be a black September indeed if Obama’s “gut instinct” treacheries are allowed to disgorge at the United Nations and at the highest levels of the American government. That’s what will happen without Hillary there to remain loyal to allies and America. Some Obama Dimocrat Jews are nearing the River Jordan a.k.a. the Rubicon:

“I’m hearing a tremendous amount of skittishness from pro-Israel voters who voted for Obama and now are questioning whether they did the right thing or not,” said Betsy Sheerr, the former head of an abortion-rights-supporting, pro-Israel PAC in Philadelphia, who said she continues to support Obama, with only mild reservations. “I’m hearing a lot of ‘Oh, if we’d only elected Hillary instead.’”

Woe onto ye who supported treacherous Barack Obama and rejected Hillary Clinton. The tree is known by its fruit; the treacherous beget treachery:

“There’s an inclination in the community to not trust this president’s gut feel on Israel and every time he sets out on a path that’s troubling you do get this ‘ouch’ reaction from the Jewish Community because they’re distrustful of him,” said the president of a major national Jewish organization, who declined to be quoted by name to avoid endangering his ties to the White House. [snip]

Matasar remembers his friends’ worries over whether Obama was “going to be OK for Israel.” But then Obama met with the community’s leaders during a swing through Cleveland in the primary, and the rabbi at the denominationally conservative synagogue Matasar attends — “a real ardent Zionist and Israel defender” — came back to synagogue convinced.

“That put a lot of my concerns to rest for my friends who are very much Israel hawks but who, like me, aren’t one-issue voters.”

Now Matasar says he’s appalled by Obama’s “rookie mistakes and bumbling” and the reported marginalization of a veteran peace negotiator, Dennis Ross, in favor of aides who back a tougher line on Netanyahu. He’s the most pro-Obama member of his social circle but is finding the president harder to defend.

“He’d been very ham-handed in the way he presented [the 1967 border announcement] and the way he sprung this on Netanyahu,” Matasar said.

A Philadelphia Democrat and pro-Israel activist, Joe Wolfson, recalled a similar progression.

“What got me past Obama in the recent election was Dennis Ross — I heard him speak in Philadelphia and I had many of my concerns allayed,” Wolfson said. “Now, I think I’m like many pro-Israel Democrats now who are looking to see whether we can vote Republican.”

It’s not just on Israel that Hillary Clinton matters a great deal. Who else but Hillary can use the word “HELL” in so heavenly a manner – so heavenly that even Republican/conservative HotAir hears, albeit temporarily and with tongue-in-cheek – choirs?:

“It seems the “useful idiot” assessment is no longer a partisan thing.

Former President Jimmy Carter and former Finnish President Martti Ahtisaari were hoping to visit the State Department this week to brief officials on their recent trip to North Korea, but nobody at the State Department was available to meet with them…

It’s no secret at all that the Elders’ trip to North Korea was viewed as extremely unhelpful by the governments both in Washington and Seoul. Chris Nelson reported on April 29 that Clinton reacted strongly when asked in a morning meeting if she wanted to meet with Carter. From the Nelson report:

“The performance of President Carter and his delegation in N. Korea this week was either shameful or fatuous…or both…and exemplifies why Carter had no…zero…USG support going in, and even less coming out, per an alleged eye witness account of Sec. St. Clinton at the morning meeting the other day:

“‘Do you want to meet with Carter?’ Clinton is looking at papers, and just says ‘No.’ Then she pauses, looks up and adds, ‘HELL no!!!’”

If you don’t understand why she’d be so mad, reread this post and all shall be revealed. Now that primary season is upon us and we’re fantasizing about longshot candidates who might conceivably give The One a run for his money, it’s worth remembering that there’s someone out there who checks a lot of the boxes we’re looking for. She’s got Senate experience and major foreign-policy chops; she spent more than a year attacking Obama on a daily basis in 2008, and is linked by marriage to a centrist whose economic record is farrrrrr better than Obama’s is. And of course it’s not unheard of for presidential candidates in one party to end up under consideration to join the ticket of the other. Just ask Joe Lieberman.

We’d have to straighten her out on economics, granted, but look at it this way: She can’t be any worse than Newt or Huck. And she knows exactly how to mock Obama. Dude — I think this is happening.”



No, it’s not just Israel, or North Korea, or foreign policy. While Obama evolves from amoeba to paramecium on gay marriage, from overt gay-bashing to an S&M relationship with gay peopleHillary Clinton outrageously, flamboyantly, expressed her views on a matter of mostly domestic concern:

“Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Monday offered her approval of New York’s just-passed same sex marriage law.

Calling Friday’s vote by the New York state legislature “historic,” the former New York senator was careful in her remarks not to overstep her bounds as an Obama administration appointee.”

What bounds? The bounds are self imposed and can be cast off at will. Hillary Clinton has no bounds as Americans look for leadership and Democrats want the party of FDR to return to life and wash away the stench of Obamination.

Recently, amidst the legislative sausage making and distraction of various other Weiners, the question of Hillary Clinton’s future rose up in Liz Smith’s gossip column:

“However, it is Mrs. Clinton who intrigues. Many still think this woman subliminally seeks the presidency sooner rather than later. With the economy stymied and the job situation desperate, Barack Obama is vulnerable. It’s nice that Osama Bin Laden is dead, but you can’t run for re-election on the body of a dead terrorist. [snip]

Mitt Romney looks presidential. He always has. Bachman is obviously dead serious and working hard at learning.

Still, Mrs. Clinton could eat them both up and spit them out without so much as appearing to chew.

Would she do the “unthinkable” and challenge her own party’s sitting president, the man who elevated her to the position of Secretary of State?

A story was floated the other day that Mrs. Clinton was resigning her Secretary of State post next year because she had “other things she wanted to do.” It was suggested she might want to run the World Bank? Her aides shot down the story as “bogus” and reiterated yet again that she would never seek another run at the White House.

So that’s that. Because politicians never change their minds, do they?

Yes, a Clinton run would be savage and terrifying. Hillary running for president again?! All that drama? I think everybody working on cable TV would have to demand defibrillators right under their desks.”

We’ve addressed many times before the perils and strategies for Hillary Clinton as the 44th person to take the presidential oath of office. The perils are (she would remain a target of Republicans/conservatives) she would be called a “racist” yet again – but jobless African-Americans and degree heavy idiots who joined a cult in 2008 perhaps can now see and feel the calamity wrought by their former fashion foolishness.

As to the strategy: drive Obama from office – make the economic critique clear. Towards that end, the latest taunts from the Clinton Winter quarters, via James Carville:

Memo to the president

Re: Suggestions on How to Talk About the Economy

Sir, I’m sure the last thing that you want is some unsolicited advice from a pundit, particularly a pundit who comes out of the Clinton camp, but CNN has an unspoken policy of publish or perish and with a daughter entering the 11th grade and college costs being what they are, I can’t afford to perish just yet.

First of all, to quote one of your predecessors, “I feel your pain.”

This is one of the nastiest and most honest taunts, filled with bile and contempt, to ever be expressed. Not only is the reminder that there is a Clinton camp versus an Obama camp but the hostility between the two camps is blatantly acknowledged. The taunt is spiced with the goat’s head of “I feel your pain” – a tart way of saying “F*ck You, As*hole – you’re getting what you deserve and you don’t know what the f*ck you are doing, and we know you don’t know what the f*ck you are doing, and we’re going to tell everyone in every f*cking way that you don’t know what the f*ck you are f*cking doing.

But that’s Carville. What about the original and inimitable “Mr. I feel your pain”? Why he’s providing “unsolicited economic advice“:

“The ever-entertaining tension between the Clintons and the Obamas continues. This week, Bill Clinton appeared on the cover of Newsweek, near this caption: “14 Ways to Save America’s Jobs”. The title of the article is even better: “It’s Still the Economy, Stupid.”

Ouch!

As you might expect, Clinton offers up a mixed bag of ideas in the Newsweek piece – some good (“cut corporate taxes”), some silly (“paint rooftops white”), and some vague (“analyze the opportunities”). For a purported economic guru, this is unimpressive stuff. Still, at least Clinton is putting a few ideas out there to do something to fix the economy, and they’re not all completely terrible. However, Clinton is assuming Obama actually wants to save the American economy, as do Greta Van Susteren and Byron York in this clip.

That doesn’t appear to be a safe assumption anymore – if it ever was.”



Van Susteren and Byron York hear, as we do, Bill Clinton say to Barack Obama:”F*ck You, As*hole – you’re getting what you deserve and you don’t know what the f*ck you are doing, and we know you don’t know what the f*ck you are doing, and we’re going to tell everyone in every f*cking way that you don’t know what the f*ck you are f*cking doing.

Hillary Clinton is working her way through and out of her dilemma. Hubby and Jimmy are helping. By the end of September, we’ll know how Hillary untangles her dilemma and speeds along.

Share

Mistake In ’08 Part VIII: The White Flag Of Surrender From The Obama Coalition Kooks

Barack Obama has been dethroned. Barack Obama is no longer the King of Chicanery, the Corrupt King of Clowns, the King Liar Extraordinaire. That filthy toilet bowl throne now belongs, perhaps always belonged, to Ruy Teixiera.

For over a decade Teixiera and other idiots who style themselves as “intellectuals” or “strategists” or the “creative class” sold a deadly snake oil. This poison was purchased and drunk by people such as 2×4 Chuck Schumer, tax cheat Tom Daschle, and Chappaquiddick Chauffeur Ted Kennedy. The result is that in 2008 what was the Democratic Party establishment plotted then gifted Barack Obama the Democratic Party nomination.

The Teixiera snake oil is a theory of endless Democratic electoral victories because of demographic “realities” such as a declining white population in the United States. For years we have written (in our Mistake In ’08 series HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE as well as in our “Barack Obama’s Situation Comedy” demographics series) about the deadly effect the Teixiera draught has had on the Democratic Party.

In short, the Democratic Party committed suicide when it dumped the FDR Coalition led by Hillary Clinton in favor of the Barack Obama Situation Comedy coalition.

Ruy Teixiera has been aided and abetted in his toxic theories by books that deride “Bubba” such as the dangerous and idiotic “What’s The Matter With Kansas?” Books such as the Kansas book provided “theorists” from the left a “we’re smarter” snob attitude and justification for a class based hatred of poor whites.

Obnoxious haiku writing “creative class” “intellectuals” such as slim Chris Bowers elevated their class bigotries and resentments against white men who are manlier than their fey selves with loathsome “analysis” such as this “I Am So Tired Of Chasing Reagan Democrats”:

“While this treads into “votes that don’t matter” territory, the truth is that after watching politics for more than twenty years, at this point trying to win back those “Reagan Democrats” feels like a lost cause. I’ve had enough of it. I’m tired of how trying to appeal to these voters basically never seems to work, but always succeeds in pushing the Democratic Party to the right. I’m tired of how it has created a perception in the Democratic Party that the progressive base don’t matter, except as an ATM machine. And I’m tired of it because it has just gone on for so long at this point that we now have massive, emerging Democratic voting blocks that we should appeal to instead: non-Christian whites, the “creative class,” and Latinos / Asians. While the once-Democratic and now Republican “Reagan” Dems are growing pretty darn old, the future of the country and the electorate can be found elsewhere. Why continue to chase after voting groups that are shrinking in size, that push the party to the right, and who we never seem to win anyway, when instead we can chase after far more fertile voting blocks that will push the party to the left and who represent more than 100% of the population growth in the United States? [snip]

Clinton’s primary coalition thus far has been largely kept afloat by older Reagan Dems who also tend to be white southern Baptists. And yes, they also tend to be older, as exit polls have shown. And yes, it is all about the same racially charged political battles of older generations that Reagan and other conservatives exploited to rise to power during the final quarter of the 20th century. John Judis:

Obama has to worry about the Reagan or Bush Democrats, white working class voters who used to be Democrats, but often back Republican presidential candidates. Bill Clinton won many of these voters back; but Al Gore lost them in 2000 and John Kerry lost them in 2004. Many of these voters are not participating in the Democratic or Republicans primaries–and they’ll make the difference in November in states like Ohio and Missouri. But of the voters that are participating, Clinton did much better among them, winning over 60 percent of them in Ohio. [snip]

Here is the thing: I don’t care if Democrats ever make up any ground among Reagan Democrats, as long as we lock up the support of expanding groups like the creative class, white non-Christians, Latinos and Asians for a generation. I’ll take that trade any day of the week, and twice on Sundays. Importantly, it feels to me as though we can make that trade if Barack Obama becomes the nominee, but that we will be making the opposite trade if Hillary Clinton becomes the nominee. While Clinton’s advantage among Latinos and Asians does not make it a perfect match, Obama’s primary coalition is far closer to the coalition we need for an expanding future of the Democratic Party, while Clinton’s primary is a lot more like the coalition we have been chasing after for the past twenty-five years or so. It is in this demographic sense that I partially accept Obama’s message about “moving beyond the political divides of the past” and into a new America. I’m tried of the old coalitions, and eager for the promising new ones that hold such tremendous potential for a generational progressive majority.

I am so sick of chasing after the “Reagan Democrats” whose backlash against the civil-rights movement has held progressivism in America back for so long. While I freely admit that there are many people opposing Hillary Clinton for equally chauvinistic and offensive reasons as there are people opposing Barack Obama, overall those voters are probably a minority of the same Reagan Democrats after which I am tired of chasing. I’m just sick and tired of this group being the dominant swing voting block in the United States, and I want to move past it. Demographically speaking, Obama does appear to be the candidate who can do that better than Hillary Clinton, and I freely admit that is one reason I would prefer for Obama to be the nominee.”

Class condescension from a college boy haiku writer is not going to win the white working class vote. Ascribing racism as the primary motivation for voters who vote their interests is not going to win the white working class. Candidates such as Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton have proven that the white working class will vote logically for those viewed as friends, not leering, sneering, snobs.

Donna Brazile helped destroy the Democratic Party as well. She too displayed her hatred of the white working class in favor of as she and David Axelrod put it:

A new Democratic coalition is younger. It is more urban, as well as suburban, and we don’t have to just rely on white blue-collar voters and Hispanics.

Axelrod has declared The white working class has gone to the Republican nominee for many elections, going back even to the Clinton years. This is not new that Democratic candidates don’t rely solely on those votes.

In a dishonest way, Ruy Teixiera yesterday repudiated this “creative class” trash. Instead of killing himself and apologizing for the damage he has done, Teixiera pretends he never wrote the nonsense he wrote and that he has always understood how important the white working class vote is:

“Each election cycle there occurs a tired ritual, in which pundits and reporters rediscover that yes, indeed, there are still a lot of white working class voters in America, and they represent a serious vulnerability for the Democrats. But just this once, let’s skip the period where everyone initially ignores this group and cut straight to the chase: There will be a lot of white working class voters showing up at the polls next November, and the degree to which they support (or abandon) President Obama could very well make or break his reelection.”

That is an indecent and dishonest opening paragraph. Teixeira is dishonest – Teixeira has been prominent in calling for a new coalition to dump the winning FDR/Bill Clinton/Hillary Clinton coalition. Teixeira is indecent – the white working class is not a “serious vulnerability for the Democrats” – the white working class has always been a great opportunity to address the plight of the poor and lead to a truly progressive future not the snob “progressivism” of college frat party boys. But that is the mentality of these snob creeps.

After the lies of the introductory paragraph, Teixeira is forced to come clean and finally tell the truth to the creative class creeps that destroyed the Democratic Party:

“In 2008, during his otherwise-solid election victory, Obama lost the white working class vote by 18 points. In 2010, however, things got much worse: Congressional Democrats’ experienced a catastrophic 30 point deficit among the same group. While the first number is a figure Obama could live with repeating, the second could very well prove fatal.

Indeed, if Republicans can replicate that 30 point deficit in 2012—a margin which seems increasingly possible given the recent bad news about the economy—Obama will have little to no room for error among his other constituencies. For example, even if, as expected, the share of minority voters increases from 26 to around 28 percent in the next election and Obama receives the typical 75 percent of that vote, while the share of white working class voters declines by another 3 percentage points, a 30 point hole in Obama’s white working class support would mean that the overall support he needs to win the election was teetering right on the knife’s edge. In such a scenario, Obama would have to hold essentially all of his white college graduate support from 2008 (47 percent, a historic high for Democrats) to be assured of victory.”

Unfortunately for the snobs and thugs which worship Barack Obama, it’s not cool anymore to think Obama is anything but a clown. Teixeira notes several years too late that Republicans are not as stupid as the “creative class” believes:

“And make no mistake about it, GOP strategy for 2012 will start with the white working class and attempt to drive up support among this group as high as possible. As an example, just take Romney’s recently declared strategy:

Romney advisers see a disconnect between the president’s announcements of real progress on the economy at a time when there is, in the words of one, “a massive disaster out there with people’s lives.” They argue that, on economic issues, Obama still has trouble connecting with voters, particularly those from the white working class.

Teixiera peddled the notion of endless Obama Dimocrat victories for years. Not now though:

“These tactics are likely to pay big dividends both nationally and, even more importantly, in the states where the election is actually decided. Consider the case of Ohio, a state the GOP must take back to take down Obama. White working class voters could end up representing as much as 56 percent of Ohio voters in 2012, judging from Census voter supplement data. Anything close to a 30 point deficit in 2012 will almost definitely sink Obama in this state, no matter what happens with the friendlier portions of the Ohio electorate.

Or take Florida, Nevada, and Colorado, other states that are vulnerable to a white working class collapse. [snip]

Even more alarmingly, the white working class vote provides the perfect way for the GOP to drive a wedge into those 241 electoral votes Democrats have held for five straight presidential elections. Contested states with high proportions of white working class voters like Minnesota (60 percent white working class in 2012), Wisconsin (58 percent), Pennsylvania (55 percent), and Michigan (53 percent) could easily be flipped if this group flees from Obama.”

But, but, but, that is “unpossible” say the Ralphies of the “creative class.” “We thought those truck driving white “Bubba” “Reagan Democrats” didn’t matter anymore!” “Say it ain’t so, Ruy!!!!!”:

“But how likely is such a white working class surge toward the GOP in 2012? From the standpoint of Obama and the Democrats, scarily so. It’s important to remember that this is the group that has been the bulwark of every GOP victory going back to Richard Nixon in 1968. And it is the group recently termed by journalist Ronald Brownstein as, “[T]he most pessimistic group in America.” In a recent Pew Economic Mobility Project poll, only one-third of working class whites thought today’s children would live better than they do, far below the levels of confidence expressed by minorities and college-educated whites. And in a recent National Journal poll, only a third of white working class voters took a positive view of recent Census findings on the country’s fast growing minority population, with 58 percent endorsing instead the pessimistic view that these trends are “happening too quickly,” and undermining fundamental American values at a time of high unemployment.

In those few words, Teixiera demonstrates that the white working class is acting quite rationally in economic terms. The white working class is hurting economically, understands the economic horrors to come, and is therefore voting their economic interests. The “creative class” of frat boys sneers at the plight of those “Reagan Democrats” that somehow Bill and Hillary Clinton have no trouble understanding or winning:

“These views are obviously rooted in the bleak economic situation confronting most members of the white working class. While that’s bad enough, what’s worse is that the economy is showing no signs of the kind of progress that might take the edge off these sentiments. This should worry the Obama team greatly and encourage the so-called “pivot” to the jobs issue that the administration is considering. A deal on debt reduction, however desirable for other reasons, will be no substitute for better economic conditions, especially among this difficult demographic.”

Again Texeira is too stupid to understand something that the rest of his idiot “creative class” frat boy friends are unable to understand. Let’s explain: an Obama pivot on jobs or new “stimulus” won’t help Obama because the white working class does not trust they will get any help from Obama or his Obamanation Dimocrats. The white working class, and anyone who is sensible, does not trust Barack Obama on any issue, at any time, in any place. The white working class (and all sensible people) does not listen to Barack Obama’s words they see his actions and they do not trust him at all. Got it?

Teixeira ends with a sop of “HOPE” to his creative class frat boy friends, but concedes the “real challenge” after having led the Democratic establishment into a ditch:

“To be sure, the good news for Obama is that the level of support he needs from this group of voters is not terribly high. While a 30 point deficit might sink him, he could survive pretty easily on a 23 point deficit, John Kerry’s margin in 2004. That Obama would likely win with this very large deficit, while Kerry lost, indicates just how much the demographics of the country have changed in the 8 years since Kerry’s defeat. But while the bar for Obama may be lower, he still needs to clear it, and at the moment, that’s looking like a real challenge.”

A real challenge indeed.

Ruy Teixeira has done incalculable damage to the Democratic Party (killed it) and the United States of America. Teixeira thought he could be a Kevin Phillips of the left but Kevin Phillips is a very smart man and Teixeira is no Phillips – Teixiera is just a screw-up.

Recently there has been a lot more talk about Hillary Clinton challenging Barack Obama in 2012 (we’ll be discussing this, probably in our next article). Those that do not know how to connect the dots deride this speculation. Somehow they do not see the importance of strong Hillary Clinton supporters as an FDR coalition that proudly includes the white working class.

Hillary Clinton supporters always knew Barack Obama is not up any job that requires hard work, concern for the poor, or respect for women. By “women” we do include Sarah Palin who has been a target of not only sexists and misogynists, but also (like Bill and Hillary) of a class snobbery from the cowardly creative class Obama frat boys.

We Hillary Supporters knew in 2008 America needed a leader with experience and a life time dedication to core American and Democratic values. We saw in 2007 Barack Obama to be the clown he is. We knew the cowardly Obama haiku writers and frat boys were not very smart and still don’t know enough to repudiate someone who has stabbed them repeatedly in the back (no soup progressive future for you Chris Bowers”)

We knew Barack Obama is an idiot, no matter how “brilliant” the frat boys thought he was.



We knew all his promises were full of, um, it. We knew Obama would not know how to create one single job other than his own.

We knew if you elect a boob, expect boobery.

More and more Americans now know there is a boob in the White House. Hillary Supporters and the white working class knew this all along.

Share

Minny Ninny: The Nutroots Kook Klown Konvention

We don’t call them the “Nutroots” for nothing. Their annual asylum reunion used to be called “Yearly Kos.” Then their fragile minds completely unhinged, they went all out for their golden calf, trashed the Democratic Party of FDR with their idolatry, and proved themselves to be “Yearly Kooks.” Now they call themselves “Netroot Nation.” Those of us who are reality based recognize them as Nuts.

They are not very bright either.

Consider what has thus far transpired at the Kook Klown Konvention. These racists (by their own definition they are racists because anyone who opposes Barack Obama is a racist) are attacking Barack Obama. Not only is this KKK event trashing Obama, they somehow have come to realize they are fools fooled by a fool. But, and this is a big but which proves how kooky the Kook Klown Konvention is, as much as they know they have been fooled by treacherous Obama they still intend to vote for him! They wish Obama well:

“The frustrations and the fears that progressives feel about President Obama were on full display Thursday as thousands of them flocked to Minneapolis for the sixth annual Netroots Nation conference.

Former Wisconsin senator Russ Feingold said he hoped that Obama will be re-elected, but he urged the president to stand up to corporate interests, demanding that the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling become a focal point of the 2012 campaign.

“Sometimes we have to be very direct with the Democratic Party. Just as you have long pushed our Democrats to stand up for their ideals, I’m here this evening to ask you to redouble your efforts because I fear that the Democratic Party is in danger of losing its identity,” Feingold said in his keynote address to a crowd of around 2,400 progressive activists and bloggers here at the Minneapolis Convention Center, the most ever for the event.

Specifically, Feingold ripped Priorities USA, a super political action committee started last spring by former White House deputy press secretary Bill Burton.”

Former Senator Feingold is supposed to be one of the bright ones. How smart is he though? In 2008 Feingold could not make up his mind between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. In 2010 the voters of Wisconsin sent him packing. There is nothing left of the Democratic Party of FDR in the current Obamination we call the Obama Dimocratic Party – and only now does this loser get around to saying that “the Democatic Party is in danger of losing its identity.” A clue for Feingold: the party committed suicide in 2008 in Denver.

Feingold is supposed to be one of the bright ones at the Kook Klown Konvention. In a way he is – he at least mentioned jobs:

“It’s not just campaigns and contributions,” Feingold noted. “We have to say to the president, ‘Mr. President, Jeff Immelt is not the right guy – the CEO of GE is not the right guy to be running your Jobs & Competitiveness Council, not when your company doubled its profits, increased his compensation, and asked its workers to take huge pay and benefits cuts.”

How stupid is Feingold and his fellow nutKooks? You start off by telling Obama you will vote for him. Obama stops listening to anything else – he’s gotten what he wants. Why should Obama listen to 10 cent whores? Feingold is very stupid – and kooky.

Not to be outdone, Howard Dean (the guy without cable so he did not know of the sexism and misogyny orgy of 2008 under his watch) proved he is still a coconut swinging on the tree:

“Former DNC chairman Howard Dean also addressed the opening day of the conference, noting that “grousing about the president is a stage we have to go through.” Dean said he will continue to support the president, but rather than focus on Obama, he suggested, people should focus on what they can do in their own communities.

“We are responsible for the change we can believe in,” he said. “Change does not come from Washington, DC. Change comes from the bottom up.”

“Politicians follow. They don’t lead. We lead, collectively, all of us.”

These kooks led other kooks and the willing to be kooks to Obama in 2008. They led to this debacle and now they want to continue to drive in the ditch, over the cliff, through the abyss.

The Kook Klown Konvention has not really learned anything
. They still support Barack Obama despite all his treacheries. Like all nuts, they are tough to crack. The school of hard knocks, reality, will not crack these kooks. They still support Barack. They might be unhappy with Hope and Change, but they still worship the golden calf.

The little bit of news attention generated by the now irrelevant Kook Klown Konvention was a confrontation between a full out bisexual kook and the ever ready for publicity Dan Choi. The Gay Mr. Choi was not amused by the bisexual Obama lovin’ kook:



“It’s a bummer when the president “is just not that into you.”

That’s the gripe of some liberal activists here for the sixth annual Netroots Nation, a gathering of bloggers and activists who helped propel then-Sen. Barack Obama to the White House back in 2008. [snip]

On the agenda Thursday afternoon: a panel titled “What to Do When the President is Just Not that Into You,” which featured Jane Hamsher, founder and publisher of the liberal blog firedoglake.com, Dan Choi, an openly gay former Army lieutenant who handcuffed himself to the White House fence, and others.

“The president has turned out to not be as progressive as we hoped him to be,” said John Aravosis, a Democratic political consultant and gay activist. “I don’t think he’s been fierce. I don’t think he likes to advocate very much.”

Mr. Aravosis and others have long complained that the White House is tacking to the center. The stimulus law was too small, they say, and the health-care law should have had a public option. And folks here said they’re still unhappy despite some victories, including the repeal of the ban on gays serving openly in the military.

Immigration activist Felipe Matos, who wants Congress to pass immigration reform legislation, said Mr. Obama will have to do more than give speeches to win the Latino vote next year. “He went to Puerto Rico to speak to the Puerto Ricans in Florida,” Mr. Matos said of President Obama’s four-hour stop in San Juan on Tuesday. “He’s onto something, and we’re onto him. We are not a type of people that you want to mess around with.”

Things grew somewhat tense when Nick Tschida, who identified himself as an unpaid intern for Organizing for America, the White House’s political arm, approached the stage and gave the panelists a flier touting the White House’s accomplishments on gay rights.

But when Mr. Tschida told Mr. Choi that he personally did not support same-sex marriage, Mr. Choi grabbed the flier and tore it up.

Mr. Tschida then raised his shoulders and offered, “Civil unions?”

John Aravosis trashed Hillary Clinton in 2008. Aravosis trashed anyone who did not felate Barack Obama. Nick Tshida, the bisexual who loves Barack is just this year’s version of 2008 Aravosis. It took Felipe Matos and Dan Choi to teach Aravosis and Tschida how to deal with a treacherous Obama. The lesson to be learned is simple, don’t support someone who stabs you in the back on the issue you care most about.

Whether you agree with them or not on this issue, immigration activists are smart for fighting back against Barack Obama who stabbed them in the back when he had overwhelming majorities in the House and Senate. Immigration activists who say “screw you Obama” are smart tacticians, if they stick to their guns:

“Immigration activists say they are tired of Democrats assuming they have support from immigrants, particularly after the failure of the DREAM Act in December. [snip]

Still, he said immigration advocates are eager to show they are not beholden to the Democratic Party, particularly if politicians support policies such as expanding the enforcement program Secure Communities.

We’re not interested in being under any particular political tent,” he said. [snip]

Tester is up for reelection in 2012 against Republican Rep. Denny Rehberg, putting activists in the odd position of fighting against a Democrat who assumes he will get their support. Although they do not want Rehberg to be elected, they see it as important to send a message to Tester, Haque-Hausrath said. [snip]

“Rehberg’s positions are certainly no better than Tester’s,” Haque-Hausrath said. “But they’re also no worse.”

DREAM Act supporters are also targeting President Barack Obama in his 2012 run, arguing he is partially to blame for the failure of the bill. Immigrant advocates called on Obama in May to stop referencing his support for the DREAM Act in campaign literature, arguing it is disingenuous as he still allows undocumented young people to be deported.

At Netroots Nation, a conference of progressive bloggers and activists, DREAM Act supporters said they plan to mobilize against Obama to show him he cannot take Latino and immigrant votes for granted in 2012 while continuing record-level deportations.

“Everybody is fighting for some method of accountability right now,” Juan Rodriquez of the Florida Immigrant Coalition said from the audience of a panel discussion at Netroots. “I’m not going to allow myself, my family and my community to be used.”

The bisexual boy who defended Obama should shut his mouth and learn from the immigration activists. Let’s peek some more at that bisexual dolt:

“Liberal activists booed an unpaid intern for Barack Obama’s campaign arm Thursday night after he defended the president’s record on gay rights during a Netroots Nation breakout session. [snip]

During a question-and-answer session, a 22-year-old stood up to introduce himself as an Organizing for America field representative based out of a Minnesota state house district. He told them he’s reaching out to the GLBT community, and that he’s making an issue of a Republican-proposed constitutional amendment on Minnesota’s ballot next year to restrict gay marriage.

He approached the panelists from the audience to hand them a flyer highlighting what Obama has done for gays. The tagline: “Just imagine what we’ll accomplish with six more years.”

“I can’t say that I’m for marriage equality, but as a bisexual man I’d take a bullet for both of you,” he told the panelists.

Dan Choi, a former Army lieutenant who became closely associated with the push to end DADT, asked if he supported full marriage equality.

The intern — who just graduated from college — said he cannot because of his job. Choi snapped. He tore up the piece of paper and threw back, telling him to “report back” after telling the president he should support full marriage equality. Many in the crowd of more than one hundred activists booed the young man after he noted that Obama supported civil unions.”

You’re not a man, you’re a boy, a bisexual boob of a boy working for a treacherous boob of a flim-flam man. You’re a ten cent whore at a ten cent whore convention.

For all the drollery of watching Kooks collide, there was an additional oddity (beside the Andrew Breitbart crash fun) at the Kooks Klown Konvention. Everyone seems to have forgotten that today is the Recovery Summer birthday:

“Guess who turns 1 year old today? That’s right, Joe Biden’s Recovery Summer! Let’s recall what Biden said at the birth:

With tens of thousands of projects funded and millions of Americans on the job today thanks to the Recovery Act, it’s easy to assume its impact is behind us – but summer 2010 is actually poised to be the most active Recovery Act season yet, with tens of thousands of projects underway across the country that will help to create jobs for American workers and economic growth for businesses, large and small. With thousands of road, bridge, water and other infrastructure projects breaking ground this summer, the American people will get to see first-hand the Recovery Act dollars being put to work in their communities making long-overdue infrastructure improvements, creating new opportunities for local economic growth and supporting well-paid jobs.

And let’s not forget this prediction from Sheriff Joe:

“All in all, we’re going to be creating somewhere between 100,000 and 200,000 jobs next month, I predict,” Biden was quoted as saying, while acknowledging he “got in trouble” for a job growth prediction in March.

“Even some in the White House said ‘Hey, don’t get ahead of yourself.’ Well I’m here to tell you some time in the next couple of months we’re going to be creating between 250,000 jobs a month and 500,000 jobs a month.

It’s sad that Barack and Biden’s Recovery Summer 2010 can best be summed up by Willard Romney’s campaign video about bumps in the road:



In Minneapolis the ninnies are in control for the weekend. They enabled Barack Obama and now their tail feathers are dragging. They’ve lost hope. They’ve lost their minds.



Share

The Politics Of Decline: Marco Rubio’s Maiden Speech Versus Barack Obama’s Puerto Rico Flim-Flam

Forget last night’s Republican debate. Today’s long distance debate between Barack Obama and Marco Rubio is the issue to be decided in 2012.

Marco Rubio gave his first speech from the floor of the United States Senate today. It was a thunderous attack against the proponents of American decline:

“One of my favorite speeches is one that talks about our role in the world. It was the speech President Kennedy was set to give, had he lived just one more day. It would have closed with these words:

“We in this country, in this generation, are- by destiny rather than by choice- the watchmen on the walls of world freedom. We ask, therefore, that we may be worthy of our power and responsibility, that we may exercise our strength with wisdom and restraint, and that we may achieve in our time and for all time the ancient vision of ‘peace on earth, good will toward men.’ That must always be our goal, and the righteousness of our cause must always underlie our strength. For as was written long ago “except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain.”

Almost half a century later America is still the only watchman on that wall of world freedom. And there is still no one else to take our place.

What will the world look like if America declines? Well, today all over the world, people are being forced to accept a familiar lie, that the price for their security is their liberty.

If America declines, who will serve as living proof that liberty, security and prosperity are all possible together? Today, radical political Islam abuses and oppresses women, has no tolerance for other faiths and seeks to impose its views on the whole world. If America declines, who will lead the fight to confront and defeat them?

Today, children are used as soldiers and trafficked as slaves. Dissidents are routinely imprisoned without trial, and subjected to torture, forced confessions and forced labor.

If America declines, who will take these causes as their own? What will the world look like if America declines? Well, who will create the innovations of the 21st century? Who will stretch the limits of human potential and explore the new frontiers?

If America declines, who will do all this, and ask for nothing in return?

Motivated solely by the desire to make the world a better place?

The answer is no one will. There is still no nation or institution in the world willing or able to do what we have done.

Ronald Reagan described America as a shining city on a hill. Now, some say that we can no longer afford the price we must pay to keep America’s light shining. Others say that there are new shining cities that will soon replace us. I say they are both wrong. Yes, the price we will pay to keep America’s light shining is high, but the price we will pay if it stops shining will be even higher.

Yes, there are new nations now emerging with prosperity and influence. And that is what we always wanted. America never wanted to be the only shining city. We wanted our example to inspire the people of the world to build one of their own. You see, these nations, these new shining cities, they can join us, but they can never replace us. Because the light coming from them is but a reflection of our own. It is the light of an American century that now spreads throughout the world. A world that still needs America. A world that still needs our light. A world that still needs another American century.”



The salience of Marco Rubio’s speech is one we wrote about in mid-April of this year. We quoted from an article by Ryan Lizza in The New Yorker magazine:

“One of his advisers described the President’s actions in Libya as “leading from behind.” That’s not a slogan designed for signs at the 2012 Democratic Convention, but it does accurately describe the balance that Obama now seems to be finding. It’s a different definition of leadership than America is known for, and it comes from two unspoken beliefs: that the relative power of the U.S. is declining, as rivals like China rise, and that the U.S. is reviled in many parts of the world. Pursuing our interests and spreading our ideals thus requires stealth and modesty as well as military strength. “It’s so at odds with the John Wayne expectation for what America is in the world,” the adviser said. “But it’s necessary for shepherding us through this phase.”

Barack Obama is “shepherding us through this” decline of his own making. Marco Rubio is arguing against that perceived decline. In the article we wrote we also quoted from Market Watch which listed the horrific economic statistics and stated the consequences of America’s decline:

This is more than a statistical story. It is the end of the Age of America.

And both those countries live under very similar rules of constitutional government, respect for civil liberties and the rights of property. China has none of those. The Age of China will feel very different.”

Marco Rubio made a detailed case against American decline today. Last night Tim Pawlenty said “The President is a declinist.” It was Charles Krauthammer who in October 2009 began the discussion on American decline:

“The weathervanes of conventional wisdom are engaged in another round of angst about America in decline. New theories, old slogans: Imperial overstretch. The Asian awakening. The post-American world. Inexorable forces beyond our control bringing the inevitable humbling of the world hegemon. [snip]

The question of whether America is in decline cannot be answered yes or no. There is no yes or no. Both answers are wrong, because the assumption that somehow there exists some predetermined inevitable trajectory, the result of uncontrollable external forces, is wrong. Nothing is inevitable. Nothing is written. For America today, decline is not a condition. Decline is a choice. Two decades into the unipolar world that came about with the fall of the Soviet Union, America is in the position of deciding whether to abdicate or retain its dominance. Decline–or continued ascendancy–is in our hands.

Krauthammer’s article is essential reading because, along with its economic component, the issue of 2012 is whether America chooses the road to ruin or the road to another American century.

David Brooks, who debased himself in 2008 when he praised Barack Obama as a future president because of the sharp crease in Obama’s pants, today writes about American decline as well:

This election is about how to avert national decline. All other issues flow from that anxiety.

The election is happening during a downturn in the economic cycle, but the core issue is the accumulation of deeper structural problems that this recession has exposed — unsustainable levels of debt, an inability to generate middle-class incomes, a dysfunctional political system, the steady growth of special-interest sinecures and the gradual loss of national vitality.

The number of business start-ups per capita has been falling steadily for the past three decades. Workers’ share of national income has been declining since 1983. Male wages have been stagnant for about 40 years. The American working class — those without a college degree — is being decimated, economically and socially. In 1960, for example, 83 percent of those in the working class were married. Now only 48 percent are.

Voters are certainly aware of the scope of the challenges before them. Their pessimism and anxiety does not just reflect the ebb and flow of the business cycle, but is deeper and more pervasive. Trust in institutions is at historic lows. Large majorities think the country is on the wrong track, and have for years. Large pluralities believe their children will have fewer opportunities than they do.”

Lizza, MarketWatch, Pawlenty, Brooks, Krauthammer – thin reeds all when compared to Marco Rubio. Rubio, the son of immigrants, a new Senator, takes on Obama’s decline and fall of America with a particular kind of electoral force. That particular electoral force is why Barack Obama traveled with the Chicago circus to Puerto Rico:

“The roughly 4 million residents of the U.S. Caribbean territory are American citizens but can’t vote for president, while the almost 5 million Puerto Ricans living in the 50 U.S. states have full voting rights, and Obama needs strong support in 2012 from what traditionally has been a largely Democratic constituency.

In particular, an influx of Puerto Ricans has come in recent years to central Florida, a key swing state in Obama’s re-election campaign.”

Shameless Barack Obama advertised his trip to the island as the first presidential visit since John F. Kennedy in 1961. Obama mentioned Kennedy the minute he arrived and the streets were festooned with posters of Obama 2011 and Kennedy 1961. The problem with this flim-flam is that President Gerald Ford visited Puerto Rico in 1976 for an economic summit.

Barack Obama used island Puerto Ricans as props to prop himself up:

“To some Puerto Ricans, Obama’s trip was too short to merit significance.

“I think it’s a public relations visit. I say it as a Democrat. This visit does not satisfy me,” said Sen. Cirilo Tirado of the island’s Popular Democratic Party.

Luis Guillermo Febus, a public employee, called Obama’s visit “too fast,” adding: “It seems to me that there will not be time for us to talk about serious things and the problems that this country has.”

Barack Obama went to Puerto Rico, not for serious talk and action, but to try to bamboozle the Latino vote. Recently Obama “strategists” declared that they were targeting the state of Georgia for an Obama victory because Georgia has a Latino population of 10%. Because states such as Ohio are all but lost Obama “strategists” have also declared that they will target Latino rich Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado and even Texas!

We’ve mocked this Latino based reelection strategy repeatedly. Recently American Conservative Union Chairman Al Cardenas made many of our points:

“There are going to be from 10-15 key states [in 2012] and in 40% of them, the Hispanic vote will be decisive, Cardenas said. “When you look at the swing states and you look at the growing Hispanic population, you have to ask, ‘Would a Marco Rubio or a Jeb Bush almost guarantee us a victory in those six states and win us the presidency?’ Probably,” he said. Cardenas, a former Florida State GOP Chairman who is close to Rubio, said he thought Rubio would likely join the ticket if — as widely expected — he’s asked.

“If you asked him today he’d say no,” said Cardenas. “A year or 14 months from now is a different situation. If he’s asked, I don’t know how you say no.”

Marco Rubio will be on the Republican ticket in 2012. The issue will be American decline.

Last night Barack Obama spoke at a half empty fundraiser. The low dollar donors of 2008 either do not have the money or the desire to give Obama money. Their fortunes are in decline. Obama’s fortunes are in decline. America is in decline.

To stop the decline of America Barack Obama must be defeated in 2012. Marco Rubio knows that.

Share

New Hampshire Republican Debate 2011

In a splendid moment today, while campaigning in North Carolina, Barack Obama set the stage for tonight’s Republican debate in New Hampshire. The grinning Joker joked about his economic failures:

“President Obama’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness met today in Durham, NC at Cree Inc., a company that manufactures energy-efficient LED lighting. One of the Council’s recommendations to President Obama was to streamline the federal permit process for construction and infrastructure projects. It was explained to Obama that the permitting process can delay projects for “months to years … and in many cases even cause projects to be abandoned … I’m sure that when you implemented the Recovery Act your staff briefed you on many of these challenges.” At this point, Obama smiled and interjected, “Shovel-ready was not as … uh .. shovel-ready as we expected.” The Council, led by GE’s Jeffrey Immelt, erupted in laughter.

The Obama administration promised the Recovery Act (“the stimulus”) would prevent the jobless rate from going over 8%. It now stands at 9.1%.”



Jobless Americans are so funny. Failed policies are such great fodder for humor. Obama’s joke is another demonstration of what we have written often: Obama does not care that you know he does not care. Obama’s 2011 joke is the Republican’s 2012 laugh line – as Mitt Romney demonstrated earlier today:



The bumps in the road, a.k.a. Americans will get a chance to vote out the destructive bump in the road – Barack Obama – when the chance arrives in 2012.

The Republican field, or at least seven in the current field, will debate tonight at a CNN/WMUR/New Hampshire Union Leader hosted event at 8:00 p.m. ET at St. Anselm’s College in Manchester.

Mitt Romney who is now the undisputed leader for the nomination in polls, will have to explain what Tim Pawlenty calls Obamneycare. Mitt Romney will have to put the health care issue to rest either tonight or in the future. The Obamneycare issue is not going away:

“A strong majority of Americans wants to repeal Obamacare, according to a poll released today by Rasmussen Reports.

The survey of likely voters finds that 54 percent at least somewhat favor repeal of the health care law while 35 percent are at least somewhat opposed. And the passion is with the opponents. Some 41 percent strongly favor appeal compared to 28 percent strongly oppose it.

Gosh, the promised White House campaign to sell and explain the law has never materialized. I guess that’s because the more Obama talked about it during the runup to passage, the less popular it became. Or so it seemed. At the very least, he didn’t help.

The Rasmussen poll is something of an outlier, but not inconsistent with other surveys. Polls in recent months by POLITICO, Hearst, and Bloomberg have shown a 6-10 percent margin for those who favor repeal.

What this means, with polling so awful a year after the legislation was passed, is that Obamacare remains a political weakness for Obama, and not one he is likely to solve before Election Day.”

The sideshows tonight will consist of Newt Gingrich trying to prove he is still breathing, Michelle Bachman tied to the Palin bashing Ed Rollins, Herman Cain explaining his not too gay views, Rick Santorum will wrestle a potted plant and the absent Jon Huntsman will, like Obama in Illinois, vote not present.

Share

Battle Of The Slogans 2012: ‘Obama Made It Worse’ Versus ‘It Would Have Been Worse’

Campaigns for president always have one of two themes: “it’s time for a change” or “stay the course.” The incumbent power will always be the “stay the course” purveyors, even if “adjustments” or “tweaks/changes” garnish the formula. The out of power challenger will always run a campaign based on the “it’s time for a change” theme.

The themes and slogans for 2012 are already set. If Obama persists in running for election in 2012 he will run on “stay the course.” The Republicans, or a potential third party challenger, will run on an offshoot of “it’s time for a change.” Obama enabler and Big Pink hater Peggy Noonan explains:

“Four words: He made it worse.

Obama inherited financial collapse, deficits and debt. He inherited a broken political culture. These things weren’t his fault. But through his decisions, he made them all worse.

Joe Scarborough recently wrote that Obama’s big enemy now is time running out. With unemployment again above 9 percent, the country’s AAA debt rating in danger, the failure of Obama’s stimulus scams and bailout sprees evident, there is very little time for an economic rebound before November 2012. Blaming George W. Bush is increasingly a lame strategy. It’s not that Republicans are blameless:

“Republicans who blame our current economic crisis on Obama either have short memories or no shame. The GOP owned Washington when it inherited a booming economy and a $155 billion budget surplus. Mr. Obama was not as fortunate. He inherited a broken financial system, a housing market in free fall and a debt that doubled during the Bush years.

But that doesn’t mean Obama should be given a free political pass for our nation’s dismal economic condition. For while the economic crisis was not of his making, Obama’s unfocused policies and spendthrift ways have had the effect of taking a bad situation and making it worse.

Bill Clinton left George W. Bush that great economy and growing surplus. George W. Bush left the economy in a mess. Barack Obama made it worse.

We wrote repeatedly in early 2009 that Barack Obama’s scams and schemes would fail because they were an unfocused, wasteful, mess. We called him and them Eggheads. They are destructive, delusional eggheads led by a tax cheat. We have been proven correct. What we wrote in early 2009 was controversial but is now conventional wisdom, or soon will be. Scarborough now says it was all an unfocused, wasteful mess:

“Conservatives complained that it spent too much. Liberals argued that it spent too little. But very few paid attention to the most important question: Where did the money go?

House members and senators who voted with the president were in no position to answer that question, because none of them actually read the bill before it passed.

Against that backdrop, one wonders why the Obama administration promised voters that if this muddled collection of legislative goop was signed into law, unemployment would never rise above 8 percent.

The president has clearly failed on the jobs front.”

Yup, he made it worse. In 2012 Obama will try to continue to distract from the simple fact that the economy was bad in 2009 and He Made It Worse. Obama pal and once fellow Illinois senator Dick Durbin thinks that the American people will soon hold Obama to account:

“Dick Durbin: I can’t help but think Obama might be held responsible for this economy [snip]

Now then: Democrats aren’t seriously thinking of embracing a this “messaging,” are they?

As you might have seen, my colleagues Jeff Zeleny and Jim Rutenberg did a nice job of previewing President Obama’s re-election campaign in a front page article on Sunday. One line in particular jumped out at me: “With their hopes dashed of substantial improvement in unemployment anytime soon, aides indicated that the theme was likely to be less ‘morning in America’ and more ‘don’t change horses in midstream.’”

I’m certainly no political strategist, let alone one who’s gotten a president elected. But that said, am I the only one who wonders if this might be kind of a boneheaded construct?

That’s from Matt Bai, whose big problem with the “horse” analogy appears to be that Americans are perfectly comfortable switching horses in midstream these days in all sorts of ways. Er, okay, but I’m thinking the bigger problem with it might be that the water’s gotten so high that we’re all about to drown. Normally that’s the perfect time to switch horses in midstream, right? The water’s rising, inexorably, right up to your nose, and — oh look, there’s another horse. Let’s climb on.”

Yup, blame game aside, “This Is Obama’s Economy Now.”:

“The fact is we now have the president in a position of power with his economic policies. He’s going to be held accountable, we know that,” Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) told MSNBC this morning.”

New York Times Obama fluffer Matt Bail is not happy with the horse analogy. His fellow Timesman, the Obama statistics apologist Nate Silver, appears to agree that a stunning version of “He made it worse” – from yesteryear – has the potential to really hurt Obama:

“The year 1980 was one in which economic forecasting models were in agreement that the economy had slumped too significantly to allow President Jimmy Carter to win re-election. Unemployment was at 7.5 percent and inflation was at 9.7 percent. Per-capita GDP and disposable income growth, adjusted for inflation, had been negative over the course of Mr. Carter’s term. The economy was officially in recession for much of the election year.

But Mr. Carter — despite approval ratings in the 30s or low 40s — was holding his own against Ronald Reagan. Some polls, even well after Labor Day, showed the horse race to be tied or even had Mr. Carter with a slim lead.

Mr. Reagan would win overwhelmingly, however, claiming 44 states (even Massachusetts and New York) while limiting Mr. Carter to just 41 percent of the vote. He surged in the final week of the campaign after he posed the following question to Americans in the presidential debate of October 28, the first and only such event in which he and Mr. Carter participated together:



Are you better off than you were four years ago?” Mr. Reagan asked, dwelling on Mr. Carter’s economic and foreign policy failures. Voters decided that they weren’t, and Mr. Reagan became the 40th president.”

Silver was a known baseball statistician hack for Obama during 2008 and now he shills for Obama at the Times. Silver is every ready to make excuses for Obama and allay the fears of the shrinking viper population that still adores Obama. But all the excuses Silver produces will not deter Obama’s 2012 opponent[s] from saying “He made it worse”:

“The slow-forming 2012 Republican race for the White House is starting to gain focus, with candidates competing to see who can hammer President Barack Obama the hardest for his economic leadership.

Republicans have launched a volley of attacks on Obama’s economic policies in the last week, hoping to capitalize on what polls show is broad public dissatisfaction with how he is handling the economy and the budget deficit.

Next week’s nationally televised debate in New Hampshire gives Republicans their best forum so far to make their case on what promises to be their central argument in 2012 — that Obama should be fired for his economic stewardship. [snip]

“He has spent three years dividing our nation, fanning the flames of class envy and resentment to deflect attention from his own failures and the economic hardship they have visited on America,” Pawlenty said of the president in a speech at the University of Chicago, where Obama once taught.”

Barack Obama and his henchmen have said if not for Obama “It would have been worse.” The HOPE they have is that Republicans (like Newt Gingrich today) will implode. The HOPE is that opposition campaigns will destroy themselves. The HOPE is that all the opposition campaigns will Newter themselves. The HOPE is that the American people can be distracted.

The American people however are focused on the economy, do not agree with Obama’s “would have been”, and think Obama made it worse. Things are so bad many think another Great Depression in on the way:

“President Barack Obama’s overall approval rating has dropped below 50 percent as a growing number of Americans worry that the U.S. is likely to slip into another Great Depression within the next 12 months, according to a new national poll.”

After two years of an alleged recovery, the fear in the streets is of a Great Depression:

“In 2008, only 38% expected another Great Depression, which rose to 41% in 2009 shortly after Obama took office. In the two years of the Obamanomics recovery, it’s jumped seven points — which shows just how effective people believe Obamanomics to be.”

Great Depression talk is also coming from the left in the form of Dean Baker:

“When the financial system was on the edge of melting down back in the fall of 2008, there was much talk in the punditocracy of a second Great Depression. The story was that we risked repeating the mistake at the onset of the first Great Depression: allowing a cascade of bank failures that both destroyed much of the country’s wealth and left the financial system badly crippled. Instead, however, we acted, and these days the accepted wisdom is that the TARP and other special lending facilities created by the Federal Reserve Board prevented a similar collapse that saved us from a second Great Depression. But this view badly misunderstands the nature of the first Great Depression—and may, in fact, result in the country suffering the second Great Depression that the pundits claim we have averted.”

Baker agrees with the Obama slogan that “It would have been worse” but that is small comfort as long as Baker shouts “Great Depression coming.” Baker is not alone on the left:

“Dem Pollsters to Obama: Americans Still Think We Are in the Ditch

The Democratic polling firm Democracy Corps is out with a new comprehensive polling report looking at the state of the economy and impact on politics. [snip]

The really bad news for the Obama administration though is that Americans don’t think the economy is improving. They in fact feel their own and their family’s economic problems have gotten much worse lately.

Since the spring of 2009, two-thirds of the country have rated the state of the economy’ negatively. That is an unchanging backdrop to life in America right now. What is going on?

Try reality. Our tracking on people‘s own and immediate family experience shows a stable 35 percent who have lost a job in the last year and shows a worsening situation on health care, foreclosure, and particularly reduced wages and benefits. That is particularly true for white non-college and working class voters.

The polling falling mirrors what we are also seeing in the official data with dropping home prices and bad job reports.

As far as regular voters are concerned there is no recovery and according to Democracy Corps, Democrats need to acknowledge this reality to win in 2012. President Obama needs to stop taking credit for “fixing the problem” simply because most people don’t think it has been fixed.

The White House metaphor of getting the car out of the ditch on to level ground and not giving the car back to the guys who drove it into the ditch was unconvincing, too light-hearted, backward looking, and out-of-touch. People thought they were still in the ditch.”

It’s a Great Depression leading to a Great Awakening about the flim flam man from Chicago. Even Obama loving Politico has had to go for talking points to the Obama nest of thieves in order to bring HOPE to the worried Obama apologists. However, Republicans know the “Obama Made It Worse” theme is a winner:

“In 2008, Obama won nine states that George W. Bush had won in 2004: Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio and Virginia.

The RNC memo notes Republican gains in those states since Obama took office in 2009, including one U.S. Senate seat, four governorships, seven state legislative chambers and 19 U.S. House seats.

“In only two and a half years, his position in those states, and in many others, has deteriorated dramatically, and Republican strength is in plain view,” the memo states.”

In the battle of the slogans Obama’s “It would have been worse” does not have the sting of truth “He Made It Worse” does. It is really bad. At the end of June the Federal Reserve will stop buying American debt (the Fed has purchased 85% of debt offerings) and the Chinese are not going to save the debt market with purchases. Not only did Obama make it worse – The Economy Is Worse Than You Think:

The Economy Is Worse Than You Think

The policies of the Obama administration have led to the weak condition of the American economy. Growth during the coming year will be subpar at best, leaving high or rising levels of unemployment and underemployment.

The drop in GDP growth to just 1.8% in the first quarter of 2011, from 3.1% in the final quarter of last year, understates the extent of the decline. Two-thirds of that 1.8% went into business inventories rather than sales to consumers or other final buyers. This means that final sales growth was at an annual rate of just 0.6% and the actual quarterly increase was just 0.15%—dangerously close to no rise at all. A sustained expansion cannot be built on inventory investment. It takes final sales to induce businesses to hire and to invest.

The picture is even gloomier if we look in more detail. Estimates of monthly GDP indicate that the only growth in the first quarter of 2011 was from February to March. After a temporary rise in March, the economy began sliding again in April, with declines in real wages, in durable-goods orders and manufacturing production, in existing home sales, and in real per-capita disposable incomes. It is not surprising that the index of leading indicators fell in April, only the second decline since it began to rise in the spring of 2009.

The data for May are beginning to arrive and are even worse than April’s. They are marked by a collapse in payroll-employment gains; a higher unemployment rate; manufacturers’ reports of slower orders and production; weak chain-store sales; and a sharp drop in consumer confidence.”

Obama Made It Worse:

“The administration’s most obvious failure was its misguided fiscal policies: the cash-for-clunkers subsidy for car buyers, the tax credit for first-time home buyers, and the $830 billion “stimulus” package. Cash-for-clunkers gave a temporary boost to motor-vehicle production but had no lasting impact on the economy. The home-buyer credit stimulated the demand for homes only temporarily.

As for the “stimulus” package, both its size and structure were inadequate to offset the enormous decline in aggregate demand.”

But not to worry. Barack Obama has his priorities:

“At some point during the first two years of his administration, President Obama stopped receiving the daily economic briefing that he requested when he took office.”

When he is not golfing and fund-raising, he’s with the guys:

“He’ll be back at the office in time to meet Auburn’s champion football team at 3 and with Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan at 4:40.”

How many football, baseball, basketball, golf, hockey teams are there? However many, Obama will rub backs and smile big for all of them. The economy? He’s too busy – he’s already done enough damage.

Share

The Bump In The Road – With Riots

It’s really really odd. For the second time in recent memory, a Washington Post writer has written with some degree of honesty and accuracy about Barack Obama. The earlier outbreak of honesty was at the end of May when Glenn Kessler accurately described Barack Obama’s recent treacheries against Israel.

Today Kessler commits truth with language frequently employed here to describe the flim flam man from Chicago. Kessler is using the appropriate English words in an appropriate manner:

“President Obama’s phony accounting on the auto industry bailout

With some of the economic indicators looking a bit dicey, President Obama traveled to Ohio last week to tout what the administration considers a good-news story: the rescue of the domestic automobile industry. In fact, he also made it the subject of his weekly radio address.

We take no view on whether the administration’s efforts on behalf of the automobile industry were a good or bad thing; that’s a matter for the editorial pages and eventually the historians. But we are interested in the facts the president cited to make his case.

What we found is one of the most misleading collections of assertions we have seen in a short presidential speech. Virtually every claim by the president regarding the auto industry needs an asterisk, just like the fine print in that too-good-to-be-true car loan. [snip]

This is chicanery.”

What a precise word Kessler employs. Chicanery – “the use of clever but tricky talk or action to deceive, evade, etc.” Kessler also states that Obama employs “misleading” figures and “straw man” arguments. Kessler ends by saying “If the auto industry bailout is really a success, there should be no need to resort to trumped-up rhetoric and phony accounting to make your case.”

Kessler is hinting at the obvious – that Obama has to resort to “chicanery” because the truth is destructive to Obama. James Carville is hintin’ about the chicanery too. Carville is also more than hinting that Obama is in trouble:

“In an appearance on Monday’s “Imus in the Morning” on the Fox Business Network, the former Clinton adviser said that, based on the May jobs number, if the unemployment picture doesn’t improve, 2012 could be rough for the president.

“[L]ook, I don’t think anybody — if 54,000 new jobs is the new standard, it’s going to be a very, very rough 2012 for President Obama,” Carville said. “But the three-month average was 160,000. If that is the case, then he will do OK. I can’t tell you what will happen. But yes, if this, if this last jobs number is an indication of future job numbers, it’s going to be very, very rough.”

Carville is cleverly indicating that the three month average is not going to be trend. Why else would Carville say that the riots are coming if he thinks the future is bright? Why?:

““It is going to be very difficult,” Carville said. “But the country, if that is what we are doing, this is gruesome on people. This unemployment rate for this long is a humanitarian crisis of the first magnitude. This financial crisis, people have studied this by the way, they know that the things take this long to work their way through. The aftermath of these things — kind of an academic book that is dry entitled ‘This Time is Different.’ What it concluded is that it is not different this time. They studied it, the aftermath of the financial crisis. What we are going through is imminently predictable. But this is a terrible thing that has happened to people’s lives. I think the president at one level understands that, you know. But he is limited in what he can do. So we’ll just have to see. But it’s going to be hard. If 54,000 jobs is the new norm — this is going to be very, very tough. Some people say it just might be one more thing. We don’t know.”



But Carville said the consequences aren’t limited to politics alone. He warned of heightened risk of civil unrest with the bleak economic picture.

“You know, look — this is a humanitarian — you know, you’re smart enough to see this,” Carville said. “People, you know, if it continues, we’re going to start to see civil unrest in this country. I hate to say that, but I think it’s imminently possible.”

We’ll twist Carville’s words a bit and say that Barack Obama “is a terrible thing that has happened to people’s lives.

Carville is utterly wrong when he says Obama “at some level understands” what is happening to Americans and America. Today Obama declared, I’m not concerned about a double-dip recession.Barack Obama does not care about the savage “Obamacare” scam he has unleashed on the nation either. The costs from this particularly cruel Obama flim flam is only now being understood.

As the rats continue to leave the sinking ship they drilled holes into, Barack Obama has changed the “car in the ditch” metaphor of 2010 with a new frat house phrase. Obama said that the recent deluge of bad economic statistics are just “a bump in the road.”

The “bump in the road” is Barack Obama. Eventually someone in Big Media will state that simple truth in that simple way. Glenn Kessler, that someone might have to be you.

Share

67 Years

A 67 year old of today was a newborn. An 18 year old boy of then was possibly engaged in a crusade for freedom.

It was a strong American economy, a strong American will, that was called 67 years ago today to fight against the forces of darkness and tyranny. And fight they did:

“According to the National World War II Museum, “The invasion force included 7,000 ships and landing craft manned by over 195,000 naval personnel from eight allied countries. Almost 133,000 troops from England, Canada and the United States landed on D-Day. Casualties from the three countries during the landing numbered 10,300.”

Kenneth Cordry of Missouri remembers:

“We were shipped to Chilton-Foliat, England, which became our home while we trained for the D-Day invasion with night jumps and maneuvers. We were restricted to our camp and not allowed to have any interaction with the townspeople for fear of leaking plans for the invasion.

“The evening of June 5, 1944, we knew it was the real thing when we put on our equipment and Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower walked through the ranks and talked to the troops. As light began to fade, we walked to our places and put on the more than 100 pounds of equipment. …

“Approaching the coast of France, our plane began bucking and lurching as anti-aircraft fire started, mixed with machine gun tracer fire. The pilots were supposed to stay in formation and drop us in planned drop zones, but many broke formation and dropped troopers all over the peninsula. Our pilot dropped us relatively close to our drop zone, but much too low to the ground and at a speed that tore much of the equipment off our bodies when the parachute’s opening shock hit.

“The landing was very hard, but I was unhurt. The first person I encountered was a man in my squad who said he’d been hit and couldn’t get out of his chute. I cut him out and after checking him over we decided he landed so hard with all the equipment on top of him that he thought he’d been hit. There was machine gunfire over our heads, so we headed in the opposite direction and by sheer luck walked onto a lane where we soon bumped into four or five other members of our company. We then headed for the beach, where we were to secure the causeway.

“Just as it began to get light, we had our first casualty. A sniper in a farmhouse killed one of our men as he approached the house. We were sobered by the sight of many collapsed parachutes with boots protruding.”

On the 40th Anniversary, President Ronald Reagan spoke about The Boys Of Pointe Du Hoc:

“We’re here to mark that day in history when the Allied armies joined in battle to reclaim this continent to liberty. For four long years, much of Europe had been under a terrible shadow. Free nations had fallen, Jews cried out in the camps, millions cried out for liberation. Europe was enslaved and the world prayed for its rescue. Here, in Normandy, the rescue began. Here, the Allies stood and fought against tyranny, in a giant undertaking unparalleled in human history.

We stand on a lonely, windswept point on the northern shore of France. The air is soft, but forty years ago at this moment, the air was dense with smoke and the cries of men, and the air was filled with the crack of rifle fire and the roar of cannon. At dawn, on the morning of the 6th of June, 1944, two hundred and twenty-five Rangers jumped off the British landing craft and ran to the bottom of these cliffs.”



They were young 67 years ago. They fought for values worth fighting for, worth dying for:

“You were young the day you took these cliffs; some of you were hardly more than boys, with the deepest joys of life before you. Yet you risked everything here. Why? Why did you do it? What impelled you to put aside the instinct for self-preservation and risk your lives to take these cliffs? What inspired all the men of the armies that met here? We look at you, and somehow we know the answer. It was faith and belief. It was loyalty and love.

The men of Normandy had faith that what they were doing was right, faith that they fought for all humanity, faith that a just God would grant them mercy on this beachhead, or on the next. It was the deep knowledge — and pray God we have not lost it — that there is a profound moral difference between the use of force for liberation and the use of force for conquest. You were here to liberate, not to conquer, and so you and those others did not doubt your cause. And you were right not to doubt.

You all knew that some things are worth dying for. One’s country is worth dying for, and democracy is worth dying for, because it’s the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man. All of you loved liberty. All of you were willing to fight tyranny, and you knew the people of your countries were behind you.”

“… pray God we have not lost it” is a prayer worth repeating these days:

“It is better to be here ready to protect the peace, than to take blind shelter across the sea, rushing to respond only after freedom is lost. We’ve learned that isolationism never was and never will be an acceptable response to tyrannical governments with an expansionist intent. But we try always to be prepared for peace, prepared to deter aggression, prepared to negotiate the reduction of arms, and yes, prepared to reach out again in the spirit of reconciliation.”

There are lessons to be learned about overreach too and military adventures. There are lessons to be learned as well that it is American economic power and the power of American values which give firepower to America’s armed forces.

The future secured 67 years ago is a future still worth fighting for today. The battlefields of yesterday are not the battlefields of today. However, the values of 67 years ago are still the values worth fighting for today.



Share

The Boob Economy Collapse – Obama Is The Problem

You want to get somewhere and it is a matter of some urgency. But the driver is a boob. He does not know where he is going. He is easily distracted. He is constantly primping and gazing at himself in the mirror. He takes wrong turns. He drives into ditches. Satellite technology gizmos don’t help because he reacts too slowly to the GPS instructions. He is not prepared to make the turn when the turn is required. More gasoline, higher quality gasoline, won’t help. More speed won’t help because you succeed only in getting to the wrong places faster. What you need is a driver that knows what he is doing.

From a distance, watching the swerving boobery, the futility of the trip is easy to see. The disaster was predictable from the very beginning. If you get in a car with a boob driver, expect boobery. If you elect a boob, expect boobery and boobery on top of boobery. Nile Gardiner sees the boobery and the disaster to come for the driver and the passengers:

“In the aftermath of the hugely successful Special Forces operation that took out Osama Bin Laden and a modest spike in the polls for the president, the conventional wisdom among political elites in Britain is overwhelmingly that Obama will win another four years in the Oval Office. Add to this a widespread perception of continuing disarray in the Republican race, as well as a State Visit to London that had the chattering classes worshipping at the feet of the US president, and you can easily see why Obama’s prospects look a lot rosier from across the Atlantic. [snip]

Ultimately, the 2012 presidential election will be decided by the state of the economy, and new data released this week makes grim reading for the White House. In fact you cannot watch a US financial news network at the moment, from Bloomberg to CNBC to Fox Business, without a great deal of pessimism about the dire condition of the world’s biggest economy. 66 percent of Americans now worry the federal government will run out of money in the face of towering public debts.

To say this has been an extremely bad week for the Obama administration on the economic front would be a serious understatement. As The Wall Street Journal reported on Wednesday, home prices in the United States have sunk to their lowest levels since 2002, falling 4.2 percent in the first quarter of 2011. At the same time, employment growth is stalling, with only 38,000 Americans added to the workforce in May, the smallest increase since September. This compares with 179,000 jobs added in April. There has also been a steep slowdown in the manufacturing sector, and a downturn in the stock market on the back of weak economic news.”

Gardiner quotes Robert Reich:

“The US economy was supposed to be in bloom by late spring, but it is hardly growing at all. Expectations for second-quarter growth are not much better than the measly 1.8 per cent annualised rate of the first quarter. That is not nearly fast enough to reduce America’s ferociously high level of unemployment… Meanwhile, housing prices continue to fall. They are now 33 per cent below their 2006 peak. That is a bigger drop than recorded in the Great Depression. Homes are the largest single asset of the American middle class, so as housing prices drop many Americans feel poorer. All of this is contributing to a general gloominess. Not surprisingly, consumer confidence is also down.”

Gardiner cites the polls and the ramifications:

“Unsurprisingly, the polls are again looking problematic for the president. The latest Rasmussen Presidential Tracking Poll shows just 25 percent of Americans strongly approving of Obama’s performance, with 36 percent strongly disapproving, for a Presidential Approval Index rating of minus 11 points. In a projected match up between Obama and a Republican opponent, the president now trails by two points according to Rasmussen – 43 to 45.  The RealClear Politics poll of polls shows just over a third of Americans (34.5 percent) agreeing that the country is heading in the right direction, with nearly three fifths (56.8 percent) believing it is heading down the wrong track. That negative figure rises to a staggering 66 percent of likely voters in a new Rasmussen survey, including 41 percent of Democrats.

There is no feel good factor in America at the moment. But there is a great deal of uncertainty, nervousness, even fear over the future of the world’s only superpower. This is hardly a solid foundation for a presidential victory for the incumbent. Even though we don’t know yet who he will be up against, Barack Obama could well go into 2012 as the underdog rather than the favourite he is frequently portrayed as. On balance we’re likely to see a very close race 17 months from now. But there is also the distinct possibility of an electoral rout of the president if the economy goes further south. “Hope and change” might have played well in 2008, but it is a message that will likely ring hollow in November 2012, with an American public that is deeply disillusioned with the direction Obama is taking the country.

Kick the driver out of the car and get someone else.

Things are so bad that even the JournoLister heavy Politico is waving red flags:

“Economy shadows Obama ’12

A series of troubling signs for the U.S. economy threatens to dash hopes that 2011 would be a year of robust recovery — and that could prove troublesome for President Barack Obama’s reelection chances.

The Obama team has long hoped that the president’s 2012 campaign would be underpinned by an economy that was clearly accelerating out of the Great Recession, showing strong growth and job creation. But recent economic data paint a picture of an economy stuck in low gear, held down by continued high personal debt, a moribund housing market, high food and gas prices, persistent weather disasters and widespread unease about what the future holds. [snip]

Some economists had hoped the killing of Osama bin Laden might ease general American anxiety and lead to stronger consumer sentiment. No such luck. Consumer confidence dropped to a weak reading of 60.8 this month, down from 66 in April, according to data out Tuesday from the Conference Board.

Corporate chief executives, meanwhile, appear unwilling to use their run of strong profits to go on significant hiring campaigns until economic signals point in a more positive direction and consumer spending trends suggest more robust demand.

Other recent weak signals include a much-worse-than-expected 4.2 percent drop in home prices in the first quarter as measured by the S&P/Case-Shiller index. The housing market is now clearly in a “double-dip” decline, back to levels not seen since well before the recession. Pending homes sales dropped 11.6 percent in April, and consumer spending grew a tepid 0.4 percent, the smallest increase in three months.

The Commerce Department recently left its estimate for first-quarter gross domestic product growth unchanged at 1.8 percent. Many economists had expected an upward revision to around 2.2 percent, setting the stage for second-quarter growth of roughly 3 percent.

In addition, weekly jobless claims, which tend to drop sharply as the economy improves, have resumed an upward trend and now consistently come in above 400,000, suggesting no positive hiring momentum. [snip]

All of this presents significant political problems for Obama as he heads into next year’s reelection race.”

‘Not to worry’, says Obama. ‘There is light at the end of the tunnel.’ As Politico notes “Skeptics would say they have heard such hopeful claims many times before.”

The Obama boosting New York Times sees the ditch the car and driver are about to hit:

“Employment Data May Be the Key to the President’s Job

No American president since Franklin Delano Roosevelt has won a second term in office when the unemployment rate on Election Day topped 7.2 percent.

Seventeen months before the next election, it is increasingly clear that President Obama must defy that trend to keep his job.

Roughly 9 percent of Americans who want to go to work cannot find an employer. Companies are firing fewer people, but hiring remains anemic. And the vast majority of economic forecasters, including the president’s own advisers, predict only modest progress by November 2012.

What we wrote in February of 2009 is still applicable today. The problem is that there is boob in charge. The boob does not know what he is doing. The boob has many excuses but the bottom line is that what is required is a plan that makes sense. All the “jobs programs”, all the “stimulus programs”, all the uncoordinated schemes in the world won’t work because there is a boob in charge:

“But Christina Romer, who headed the president’s Council of Economic Advisers until fall 2010, said in a recent speech at Washington University in St. Louis that no part of the government was addressing unemployment with sufficient urgency or hope.

“Urgency, because unemployment is a tragedy that should not be tolerated a minute longer,” she said. “And hope, because prudent and possible policies could make a crucial difference.”

Romer is right that the United States needs prudent and possible policies that will make a difference. But the problem is that Obama is only capable of stunts and gimmicks – not a coordinated plan of attack – like Bill Clinton and FDR had. Therefore no matter how much money is poured into new programs, how many publicity stunts to boost confidence, no matter how many Bin Laden style distractions pop up – the problem is the boob behind the wheel.

USAToday is on the hunt for the “recovery” one year after the “recovery summer” publicity stunts of 2010. “Recovery summer” 2011 is as elusive as “recovery summer” 2010:

“Don’t look now, but the economic recovery that barely exists in the eyes of many Americans is 2 years old.

By historical standards, that should be a milestone signifying robust economic expansion and strong job gains, especially in light of the severity of the Great Recession, which officially ended in June 2009.

But instead of mimicking dramatic turnarounds that followed similarly bruising downturns in the 1970s and 1980s, the upswing looks more like the modest rebounds after milder recessions in the early 1990s and 2001. Like the recent slump, those were tainted by credit crises that gummed up critical gears of the economy.

Last week’s economic news — below-forecast economic growth and a weaker-than-expected improvement in consumer spending in the first quarter — raises inevitable questions about whether the economy’s halting comeback has hit another speed bump.

“We’re two years into a recovery, and everybody’s yelling, ‘Are we there yet?'” says Wells Fargo economist Mark Vitner. “You should be putting the recession behind you and talking about where growth is coming from. Instead, we’re still dealing with residual problems from the recession.”

No, we are not there yet – the driver is a boob.

But what about the “glimmers of hope” we heard about in 2009? What about the bright economic spots?:

“All of the economy’s bright spots show some tarnish. Corporate earnings are at record levels, but much of the growth is overseas, and efficiency gains have allowed companies to limit hiring. Small businesses are posting better sales, but many can’t get loans to expand, says Ami Kassar, CEO of MultiFunding, a loan adviser for small businesses. Consumers are opening their wallets wider, but they’re constrained by 9% unemployment, still-heavy debt and high gasoline prices.”

Trapped with a boob driver, do not expect to go forward to a celestial choir dawn:

Welcome back to the sour economy.

It didn’t take long after the Memorial Day break to get the latest signs that the recovery remains in the gutter. The housing market has been looking like it was headed for a double dip for some time. On Tuesday, we got confirmation that it happened. According to the S&P/Case-Shilller housing index, home prices hit a new low since the beginning of the bust in the first quarter of the year. According to Case-Shiller, houses now cost about what they did in 2002, erasing much of the gains of the 2000s housing boom. In the past year alone, residential real estate has fallen 5%, and prices have now dropped nearly a third from their peak five years ago.

In more bad economic news, the mood among consumers fell in May as well. One of the most commonly watched measures of confidence dropped to a six-month low, on inflation worries and fears that the slow jobs recovery would end. [snip]

What’s more, many economists are predicting that interest rates will soon rise.”

The manufacturing sector was supposed to be the engine that would make the trip a success. But the driver is a boob:

“U.S. economy: Manufacturing slowdown the latest sign the recovery is faltering

The economic recovery is faltering, and Washington is running out of ways to get it back on track.

Two bright spots over the past few months — manufacturing and job creation by private companies — both slowed in May, according to new reports Wednesday. The data come amid other reports of falling home prices, declining auto sales, weaker consumer spending and a rising pace of layoffs.

Stocks tumbled Wednesday on the discouraging economic news, with the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index off 2.3 percent. It was the index’s steepest decline since August.

Just a few months ago, the economy seemed poised to finally strengthen. [snip]

But those hopes are being dashed.”

There is plenty of blame redistribution from Barack Obama. Obama and his hapless henchmen blame oil prices, earthquakes, tornadoes, stubbed toes, ingrown nails, gray hairs, and insufficient time to golf. However, a strong economic recovery would have withstood even extraordinary economic shocks:

“But it is the underlying weakness of the U.S. economy that may have allowed these developments to knock the recovery off course.

“We’re structurally in a place where we’re going to be more vulnerable to downside risks than if the economy was growing strongly, and that’s what we’re seeing right now,” said Robert A. Dye, senior economist at PNC Financial Services Group. “We’re not far above stall speed.”

Get rid of the driver!

“But the outlook, as projected by economic forecasters and implied in government data, is clearly dimming. Economists at J.P. Morgan Chase on Wednesday lowered their projection for 2011 growth in gross domestic product to 2 percent. A week ago, those same economists had reduced the figure to 2.5 percent.

Reflecting rising pessimism, the interest rate that the Treasury Department must pay to borrow money for 10 years fell to 2.95 percent Wednesday, from 3.06 percent on Tuesday and 3.74 percent in February. As investors grow anxious, they are moving money into the safety of government bonds. Investors are also anticipating that the Federal Reserve will seek to support the recovery by keeping interest rates low for longer than previously expected.

Among the economic information that unsettled markets was a report by the Institute for Supply Management, which said that its index of manufacturing activity fell to 53.5 in May from 60.4 in April. Numbers above 50 indicate expansion, and analysts had expected a more modest pullback to 57.1. The new numbers showed the slowest rate of factory expansion since September 2009. [snip]

Also Wednesday, ADP, the payroll processing company, said that the rate of job creation at private businesses slowed sharply last month. Firms added 38,000 jobs, ADP estimated, compared with 179,000 jobs added in April.”

Tomorrow, the Labor Department will publish data on May job growth along with unemployment statistics. The expectations are slowing growth in jobs and a tick down to 8.9 percent in the unemployment rate.

At CNBC, they are worried:

“The last month has been a horror show for the U.S. economy, with economic data falling off a cliff, according to Mike Riddell, a fund manager at M&G Investments in London.

“It seems that almost every bit of data about the health of the US economy has disappointed expectations recently,” said Riddell, in a note sent to CNBC on Wednesday.

“US house prices have fallen by more than 5 percent year on year, pending home sales have collapsed and existing home sales disappointed, the trend of improving jobless claims has arrested, first quarter GDP wasn’t revised upwards by the 0.4 percent forecast, durables goods orders shrank, manufacturing surveys from Philadelphia Fed, Richmond Fed and Chicago Fed were all very disappointing.”

“And that’s just in the last week and a bit,” said Riddell.

Pointing to the dramatic turnaround in the Citigroup “Economic Surprise Index” for the United States, Riddell said the tumble in a matter of months to negative from positive is almost as bad as the situation before the collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2008.”

The car is headed into a ditch and the driver is on a cell phone raising cash for himself:

“President Obama’s top fund-raisers, meeting in Chicago on Wednesday were asked by Obama campaign manager Jim Messina to raise $60 million for the Obama 2012 re-elect and the Democratic Party by the end of June, I’ve been told. [snip]

Obama and First Lady Michelle, I’ve learned, will hit the fund-raising trail again this month in a quest to raise big money early on for the Obama 2012 re-elect and the DNC.”

Obama is golfing and raising money while Main Street and even Wall Street are in a panic:

“”What we’ve got right now is almost near panic going on with money managers and people who are responsible for money,” he said. “They can not find a yield and you just don’t want to be putting your money into commodities or things that are punts that might work out or they might not depending on what happens with the economy.

“We need to find real yield and real returns on these assets. You see bad data, you see Treasurys rally, you see all bonds and all fixed-income rally and then the people who are betting against the U.S. economy start getting bearish on stocks. That’s a huge mistake.”

Stocks extended losses after the manufacturing fell below expectations in May and the private sector added only 38,000 jobs during the month.

“Interest rates are amazingly low and that, thanks to Ben Bernanke, is driving everything,” Yastrow said. “We’re on the verge of a great, great depression. The [Federal Reserve] knows it.

“We have many, many homeowners that are totally underwater here and cannot get out from under. The technology frontier is limited right now. We definitely have an innovation slowdown and the economy’s gonna suffer.”



Obama is raising money for himself and attempting to bamboozle the public by claiming the bailout of junk car companies is a great victory. But that transfer of billions of dollars of wealth to car companies that will eventually go under, because they produce junk the public does not want, was not a success.

Garbage car companies and health insurance companies have gotten oodles of money from Barack Obama, who will soon be asking for some of that cash back for himself. Liberal Democrats like Brent Budowsky make plaintive pleas but fail to understand that Barack Obama is a boob and the very source of the problem:

“On behalf of the 15.9 percent of Americans who compose the real jobless rate and their moms, dads, brothers, sisters, sons and daughters who compose the 30 percent of Americans suffering misery from unemployment, I write this angry dissent against the culture of callousness of official Washington, which is doing virtually nothing to create jobs in America.

The ugly housing numbers released Tuesday suggest a double-dip collapse below earlier crash levels. The ugly jobs numbers released Wednesday by ADP remind us why 55 percent of Americans believe the nation is in a recession or depression, according to a recent Gallup poll. [snip]

My mission here is to give voice to the jobless, who have little voice in this town. I must offend some friends as well as adversaries.”

Budowsky is rightly outraged, but no one is going to listen to him. Certainly Barack Obama is too busy golfing and fundraising to take heed of people who won’t donate money to him. Barack Obama has his own interests and his own concerns:

“I angrily dissent from a Federal Reserve policy that provided some $20 trillion to bankers in the greatest trickle-down exercise in world history, which created vast wealth at the top, rampant speculation throughout markets, the cash-starving of small businesses and a tidal wave of foreclosures by bailed-out bankers who showed neither common sense, basic decency nor economic patriotism.”

Budowsky’s “dissent” would be more credible if he stopped flattering Barack Obama and declared it was long past time to get rid of Barack Obama. Until then, Budowsky, for all his outrage, is driving with Obama – into a ditch.

Share