Unlike Hillary Clinton, Chris Christie has spoken the words uttered by Sherman and made it very clear he is not running for president. In October 2010 Christie did utter the rebuff first spoken by Sherman and accepted as the ultimate “NO” in presidential politics: “If nominated I shall not run. If elected I shall not serve.” But that was in 2010 and Christie’s subsequent actions have spoken quite a bit louder than his words.
“Update: The second question of the Q&A was whether he’s reconsidering a run or not. He didn’t answer by saying no; rather, he told the crowd to go to Politico.com and watch the compilation video they posted today. That’s his answer. Here’s the video embedded below. So much for that.
Update: Another questioner pleaded with him to run and he gave a halting answer about how flattered he is by the attention before insisting that the drive to run has to come internally, not from outside enthusiasm. The thing is, he wouldn’t definitively say whether he feels the drive or not. And the crowd was simply eating out of his hand. If he needs a pretext in a week or two to explain why he’s changed his mind, he could point to this speech and the reaction from the audience as having driven him to it.”
Politico, voted in high school as “most likely to be confused” was also, er, confused. First Politico posted the nifty video compilation of Christie saying “no”. But by today, Politico appeared to repudiate its own video. The headline at Politico today is: “Chris Christie leaves 2012 run question open, attacks Obama”:
“New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie confirmed he’s thinking about getting into the presidential race to an audience literally begging him to get in.
He didn’t give a definitive yes or no to the people who came to hear a sold-out speech that could almost be used as the text for a presidential kickoff at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, instead executing a series of artful dodges.
With Christie’s speech at the middle of renewed, intense speculation that he’ll change course and seek the Republican nomination, the speech was full of elements sure to keep the chatter going, much like his answer to a man who waited only until the second question of the evening to ask whether he’d run.”
Politico further muddied its own video by posting quotes from a “source” and some notables that Christie is indeed thinking about challenging Barack Obama. Maybe Politico will do a rebuttal video to its own video showcasing statements Christie has made which imply the door is wide open for his girth to enter the race.
For some however Chris Christie is dead as a candidate because he has said he is not ready to be president. Like him or not it cannot be denied that with his budget victory and his triumph over public employee unions Christie already has a record of accomplishments. But Christie critics think he himself killed his chances by saying he is not ready. Big Pink to the rescue.
“Barack Obama was not, and is not qualified to be President of the United States. Put aside Obama’s flim-flam history, the thugs he surrounds himself with, his treacheries, his total lack of accomplishments other than self-advancement, his risible résumé, his stinky body odor, the secretiveness of his past, the lack of documentation about earlier periods of his life, drug use, the self-admitted inability to keep a paper in front of him for 2 seconds before losing it, the lies about lost documents from his Chicago legislative office, the grabbing of credit for work others have done, the race-baiting, the woman-hating, the profitable alliances with criminals which even got him a house, the lack of interest in his constituents, the obvious lies when he denies positions he has even affixed his signature to on questionnaires, his lies about being a reformer when he swims in the swamps of Chicago corruption, the ugly church mentor of 20 plus years, his smearing of opponents with sexual or racial slurs, the gay-bashing, the secret deals, the incompetence, the long list of corruptions and boobery… – put all this history we have documented aside.”
Compile that Politico!
The ceaseless demands that Christie run are understandable. Rick Perry turned in a horrible debate performance last week. It was so bad that two days later in Florida Perry was badly beaten by Herman Cain in a straw poll. Mind, Republican voters fresh from the bad debate performance by Perry ran to Cain, not the other supposed front runner – Willard Mitt Romney.
There is one Romney problem we have only briefly discussed before and that during the 2008 election cycle. It’s that dog problem. Yeah, that dog problem:
“The incident: dog excrement found on the roof and windows of the Romney station wagon. How it got there: Romney strapped a dog carrier — with the family dog Seamus, an Irish Setter, in it — to the roof of the family station wagon for a twelve hour drive from Boston to Ontario, which the family apparently completed, despite Seamus’s rather visceral protest.”
Do we really need to point out that Move-On, or somebody, at the behest of the Obama thugs will recreate that lurid drive for all American voters to see? A few days ago this tongue in cheek item appeared:
“I’m amazed that a 2012 presidential candidate hasn’t taken advantage of that, filmed a series of dog-loving commercials and pushed for things like “more dog beaches” and “better veterinarian health care benefits” as part of their platform. Dog lovers are totally irrational. I include myself. If Obama wants to improve his approval rating, he should rescue a mutt every six weeks and keep, like, 10 or 12 dogs in the White House — he’d have dog-lover voters saying, “Even if I’m let down by the last four years, I gotta be honest … it was pretty neat how Obama kept rescuing those dogs.”
Does anyone doubt that a desperate Barack Obama will utilize Romney’s soiled dog if it gets two or three votes from dog owners? Anybody?
We’re sure Barack Obama is already thinking that if Michelle Obama somehow gets herself impregnated that might help him get some votes. But that is a gruesome task few want to take on, let alone Barack. So the default emotional pull for the Obama 2012 campaign will be to remind everyone of Romney’s dog. Please spare us that horror Republican primary voters.
We’re not invested in the Republican primary fight. Whoever wins the nomination wins the nomination – it’s okay by us. But please spare us from Willard. Please. We’re NObama voters, but please, please….
We’re not writing this quick survey of Big Pink “memes” to chest thump or put laurels on our heads. This review is a big batch of warnings from people who know Obama for what he is. Take heed, take heed.
Tonight the announced Republican candidates for president will debate and we will discuss the debate in our comments section. The Republican Debate will begin at 9:00 p.m. ET. The Republican Debate will be in cooperation with Google and will take place in Florida. Fox News will televise tonight’s Republican Debate.
Libertarian Republican Gary Johnson will be on the stage for the first time presumably to try and siphon support from the persistently popular Libertarian Republican Ron Paul. Bachmann and Romney will continue to try to topple Rick Perry who remains strong in Florida even with his Social Security as a Ponzi scheme remarks.
But take heed Republicans: you have to attack Barack Obama on policy and on “personal” issues. Barack Obama must be exposed for the corrupt character he is.
Barack Obama’s entire career has been built upon personal attacks against his opponents. Barack Obama will do so again. Be assured, Barack Obama has already hired investigators to go through the personal lives of Rick Perry, Sarah Palin, Willard Romney, and Chris Christie. Barack Obama will attack whoever the Republican candidate is with fears and smears. The fears and smears will be deployed against anyone who opposes him in a primary as well.
We are not suggesting that the personal attacks be trivial. We have a lot of fun poking Michelle Obama for her Chewbacca/Pep Boys Automotive Parts fashion choices, her sleeve yanking manic episodes (see here for how even our humor is on target), and her Mary Todd style extravagances in a nation that is hurting.
We are strongly suggesting that Barack Obama’s corruptions, kept hidden by JournoListers in 2008 be brought into the light of day in 2011/2012.
For instance in 2007 we began to ask “Who Is This Guy?” We tried and failed to generate interest in a New York Times story about Barack and Michelle Obama’s financial interests at a time in which if Hillary Clinton’s campaign mistakenly failed to tip a waitress it became front page news.
The Crawdads and Ace are onto this scandal. Calling Obama corrupt is not just a meme, it’s the truth. A truth trying to rise which will not be crushed to earth or a dumpster.
In Part I of this series, we promised to discuss the sexism and misogyny so vividly displayed by Barack Obama and his henchmen in the new book “Confidence Men.” In 2009 we continued to speak up about the betrayal of Israel by certain Jews, the betrayal of Gay Americans by “mainline gay groups” and the betrayal of women by “mainline women groups”:
“Women have also been betrayed by mainline allegedly “women groups”. The misogyny and sexism are rampant but mainline women groups are useless.”
The reason why mainline black groups have betrayed blacks, mainline women’s groups have betrayed women, mainline Gay groups have betrayed Gays, and to a much lesser extent Jewish mainline groups have betrayed Jews is because the corrupt leaders of these groups want to protect tarnished calf Barack Obama. Gloria Steinem and women “leaders” raising money for sexist and misogynist Barack Obama is as nauseating as John Lewis protecting Barack Obama and flinging blacks into the abyss.
It’s not only women “leaders” who protect Barack Obama and deny the truth. Mika Brzezinski of Morning Joe is a repulsive creature. Upset with the truth, Brzezinski sought to protect sexist/misogynist Barack Obama:
“Friction about the roles of women in the Obama White House grew so intense during the first two years of the president’s tenure that he was forced to take steps to reassure senior women on his staff that he valued their presence and their input.
At a dinner in November 2009, several senior female aides complained directly to the president that men enjoyed greater access to him and often muscled them out of key policy discussions.
Those tensions prompted Obama, urged on by senior adviser Valerie Jarrett, to elevate more women into senior White House positions, recognize them more during staff meetings and increase the female presence in the upper ranks of the reelection campaign. “There were some issues early on with women feeling as though they hadn’t figured out what their role was going to be on the senior team at the White House,” Jarrett said in an interview Monday. “Most of the women hadn’t worked on the campaign, and so they didn’t have a personal relationship with the president.”
The women’s-inclusion issue in the Obama White House is featured prominently in a controversial new book to be released Tuesday, “Confidence Men: Wall Street, Washington and the Education of a President,” by journalist Ron Suskind.”
“The acknowledgment Monday by White House officials of discontent among high-level female staffers in the early days came even as Obama aides tried to paint the Suskind book as inaccurate. [snip]
One of the most striking quotes in the book came from former White House communications director Anita Dunn , who was quoted as saying that, “this place would be in court for a hostile workplace. . . . Because it actually fit all of the classic legal requirements for a genuinely hostile workplace to women.”
Anita Dunn argued the “classic legal requirements for a genuinely hostile workplace to women” and her husband was White House Legal Counsel Bob Bauer– so the legal analysis has bite.
“The complaints began circulating early in the administration. [snip]
According to another official, the president initially discounted the complaints he heard that women, particularly on his economic team, were making. He saw the tough climate as just that — the intense atmosphere of a White House, fostered by competitive people at the top of their game.
But as tensions between Romer and Summers, in particular, escalated, Jarrett counseled Obama to give the issue its due. [snip]
Obama convened the dinner with women on staff. It took place in the White House residence on the night of Nov. 5, 2009 — just hours after a shooting rampage at Fort Hood, Tex., dominated the president’s attention.
An official White House photo depicts Obama, his hand on his chin, listening intently as the women sit with serious expressions.
“I really want you guys to talk to me about this openly because recently there has been this suggestion that there are some issues here,” Obama said, according to Suskind’s account of the session. “I’d like to know how you guys feel.”
“On Monday, the leaders of two women’s advocacy groups, the Feminist Majority and the National Organization for Women, said in interviews that they believed Obama was running an inclusive White House.”
“Orszag told Suskind, according to the book: “Larry just didn’t think the president knew what he was deciding.”
Meeting over dinner at the Bombay Club one night, Summers told Orszag that “we’re really home alone,” according to the book. “I mean it,” Summers said. “We’re home alone. There’s no adult in charge. Clinton would never have made these mistakes.”
For a long time we have wanted to publish an article cataloging the many “memes” that have started here at Big Pink. Today is not the day for such an article but with the publication of the new book “Confidence Men” it’s time to take a quick look-a-round.
“Memes” is a word most beloved by the Obama lovin’ “creative class” of dopes. A “meme” is an idea that is transmitted from one person to another – what in politics would ordinarily be called a successful narrative.
Here at Big Pink we have put forth several “successful narratives”. These narratives have been successful because they are the truth not because we have sought to “meme” them. In 2007 we stated that there are two views of Barack Obama. One of those views will prevail. By 2009 in an article called “Anatomy Of A Flim-Flam Man” we expanded on what we meant:
“Doctors, cosmologists, detectives, lawyers, mothers, fathers, most everyone has to look at the world around them and figure out how things work. Doctors must make a diagnosis and then devise a treatment. Cosmologists look at the universe and decide upon a theory of what they are seeing.
In earlier Earth history cosmologists agreed that the universe revolved around the earth. These cosmologists fought and derided those who believed the Sun was the center of our star system. Eventually the cosmologists who, based on evidence – not faith nor hope, determined the Earth revolved around the Sun were proven right.
The same can be said of the current debate about Barack Obama. Here at Big Pink we have contended that Barack Obama is a flim-flam man. Obama is only interested, as his own wife has stated, in his selfish self-advancement and careerism. According to us, Barack Obama is an opportunist who has never accomplished anything but his own self-advancement; Obama is not qualified to be president; is a boob; and lacks a basic rational world-view as well as any experience for the job he has been gifted.
Our views of Obama are evidence based. Whether it’s Rezko, what happened in Illinois with health care, Exelon, Obama’s race-baiting which goes back to his early Hawaii days where Obama blamed all his failures on race (“The fact that Obama was half-black and half-white didn’t matter much to anyone but Obama, Kakugawa says: “He made everything out like it was all racial.” )
The opposite view of Obama we deride as creations by Hopium guzzlers and Mess-iah worshipers. Their view is that Obama is wonderful and gifted and deserving of great respect and applause.
The two views of Obama are opposed to each other just as the views of those earlier cosmologists were opposed to each other. Eventually the evidence will be in and one side will be proven correct beyond any doubt.”
Copernicus or Ptolemy? – both could not be correct. Big Pink or the Hopium Guzzlers? – both cannot be correct.
Look around at the “Obama Is The Third Bush Term“, in words (top right column) and pictures (bottom left column). That started here. “Culture of Corruption” – sorry Michelle Malkin – that started here too. We referenced the Culture of Corruption in the Democratic Party in June 2008. We specifically tied the Culture of Corruption surrounding Barack Obama himself in June 2008 as well. We beat these narratives, er, memes”, er drums, repeatedly over the years sure that our view of Barack Obama was the correct one, not that fake HopeyChangey nonsense. (That “Obama is a fake” business started here too.)
The views on Barack Obama and Social Security have undergone a rapid transformation and most (on the left anyways) now agree with us that Obama wants to loot the system. The “boob” narrative has also enjoyed increased traction with some writers even writing that Obama is stupid. But “flim-flam” man has been a tough red pill to swallow. Likewise for Obama is a sexist and a misogynist.
To the rescue comes the book “Confidence Men“. A “confidence man” is also known as a “con man” or a “flim-flam man.” Barack Obama is a Confidence Man, a con man, a flim-flam artiste. Author Ron Suskind, from his book:
“On this warm late-summer afternoon, with Congress out of session, Obama has convened the press to announce the launch of a new agency, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. It has been designed to protect American consumers from the predations of the financial services and banking industry, which over the past couple of decades has grown vast and insatiable by inventing, for the most part, new ways to market, sell, and invest in debt.
The woman standing awkwardly at Obama’s left hip, Harvard Law School professor Elizabeth Warren, has become the nation’s town crier on the subject of bankruptcy and debt. In the two years since the economic crisis, she has emerged from nowhere to trumpet the story of how debt was turned into a velvety weapon, how engorged financial firms deceptively packaged it, sold it as securities, and extracted usurious profits from American consumers, especially those in America’s once-vaunted middle class. [snip]
So today is a long-delayed victory for Warren—almost. Somehow nothing in the Rose Garden is quite as it seems.“
Suskind goes on to note that Obama pretended he and Warren were “old friends” even though Obama had “been studiously avoiding her.” Describing Tim Geithner, who stands by Obama at the fake flim-flam ceremony, Suskind writes that Geithner was “looking sheepish”. Here’s why:
“Only those in his inner circle at Treasury, though, can precisely read what’s behind that expression: a string of private efforts across the past year to neutralize Warren. The previous fall, Geithner huddle with top aides to develop what one called an “Elizabeth Warren strategy,” a plan to engage with the firebrand reformer that would render her politically inert. He never worked out a viable strategy—a way to meet with Warren without drawing undesirable comparisons—and so, like the president, he didn’t.
What the Treasury Department did do, unbeknownst to Warren, was embrace demands from the banking industry to create a bureau under the condition that Warren would not be allowed to lead it. [snip]
The industry managed to get the proposed agency shrunk into a bureau that would live under the auspices of the Federal Reserve, the government’s greatest mixed metaphor of public purpose and private self-regard, representing as it does the dual interests of a sound monetary policy and the health of the banking industry. Beyond that, the bureau’s rules can be vetoed by a two-thirds majority of a panel of other financial regulators—an indignity of institutionalized second-guessing known to few other agencies.”
Obama opposed Warren the same as Geithner. Obama avoided Warren and participated in her marginalization. Was it misogyny or cupidity on Obama’s part? It was all a flim-flam worthy of Bernie Madoff. And don’t forget that Madoff was the one who said “The whole new regulatory reform is a joke.” Not a joke Bernie, a scam, a flim-flam.
It’s all been one gigantic flim-flam. It’s as we wrote from the very beginning, except now the people mouthing what we wrote are from the Obama inner circle:
“…some advisers have become convinced that his lack of experience, especially managerial experience, may be his undoing; that, at a time of peril, the president may simply not be up to the demands of this moment.”
It’s only gotten worse since those words were written. The flim-flams are more overt, easier for those not from Big Pink to spot.
Yesterday, Barack Obama instead of addressing the nation’s economic woes and troubles, decided to stage yet another flim-flam publicity stunt designed to convince the idiots who enabled him in 2008 that this time it’s different. But yesterday’s publicity stunt was all about helping Barack Obama, not the economy, not those suffering under the Obama economy.
The strategy will work temporarily because Barack Obama Hopium Guzzlers are truly stupid people. They don’t notice that Barack Obama quit the job they thought they had hired him to do. They are stupid and they are corrupt. To the Hopium Guzzler, even those who flatter themselves into thinking they are not Hopium Guzzlers, any truth told about Obama is immediately denied or “put into context” such that the obvious is obscured by these willfully blinded dolts.
Barack Obama is a flim-flam man and his “marks” are stupid and/or corrupt. How else to explain Gloria Steinem all chummy with Michelle Obama last night and holding fundraisers for sexist and misogynist Barack Obama yet not a word from Steinem about a hostile workplace for women in the White House? This is not what a feminist looks like.
We’re dredging from our comments section for this article. Dorothy Parker is today’s inspiration – “If you don’t have anything nice to say… sit by me.”
This coming week is going to be very busy so consider this a break before the storm. Today is gossip, gossip, gossip, with just a touch of news. Extra credit for those who figure out how these gossip items are linked. Hint: misogyny and fear and depression are a terrible thing to witness. Now the dish:
“Did she or didn’t she? The former First Lady and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was looking awfully “rested” during her meeting with Libyan Transitional Council chairman Mustafa Abdel Jalil earlier this month. This got us wondering, did she have her eyes done? Maybe a little lift? While we doubt she’s had the time, her skin looks much smoother in the photo on the right taken September 1, 2011, as opposed to the photo on the left from 2006. We want to know what you think!”
Hillary Clinton suffered an alarming secret breakdown after a bitter clash with First Lady Michelle Obama, and now Bill’s wife is threatening to quit her Secretary of State post. You can read all about Michelle’s bitter insults that have touched off a firestorm behind White House walls. It’s all in this week’s GLOBE.”
What very famous Hollywood actor said this about the Boob?: “He might be just a little bit too regular to be the president of the United States ’cause he’s a young guy, he likes to play basketball, and I’ve noticed that he has a Chicago walk.”
Sarah Palin shares a major trait with Barack Obama’s mother????? (Which reminds us of another Dorothy Parker quote “That woman speaks eight languages and can’t say “no” in any of them.” But we digress.) As reported by the New York Times, in a new book it is reported that Sarah Palin has a “fetish for black men”. The same book reports Sarah Palin is a racist.
Who is the person who hurts Obama the most when he goes on TV?
Who, according to those that hate this website, is buying “six pantsuits”?
According to Gawker, the New York Times is putting together a piece that suggests President Obama may have depression and no longer finds pleasure in his job. The New York Times is not commenting on the report, but The Five tackled the subject on today’s show.
Greg Gutfeld says that if this story is real, the president’s depression is due to the fact that he was shielded for so long by an adoring media and he didn’t build up an immunity to hard knocks.
Bob Beckel argues the opposite, saying that if depression is the result of being dumped on, then Obama should be in an insane asylum after all of the criticism he’s received.
Finally, Dana Perino acknowledges that while the presidency is a tough job, the press may be presenting this kind of story so that they can later build Obama back up.
Wouldn’t you be? Barack Obama is at the nadir of his political popularity and effectiveness. He has been maneuvered into an economic corner of 9%-plus unemployment by a relentlessly nihilistic Congress. His achievements—killing bin Laden, saving the auto industry at negligible cost—are written off as flukes. Plus all this 9/11 anniversary stuff! We hear the New York Times is looking into whether it’s all starting to get to him—like, clinically.
We’re told by a source inside the Times that the paper is preparing a story arguing that Obama no longer finds joy in the political back-and-forth, has seemed increasingly listless to associates, and is generally exhibiting the litany of signs that late-night cable commercials will tell you add up to depression. Or maybe Low T.
Either way, the investigation was described to us as taking seriously the notion that Obama may be suffering from a depressive episode. Of course, absent a telltale Wellbutrin prescription or testimony from the man himself, it’s really impossible to achieve a reliable diagnosis. And a story like “Obama Appears to Suffer From Depression” can be easily downgraded to “Political Travails Begin to Take Personal Toll on Obama.” So the story in question, if it ever comes out, may not end up supporting the depression thesis. But rest assured: There are people at the Times who, based on the paper’s reporting, believe Obama is depressed—the kind of depression where, if he weren’t the president of the United States, he wouldn’t be getting out of bed in the morning.“
* * * * * *
Let’s start with the silly. The answer to the Hollywood question is Morgan Freeman. Morgan Freeman is not aware that even Barack Obama’s walk is fake. When Obama ran against former Black Panther now Congressman Bobby Rush, Rush mocked Obama’s blackness and ever since then Obama has been pulling an okie doke looking for his inner stereotype of being black and a man. Freeman intuits that Obama is simply not a good fit for a job that requires experience and ability. Freeman loves Obama but even Shawshank won’t redeem the Boob from Chicago.
“Disappointed Hollywood Giving Obama Cold Shoulder
As the 2012 election fund-raising cycle heats up, the onetime darling is finding far less enthusiasm from the showbiz donors who tell THR what went wrong.
At this point in the previous presidential election cycle, Barack Obama was a Hollywood heartthrob. The entertainment industry’s ardent Democratic activists couldn’t dig deep enough into their wallets to finance his ambitious run for the Oval Office.
Today, the industry remains with the president, but the disenchantment is increasingly palpable, and even devoted Democrats are approaching his re-election campaign with all the enthusiasm of a studio contractually obligated to finance a dubious sequel.”
The trash bin political reporter at the Miami Herald was forced to defend himself to beat reporter Armando Salguero over the Palin story:
“Miami Herald Dolphins beat reporter Armando Salguero is unhappy with his paper’s decision to post a story about an alleged 1987 fling between Sarah Palin and former Miami Heat player Glen Rice when he was a college player and Palin a TV sports anchor in Alaska. Salguero told colleagues in an email:
Do we know this story to be TRUE? Are we certain it is TRUE because we’ve done the work or have a reasonable certainty that is TRUE?
Did anyone actually try to confirm this story before giving it Herald front page credibility? Did anyone call Glenn Rice to get independent confirmation? He lives in Miami, you know.
Is it now OK to repeat any “report” from the National Enquirer on the front page of the Herald’s website without actually reporting even one fact independently? The blog calls The Enquirer’s sources “solid.” …
If this Rice story, unconfirmed and unreported by us, can be published on our site, do the alien stories not meet the same standards?
Herald political reporter Marc Caputo responded a short time later:
To answer your question: I don’t think we “know” this story about Palin to be true. We do know it has been reported and it is a topic of political conversation. So we have displayed what we “know” so far. This is common in newsrooms. Even in your department, sports. …
I find it curious you didn’t raise this as a newsroom wide-issue at the time, but I digress somewhat.
I do think this is different from an alien story. Yes, it appears to be from/tied to the Enquirer, which also broke the John Edwards baby-story. I remember at the time that we posted this information as well. Edwards, as you know, is a Democrat.
I find it curious you didn’t raise this as a newsroom wide-issue at the time, but I digress somewhat.
Of course, the Edwards story was buried by Big Media when it mattered – just before the primaries began in 2008 – just like the JournoListers intentionally buried the Jeremiah Wright story during the primaries to help Obama against Hillary. It was only when photographs of Edwards running from photographers and hiding in a toilet that Big Media decided to tell readers the facts.
Maybe the Miami Herald will publish the “Michelle’s bitter insults” story on its front page too. After all, there are a lot of reasons for Michelle Obama to be furious with Hillary. For one, Hillary won’t tell Michelle who her surgeon is. Two, Hillary won’t allow Michelle to pilfer her garage looking for those fashion forward “accessories” Michelle loves to inflict on the public eye.
Speaking of Hillary Clinton, does this look like a woman who needs surgery?:
Au contraire Chewbacca. Hillary is positively glowing. Obama is depressed because his flim-flams and corruptions are catching up to him. His “racist” charges against Hillary are no longer believed. The Boob is depressed for very good reasons – he is a boob, and Hillary blossoms wherever she is planted:
“She lost the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008, but over a third of Americans said the U.S. would be better off now if Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were president, according to a new poll. [snip]
A quarter of respondents held similar wishful thoughts in a July poll.” [snip]
When asked who they would vote for in 2012, 29 percent said they would definitely vote for Obama, 43 percent said they would definitely vote for another candidate and 21 percent said they would consider voting for another candidate.”
“At least, Barack Obama has to hope it’s peaking, rather than continuing to build. Bloomberg headlines the poll results with an explicit slam at Obama: “Clinton Popularity Prompts Buyer’s Remorse.” So far, the numbers aren’t overwhelming, but they are growing: [snip]
The finding in the latest Bloomberg National Poll shows a higher level of wishful thinking about a Hillary Clinton presidency than when a similar question was asked in July 2010. Then, a quarter of Americans held such a view.
How nostalgic have we gotten for the Clintons? (And doesn’t seeing that in writing seem a little … disturbing?) [snip]
However, this kind of nostalgia could prove a potent political force, especially if Democrats decide that Obama simply cannot win a second term and will do a lot of damage to down-ticket races in 2012. There is no way Hillary will run a primary campaign against Obama, and we’re rapidly running out of time for any Democrat to run a realistic campaign to knock him off of the 2012 general-election ballot. But if Obama surprises people and pulls out on his own — as John Fund speculated yesterday and I speculated last month — a Hillary run ceases being bad news for Obama and starts becoming a Republican nightmare:
But when Hillary nostalgia starts becoming a bigger cultural phenomenon and Obama’s polls keep sliding into Bush territory, those low probabilities might have to get adjusted upward.”
“For Barack Obama, it’s more like midnight in a coal mine. [snip]
The vultures are starting to circle. Former White House spokesman Bill Burton said that unless Obama can rally the Democratic base, which is disillusioned with him, “it’s going to be impossible for the president to win.” Democratic consultant James Carville had one word of advice for Obama: “Panic.”
But there is good news for the president. I checked the Constitution, and he is under no compulsion to run for re-election. He can scrap the campaign, bag the fundraising calls and never watch another Republican debate as long as he’s willing to vacate the premises by Jan. 20, 2013.
That might be the sensible thing to do. It’s hard for a president to win a second term when unemployment is painfully high. If the economy were in full rebound mode, Obama might win anyway. But it isn’t, and it may fall into a second recession — in which case voters will decide his middle name is Hoover, not Hussein. Why not leave of his own volition instead of waiting to get the ax? [snip]
In the event he wins, Obama could find himself with Republicans in control of both houses of Congress. Then he will long for the good old days of 2011. [snip]
He could slake this thirst by stepping aside and taking the blame. Then someone less reviled could replace him at the top of the ticket.
The ideal candidate would be a figure of stature and ability who can’t be blamed for the economy. That person should not be a member of Congress, since it has an even lower approval rating than the president’s.
It would also help to be conspicuously associated with prosperity. Given Obama’s reputation for being too quick to compromise, a reputation for toughness would be an asset.
As it happens, there is someone at hand who fits this description: Hillary Clinton.“
“I’ve said repeatedly that I think a withdrawal by Obama is a low-probability event at best, and I still believe it to be a long shot. However, when the home-town papers are starting to make the call for retirement, it’s maybe not quite as much of a long shot as before.”
Just as Barack Obama’s approval ratings crater, here come the Clintons: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was just voted the most popular political figure in the country, and Bill Clinton, the never-reticent ex-president, will reclaim the world stage this weekend and dominate the Sunday talk shows. [snip]
Some Democrats believe that Clinton’s emergence makes Obama look even worse at the end of a week in which a Bloomberg News poll found his approval rating on the economy has dropped to 33 percent.
CNN ran the headline “Obama regrets and Clinton fantasies,” during a Friday afternoon segment that covered another Bloomberg poll showing that 81 percent of those surveyed believe the country would be in the same shape or better off if the secretary of state were president. Only 13 percent said the country would be worse off with Hillary Clinton at the helm.”
“For the first time, more Americans have an unfavorable opinion of President Obama than have a favorable opinion of him, according to a new CBS News/New York Times poll released late Friday, an indication that dissatisfaction with the president’s job performance and the direction of the country is dragging down how Americans view Obama personally.
Just 39 percent of Americans have a favorable opinion of Obama, while 42 percent view him unfavorably. In January of this year, 40 percent had a favorable image of Obama, and 34 percent had an unfavorable opinion. In January 2009, as he was inaugurated, 60 percent of Americans had a favorable opinion of him.
“Looking back, I wonder if she would have been a stronger leader, knowing the games and the politics and all that goes on,” said Susan Dunlop, 50, a homemaker in New Port Richey, Florida. “I don’t think she would have bent as much.”
The poll reports that 44 percent of Tea Party supporters “say the U.S. would be better off with Hillary Clinton as president, even though 59 percent of those respondents have an unfavorable impression of her.”
“She’s a more stable person who gets results,” said Joseph Cherney, 67, a retired Republican automotive purchasing worker from Mineral Ridge, Ohio. “The president we have now isn’t much of a president because he really doesn’t do anything. He’s pompous and arrogant.”
“How bad are things for Obama? Now a hapless loser like David Weprin is taking potshots at him. We’re about to see a full-fledged insurrection in the Democratic Party. Sit back and watch them devour themselves.
Democrat David Weprin said yesterday that President Obama’s sagging popularity among Queens and Brooklyn voters cost him the election for ex-Rep. Anthony Weiner’s congressional seat.
In a stunning upset, Weprin was trounced by Republican Bob Turner, whose campaign had tied him to the president.
“The message of the campaign was ‘Send Obama a message,’ ” said Weprin, a Queens state assemblyman. “I think the problem was that he’s the president and people are frustrated, and it’s just natural to take it out on the top guy — or the top guy’s party.
“As much as I tried to make it about David Weprin or Bob Turner, I don’t think that resonated to voters. I think that voters looked at it as a referendum on the president,’’ Weprin said.”
“Now, the former president is preparing for a round of Sunday talk show interviews and the start of his annual conference, and it will be hard for Obama to avoid contrasts: The current president is even scheduled to speak at the CGI conference during a three-day trip to New York.
“[Bill] Clinton all over TV hurts Obama,” said a source who worked on Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. “[It] only reminds people over and over again that Bill Clinton was a master at easing the public’s fears during times of crises — plus the economy was booming under his leadership.”
So if that “source who worked on Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign” knows that Bill Clinton on TV hurts Barack Obama no matter what Bill says – do you think Bill Clinton knows he hurts Barack Obama when he goes on TV even if he says nice things about the Boob? Think about it? If Bill knows that, why does he go on TV to ostensibly “help” the Boob?
“Via Breitbart TV, skip ahead to 3:05 for the tasty part. Three months ago this would have been a zero-probability event. Today, with the economy comatose and the world on the precipice of a new European-driven financial crisis? One-percent chance, minimum. Note that Fund’s not talking about a primary challenge here; that would alienate black Democrats and the party would fracture before the general election, so it’s not an option. The only way to dump him and hold the base together would be if he agreed to step down after Democratic chieftains privately appealed to him to do so. [snip]
“Therefore, I’m announcing tonight…” etc. He goes out on a high note, he sets Hillary up for another historic presidency, and suddenly Democrats are on strong (or stronger) footing for the election — especially given the Clinton legacy of economic boom times.”
Buyer’s remorse is right.
We occasionally think that it is time for us to stop writing new articles here at Big Pink. Perhaps, we’ve thought, all we should do is publish the date of earlier articles we have written and request readers go back several years and read articles that are as fresh today as when originally written.
“A Special Prosecutor needs to investigate the role of the government funded Obama transition members and contacts between the mothership of Chicago’s Culture of Corruption and its expansion to the nation’s capital.”
“The multi-headed Hydra which is the Obama Chicago Culture Of Corruption is growing another head in Washington, D.C. and a special prosecutor is needed in Washington while Patrick Fitzgerald stabs at the Hydra in Chicago.”
Unfortunately the Hydra has grown so many heads since we wrote that article that not only a series of Special Prosecutors must be appointed but the House of Representatives must convene an armada of investigations to lop off heads.
It is a mystery why House Republicans have yet to locate Antoin “Tony” Rezko or ask him questions, which answers will assist investigations into the modus operandi of recent Obama corruptions.
Some reality: A bus has just rolled over you. Both arms and both legs have felt the heavy weight of the wheels. Blood vessels, choked full as the flattened veins squeeze their red juices into the remaining vessels, burst like paintguns. Blood is everywhere. What to do?
Hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars which profited an Obama donor given to a scam:
“While we were out there, while we were building it – cause it is a half a billion dollar plant – everyone already knew that China had developed a more inexpensive way to manufacture these solar panels. Everyone knew that the plant wouldn’t work. But they still did it. They still built it.”
Big Media has tried to cover up the Solyndra story but now even Obama lovin’ NBC has been forced to report on it.
This story is about corruption. There is a strong case to be made for green technologies, but this story is not about green technologies even as subsidies to green technology jobs are raising new questions. It is about corruption Chicago style. The FBI has raided Solyndra headquarters already but the fear that Eric Holder’s FBI is more interested in protecting Barack Obama than in prosecuting corruption is a real fear.
Republicans in Congress must investigate and there must be someone appointed to prosecute wrongdoing. If Obama Dimocrats want to politically remove Barack Obama they can join Republicans and not protect Obama.
“Carville said Democrats are “past sending out talking points” and said he would tell the president, “The time has come to demand a plan of action that requires a complete change from the direction you are headed.”
Carville’s advice: “Fire. Indict. Fight.”
Obama must fire someone – “No – fire a lot of people” — because the current team is just not working, Carville wrote. [snip]
“It’s not going to work with the same team, the same strategy, and the same excuses,” he wrote.
His next piece of advice is to indict people and hold them responsible for the country’s current economic state. If Attorney General Eric Holder can’t offer good explanations as to the state of these investigations, “fire him too.”
“Demand answers to why no one has been indicted,” he wrote. “Mr. President, people are livid. Tell people that you, too, are angry and sickened by the irresponsible actions on Wall Street that caused so much suffering. Do not accept excuses. Demand action now.”
Putting aside the mistake of further politicizing the so-called Department of Justice, Carville is wrong not to demand that Obama explain his own actions on Solyndra (and other suspect actions like that Rezko house) and the actions of his White House culprits.
“It’s open season on President Barack Obama — and that’s just from members of his own party.
With frustration and disappointment mounting from stinging defeats in Tuesday’s two special elections and over Obama’s jobs plan, the media is filled on Thursday with Democrats on the record publicly questioning and doubting the president and some of his policies, and a few even unleashing biting criticism.
Former Texas Rep. Martin Frost told the Wall Street Journal that the Republicans’ decisive victories in New York and Nevada on Tuesday make it clear that Obama needs “to get it together.” [snip]
Rep. Eliot Engel, a Bronx Democrat, offered his harsh take on the party’s loss in the New York special, focusing his attack on the president’s stance on Israel. [snip]
“Maybe this will send a message,” he added.
And Democrats are increasingly voicing their distaste for parts of Obama’s new jobs plan, the New York Times reported. [snip]
Democratic Sen. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania said he was concerned about the plan being offered as a single bill, telling the Times: “I think the American people are very skeptical of big pieces of legislation. For that reason alone I think we should break it up.”
Several Democratic senators also picked apart Obama’s jobs plan in POLITICO, with Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia saying the president’s ideas for how to pay for it are “terrible.”
Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana suggested the Obama “pass this bill” is just a ploy, a fake, “Maybe it’s just for his election, which I hope isn’t the case.” The former Governor of Ohio, who strapped his campaign to Moby Dick and that is why he is now the former governor, is disturbed about potential Obama treachery on Social Security. “A few members of Obama’s party even want a primary challenge to the president, The Hill reported.”
Obama lovin’ Politico also reported that even in “blue states” Barack Obama is “moving unmistakably in the wrong direction.” ‘“It is not, per se, a Democratic problem, it’s a problem with this president,” said Siena spokesman Steve Greenberg.”
“Whether split out by race, age or anything else, just about every cross-tab tells the same story: a good portion of those who danced in the streets on election night and stood for hours in the cold on the Mall for the inauguration have begun to wander away. [snip]
“They’re complaining that Obama is all rhetoric.…”
How many times in 2007/2008 did we discuss the difference between flowery words and a life of action? At the Kingdom of the Kooks, reality begins to dawn:
“Honestly, I think Obama was over-rated. Any Dem could have won in 2008.”
It is now clearer that when we first wrote it years ago that it will be elected officials terrified of their own election prospects that will have to pull a Goldwater and tell Obama to go back to Chicago. They will eventually have to melt down their gold plated calf because donors and the rank and file they defied in 2008 will force them to do so.
If Obama will not listen to these officials when they tell him “Get out!” then they will have to play hardball and agree with Republicans that it is time to unleash Special Prosecutors.
An army of surgeon Torquemadas will amputate Obama from the body politic. It’s time to Dump Obama Or Die.
Obama Dimocrats will blame Martha Coakley, er, the guy with the Inspector Clouseau mustache for the historic loss in New York following the historic losses in 2010 and 2009. But if they think the election results are bad in true blue New York City – take a look at what happened in Nevada and what it means for 2012.
“Few expect Marshall to prevail in Nevada, but a weak showing in Washoe County, the district’s most populous, could be a devastating precursor for Democrats. Obama is counting on Nevada as part of his path to reelection, and Washoe County, which includes Reno, is key to that strategy. Though Obama lost the 2nd District in 2008 and Sen. Harry Reid lost it in 2010, they both won Washoe County.
A Marshall loss there could be evidence that Obama is doomed in Nevada next year.“
“Marshall’s margin of defeat will go a long way in revealing just how much of a drag Obama will be on Democrats in conservative districts, especially since she’s worked to distance herself from the national party.
If Marshall comes closer than expected, without her party’s help and in an unfavorable climate, vulnerable Democrats in GOP-leaning districts will have reason for hope.”
So, how close did Marshall come to defeating Amodei? Is Hope still alive for the Hopium addicted? Republican Amodei defeated Marshall decisively by a Hope-less margin of 58% to 36%.
“While the 2nd District is largely rural, it includes a sliver of blue Clark County that makes up about 7 percent of the district, including parts of Henderson and North Las Vegas. Democrats outnumber Republicans by about 5 points in this part of the district, an area where Democrats need high turnout from their base to prevail in next year’s presidential race, Senate race and a competitive Las Vegas-area House race.
If Marshall loses — or even underperforms — in Clark County, it could be a bad omen for Democrats like Obama, Senate candidate Shelley Berkley and numerous hopefuls eyeing runs in Las Vegas-area seats.
It could prove especially troubling because neither campaign has advertised in the more expensive Las Vegas media market that covers Clark County, so an Amodei win there either means that Republicans are disproportionately motivated to turn out or that Democrats are crossing party lines to vote for him — either is bad news for Democrats.“
So, with all the dire implications as outlined by Politico, what happened in Clark county last night? Republican Amodei won must win Clark county in must win Nevada last night 60% to 37%.
“But make no mistake about it, the albatross around Weprin’s neck is named Obama, and Democrats who value honesty will tell you privately that the president’s 37 percent approval rating in the district is making it difficult for Weprin to win a race that in almost any other time would be a slam dunk, no matter how mediocre a campaign the Democratic nominee ran.”
“On job creation, he gets a 36/57; on the overall economy, 33/62; and on the budget deficit, 30/62. Among independents, his approval on the economy falls to 29/66 and to 25/67 on budget deficits.
Oh, and on that friendly issue? Obama scores a 39/53 on health care, too — a big problem as Obama and Democrats have to defend ObamaCare in 2012.
But those numbers are just the appetizers. Bloomberg asks respondents whether they will definitely vote for Obama in 2012, and only 29% of them say yes. Another 21% say they will consider a different candidate, while 43% say they will definitely not vote for Obama. Among Democrats, only 67% don’t want a primary challenge in 2012 against the sitting President, while 30% “would like another candidate to try” for the nomination. Bear in mind that the poll sample comprises a D/R/I split of 39/31/27, which means that Obama is losing more than a quarter of his own voters, assuming all 29% are Democrats.”
“If there was any question about the breadth and magnitude of the plunge in President Obama’s job-approval rating this summer, consider this new data point: For the first time, fewer than half of voters in deep-blue California approve of the job Obama is doing, according to a new Field Poll released early Wednesday. [snip]
Obama has lost ground among all groups. His approval rating is 10 points lower among Democrats, 2 points lower among Republicans, and a whopping 13 points lower among independents, down to 45 percent among that key group.
Obama has lost 10 percent of men and 6 percent of women. His approval rating is nine points lower among white voters and three points down among Hispanics. It dropped 6 points among voters aged 18-29, 10 points among voters in their 30s, 7 points among voters in their 40s, 8 points among voters aged 50-64, and 10 points among voters over 65.
California voters are increasingly pessimistic about the direction of the country. Just 21 percent of voters — and 16 percent of independents — think the country is on the right track.”
“CNN Poll: President gets no bounce from speech, but disapproval rating peaks
President Barack Obama didn’t score any political points with his speech on jobs to a joint session of Congress last Thursday. According to a new CNN/ORC International poll released Tuesday, the president’s approval rating stands at 43 percent, virtually unchanged from the 45 percent approval rating in the previous CNN poll. [snip]
Less than one in ten think Obama’s policies have made the economy better, although another four in ten credit them with preventing the economy from being even worse than it is today. Thirty-seven percent say that Obama has made economic conditions worse and 15 percent think his policies have had no effect.”
Before we begin our short, ugly, trip, recall that in the kingdom of the blind the one-eyed man is king. In the Kingdom of the Kooks however, Krazy is King. These Kooks are now the Obama Dimocratic Party having killed the once great party of FDR and Hillary Clinton.
“I can almost start to understand anti-semetism and all the horrible things done to Jews over the years when I see the Hassidim (they should be banned from voting).”
The Obama enabling Kooks took their inner antisemitism out for a walk last night. Possibly they could not bear to constrain their Jew hate once they saw the DrudgeReport gloating headline “Revenge of the Jews”.
The Kingdom of the Kooks raged that the voters of Queens and Brooklyn acted like Mohels and forced a Lorena Bobbit style circumcision on Barack Obama. He has no cojones – so now it’s matched luggage.
The lesson for Democrats and Obama Dimocrats from the New York Islands to the Redwood Forests: “DUMP OBAMA OR DIE.”
“It’s really something. We have a lot of Democrats coming to us saying, ‘We hope Turner wins because if Obama doesn’t change his policies, we’re afraid we’re going to lose in 2012,’ ’’ McLaughlin told The Post.
Today’s election in Queens/Brooklyn is an eviction notice to Barack Obama to vacate the White House. There are two very important lessons that will emerge from today:
(1) The attempt by Barack Obama to revive his dead presidency with a fake jobs bill has failed. The fake jobs bill was always a fake. It was an attempt to fool worried Dimocrats that Obama has the cojones to fight, if not win. But Obama has already caved and it has been announced Obama will take whatever cold fish the Republicans slap him with smack on his face. Obama had to cave. No one is impressed by a Boob who can’t rally the troops or win an election in the deepest of blue areas.
(2) If the strong and corrupt Dimocratic machines in Queens/Brooklyn can’t bludgeon voters to support Obama/Weprin then no district, precinct, ward is safe for Obama Dimocrats. No one should think that Bob Turner, the Republican, is a sure win or even a close win in a district that has rejected Republicans since 1923. The political machine in the 9th district and in Queens is a powerful dynastic machine of Weprins, Staviskies, Vallones and Crowleys. Even a close election result will be a massive achievement for the NOBAMA Coalition.
But voters here in Rep. Anthony Weiner’s old New York City district can actually do something about it Tuesday night — sending a shot from Queens Boulevard to the White House by rejecting the Democratic Party’s hand-picked successor. [snip]
But the only name in the race that matters outside the five boroughs is Obama, and an upset would be seen as proof that Obama’s agenda has been rejected and his re-election chances are weaker than ever.
What to watch for as the results come in:
How much will Obama drag down the Democrat? [snip]
To win, Turner aides estimate they’ll need around 30 percent of Democratic voters to break their way. [snip]
It’s not an impossible task. Siena Research Institute’s most recent poll found Turner picking up the support of 32 percent of Democrats.”
Obama is poison. Machine politics is the only thing that can save the election for Obama Dimocrats:
“Can the Democratic machine be enough? [snip]
But all of that might not matter on Tuesday, when the powerful Queens County Democratic Party machine — overseen by Rep. Joe Crowley — is planning to kick into high gear. By the time polls open, Weprin’s campaign estimates it will have contacted more than 200,000 voters. On Tuesday, an estimated 1,000 volunteers and get-out-the-vote workers will be knocking on doors, handing out literature outside subway stations and bus stops and offering senior citizens rides to the polls.
The machine will benefit from the helping hand of the Working Families Party, a labor-backed organization regarded for its professional turnout efforts. Few expect the Queens County Republican Party — for years consumed by internal fighting — to be able to seriously compete.
“We’re going to win on the ground, we’re going to beat them on the ground,” New York City Councilman Mark Weprin, the candidate’s brother, told POLITICO. “It will make a huge difference.”
Bill O’Reilly, a Turner strategist and veteran of New York City campaigns, conceded that Republicans can’t match the Democratic ground game. “Not a chance,” he said.”
“President Barack Obama’s promise Thursday that everything in his jobs plan will be paid for rests on highly iffy propositions.
It will only be paid for if a committee he can’t control does his bidding, if Congress puts that into law and if leaders in the future – the ones who will feel the fiscal pinch of his proposals – don’t roll it back. [snip]
A look at some of Obama’s claims and how they compare with the facts:
OBAMA: “Everything in this bill will be paid for. Everything.”
THE FACTS: [snip]
Essentially, the jobs plan is an IOU from a president and lawmakers who may not even be in office down the road when the bills come due. Today’s Congress cannot bind a later one for future spending. A future Congress could simply reverse it. [snip]
OBAMA: “Everything in here is the kind of proposal that’s been supported by both Democrats and Republicans, including many who sit here tonight.”
THE FACTS: Obama’s proposed cut in the Social Security payroll tax does seem likely to garner significant GOP support. But Obama proposes paying for the plan in part with tax increases that have already generated stiff Republican opposition.[snip]
OBAMA: “It will not add to the deficit.”
THE FACTS: It’s hard to see how the program would not raise the deficit over the next year or two because most of the envisioned spending cuts and tax increases are designed to come later rather than now, when they could jeopardize the fragile recovery. Deficits are calculated for individual years. The accumulation of years of deficit spending has produced a national debt headed toward $15 trillion. [snip]
OBAMA: “The American Jobs Act answers the urgent need to create jobs right away.”
THE FACTS: Not all of the president’s major proposals are likely to yield quick job growth if adopted.”
But Obama won the 9th district in 2008 by 11 percentage points and now his approval rating there is at 33 percent. As the National Journalstates: “This New York contest would seem to have implications beyond Brooklyn and Queens.”
There is also an election today in Nevada where Obama Dimocrats once had Hope:
“Democrats are facing the very real possibility that a pair of special elections on Tuesday will shake the foundations of the 2012 political landscape. The party is at serious risk of losing a House race in New York City that few thought would be close, and campaign officials are already close to writing off a Nevada House race they had once hoped to contest.
If Republicans win both contests, it would raise fresh concerns about President Obama’s drag on down-ballot Democrats and the party’s ability to keep its Senate majority. The losses would also raise questions about whether the party can gain the 24 seats it needs to regain the House.”
“The Democrats will look like dummies and the DCCC will get a black eye” if Weprin loses, said New York Democratic strategist Hank Sheinkopf. “It’s a precursor to more trouble in conservative Democratic districts throughout the country, and in the Senate and for the president.” [snip]
Discontent with Washington and the president is at the heart of Turner’s shocking upset bid. In a district he won by 11 points just three years ago, Obama’s favorability rating is now upside down in the Siena poll, with 54 percent having an unfavorable opinion of Obama and only 43 percent viewing him favorably. A remarkable 38 percent of Democrats and 68 percent of independents hold an unfavorable view of the president.
Republicans are eager to link Obama to the district race. “It really will be a referendum on President Obama’s performance,” said New York GOP Chairman Edward Cox. “This will be a rejection of his policies that have stifled the district. Maybe [Democrats] can save this situation by funneling in hundreds of thousands of money in vicious ads—maybe that will work in this Democratic district. But they are already embarrassed by the fact that they’ve had to do this in this district.”
“Early voting in the district, along with few national Democratic reinforcements for Marshall, strongly suggests that Amodei is going to win comfortably. The race’s results also have worrisome implications for Democrats in the state’s closely watched Senate race between Democratic Rep. Shelley Berkley and Republican Sen. Dean Heller—close to a must-win race if Democrats entertain hopes of keeping their four-seat Senate majority.”
There’s a blazing amount of news today which we will not be able to discuss in detail (we will be watching and discussing the Republican debate tonight in the comments however). We have racists to fry on the agenda today.
Republicans, conservatives, sane people, Hillary Clinton supporters, FDR Democrats, honest people, knowledgeable people, reality based people, will think we are wasting our time with today’s discussion. But hear us out as we sing the praises of sweet Justice.
In 2007 and 2008 anyone who opposed Barack Obama was labeled a “racist”. Hillary Clinton supporters felt the first “racist” knife in the back during the primaries. John McCain supporters felt the same “racist” knife shortly thereafter during the general election.
A great deal of the race-baiting came from money grubbing charlatans like Donna Brazile and Al Sharpton. However, the daily dose of minimum daily race-baiting and “racist” shouts came from the website we call DailyKooks.
The owner of DailyKooks, an effeminate homophobe called Markos Moosesomething or other, delighted in shouting “Racist!” at Hillary Clinton and her campaign. At one point Markos Moosesomething accused the Hillary Clinton campaign of darkening the face of Barack Obama in photographs in order to scare off white people.
Everyday on DailyKooks was/is a race-baiting hatefest against Hillary Clinton, John McCain, the white working class, voters/anyone who saw corrupt treacherous boob Barack Obama for the corrupt treacherous boob he is and said so. If you did not cheer-lead the boob along with the cult you were a “racist” pure and simple.
The charge of “racist” is now so common from Barack Obama supporters that laughter is increasingly the response. School children have even taken to mocking stupid mistakes or anything wayward, actually just about anything, as “racist” in the ultimate statement of hip mockery of the “racist” charge.
There’s even a rap band called “Das Racist”. Das Racist is born in good humored mockery of what is now the equivalent of MSG in bad Chinese restaurants – the always ready to be heaped on “racist!” charge. Das Racist:
“When I saw the little kid yelling “THAT’S RACIST” it blew my mind. And then it became a game … to take all the seriousness out of making legitimate commentary on race, because that can get very annoying. So when something veering on racially insensitive would pop off in a commercial on television or something it would be like, who could yell “That’s Racist” first. And then we thought it would be a cool name.”
Oooh Das Racist. By sheer coincidence their new album Relax will be released tomorrow (and no we are not paid shills or unpaid shills for them). But good for Das Racist for exposing Taco Bell and Pizza Hut (Cole Porter they’re not).
But we digress. Back to DailyKooks (hereinafter, the Kook Klutz Klan).
It turns out that the fire of race-baiting these arsonists lighted is consuming the now exposed RACISTS themselves. Put aside your sanity and try to follow us as we venture into the Kingdom of the Kooks. Here is an entry to delight called “How to Criticize Obama without being a Racist”:
“OK, if you clicked that link, surely you are aware of the Great Purge of 2011, and resulting Great Boycott of 2011. You may or may not be aware that much of the Sturm und Drang is about the role of race in progressive criticism of President Obama. There were and are a group of Kossacks who believe that race plays a significant role in the heavy fire that is being directed towards the President from the left, some of whom took it upon themselves to “push back” against it. This push back did not for the most part go over well with the alleged perpetrators of these critiques who almost invariably believe that their feelings about the President have nothing to do with his race.“
Are you with us thus far? Explanation: There is a “great purge” and a “great boycott” going on in that racist website. Apparently there are some disgruntled Hopium addicts who are not happy with Boob Obama. A group of Black Kooks became so upset with the whitey frat boy punks attacking Boob Obama they decided to fight back by calling everyone who attacks Obama a “racist.” The fray boy whiteys (the ones that call Hillary supporters “racist”) did not like being called “racists” and they claim their critique of Boob Obama is based on Obama being a boob not on their whitey frat boy racism.
“This conflict erupted in almost every rec-listed diary critical of the President, and pretty soon we were into HR battles, calls for the banning of certain posters, and GBCW’s. We have no idea why Meteor Blades left, but before he did so, he himself received some criticism for his failure to take appropriate action against certain participants in this battle. With Meteor Blades gone, things escalated and Markos was forced to step in. Step in he did, without nuance or subtlety, and the hammer fell indiscriminately, and, it turns out, disproportionately against members of Black Kos, especially female ones. Thus, the boycott.
Some of my favorite Kossacks are in the group banned, and in the group boycotting, but this particular (half-)black man is not boycotting because I don’t see the injustice. I think that everyone who received disciplinary action deserved it, and that it’s Kos’ right and responsibility to take action countering abuse of his website, however clumsily he might accomplish that.”
We’ll explain the above kookiness from the half black Kook who supports the racists: The Black Kooks shouted “racists!” on every “diary” (that’s what they call the wild ravings posted there) critical of Boob Obama. This machine gun “racist” charge led to further unpleasantness. A creature called “Meteor Blades” left the kingdom, many instances of the ratings system these Kooks use appeared to be abusive and various participants were banned while others said GBCW (Good-bye Cruel World) and left the racist site.
In short, the Chickens Have Come Home To Roost. Those who yelled “racist” the loudest are now called “racist” themselves and they don’t like it.
But that is not the end of this racist tale of the Kook Klutz Klan. The Head Kookkker, Markos Moose…. attempted to bring peace to the valley. How did the Head KKK bring peace? It turns out he started to ban the Black Kooks. So not only do the whitey frat boys who called us “racists” get called “racists” themselves, the Black Kooks who shouted “racist!” at the whitey frat boys are lynched (did we just go there?) by the Head KKK.
Meanwhile the whitely frat boy faction is dismissing the “disparity argument” and saying it is coincidence that a group of Black Kooks who had organized themselves as Black Kooks are the target of the lynching by the Head KKKer.
Oh and about that article on how to criticize the boob and not be racist. Saying Obama lacks testicular fortitude or “balls” is borderline “racist”. Calling him “Barry” is “racist” in the Kingdom of the Kooks. Wonder what calling him a “treacherous corrupt boob” is? [Everybody shout out loud “DAS RACIST!!!!]
Today is the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. It’s time to remember and not forget. We’re certainly not going to forget – anything.
A Corrupt Treacherous Boob:
We remember Tim Russert who attacked this website.We published articles telling the truth and Russert and company did not want the truth to be told. Barack Obama did not want the truth to be told.
Before the “God Damn America” sermon – delivered on the first Sunday after the 9/11 attacks – by Obama’s great friend and mentor Jeremiah Wright had come to light there was a 9/11 situation which we will never forget.
“We’ve just obtained an email that shows that the Obama campaign yesterday circulated a negative, and ultimately false, story about Bill Clinton — that he allegedly made money giving a speech on September 11, 2006.”
Here are the relevant TPM excerpts:
“The email, which was sent out by Jen Psaki of the Obama campaign and circulated to reporters (not us) on an off-the-record basis late yesterday, details some things that the Obama campaign found in Hillary’s financial disclosure documents, which were released yesterday.”
“One of the things the email points to was the fact that Bill Clinton allegedly gave a for-profit speech on Sept. 11 — something that presumably would be likely seen as controversial.”
“The email is a different document than the one written about in today’s New York Times. The paper today wrote that the Obama campaign yesterday circulated a document to news organizations on a not-for-attribution basis that contained a “scathing analysis” of Hillary’s documents.”
“The Obama camp is taking criticism today over the Times article mainly because, as Taylor Marsh points out, Obama has made a frequent point of bemoaning the “smallness” of our politics. As Ben Smith asked today, does Obama’s use of oppo research “compromise his promise of a new politics?”
“The question seems even more pointed in light of the Obama campaign’s spreading of bad stories about Bill.”
“Asked for comment on whether it was appropriate to spread negative stuff about Bill, given that he’s not running in the primary and is popular with primary voters, Obama spokesman Bill Burton declined to directly address the question about Bill, instead saying: “I don’t know why anyone would take umbrage with the circulation of publicly available information.”
“The story spread about Bill ultimately turned out to be false. It ended up on Drudge yesterday, where it was given heavy play for many hours, though there’s no proof that it was given to Drudge by the Obama campaign. After Drudge posted it, The Observer’s Politicker blog thoroughly debunked the story, pointing out that Bill’s schedule proved that he’d actually given the speech the night before, on Sept. 10.”
That’s the real Barack Obama. That Bill Clinton was popular was why he had to be tagged a “racist”. Barack Obama is a treacherous corrupt Boob.
“WILLIAM J. CLINTON, 42ND PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Before President Bush came up to speak, I asked him if he was having a hard time. And he said I was doing fine until I looked at you, all of you. Last night, Hillary came home after spending a day in New York. And her eyes were red because 10 years ago she was the senator representing those 343 firemen and nearly 900 people from Cantor Fitzgerald who died and all the others. As we remember what happened at the — in New York, at the Pentagon, and here, all the rest of us have to honor those who were lost, to thank those who love them for keeping their memory alive, raising their children, and finding the strength to go on with your own lives.
I think we should also thank President Bush and those who served with him, Vice President Biden, President Obama, those who served with them, for keeping us from being attacked again. I thank them for that.
Speaker Boehner, I thank you and the members of Congress who are here and who have been in the Congress for the last 10 years trying to respond to the findings of the 9/11 commission and improve our ability to secure our homeland.
But here in this place we honor something more. I was very moved as you were when President Bush calmly recounted the facts of what happened with your loved ones over this field a decade ago. There has always been a special place in the common memory for people who deliberately, knowingly, certainly laid down their lives for other people to live.
President Bush is from Texas, and I sometimes think because I grew up in Arkansas that’s the more important difference between us than our partisan differences.
CLINTON: But every child I grew up with was raised on a memory of the Alamo, the defining story of Texas. Why? Because those people knew they were going to die. But the time they bought and the casualties they inflicted in the cause of freedom allowed the whole idea of Texas to survive. And those who live there now to enjoy the life they do.
The first such great story I have been able to find that reminds me of all your loved ones, however, occurred almost 2,500 years ago. When the Greek king of Sparta facing a massive, massive Persian army took 300 of his finest soldiers to a narrow pass called Thermopylae. There were thousands upon thousands upon thousands of people. They all knew they were going to die. He told them that when they went. And the enemy said we’re going to fill the air with so many arrows that it will be dark. And the Spartans said, fine, we will fight in the shade. And they all died.
But the casualties they took and the time they bought saved the people they loved. This is something different. For at the Alamo and at Thermopylae, they were soldiers, they knew what they had to do. Your loved ones just happen to be on a plane.
With almost no time to decide, they gave the entire country an incalculable gift. They saved the capitol from attack. They saved God knows how many lives. They saved the terrorists from claiming the symbolic victory of smashing the center of American government. And they did it as citizens.
They allowed us to survive as a country that could fight terror and still maintain liberty and still welcome people from all over the world from every religion and race and culture as long as they shared our values, because ordinary people given no time at all to decide did the right thing. And 2,500 years from now, I hope and pray to God that people will still remember this.
CLINTON: So, since I am no longer in office, I can do unpopular things.
CLINTON: I told the secretary of the interior, the head of your development program, that I was aghast to find out that we still need to raise $10 million to finish this place. And Speaker Boehner and I have already volunteered to do a bipartisan event in Washington.
Let’s get this show on the road. Let’s roll. Thank you and God bless you.”
“GEORGE W. BUSH, 43RD PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Mr. Secretary, thank you very much. Mr. Vice President, Dr. Biden, President Clinton, Mr. Speaker, members of Congress, my friends Tommy Franks and Tom Ridge, thank you for helping raise the money for this memorial. Members of the National Park Service and the National Park Foundation, all of those who supported this memorial, but most importantly, the families of Flight 93. Laura and I are honored to join you in dedicating this memorial to the heroes of Flight 93.
When the sun rose in the Pennsylvania sky ten years ago tomorrow, it was a peaceful September morning. By the time it set nearly 3,000 people were gone. The most lives lost on American soil in a single day since the battle of Antietam.
With the distance of a decade, 9/11 can feel like a part of a different era. But for the families of the men and women stolen, some of whom join us today, that day will never feel like history. The memory of that morning is fresh and so is the pain. America shares your grief. We pray for your comfort and we honor your loved ones.
September 11th, 2001, innocent men and women went to work at the World Trade Center. They reported for duty at the Pentagon. They boarded American Flights 11 and 77, United 93 and 175. They did nothing to provoke or deserve the deliberate act of murder that al Qaeda carried out.
One of the lessons of 9/11 is that evil is real, and so is courage. When the planes struck the World Trade Center, firefighters and police officers charged up the stairs into the flames. As the towers neared collapse, they continued the rescue efforts.
Ultimately, more than 400 police officers and firefighters gave their lives. Among them was the chief of the New York City Fire Department Peter Gancy. As a colleague put it, he would never ask anyone to do something he didn’t do himself.
The Pentagon service members and civilians pulled friends and strangers from burning rubble. One special forces soldier recalls reaching through a cloud of smoke in search of the wounded. As he entered one room, he prayed to find someone alive. He discovered a severely burned woman and carried her to safety. Later, in the hospital, where she explained she’s been praying for rescue. She called him her guardian angel.
And then there’s the extraordinary story we commemorate here. Aboard United Airlines Flight 93 were college students from California, an iron worker from New Jersey, veterans of the Korean War and World War II, citizens of Germany and Japan, a pilot who had rearranged his schedule so that he could take his wife on a vacation to celebrate their anniversary.
When the passengers and crew realized the plane had been hijacked, they reported the news calmly. When they learned that the terrorists had crashed other planes into targets on the ground, they accepted greater responsibilities. In the back of the cabin, the passengers gathered to devise a strategy.
At the moment America’s democracy was under attack, our citizens defied their captors by holding a vote. The choice they made would cost them their lives, and they knew it.
Many passengers called their loved ones to say goodbye then hung up to perform their final act. One said, “They’re getting ready to break into the cockpit. I have to go. I love you.” Another said, “It’s up to us. I think we can do it.”
In one of the most stirring accounts, Todd Beamer, a father of two with a pregnant wife with a home in New Jersey, asked the air operator to join him in reciting the Lord’s Prayer. Then he helped lead the charge with the words “Let’s roll.”
With their selfless act, the men and women who stormed the cockpit lived out the words, “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” And with their brave decision, they launched the first counter offensive of the war on terror. The most likely target of the hijacked plane was the United States Capitol. We’ll never know how many innocent people might have been lost, but we do know this, Americans are alive today because the passengers and crew of Flight 93 chose to act, and our nation will be forever grateful.
The 40 souls who perished on the plane left a great deal behind. They left spouses and children and grandchildren who miss them dearly. They left successful businesses and promising careers and a lifetime of dreams they will never have the chance to fulfill. They left something else — a legacy of bravery and selflessness that will always inspire America.
For generations people will study the flight, the story of Flight 93. They will learn that individual choices make a difference, that love and sacrifice can triumph over evil and hate, and that what happened above this Pennsylvania field ranks among the most courageous acts in American history.
At the memorial we dedicate today will ensure our nation always remembers those lost here on 9/11. But we have a duty beyond memory. We have a duty beyond honoring. We have a duty to live our lives in a way that upholds the ideals for which the men and women gave their lives, to build a living memorial to their courage and sacrifice. We have a duty to find common purpose as a nation.
In the days after 9/11, the response came like a single hand over a single heart. Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle gathered on the steps of the capitol to sing “God bless America.” neighbors reached out to neighbors of all backgrounds and beliefs.
The past decade, our country has been tested by natural disaster, economic turmoil, anxieties and challenges here at home and abroad. There have been spirited debates along the way. It’s the essence of democracy. But Americans have never been defined by our disagreements. Whatever challenges we face today and in the future, we must never lose faith in our ability to meet them together. We must never allow our differences to harden into divisions.
Secondly, we have a duty to remain engaged in the world as 9/11 proved that the conditions in the country on the other side of the world can have an impact on our own streets. It may be tempting to think it doesn’t matter what happens to a villager in Afghanistan or a child in Africa, but the temptation of isolation is deadly wrong.
World repression, anger and resentment will be a never ending source of violence and threats. A world of dignity and liberty and hope will be safer and better for all. The surest way to move toward that vision is for the United States of America to lead the cause of freedom.
Finally, we each have a duty to serve a cause larger than ourselves. The passengers aboard Flight 93 set an example that inspires us all. Many have followed their path of service by donating blood or mentoring a child or volunteering in desperate corners of the earth. Some have devoted their careers to analyzing intelligence or protecting our borders and securing our skies. Others have made the noble choice to defend our nation in battle.
For 10 years, our troops have risked and given their lives to prevent our enemies from attacking America again. They’ve kept us safe, they have made us proud, and they have upheld the spirit of service shown by the passengers on Flight 93.
Many years ago, in 1863, another president came to dedicate a memorial site in this state. He told his audience that, “In a larger sense we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. For the brave souls who struggled there, it consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract.”
He added “The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here.”
So it is with Flight 93. For as long as this memorial stands, we will remember what the men and women aboard the plane did here. We’ll pay tribute to the courage they showed, the sacrifice they made, and the lives they spared. The United States will never forget.
In all of world history is there an entity or person more loving, generous, giving, kind and sweet than we here at Big Pink? Consider, with all the contempt we have for that boobish creature of low character called Barack Obama, we are busy at work this Friday devoted to help him. Such kindness! Such generosity! Such love!
“You should pass it. And I intend to take that message to every corner of this country.”
Here is our contribution to the Barack Obama 2012 campaign: There is an election in Brooklyn this coming Tuesday, in a Democratic district, and there will be no greater demonstration of Obama power and support for Obama’s non-existent legislation as read in a joint session last night than a massive 99% victory for the man who will replace Anthony Weiner.
Imagine the stunned Hillary Clinton supporters, Social Security supporters, Medicare supporters, Republicans, conservatives, and assorted members of the NOBAMA coalition who will be silenced when Obama makes an appearance in Brooklyn and the Obama Dimocrat wins 99% of the vote! “Hurrah” the fratboys will cheer and the Obots sing out, the Dimocrat ladies they will all sing out when Barry comes smiling home.
* * * * * *
Suspicious minds will suggest that we are not sincere in our attempt to help Obama. They will throw in our faces the fact that we laughed when we heard Barack Obama planned to campaign in Massachusetts for Martha Coakley. We knew Obama is Poison and that poor Martha Coakley was doomed the minute Barack Obama appeared in true blue Massachusetts.
Those suspicious minds will also note that we knew Jon Corzine of New Jersey would be defeated once Barack Obama appeared in blue New Jersey. Suspicious minds will speak about how we knew that Creigh Deeds in Virginia, and Specter in Pennsylvania were all dead meat the moment Obama appeared in those respective states on their behalf.
Fair enough, there is a lot of evidence to justify those suspicions. But our suggestion stands in spite of those who think it is a spiteful bit of advice. After all Obama is selling the nonsense that Obama Dimocrats in 2012 should stick by him. What better way to demonstrate the logic of “unity” and support for Obama than a massive victory in the Brooklyn 9th congressional district?
In addition, Barack Obama is THE issue in the 9th congressional district. The entire campaign by the Republican is based on an Ed Koch fueled slogan of “send Barack Obama a message, send Washington a message.” Barack Obama is the issue in the 9th congressional district and only he can save the hapless Obama Dimocrat.
“Just remember that NY-09, which sent Anthony Weiner to the House seven times in a row. It has a Cook index of D+5, a significant registration advantage for Democrats. This district voted for Barack Obama 55/44 in 2008. And yet, with just four days to go before a special election to replace the disgraced Weiner, Siena’s new survey of 886 likely voters show the Democratic nominee David Weprin six points behindthe man who couldn’t come within 20 points of Weiner in a massive Tea Party midterm: [snip]
Recall that Obama won this district by eleven points in 2008. What do voters think of him now? Siena’s crosstabs show Obama’s approval at 43/54 in this Democratic district in New York City. Among Democrats, he only has a 59/38 approval rating, hardly a strong vote of confidence in the party leader. Independents in the district give him an abysmal 29/68 job approval rating, and he has majority-disapproval ratings among all gender, age, religion, and income categories. He’s even underwater among union households, 46/52.
If Turner pulls off the upset on Tuesday, Democrats will find a better candidate for the 2012 election to run against Turner than the hapless Weprin, who has a terrible record in elections anyway. But if Obama is at the top of that ticket, Turner has a pretty good shot at holding the seat if these approval numbers stay the same.”
Roll Call has taken note of the boobery and rated the race a toss up with only Obama Dimocratic turnout operations the Hope to elect boob Weprin.
Oh, dear…. perhaps we are wrong. We momentarily forgot “Obama is the kiss of death.” Maybe we have been utterly insincere in our affectation of helping the boob.