Thanks For Nothing

Sometimes, if you are alert, you can catch a glimpse of the truth.

Politico‘s “The Arena” suggests that Jeff Greenfield’s book, “Then Everything Changed” might be the best book of 2011. We are informed that the New York Times called the book a ‘riveting’ narrative. Former Congressman Artur Davis thinks the book is real good. Buried in his praise of the book at Politico is an unintended glimpse of the fearsome truth:

“The book is built on three novellas, each supposing that a particular historical fact happened an inch differently. [snip]

The last revolves not around tragedy, but blind luck, and how the seventies would have been altered if Gerald Ford avoided a still inexplicable gaffe on foreign policy during his 1976 race with Jimmy Carter, and ended up passing Carter to win a narrow electoral college victory. It is Ford who governs during the stagflation and drift of the late seventies, and when Ronald Reagan emerges as the nominee in 1980, he bears the burden of a decade of failed Republican rule.

These fantasy books are about as productive, and less satisfying, than pimple scarred teenagers or tweens dreaming of dates with Justin Bieber or cast members of the Twilight vampire film series. Don’t waste your money on these ‘what if?’ fictions. Fact is John and Bobby got killed in ’63 and ’68 respectively and Ford “liberated” the Eastern Block prison states during that foreign policy debate in ’76.

What is worthwhile discussing, because it is a window into the truth which haunts Obama Dimocrats, is ex-Congressman Davis’ comment about the consequences of a bad economy for political parties and candidates. What Davis, and presumably Greenfield, are admitting is that Obama is the burden for Dimocrats we have repeatedly stated he is.

Davis premises that if Ford would have been reelected it would have been Ford, not Carter, the public blamed for the “stagflation and drift” of a decade (no thought is given to the possibility that Jimmy Carter made some enormous economic blunders which extended the economic malaise of that decade). Ronald Reagan, according to this fiction would have had to bear “the burden of a decade of failed Republican rule” when he ran for election in 1980. Could’a, would’a, should’a.

In 2008 John McCain had to pay the price for the American public’s disgust with George W. Bush. Barack Obama profited from that disgust with Bush and the economic collapse just before the election. Now the shoe is on the other boob.

Gerald Ford was not a successful president either. Ford was however the most “personally” popular president ever since his election. People liked him but judged Ford to be a failure and wisely threw him out of office. For the Obama worship crowd the “American people like B.O.” defense should ring hollow if they look at “personally” popular Ford on election day.

By the time Ronald Reagan came up for election in 1980 the American people were sick of Jimmy Carter. Reagan won, and George Bush followed. This time it will be worse. That’s essentially what Davis and Greenfield are saying.

What a lot of Obama Dimocrats (of course this includes Big Media) fear and will not state nor admit to themselves is that Obama is the harbinger of decades of death for the corruption which is their party. But if you are alert, you can occasionally catch a glimpse into that unspoken and un-admitted fear, in the unlikeliest of places – like fantasy book reviews.

A glimpse of the truth can also be had by counting, not necessarily reading, the proliferation of “Save Us Hillary” articles which appear daily. There’s a reason so many articles appear with regularity. The fantasy is that there is anything or anyone that can save Obama from his disastrous record:

“You’ve heard the rumors before, and they remain rumors, but they are starting to take on a different tone. Once whispered among political junkies as one would discuss who should start this week in a fantasy football league – purely speculative and engaged in mostly for entertainment.

Today, however, the tone has changed. Democrats now talk of the outcome of replacing Biden on the ticket in 2012 as though it’s a proscribed therapy that they must undergo. Republicans, when they talk about it, often qualify the possibility as remote if only to reassure themselves that this doomsday event is still unlikely.”

False HOPE of 2008 has given way to brutal reality of 2012:

“The early exuberance after President Obama’s election led some to speculate that a generation of Democratic governance was ahead. That enthusiasm soon gave way to cautious optimism that the “expanded map” of 2008 was likely to hold in 2012. Today, all those predictions have been exposed for the folly that they were at the time. Not only will the “expanded map” contract significantly in 2008 but the battle has expanded out from traditional swing states to Democratic Strongholds like Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

Alec MacGillis outlines the president’s troubles in the Keystone State perfectly in a recent piece for The New Republic. The president lost white, working class voters in Pennsylvania by 15 points in 2008 – a year with all the fundamentals running in his favor. The causes for this are manifold, according to MacGillis, owing primarily to the long and damaging primary battle that was fought here between Obama and Clinton in 2008.

Vice President Biden was chose to join Obama on the ticket for a number of reasons, but primarily for his ability to lend gravitas to a ticket bereft of experience in weighty matters like foreign affairs. Biden would also help reassure Rust Belt Democrats about Obama’s presidency and their fears that his urban and progressive background would not impede him from representing their fears and concerns while in the Oval Office.”

The only CHANGE wanted by Americans now, is to be rid of Barack Obama. Hillary Clinton can do a lot of things but saving Barack Obama is not one of them. Although it is amusing to see what effect all these “Save Us Hillary” articles must be having on Barack Obama and his lantern jawed Michelle:

“Obama cannot win the presidency without Pennsylvania or Michigan. Full stop.

On Friday, Pete du Pont writes in the editorial page about the myriad qualifications and benefits that Hilary brings to the top of the ticket – electorally it is a no brainer. For the Obama administration, it is a double edged sword; win the presidency and secure a legacy but abandon all the hard fought victories over the Clinton machine in 2008. Indeed, reanimate the necrotic corpse of the Clinton’s Washington establishment.

The lame duck Obama presidency would be dominated by the story of Hillary’s ascendency to the presidency. There would not be enough media oxygen for both personalities in D.C. That is a hard pill to swallow but, given the likelihood that Republicans will retake control of the Senate and retain control of the House after 2012, putting Hillary on the ticket may be the only thing standing between Obama and the complete Republican dominance of Washington in 2013.”

We will not vote for Barack Obama no matter what or who. We don’t even like to read these ‘Hillary for V.P.” stories. But it does give us a chuckle to hear the sleeves-a-yanking every time Michelle gets the paper from the butler. Black Friday must have been brutal on the muscular Michelle and even worse for any stray sleeves coming into her view:

“The main challenge President Obama faces is persuading voters to re-elect him in spite of the disastrous results of his economic policies. [snip]

The Obama economy is the worst America has seen in four decades, with payroll employment today 5% lower than it was 41 months ago. Over the past three years, federal spending as a percentage of gross domestic product has been higher than at any time since World War II, adding $4 trillion to our national debt.”

That’s not a fantasy. The Obama economy is the stuff of nightmares. The Obama economy is cruel reality. Enter Hillary:

“Democratic pollsters Patrick Caddell and Douglas Schoen have urged the president to forgo re-election for the good of his party and the nation. But those don’t seem like factors that would necessarily influence this president. Instead we might see him decide to switch to a vice presidential candidate who will be stronger, better, and change the thinking of a majority of the Democrats–namely, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Last December a USA Today/Gallup poll found Mrs. Clinton to be the most admired woman in politics. A poll in March found that 66% viewed Mrs. Clinton favorably and just 31% unfavorably. Mr. Obama’s numbers, which have since declined, were 54% and 43%; Vice President Joe Biden’s, 46% to 41%. An October Time poll of last October pitted Mrs. Clinton against Republican candidates. She led Mitt Romney by 17%, Rick Perry by 26% and Herman Cain by 22%. Mr. Obama’s leads in the same poll were 3%, 12% and 12%, respectively.

Paul Starr, co-editor of The American Prospect, a liberal-left magazine, has observed that 45 percent of the people who disapprove of Mr. Obama’s performance view Mrs. Clinton favorably. It is fair to say that Mrs. Clinton’s addition to the ticket would be a substantial gain for President Obama that he badly needs next November, since she is, as Mr. Starr notes, a member of the part of his administration that has the highest approval rating, and more important she has not at all been a part of the disastrous economic policies that have caused the Obama drop in popularity. Even better for Election Day, she would gain support among older white voters, who did not support Mr. Obama very much in 2008. Mr. Starr also cites a Suffolk University Florida poll that shows that Mrs. Clinton on the Obama ticket would win Florida for the two of them, even if Sen. Marco Rubio is the Republican’s vice presidential candidate.”

We were denounced as living in a fantasy world when we wrote, starting in 2007/2008, what is now viewed as the most conventional of conventional wisdom. We have never been in fantasy land – FutureLand maybe, but never fantasy land. We knew a boob is a boob. We knew a corrupt boob will always be a corrupt boob. We knew a corrupt boob was also likely to be a treacherous boob. We documented the corrupt treacherous boob and predicted the Republican Party would adapt and prosper. Now it is all conventional wisdom:

“Add in that the Washington Democrats already see a political disaster coming: the Senate as well as the House is likely to have a Republican majority. Only two Republican Senate incumbents are vulnerable: the appointed Dean Heller in Nevada and elected Scott Brown of Massachusetts. By contrast, of the 23 Democrat-held seats up for re-election, political forecaster Larry Sabato sees six as safe for the Democrats, and two as likely GOP pickups. That will mean that Republicans need only to win one to four of the remaining 15 to take control of the Senate along with its House majority.

So will President Obama make the vice presidential switch? While it is not unprecedented, it is certainly unusual, and it would likely be seen in some quarters as a desperate act of a weakened president.

In less than a year Americans will tell Barack Obama and the corruption we call the Obama Dimocratic Party – “Thanks For Nothing, now get out, it’s time for a change.” In less than a year we suspect that in a last ditch effort to get reelected, if not renominated, Barack Obama will come on bended knee to Hillary Clinton.

When Obama comes to Hillary Clinton and begs “Save Me Hillary” we hope she says “Thanks for Nothing. Now get out, and stay out.” That’s fantasy meeting reality.

Share

116 thoughts on “Thanks For Nothing

  1. Dems had better wise up, yank that 2×4 from old Chuck’s hands, and use it to whack BO out of the nomination. Otherwise, he is about to take the whole party down for generations to come.

  2. http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/11/occupy-san-diego-goons-invade-wal-mart-disrupt-shopping-chant-nonsense-leave-75-carts-full-of-merchandise-video/

    The Occupy movement continued its outreach program of thuggery, harassment and intimidation on Black Friday.

    At least one group of occupiers handed out “cum-sumer whores” fliers to Wal-Mart shoppers.

    Meanwhile, the San Diego occupiers stormed into a Wal-Mart, filled 75 carts with merchandise, disrupted shoppers by chanting their nonsense for several minutes at the cash registers, then fled the store leaving behind 75 full carts for the employees to put away.

  3. I am with you- won’t vote for any ticket that has that Chicago thug on it. Hillary needs to tell him to take a damn hike.

  4. I think I would vote for Hillary and Obama, as long as it was Hillary for President and Obama for vice president. Obama might make a good consumer financial protection agency head. Actually they should just get Nader for that.

  5. Yup admin, I totally agree with you and I don’t think it is such a fantasy…

    When Obama comes to Hillary Clinton and begs “Save Me Hillary” we hope she says “Thanks for Nothing. Now get out, and stay out.” That’s fantasy meeting reality.

    ——
    The only thing I could add to your great post is the hope that when Hillary is asked to save his skinny ass, that it is recorded and made available to the public…and her two thumbs down to his is also done in public…so all of us will get that satisfied last laugh WITH HER.

    Then, some group of still smart Democrats, like Diane Feinstein, and her other friends DRAFT her, they take a vote and she knocks his butt out of the running and finally becomes the rightful President of our country.
    Amen.

  6. Typo – sorry

    I agree with Newt that the final nominees should have real debates, with intelligent, long conversations not timed sound bites. We all remember how talented Barry is with his, “…like she said”, comments.

  7. Sounds like Caddell and Schoen have a Hillary write-in campaign up their sleeves:

    freedomslighthouse.net/2011/11/25/democrat-pollsters-consider-calling-for-hillary-clinton-write-in-campaign-in-new-hampshire-primary-to-send-a-message-to-obama-audio-112511/

    This is an audio clip from the Sean Hannity radio show. At the end, Mr. Caddell mentions an article coming out next week.

  8. admin:

    Nice research. we see that gee…Obama is not good for the country, not good for the Democrats…So what good is he?

    Truly, the question must be addressed: Do the Democrats just check “Incumbent” for the primaries, in a lemming-like march off the cliff???

    Or do they think like the remaining 10% of surviving lemmings, who asked, “And exactly why am I blindly following everyone else to a certain oblivion?”.

  9. I think I would vote for Hillary and Obama, as long as it was Hillary for President and Obama for vice president.

    ================

    Yes, Hillary is smart enough to keep him in line.

  10. Looks Like Bill and Hillary said: “THANKS, BUT NO THANKS”
    __________________

    Obama turning to Biden for help in 3 key states

    The Associated Press
    By Julie Pace

    A year from Election Day, Democrats are crafting a campaign strategy for Vice President Joe Biden that targets the big three political battlegrounds: Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida, states where Biden might be more of an asset to President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign than the president himself.

    The Biden plan underscores an uncomfortable reality for the Obama team. A shaky economy and sagging enthusiasm among Democrats could shrink the electoral map for Obama in 2012, forcing his campaign to depend on carrying the 67 electoral votes up for grabs in the three swing states.

    See DNC’s strategy at link:

    http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/11/26/9035894-obama-turning-to-biden-for-help-in-3-key-states

  11. Who in their right mind would ask the old plugs gaffemeister to help out, i’d rather ask no-one than ask Biden. Thats like asking the Captain of the Titanic to drive your brand new ship.

  12. From JournoList to activist, it appears that WaPo‘s liberal blogger Ezra Klein is once again blurring the lines between being a journalist and trying to sway politics. In what appears to be at a minimum a breach of journalism ethics, Klein spoke to a group of Senate Democratic Chiefs of Staff last Friday about the Supercommittee, just days before the Committee announced its failing. “It was kind of weird,” said a longtime Senate Democratic aide, explaining that while people “enjoyed it” and gave it “positive reviews” this sort of thing is far from typical.

    A longtime Washington editor who deals with Capitol Hill regularly also said this is not the norm: “”I have never heard of a reporter briefing staffers. It’s supposed to be the other way around. This arrangement seems highly unusual.”

    Klein’s speech to high-level Democratic aides was in the Capitol, closed door and off the record. It lasted 30 minutes. “I think they thought it was very helpful,” said the aide. “I think it’s unusual. What’s more common is to get someone like Paul Begala or a White House staffer. To get a journalist to talk is a little unusual.”

    But then again, Klein is unusual. In the summer of 2010, his exclusive partisan JournoList, a secretive listserv of some 400 members, collapsed as contents of the exchanges began leaking out. Journalists took hits for their participation, such as then WaPo‘s Dave Weigel, who quickly apologized on the newspaper’s blog for some of what he wrote. He was fired over the matter and is now at Slate. The Daily Caller reported extensively on the offending material. The end result: Klein shut the list down.

    Briefings for journalists covering Capitol Hill are usually the reverse of what transpired here. Lawmakers brief reporters. Aides brief reporters. Think tanks brief reporters. Think tanks brief aides. But reporters briefing aides? This is unheard of.

    Important questions to have answered: Was Klein strategizing with Democrats on messaging of the Supercommittee’s failure? What exactly was the purpose of the reporter’s speech?

    We wrote Klein for comment. While he may refuse to read FishbowlDC, preferring instead to stick to the confines of CJR, his readers need to demand answers from him if they are going to trust the integrity and validity of his journalism. We also wrote WaPo Publicist Kris Coratti to find out what the rules are on these sort of talks and if WaPo was even aware that Klein was giving the speech. She said she’d look into it. That was three hours ago. If we get a statement we’ll bring it to you.

    See the email FBDC sent to Ezra after the jump…

    Hi Ezra,

    Hope you’re headed into a great Thanksgiving holiday and hope you get the wishbone. Wanted to ask you about a briefing you gave to Senate Democratic Chiefs of Staff last Friday. Why were you briefing them? Isn’t a reporter supposed to be briefed by lawmakers and aides, not the other way around? Do you see this as a breach of ethics? If not, how do you see it?

    Thank you.

    http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowldc/wapos-ezra-should-have-de-kleined_b56658

    ……………………………..

    and there was us wondering if the MSM were Obama’s fluffer. Disgraceful behaviour.

  13. Such a delightful surprise for me here this morning; astute admin has been “biding his/her time”. and senses correctly that now is the hour for Dems to man up to their situation.

    There is a Republican in a bit of a bind, too, but it might not have been more honorably addressed if newly-elected Speaker Pelosi had followed through on her inuendo of impeachment for this criminal:
    George W. Bush cancels visit to Swiss charity gala over fears he could be arrested on torture charges
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1354211/George-W-Bush-cancels-Switzerland-visit-fears-arrest-torture-charges.html

    and this development fits in perfectly with the beginning of my episode of terminal discontent with the Democrats: 2006. I gave bux to Pelosi sufficient to be mailed an 8 1/2 by 11 glossy of her with confetti pouring down over her newly-anointed Speakership’s tresses. But my reward was short-lived as it did not take her long to state that impeachment of GWB was off the table.

    Also in 2006 came the new Senator from PA whom I donated $25 monthly for quite some time. Another of my bad investments in the Democratic.

  14. Photo at link:

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2011/11/not-photoshopped-beam-of-light-shines-on-fallen-soldiers-miracle-dog/

    Reported by ABC News’ Kimberly Launier:

    It was an overcast day in Newport, N.H., when a simple “20/20″ shoot turned into something that made me wonder about life after death.

    I was filming soldier Justin Rollin’s parents Skip and Rhonda playing with their dog Hero, whose rescue from the Iraq War zone where Justin died was nothing short of a miracle.

    Sometimes when Rhonda hugged Hero she would softly pet her face and coo, “Justin, are you in there?” It was Rhonda’s gentle way of remembering their son and his last living connection to Hero. At one point, Hero wandered off and took a stroll in the backyard. All of a sudden, the clouds broke and a light began to solidify in a beam directly down on Hero — a kind of vertical halo.

    As this dramatic ray of light was shining on Hero she turned to look at me, and it was all I could do to hold the camera steady and not drop it in astonishment. It was an unforgettable moment, and made me wonder if in fact Justin was in there. Then the light vanished.

  15. admin
    November 27th, 2011 at 8:01 am

    The Power of Love between the soldier, his parents and fiance shining brightly in this dog of war- there is no stronger power on earth.

    I have never read so many negative comments in the commentator section, as with this heart warming story- makes one wonder how much evil we are facing out there in the ether?

  16. Bill Clinton Praises Newt: “He’s Articulate” And Attracts Independents video

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/11/26/bill_clinton_praises_newt_hes_articulate_and_attracts_independents.html

    Former President Bill Clinton tells Newsmax: “He’s articulate and he tries to think of a conservative version of an idea that will solve a legitimate problem,” Clinton said, by way of explaining the Gingrich resurgence.

    “For example, I watched the national security debate last night. And Newt said two things that would make an independent voter say, ‘Well, I gotta consider that.’”

  17. One of the reasons I left this site as a regular reader and poster is Admin’s strong anti Romney stand. Every single anti Obama former Hillary supporter, independent or moderate Republican that I know feels Romney is the only palatable R candidate that they would vote for and I feel the same way. With each day I move farther from the dem party even though my politics hasn’t changed. I will not vote for any candidate who will not enforce immigration law and that includes Hillary. I also wouldn’t vote for any ticket with Obama on it, no matter who he runs with.

    In NY you cannot register as independent and if not registered in a party, then you can not vote in a primary.
    I may soon change my registration to R. We have had some good moderate R candidates here. Perhaps if enough moderates and independents register as R, they can swing it back to the middle.

    What we really need is a new moderate American Party. The hard core conservatives and social conservatives are not going away and neither are the the far left pro palestinian anti Israel liberals.
    I think Hilary and Bill were wrong not to fight the Obama left at the convention. I think they could have started a new political party. Corruption will surely kill this so called democracy if something isn’t done soon. The US is actually alot less democratic than many other countries. We do not have one man one vote. We cannot withdraw support for a leader and force a new government.

    I just cannot respect or condone Hillary’s effusive support of Obama and I think it has been destructive for the country. If by some miracle, Obama withdraws and Hillary is drafted, then I will be proven wrong, but I just don’t see that happening.

  18. (If anyone knows the answer to this question… I would appreciate it) Whatever happened to the Immigration Rule: “A sponsor is needed for the person applying for immigration to the US?” As my grandparents needed to have in place before they could be admitted to Ellis Island.
    _____________

    How Eisenhower solved illegal border crossings from Mexico

    http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0706/p09s01-coop.html

  19. Carol: With each day I move farther from the dem party even though my politics hasn’t changed.
    ——————-
    It’s good to hear from you. Great statement. I find it incredulous that Dems have yet to make reference even in a small way to their treachery. In my state the House Rep swept out in 2010 is back, unapologetic. James Carville is shilling for Bob Casey, senator who deserves tar and feathering but may win because Repub’s seem to have no real candidate. Tom Smith of western PA announced and sent request for contribution once. That was months ago. I’ve heard nothing since. So Casey will probably win. 6 more years of this probama weakling is more than I can bear to think about.

    I’m still in fly-by mode here, but wanted to say Hi.

  20. No surprise here- Romney was despised by MA residents when governor of the state because of his state mandated RomneyCare HC with illegal alien entitlements covering them as well. He missed the boat in 08′ running with the RomneyCare millstone around his neck and has been losing ground ever since.( RomneyCare was the model used for Obama’s failed HC Reform Act.)
    _________________

    Newt Gingrich to Get Big New Hampshire Endorsement (Epic Romney Fail)

    Fox News has learned that former speaker of the U.S. House and current GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich will receive the coveted endorsement of the highly-influential New Hampshire newspaper “The Manchester Union Leader,” an endorsement Republican rival Mitt Romney has adamantly sought.

    Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has received the coveted endorsement of the highly-influential Manchester Union Leader in New Hampshire, a boost for the 2012 Republican presidential candidate and a blow to rival Mitt Romney.

    The endorsement of the conservative newspaper’s editorial board places an exclamation point on Gingrich’s impressive surge from has-been GOP contender to frontrunner, and sets him apart as the new anti-Romney candidate among his competitors.

    “Newt Gingrich is by no means the perfect candidate. But Republican primary voters too often make the mistake of preferring an unattainable ideal to the best candidate who is actually running. In this incredibly important election, that candidate is Newt Gingrich,” the editorial board wrote in Sunday’s edition.

    The Leader added in a banner headline across the front page that the former Georgia lawmaker has something the rest of the candidates don’t — a track record of success in Washington.

    “America is at a crucial crossroads. It is not going to be enough to merely replace Barack Obama next year. We are in critical need of the innovative, forward-looking strategy and positive leadership that Gingrich has shown he is capable of providing,” the endorsement reads.

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/11/27/gingrich-gets-big-new-hampshire-endorsement/#ixzz1ev2f1l3b

  21. Want a real stimulus plan? here is mine.

    1 Crackdown on welfare payment abusers.medicade food stamps crooked retailers political leeches gravy-trainers and racial manipulators so called kids and rabble-rousers oversexed single baby machines that are loading the wagon and not worrying about the Mules(We The People)

    2 Take all the savings and Build large prisons without all the comfort features and buy educational books to raise the mentality level of the mobs that live off our tax money that we have to work and pay.
    3 Create many new jobs with the hiring of thousands of honest prison guards and unemployed Veterans.This may seem like “I Have a Dream” but anything is better than the path that Obama has chosen for us. And by the way if you dont want Hillary (First Lady of THe World) Get the H–l off of her site.

    By ABM93 Veteran and Patriot and very angry

  22. As one who gave to Hillary’s campaign and worked for her campaign I feel free to express my disappointment….. whatever the H… you say.
    As a senator from NY she was willing to find compromise on illegal immigration. If she were running I would have to hear what she has to say. It seems that only Americans who are truly suffering the effects of illegal immigration are fighting for law engorcement…..too bad there isn’t more support from the rest of the country.

    As for Romney flipping….I have no problem with someone changing or evolving their position if they have made a mistake…..better than someone who is still stuck in a bad position. I by no means support Romney on all issues…especially healthcare…but he is no worse than the dems on that subject….many of us feel that he is least of all evils so far……

  23. I prefer your meaningless Farewell speech!
    ____________

    November 27, 2011

    No Road Leads to Peace between Israel and the Palestinians

    There are many reasons why a Palestinian state of any sort cannot work. Chief among them is that Palestinians lack the prerequisites for a nation: common purpose; the desire to live in peace so the nation’s citizens could carry on normal lives and build for a better future; concern about the well-being of their children and posterity; and a commitment to law and order and to building an economic infrastructure capable of supporting a thriving economy. These are the basics that any nation must have, and all of them are missing.

    Common purpose

    Only one thing unites the people we call “Palestinians” today — the desire to annihilate Israel. If you read the Palestinian and Hamas charters, you can’t help but notice that the central tenet in both of them is the animus the Palestinian people have for Israel. The elimination of Israel is the overarching theme in both charters, and the creation of a Pan-Arab nation comes in second. Neither of these guiding principles bodes well for peace with Israel or for building a prosperous Palestinian state.

    The desire to live in peace so the nation’s citizens can carry on normal lives and build for a better future.

    Judging by what the Palestinians say they want to achieve, peace with Israel is totally out of the question. In fact, based on what they say, war is inevitable. Both charters call upon Palestinians to dedicate their lives and their wealth to destroying Israel. The Western concept of a “normal life” isn’t even hinted at, and a better future by their definition is nothing more than a Middle East with no Israel. If you take them at their word, and there is no reason not to, they have no other vision for a brighter future.

    Concern about the well-being of their children and posterity

    Palestinians raise their children to become martyrs — walking bombs that they can explode among crowds of innocent Israelis. That’s not what I say — it’s what they say, and it’s spelled out clearly in their charters as though it’s the only reason Palestinians have children. That’s a version of love for children and posterity that Western minds can’t fathom, and it’s certainly not conducive to building a prosperous and peaceful nation.

    A commitment to law and order

    The Palestinian government, be it Hamas or Fatah, is notorious for corruption and the whims of despotic rulers. The rule of law isn’t even part of their vocabulary. Peaceful and prosperous nations that survive over the long-term must have law and order, and there is no evidence that Palestinians want either.

    Building an economic infrastructure capable of supporting a thriving economy

    The economic model in place today in the Palestinian community is one of providing labor for a bustling Israeli economy and seeking donations from useful idiots around the world who support the Palestinian cause, which is to destroy Israel. These two economic characteristics are antithetical to building a flourishing national economy. By definition, Palestinians can’t seek to eliminate Israel and at the same time expect to thrive as Israel grows and prospers. Similarly, Palestinians can’t hope to achieve economic independence if they position themselves as global beggars. Delusory thinking and hatred are not substitutes for sound economic principles, and they don’t lead toward prosperity or peace.

    Absent sweeping changes in Palestinians’ thinking, there is no way a Palestinian state will work, and no amount of wishing and hoping for peace and prosperity will compensate for the abiding hatred the Palestinian people have for Israel.

    The “Right of Return” is a Deal-Breaker

    Most people don’t have any idea what the “right of return” means. In a nutshell, it means that descendants of so-called “Palestinians” who left their homes when Israel’s War of Independence began in 1948 have the right to return to their homes. But this issue is murkier than you can imagine. For instance, consider these facts:

    * In 1948, when Israel’s War of Independence began, everyone living in the land we call Israel today was referred to as a Palestinian — Jew and Arab alike.

    * Yasser Arafat commandeered the name “Palestinian” for Arabs in 1964 when he founded the PLO as the “sole legitimate representative of thePalestinian people.”

    * When the British Mandate ended, the land was divided into two parts: Israel and Transjordan. Transjordan was supposed to be the Arab state, and Israel was supposed to be the Jewish state. Later, the name “Transjordan” was changed to Jordan. For a more complete explanation, see “A Brief History of Israel and Palestine.”

    * Jews in Palestine at the time of the War of Independence invited their Arab neighbors to stay and help them build a country. Arab leaders told them to flee immediately because they intended to crush the fledgling Jewish state and, as they put it, “to drive the Jews into the sea.” Most of the Arabs departed, thinking that they would return in a few days at most and reclaim their homes along with spoils left behind by the defeated Jews, but Israel defeated the combined Arab armies, and Arabs who left their homes became refugees.

    * Most Arab political leaders decided not to offer citizenship to Arabs who fled Israel. Instead, they built refugee camps for them in hopes of winning global sympathy for their plight. King Hussein of Jordan, King Abdullah’s father, made it clear that Arab leaders alone were responsible for the plight of the refugees, but his was a voice in the wilderness. Israel gladly accepted Jewish refugees from Arab countries.

    * There were more Jewish refugees from Arab countries during Israel’s War of Independence than there were Arab refugees from Israel.

    * The value of assets left behind by Jewish refugees from Arab countries far exceeds the value of assets left behind by Arabs who fled Israel.

    * Many, if not most, of the so-called “Palestinian refugees” today have no connection whatsoever to people who fled Israel at the time of the War of Independence. For decades, Arab leaders have routinely ousted rabble-rousers from their countries and forced them to join their Arab brothers in “Palestinian” refugee camps. It was a form of exile — like being sent to Siberia in Stalin’s Soviet Union.

    Every year, Arabs remember Nakba Day. In English it means “the Day of Catastrophe.” It refers to Israel’s defeat of the combined Arab armies during the War of Independence. In a literal sense, they aren’t just remembering the “catastrophe,” as they put it. They are hoping and waiting for the day when they can reverse their fortunes and return to the land of Israel, or Eretz Yisrael.

    On Nakba Day 2011, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas issued a statement saying, “The right of return will remain sacred for every Palestinian who was forced by the Zionist war machine to leave his or her home and land in Palestine. The Palestinians won’t succumb to extortion; either we get the home and land peacefully, or we will make sacrifices until we return.” As the facts above indicate, that statement is a bald-faced lie, but it sells well in the Arab world and among the liberal, left-wing Western intelligentsia who have bought into the Palestinian cause hook, line, and sinker.

    In practical terms, Abbas was saying that the “right of return” is non-negotiable. Even more, he was saying that Arabs will fight until the bitter end for the “right of return.” In absolute terms, the “right of return” is the ultimate deal-breaker, because Israel will never accept it, and for good reasons. In other words, for Palestinian leaders, the “right of return” is a convenient way out of any compromise that may lead to peace with Israel.

    Neil Snyder is a chaired professor emeritus at the University of Virginia. His blog, SnyderTalk.com, is posted daily. His latest book is titled If You Voted for Obama in 2008 to Prove You’re Not a Racist, You Need to Vote for Someone Else in 2012 to Prove You’re Not an Idiot.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/11/no_road_leads_to_peace_between_israel_and_the_palestinians.html

  24. That was the other reason I stopped being a regular…..such unpleasant posters….nasty namecalling…and small minded posters intolerant of other’s opinions ……seems like the site is shrinking regularly….losing posters and influence…..

  25. A Day Inside Occupy Wall Street

    “And even as I came to understand that epiphany, I was reminded of President Obama’s public approval of these Occupy protesters – a memory that then linked the motivations of these immature, selfish and unprepared children to the motivations of an immature, selfish and unprepared American president…” Ulsterman, 11/27/11

    Last week I spent several hours walking in and around Zuccotti Park. Tensions were high as New York Mayor Bloomberg recently had Zuccotti ”cleaned up” in an early morning eviction that sent Occupy Wall Streeters scrambling to re-assemble over the next 24 hours. On the day I arrived, there was much talk of the protesters preparing to take back the park, as well as marches to various locations throughout lower Manhattan.

    I had been to Zuccotti not long before to conduct an interview in a nearby building. At that time the number of protesters was almost double what was there last week. Barricades had been placed around the park, the weather was cold and wet, and the police presence was considerable. A few chants were started up sporadically, shouts directed at police officers, and one hapless protester who made the purposeful mistake of attempting to kick down the barricades only to find himself firmly placed face first onto the wet pavement, cuffed, and removed.

    I made note that the act was quite deliberate by the young man – he was determined to cause a scene, and even more determined to be physically confronted by the NYPD. As soon as that confrontation took place, a handful of protesters began screaming – not shouting mind you, but screaming. That is when the pack mentality of this small mob took over for the next 20 or so minutes. It was a frightening transformation – both absolute, and utterly of the protester’s own making. As madness momentarily overtook them, they looked as happy as they had been that entire morning.

    This is what they had been waiting for.

    The small number of protesters who had initiated the screaming would push people upward against the barricades, point and shout obscenities at police officers, then make their way to the back of the crowd and push yet more people forward. If the energy started to diminish, they would repeat the excercise again, hoping to reignite the anger and outrage among the protesters. The law enforcement personnel for their part remained calm, yet forceful. Some even looked bemused at the spectacle of these screaming 20-somethings with their brand name clothes, high end accessories, and the latest technological gadgets being used to transmit the efforts of their own self-importance. A few times I saw genuine disgust flash from the faces of an officer or two – a brief moment when they would appear on the verge of grabbing one of those idiotic screaming brats and giving them a much-deserved pavement stomp, but reason would quickly return and they would not allow themselves to be goaded into doing what otherwise would have been understandable – and perhaps even justifiable, human nature.

    marveled at how the protesters would wail at any small gesture of refusal by law enforcement. If a hand was placed upon them, shouts of abuse rang out – even as the ”Occupiers” would spit and mock and threaten. Those kids were absolutely confident in their own safety. They had no fear – not because of any degree of personal valor, but just the opposite. These Occupy protesters are the direct result of decades of political correctness and nanny-state authority where awards are granted for little or no accomplishment. Where “it’s not your fault” is no longer simply an excuse, but a permanent fixture within the national psyche. It is a condition that is directly responsible for the ongoing destruction of what made this country so great. – ”American Tough” is no longer a testament to a nation’s much-deserved legendary fortitude, but now simply another inane advertising campaign.

    I know something of protests. Parts of Northern Ireland even today remain a far tougher and dangerous situation than these kids could ever realize in the safety of their American kiddy-pool existence. I watched those kids and thought time and again how soft and feeble they actually were. Speaking to them was an excercise in dismay at how little they knew of the world – and these were supposedly college-educated individuals! They spoke, much like the current president, in cliche and absurd circular logic where the subject inevitably always led back to themselves. No specifics were given. No commentary based upon sound, principled reason could be found. One lad grew animated at the thought of a “socialist” America. When asked what socialism was they replied, “Where we are all equal and we all share and nobody needs to go hungry or be left out in the cold anymore.” I asked that they give me an example in history where socialism was shown to have actually worked – where the people did not end up living under the constant threat of tyranny. That question made the poor boy’s face wrinkle up in disgust and they accused me of being “one of those capitalist pigs.” Ah – yet another cliche. And so these conversations would go time and again. Some had a broader vocabulary – but always vocabulary entrenched in the far left liberalism of the American university…another world I know all too well.

    While marching along with a group of about 100 protesters down the middle of a number of New York streets, (admittedly feeling a rush of adrenaline when doing so – though I managed to fall down at one point) I was struck by how very sad these people truly are. How spoiled. How inept. How naive and immature and so unprepared for the realities of a world beyond their current Occupy existence. And therein I found the true motivation for so many of those protesters. They were not so stupid as to not recognize just how little and insignificant they really are. They required these protests. It was a necessary, albeit momentary, respite from the harsh truth of their existence – they don’t really matter in this world, because to matter requires that one, at least to somedegree, grows up and moves on away from the selfishness so embedded in the childhood experience. As my own Da so often says – get on with it then.

    And even as I came to understand that epiphany, I was reminded of President Obama’s public approval of these Occupy protesters – a memory that then linked the motivations of these immature, selfish and unprepared children to the motivations of an immature, selfish and unprepared American president.

    http://theulstermanreport.com/2011/11/27/a-day-inside-occupy-wall-street/

  26. Obama headed for Scranton High –
    President Barack Obama will speak at Scranton High School when he visits the city on Wednesday, two sources said Friday.
    The White House on Friday would not officially confirm the location of the president’s visit, but one source said the location is definitely the school and the other said the White House is looking for an audience of about 400 students. The sources spoke only if they were not identified.
    Superintendent William King said he could not confirm the school as the site, but said “the White House has been in touch with us.”
    “We’re waiting for confirmation from them,” he said. “They have not confirmed anything.”

    The high school has received its share of political campaign attention the past few years, though the visitors ultimately did not fare well in the elections that followed. In March 2008, presidential candidate Hillary Clinton kicked off the six-week Pennsylvania Democratic primary campaign with a raucous rally attended by hundreds of cheering students.

    Mrs. Clinton won the Pennsylvania primary, easily defeating Mr. Obama statewide and clobbering him by a 3-to-1 margin in Lackawanna County. Mr. Obama won the presidency, but has not been back to the city itself since the primary. In August 2009, former President Bill Clinton rallied Democrats behind Senate candidate Joe Sestak, but Mr. Sestak lost the election to Republican Pat Toomey.
    http://thetimes-tribune.com/news/obama-headed-for-scranton-high-1.1237535#axzz1ewFP1suP

    Then Obie is headed for NYC for numerous fundraisers in the evening, and the last I heard insisted on having his entourage travel through midtown on the night of the tree lighting at Rockefeller Center including music by Justin Bieber. A whole city full of people will be saying “Thanks for nothing.”

    I’m ending this by a repetition especially for Super(NOT)Delegate Bob Casey, now endorsed by James Carville: Mrs. Clinton won the Pennsylvania primary, easily defeating Mr. Obama statewide and clobbering him by a 3-to-1 margin in Lackawanna County.

  27. We have to vote for the candidate that can win. That, like it or not, appears to be Romney. I mean let’s get real, Newt is bright , but he cannot win. He also helped impeach Bill.

  28. “Then Obie is headed for NYC for numerous fundraisers in the evening, and the last I heard insisted on having his entourage travel through midtown on the night of the tree lighting at Rockefeller Center including music by Justin Bieber. A whole city full of people will be saying “Thanks for nothing.”
    ________________

    Exactly, holdthemaccountable- Admin has it right as always. Admin spends many hours reading and doing research before a new post is up for our edification. There have been times I have not agreed with a paragraph or two, rarely though, and said so.. and it was up for discussion which admin addressed in a timely fashion. I didn’t behave like a crybaby throwing my hands up in the air and “threatening” to leave because I have my own opinion and I’m sticking to it- even blaming Hillary for Obama’s actions if I have to.. to get a response… some people are better off not getting involved in politics because stress turns into destructive delusional thinking needed for their comfort zones.

  29. I, too, have moved away from the Dimocratic Party, but find nothing appealing about the Pubs, either – certainly not Romney.

    How gratifying to hear the Dims calling for Hillary to save them. The reasons to look to Hillary and away from Obama are obvious and well covered in this article and others. But, the cries of “save us Hillary” seem to be motivated also, by the fact that the voters, as well as MSM and Dim officials (though they would deny it) have known all along that Hillary was the rightful winner of the Dimocratic nomination. They knew she was the legitimate contender. Of course those of us who were and still are hard core Hillary supporters, have continued to participate in the groups and blogs that supported her from day 1. These groups still remain active, and others have sprung up on facebook and other sites. But, even though her supporters continued to remind everyone that the nomination was stolen from Hillary by the crooked Dimocrats, aided by MSM and other low-life groups, I don’t think that fully accounts for the fact that so many people have been comparing Hillary and Obama – with Hillary consistently outshining her so-called boss – since shortly after BO’s inauguration.

    Maybe my memory is weaker than I though, but I don’t remember the accomplishments or lack threof of a presidential “winner” (using the term loosely) being so constantly critiqued in the context of what the candidate who ran against him for the nomination might have done and was capable of doing, as has been done with Hillary. Had she not been so obviously the stronger,more capable candidate, and had it not been so clear that MSM and her own party treated her so unfairly – to a lot of the voters, not just a strong, core group of Hillary supporters – I don’t believe her name would be on the lips of so many Dims, especially those who had those same lips planted firmly on Obama’s backside in 2008.

    Regardless – I’m glad people are admitting that as far as Obama is concerned – No He Can’t.

  30. jbstonesfan
    November 27th, 2011 at 12:32 pm

    We have to vote for the candidate that can win. That, like it or not, appears to be Romney. I mean let’s get real, Newt is bright , but he cannot win. He also helped impeach Bill.
    ______________

    Yet, Bill complimented Newt for creative thinking putting forth a new immigration plan. Bill sets the bar as a man confident in his own skin and big enough to admit when an original idea comes across the table should be up for discussion and consideration.

  31. freespirit:

    “Regardless – I’m glad people are admitting that as far as Obama is concerned – No He Can’t.”
    ___________

    And if all the Republican contenders are marked with a comparable “No They Can’t” label, a vacuum has been created for the right person to step in either by a draft or the DNC coming to their senses, admitting their mistakes and nominating Hillary for the position she won fair and square by the popular vote in the 08’Primary.

  32. admin
    November 27th, 2011 at 8:01 am
    ————
    Anyone who lives in a wooded area has seen this beam of sunlight suddenly appear and disappear when a breeze opens a dense patch of leaves. Sometimes a beam or several of them break through cloud formations above the ocean and spotlight small areas here and there on the water. I have also seen such beams streaming down on a meadow, especially in the early morning. It’s particularly spectacular when the air is very humid and rainbow colors can be seen in it. The beauty of many natural phenomena such as this is truly awe-inspiring. And of course one is free to interpret them according to one’s needs.

  33. “…some people are better off not getting involved in politics because stress turns into destructive delusional thinking needed for their comfort zones.” – Mrs. Smith
    ———————-
    Yes, Mrs. Smith. That’s a point many people need to consider. It happened to me during Hillary’s campaign. So outraged by all the corruption, injustice, etc, that I found myself sometimes losing my sanity. But it was a good experience. I learned a little more about humility and how the mind works. And why in some circles it has always been verboten to discuss politics and religion – the recognition that most people “lose it” in those areas. Also, that’s one of the things I so admire about ADMIN, who certainly lets the world know the outrage felt behind those shrewd and insightful articles, yet ADMIN always walks a sweet path of reason, objectivity and common sense.

  34. lil ole grape
    November 27th, 2011 at 1:19 pm

    Recently, I had a similar experience in Texas. I met with families who are staunch T-partiers and got along with them famously because of a common goal, ridding the country of Obama and the corruption he brings with him to our America.

    They were not supporting any of the GOP candidates as of yet. And to date do not feel anyone of them are right for leading the country out of the shambles made by the 08 choice for president, chosen on color alone and misplaced empathy, as the 44th president.

    I believe, Texas is a good example of the consensus of the country. Good thinking people who are tired of the wasteful spending and unfettered corruption going on in our White House.

    The War dog bathed in a beam of light maybe interpreted in many ways… she is a courageous female survivor of war torn Iraq. Arrived here to give us hope for the future.

  35. Yet, Bill complimented Newt for creative thinking putting forth a new immigration plan. Bill sets the bar as a man confident in his own skin and big enough to admit when an original idea comes across the table should be up for discussion and consideration.

    ==================

    Yes, Bill is great enough to be magnaminous. But this also has the effect of ‘stealing’ the idea from Gingrich. If Bill and others take it up, then voters who like the idea can promote it without having to support Gingrich himself.

  36. I may soon change my registration to R. We have had some good moderate R candidates here. Perhaps if enough moderates and independents register as R, they can swing it back to the middle.

    ================

    Hi, Carol, nice to see you.

    To me it makes sense to register for whichever party is having a contested primary this time, where you’ll be influencing a real decision. Of course this may be different in different states, for example if one state had an anti-Obama ‘favorite son’ candidate running who had a real chance of getting those delegates in case of a miracle at the Dem convention.

    Imo registering as one party or another isn’t some big religious sort of permanent committment.

  37. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2066240/Second-leak-climate-emails-Political-giants-weigh-bias-scientists-bowing-financial-pressure-sponsors.html

    ===============

    Ah, but further down in that same article we get the real news about this “new” leak.


    Today’s leak may also be timed to disrupt the next session of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change next week in South Africa.
    [….]
    The emails have been released in the form of quotes carefully ‘chosen’ to show bias, or that scientists were pursuing a particular agenda in their research.

    The unnamed individuals who released them chose the 5,000 emails from keyword searches, saying, ‘We could not read every one, but tried to cover the most relevant topics.’

    The emails were posted on a Russian server – Sinwt.ru – as a downloadable ZIP file in an apparent attempt to cause disruption in advance of next week’s climate change conference in Durban.

    They were rapidly reposted on climate-sceptic blogs such as The Air Vent.

    It is not clear, though, whether they are new, or indeed whether they indicate any kind of conspiracy.
    [….]

    The identity of the people who posted it was not revealed – although the clear political statement is new.

    The file also contains more than 200,000 other emails, which are encrypted, and no password is provided.

    Presumably, this is to protect the individuals involved – or simply because the material is so non-controversial or boring that it’s not worth releasing.

    NASA thermal satellite image showing the world’s arctic surface temperature trends: Today’s emails appear to show scientists interested in painting a particular picture of such trends – but the information is not new

    The University of East Anglia has not confirmed whether the material is genuine.

    None of the material appears to be new, either: it seems to date from the first release in 2009.

    It also occurs against a rather different scientific background, after the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature review of climate-science data by prominent climate sceptic Richard Muller, which analysed 1.6 billion temperature records, and concluded that global warming was a genuine effect.
    [….]
    Professor Mann, speaking to the Guardian, described the release as ‘truly pathetic.’

    ‘Well, they look like mine but I hardly see anything that appears damning at all, despite them having been taken out of context.

    ‘I guess they had very little left to work with, having culled in the first round the emails that could most easily be taken out of context to try to make me look bad.’

    A police investigation is ongoing.

  38. Stealing is the wrong word. Gingrich “volunteered” his idea most likely because he thinks it can work. Most likely he doesn’t care who tries to implement his idea if it works because he went public with it.

    Words are important. You should consider their meanings before you write them.

  39. Mrs Smith: Perhaps there are some that feel that I am too old to be on my favotite blog everyday since it was created as Hiilary is 44 and I will never stop until she is out of the picture for her own reasons and judgement.To question her decisions and activities must be left to her and Bill.She is campaigning now and we will soon have an answer.She is far smarter than some people think.I will repeat my.
    angry quote.”If you hate the Clintons and question their judgemenf
    “Get the H–l off her very own Big Pink”.

    Thank you Mrs.Smith I admire your hard work for OUR Hillary

  40. i’m so upset tonight, i found a little puppy locked in a handbag and thrown a dumpster earlier, had i not been walking the dogs, he’d be frozen by now. I’ve take him to the vets, i dont know if he’ll survive, hypothermic, anaemic, dehydrated, weak.

    The humanity in this world sucks, i never know how people do such things to defenceless little animals. I just dont understand the mentality of people, its a disgrace.

  41. Carol,

    I’m glad you decided to post again. We must all support the one we admire/think will do the job better than bambi. We all have so many opinions and different personalities that agreeing on things is great but by no means a given.

    I wish you well and I hope you will continue to voice your views here.

  42. This is what happens when Obama wants to “talk” to the enemy…
    ——————–
    Iran says 150,000 missiles pointed at Israel

    27/11/2011

    “How many missiles have they prepared themselves for?” Iranian defense minister asks.

    Iranian Defense Minister Brigadier General Ahmad Vahidi said that Iran has up to 150,000 missiles pointed at Israel, according to the semi-official Iranian FARS news agency.

    According to the report, Vahidi questioned threats against the Islamic Republic from the Jewish State, asking “How many missiles have they prepared themselves for? 10,000? 20,000? 50,000? 100,000, 150,000 or more?”

    The Iranian defense minister also warned against an offensive by the United States, saying it would meet a hard defensive line were it to attack Iran.

    “The US and its allies should know that Iran is so powerful that its battling will teach the US how to fight and what war and warrior mean,” Vahidi told a crowd of 50,000 volunteer soldiers in Bushehr, a city where one of the country’s nuclear power plants is located.

    Iran claims the country’s nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, but an incriminating International Atomic Energy Agency report said that Tehran has continued to covertly develop nuclear-weapons technology.

    Since the release of that report, Western nations have called for international pressure on the regime in Tehran to halt their nuclear program.

    The United States, the United Kingdom and Canada cast stringent sanctions on Iran’s energy and financial sectors, a move which pushed Iran to expel the British ambassador.

    France and the Netherlands have called for similar action against the Islamic Republic.

    On Saturday, Tehran made a rare threat against Turkey, saying it could target the recently installed NATO anti-missile shield in any future conflict.

    “We are ready to attack NATO’s missile shield in Turkey if we face a threat and then we will follow other aims,” the semi-official Mehr news agency quoted Amir Ali Hajizadeh, head of the Revolutionary Guards’ aerospace division, as saying.

    http://www.jpost.com/IranianThreat/News/Article.aspx?id=247196

  43. you have got to be kidding me…

    November 27, 2011

    Obama Selling Martini Glasses and Spatulas for Campaign Cash

    By Todd Starnes, Fox News

    President Obama’s campaign team has put together a website to remind us what the Yuletide season is truly all about — getting him re-elected. So they’ve decided to offer Americans a collection of special decorations for the “holiday” season…

    …And don’t worry about messing up your furniture with water stains because the Commander-in-Chief also has a line of glass coasters.

    But if you’re sipping a Martini, why not just throw a backyard barbecue?

    And President Obama has just what you need — a “Fired Up and Ready to Grill” apron, a six-pack presidential cooler, and a nifty Commander-in-Chief cutting board to chop up your White House veggies.

    But wait — there’s more.

    Now you can flip those yummy fermented soy burgers with a side of arugula smear in style — with a new Barack Obama spatula.

    This versatile spatula has a wooden handle and can scrape off most any surface.

    The website has a treasure trove of treats, but my personal favorite is the President Obama Dog Leash.

    “Help your dog be the envy of the dog park with a ‘Baracks’ Best Friend’ collar,” the website gushed.

    And if Fluffy doesn’t follow the rules, you can always put him on a leash — President Obama is selling one of those, too.

    http://nation.foxnews.com/president-obama-birth-certificate/2011/11/27/obama-selling-martini-glasses-and-spatulas-campaign-cash

  44. admin
    Is Casey among the Senators in jeopardy? loathe the guy and would vote for a can of paint over him but I have heard nothing about a serious contender. Was hoping Tim Murphy would throw his hat in but he has declined.

    On another note I read that die hard martini drinkers have taken to furnishing their favorite haunts with diner paper cups for their drinks. Seems they hate the multi- colored miscarriages passed off as a cocktail. So they sip their 15 dollar drinks from a paper cup.

  45. ABM90
    November 27th, 2011 at 5:23 pm

    Mrs Smith: Perhaps there are some that feel that I am too old to be on my favotite blog everyday since it was created as Hiilary is 44 and I will never stop until she is out of the picture for her own reasons and judgement.To question her decisions and activities must be left to her and Bill.
    __________

    How can you be too old, ABM90… you’re breathing- just like the rest of us and you are committed to Hillary just like most of us.. knowing she is the reason we keep a light in the window by posting here in the hope she gets the chance to set things right with our country.

    I always enjoy reading Hillary’s itinerary you post everyday.. and miss it when you don’t. I do hope you enjoyed the Thanksgiving holiday and with many more to come.

  46. Jan-

    The Obama memorabilia as collectables are an insult to US citizens- We had a good laugh over it when first reading about it. But the word “cheeky” comes to mind. Seems to be a good fit for cheapening the importance and the dignity of the office of the US presidency.

    The Leader of the Free World selling bric-a-brac for campaign ca$h- Oy!

    Would rather have seen a bobble-head or a Dart Board with his logo/face in the center.. or as admin suggested single ply toilet paper emblazoned with the one’s picture on it and flushed down the glory hole. ick!

  47. Henry, this is a good article on the Casey race (via Terry Madonna and Michael Young, two well informed observers of PA politics):

    http://www.politicspa.com/politically-uncorrected-casey-odds-on-for-2012/28245/

    Casey Odds on for 2012

    There are two distinct points of view on the subject.

    One asserts that he is in trouble in 2012, running for re-election to the U.S. Senate in a state now hostile to Obama and seemingly safely Republican. In a bad year for incumbents and probably a bad year for Democrats, Pennsylvania’s senior senator, so the notion goes, is fated to become an ex-senator, the victim of an angry electorate, a dismal economy, and a resurgent Republican Party.

    The other very different view asserts that his re-election chances look good to excellent in a state in which he, and his father before him, almost always found a way to win despite the odds or obstacles. This version predicts an easy victory for him in a state that historically re-elects Senate incumbents and loves to split its ticket in national elections. [snip]

    Those arguing that Casey is in trouble make several strong points. He is running for re-election in a state where Obama’s job performance is lower than the national average. Moreover, Casey had been a strong Obama supporter, one of his early Pennsylvania supporters, and in fact a “basketball buddy.”

    Worse, perhaps, Casey in Washington has mostly supported the president’s agenda, including the $787 billion stimulus package, the national health care law, and financial regulation of Wall Street. Inevitably, Casey will carry the burden of both Obama and his programs into the general election, while his opponents will try to paint him as an Obama stooge, part and party to the current national malaise.

    So the main argument against Casey’s re-election prospects is spelled O-b-a-m-a. The senator’s personal support of a beleaguered president as well as his early support of Obama’s unpopular programs may doom Casey’s chances.

    But don’t bet on it!

    More likely, the Pennsylvania GOP will need more than Obama’s unpopularity to defeat Casey in 2012. For starters, they might find someone to run against him.

    So far there is no formidable opponent willing to take him on. Although as many as twelve potential opponents have signaled some interest in the race, not one of them is a current office holder or a person with a state wide persona. In short, the “big leaguers” so far are sitting this one out. [snip]

    It’s likely that Casey’s ultimate opponent will be relatively unknown, with little organization and less political experience. In early polls, Casey is beating prospective opponents by double-digit margins.

    But even if Republicans find a viable challenger, Casey won’t remain a sitting duck for the inevitable attacks on Obama and his policies. Already he has begun to move away from the president on key foreign and domestic policy issues. In the months ahead, Casey will continue to demonstrate measured independence from the unpopular Obama. [snip]

    Is Casey then unbeatable in 2012? It might seem so, but there are no sure things in American politics today. A worsening economy, a strong opponent, or a Casey collapse all could change the trajectory of Pennsylvania’s 2012 Senate contest, transforming a probable rout into a possible race.

    Nevertheless, the odds strongly favor Casey. Over the next few months we’ll discover whether the voters do, too.

    Obama is poison.

  48. admin
    November 27th, 2011 at 6:57 pm
    JanH, is there any Barack Obama toilet paper on sale?

    ——————
    lol…admin, what a disgusting thought.

    I do agree with Mrs. Smith though. Is this what the prestigious honor of occupying the White House has come down to???

  49. 10 pm tonight- TLC (ch39) on Cox Cable. A new show, All American Muslim.. is an invitation to an Iftar dinner at the White House.

  50. admin
    thank you for the Casey article
    My tiny view of the world says he is toast. Extreme frustration over pathetic schools. Even the most progressive parents I know are vehement about vouchers and that is a big talking point for Rethugs. No matter how liberal one is when it comes to your own kids you start singing a different tune. Unless of course you can spend 23 thousand for a private kindergarten then its okay to cry foul over vouchers.

  51. ClimateGate 2 Emails Show BBC Routinely Asking Global Warming Zealots To “Vet” Their Newscripts, Offer Advice on How To Better Evangelize for Global Warming
    —Ace

    Truly awful bias.

    The BBC, by the way, “rejects” the charge of impartiality, despite this welter of evidence, and despite their own official editorial statement that the issue is so one-sided that their reportage will be similarly one-sided.

    And despite the fact that the University of East Anglia (where Phil Jones was head) and other environmental zealots specifically lobbied the BBC for just this result.

    In 2007, the BBC issued a formal editorial policy document, stating that ‘the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus’ – the view that the world faces catastrophe because of man-made carbon dioxide emissions.

    The document says the policy was decided after ‘a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts’ – including those from UEA.

    The ‘Climategate 2’ emails disclose that in private some of those same scientists have had doubts about aspects of the global warming case.

    For example, Professor Phil Jones, the head of the CRU, admitted there was no evidence that the snows of Kilimanjaro were melting because of climate change, and he and his colleagues agreed there were serious problems with the famous ‘hockey stick’ graph – the depiction of global temperatures that suggests they were broadly level for 1,000 years until they started to rise with industrialisation.

    But although there is now more scientific debate than ever about influences on climate other than CO2, prompted by the fact that the world has not warmed for 15 years, a report from the BBC Trust this year compared climate change sceptics to the conspiracy theorists who blame America for 9/11, and said Britain’s main sceptic think-tank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, should be given no air time.

  52. Anyone still following the Strauss-Kahn case? New interesting information from NY Review of Books:

    http://media.nybooks.com/strauss.html

    He knew he had a serious problem with one of his BlackBerry cell phones—which he called his IMF BlackBerry. This was the phone he used to send and receive texts and e-mails—including for both personal and IMF business. According to several sources who are close to DSK, he had received a text message that morning from Paris from a woman friend temporarily working as a researcher at the Paris offices of the UMP, Sarkozy’s center-right political party. She warned DSK, who was then pulling ahead of Sarkozy in the polls, that at least one private e-mail he had recently sent from his BlackBerry to his wife, Anne Sinclair, had been read at the UMP offices in Paris.1 It is unclear how the UMP offices might have received this e-mail, but if it had come from his IMF BlackBerry, he had reason to suspect he might be under electronic surveillance in New York. He had already been warned by a friend in the French diplomatic corps that an effort would be made to embarrass him with a scandal. The warning that his BlackBerry might have been hacked was therefore all the more alarming.

    A case of the maid, the occupants of the room she visited several times that day, the odd connections all of which helped bring down DSK. Question is: Was this all staged to destroy DSK?

  53. I just checked out the Obama store Admin..sorry to say no toilet paper but you can get a “Babies for Obama” onesie and a dog bandana with his 2012 logo on it. Or, and most appropriate, a golf ball set…LOL

    What a bunch of crap…I can’t believe even his supporters would buy that stuff….

  54. Forgot to add…when you Google “Barack Obama Toilet Paper” his official website comes up in the official links at the top..LOL

  55. moononpluto
    November 27th, 2011 at 6:29 pm

    Thanks, moon for taking your doggie for a walk just at the right time- I’m glad I scrolled back a little to find your post about the pup thrown into the dumpster. Taking him/her to the Vet was a good thing to do- I hope he survives and ends up living in your household.

    He is a Lucky dog for you having saved his life. Then again, some things happen for a reason- He may be destined to repay the favor you’ve done him in the near or distant future.

    God Bless you and the life you saved {{hugs}}

  56. Question is: Was this all staged to destroy DSK?
    _________

    what else? he was warned before hand. most people don’t even have a warning before their demise..

  57. “THANKS FOR NOTHING”…the repubs and repub nominee need to pound over and over again the ‘shallow, do -nothing, completely unfocused Presidency of O” … they need to give timetables of O off on vacations, golf trips, parties, sports frivolities, etc juxtaposed to the country and the world’s crisis’s occuring simultaneously…

    they need to rip the O myth to smithereens…

    …and a big NO, NO, NO to Hillary being on the ticket with O…NO!

  58. It always amazes me when some folks come to this site and rag on Hillary, disappointment afer disappointment.

    Why come here, to try and persuade others to rag on her? Not a chance.

    The best thing to do, is skip over thse comments if you can….

    Just like I skip over most of the comments on protesting.

    Life is too short and with this donkey in the Oval, life is difficult enough.

  59. I’m not a regular poster here, so my opinion about the comments is not really relevant.
    Nonetheless, I would just offer that some of the comments seem unnecessarily harsh. I’m a huge supporter of Hillary, but I know and she knows that she’s not perfect, and that her policies won’t please everyone. I would vote for her if given the chance even if I didn’t agree with some of her policy proposals – and gladly. However, I think she’s big enough to handle it when people disagree with her and question her stand on issues. She seems to encourage critical, independent thinking. I’ll always be a Hillary supporter, but not a Hillary follower – not in the manner that the Obamakids were/are blind followers of their so-called ‘savior”. JMHO.

  60. freespirit

    And that is exactly the way I feel. When you are a follower, you tend to view things through rose color glass, like when people are first in love and married. Then later the glasses come off and you see the real person.

    Hillary is a real person, and if I liked everything she did, I would begin to worry.

  61. A case of the maid, the occupants of the room she visited several times that day, the odd connections all of which helped bring down DSK. Question is: Was this all staged to destroy DSK?

    =============

    The timing sure was convenient. Took him out of action with a scandal just long enough to lose his job … then withdrew all the charges so he doesn’t get his own day in court to defend himself.

  62. Might be worth checking into this — Senate vote coming up Mon or Tues? It seems to have some real fact behind it, although it’s written in pure snake oil (though more refined than the DailyMail’s).

    http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/senators-demand-military-lock-american-citizens-battlefield-they-define-being

    The Senate is going to vote on whether Congress will give this president—and every future president — the power to order the military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians anywhere in the world. Even Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) raised his concerns about the NDAA detention provisions during last night’s Republican debate. The power is so broad that even U.S. citizens could be swept up by the military and the military could be used far from any battlefield, even within the United States itself.

    The worldwide indefinite detention without charge or trial provision is in S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act bill, which will be on the Senate floor on Monday. The bill was drafted in secret by Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) and passed in a closed-door committee meeting, without even a single hearing.

  63. unfortunately we could not save the puppy, he died at 5am. May the bastard who dumped him in the rubbish rot in hell.

  64. Thanks for rescuing that poor puppy. We all would have preferred a different outcome, yet it was nice to read that you tried. You deserve some praise for that.

  65. Amen to what the admin wrote here. I think that there is one small error in what was written, though in which the year 2008 was used, but 2012 was intended (at least I believe this to be so after reading the sentence three times). “Not only will the “expanded map” contract significantly in 2008 but the battle has expanded out from traditional swing states to Democratic Strongholds like Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.”

  66. Nice to see that you are still writing some comments, Carol. I tend to agree with what you wrote here, plus what you have written in the past. I am not a Romney fan because it’s one thing to change an opinion after much consideration, but Romney seems to flip on a dime. It shows me something about his core values, and it’s not a willingness to compromise. It’s more of a willingness to sell out your supporters, and to win at all costs. That makes me feel like he is a politician to the core, and not a trustworthy one at that. Yet, I will still vote for him if need be as I continue to punish the Dimocrat party, a party that has never acknowledged its duplicity in attacking one of its own in 2008. I am an anti-Democrat (Obamacrat) Democrat at this point in time. Way back in 1980, I could not/refused to comprehend why there was such a thing as a “Reagan Democrat”. Well, I have come to realize that when the Democratic party misbehaves, it deserves tobe slapped until it reforms. I’ll be voting Republican for the foreseeable future, REGARDLESS of who the candidate is, or who is opponent is in the Dimocrat party. The Dimocrat party of today needs total reformation (actually it needs to be destroyed). It won’t happen if people continue to vote for its candidates. I also may register Republican in the future as I do not like propping up the Dimcratic party’s membership.

  67. I also agree with what freespirit wrote. Her/his comment is the way I tend to view things with regards to Hillary. I like her for the most part, yet I refuse to behave toward her the way that the hopium guzzlers behaved toward Obama. I understand this is a pro-Hillary blog, yet I will not swear blind allegiance to anyone, including Hillary. That’s no different than the hopium guzzlers as far as I am concerned. I appreciate the people here who support diligently support Hillary, but I also support the people who question even Hillary’s motives. It shows me that people are paying attention, and questioning what they see and hear. Those who support Hillary should appreciate that there are people expressing their honest opinions here. Why try to silence them? These opinions give light to the turmoil that this Obama administration has caused to society as a whole. The admin has even written several times about not supporting an Obama/Clinton ticket. That must tell you all something. With that in mind, I want to thank the admin for allowing divergent opinions to be expressed on this blog. It is one of the things that makes me come back besides the excellent writing.

  68. Thanks Nobama, mrs smith, i’m just so sad we couldnt save him, the hypothermia i think was too much, i just dont understand people these days, what goes through someones mind in putting a puppy in a handbag and tossing it in dumpster, thank god, i heard him before a garbage truck came by, i cant bear to think of him dying like that but at least with people giving some love in the final hours of his short life.

  69. nomobama: These opinions give light to the turmoil
    —————————–
    agreed that they serve an honorable purpose here.

    Regarding ‘turmoil’ in a ‘believe it or not’ sense, there is a place, my favorite place in all the world, where just past the “Poverty Flats Farm”, there is an oil delivery truck which seems always to be parked. The company name on it is “Turm Oil”. I’d like to stop there sometime to ask about that!
    ############
    nomobama: I miss wobbei and his well thought out comments.
    —————
    Yes. We really do need a village.

  70. As admin has said many times… This forum is dedicated to Hillary and the ultimate defeat of Barack Obama.. If you have a criticism of Hillary, fine. Bring a statement she has made, print it here, and lets discuss. Otherwise, be prepared to get your rear end blasted for carrying water for the man we intend to defeat. We are NOT followers in any sense of the word. We question everything even Hillary. If you can’t be specific about your unhappiness with Hillary don’t bother wasting our time with emotional diatribes whine somewhere else! If there is a chance we can get her to 1600 this is it- Mistakes were made in the Primarys where her defenders were told don’t go negative- We didn’t do enough against people even her so-called supporters undermining her credibility. If you have a gripe, spit it out and lets discuss it- If you think some other candidate can do better, go for it… somewhere else, not here. This is it folks- our last bite at the apple if she accepts a draft nomination. It’s going to be a rotten bloody battle- If you don’t have the stomach for it- help in some other way. Don’t stop us from doing what needs to be done.. and that is protecting our candidate’s image at all times and discouraging dissent within the ranks-
    ________________

    Democratic Party Operatives Preparing To Roll Out “Draft Hillary” Campaign?

    Ulsterman- Nov 28, 2011

    “Two longtime political operatives within the Democratic Party are now making strong hints of a concerted drive to organize a “Draft Hillary” effort for the 2012 presidential campaign in an attempt to both save the country and the Democratic Party – a situation that if true, was predicted by our own D.C. Insider over a year ago.”

    Their detractors of late are fond of saying Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen are far removed from the Democratic Party “mainstream”. Not quite – those who Caddell and Schoen disagree with are the current Democratic Party leadership figures – namely President Barack Obama. The concerns of Caddell and Schoen are likely shared by many within the party that both men have been prominent fixtures for decades.

    This past week, the two men co-authored an editorial published in the Wall Street Journal suggesting Barack Obama step down in favor of a Hillary Clinton nomination in 2012 titled “The Hillary Moment” :

    “When Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson accepted the reality that they could not effectively govern the nation if they sought re-election to the White House, both men took the moral high ground and decided against running for a new term as president. President Obama is facing a similar reality—and he must reach the same conclusion.”

    “He should abandon his candidacy for re-election in favor of a clear alternative, one capable not only of saving the Democratic Party, but more important, of governing effectively and in a way that preserves the most important of the president’s accomplishments. He should step aside for the one candidate who would become, by acclamation, the nominee of the Democratic Party: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.”

    That such an editorial by two prominent and longtime members of the Democratic Party, each with significant White House experience, should be published in one of the most influential editorial pages in the country is worthy of note in its own right – but perhaps it is the response to the editorial that suggests its even greater impact. According to Pat Caddell, the response by many within the Democratic Party has been very supportive of the idea, an indication of just how dysfunctional the relationship between the Obama White House and Congressional Democrats has become. Not only has Barack Obama failed to lead the nation that elected him its president, he appears totally incapable of even leading his own political party.

    Certainly the far left response to the Caddell-Schoen editorial has been predictably negative. But other influential writers have picked up on the idea that Barack Obama should in refuse to run for a second term. Most recently was an editorial by Washington Times columnist Joseph Curl suggesting the Obamas have been miserable living at the White House, and Barack Obama in particular long ago lost interest in the job of president.

    “So, why bother? It’s going to get worse before it gets better. Who needs it? Why preside over a government that, instead of giving everything to everybody free, takes it all away, cuts so deeply that nearly every American will be affected? Especially if you think Americans are lazy, lack ambition – they’ll never rise to the challenge, so why not just bail?”

    Would Barack Obama actually follow the advice of these men? Not likely – his well established arrogance, self-importance, and love of campaigning would suggest otherwise. The calls for him to step aside – coming from those within the Democratic Party, are clear indicators though of the rising tide of discontent that now faces this president as he seeks to once again secure a position he so clearly doesn’t want.

    http://theulstermanreport.com/2011/11/28/democratic-party-operatives-preparing-to-roll-out-draft-hillary-campaign/

  71. Scientists in Revolt against Global Warming

    American Thinker November 27, 2011

    Karin McQuillan

    Global warming became a cause to save life on earth before it had a chance to become good science. The belief that fossil fuel use is an emergency destroying our planet by CO2 emissions took over the media and political arena by storm. The issue was politicized so quickly that the normal scientific process was stunted. We have never had a full, honest national debate on either the science or government policy issues.

    Everyone “knows” that global warming is true. The public has no idea of the number of scientists — precisely one thousand at last count of a congressional committee — who believe that global warming is benign and natural, and that it ended in 1998. We have not been informed of the costs to our economy of discouraging fossil fuel development and promoting alternatives. The public need to know the choices being made on their behalf, and to have a say in the matter. We are constantly told that the scientific and policy debate on global warming is over. It has just begun.

    …snip…

    Media coverage on global warming has been criminally one-sided. The public doesn’t know where the global warming theory came from in the first place. Answer: the U.N., not a scientific body. The threat of catastrophic warming was launched by the U.N. to promote international climate treaties that would transfer wealth from rich countries to developing countries. It was political from the beginning, with the conclusion assumed: the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (U.N. IPCC) was funded to report on how man was changing climate. Its scientific reports have been repeatedly corrected for misrepresentation and outright fraud.

    This is important. Global warming theory did not come from a breakthrough in scientific research that enabled us to understand our climate. We still don’t understand global climate any more than we understand the human brain or how to cure cancer. The science of global climate is in its infancy.

    Yet the U.N. IPCC reports drive American policy. The EPA broke federal law requiring independent analysis and used the U.N. IPCC reports in its “endangerment” finding that justifies extreme regulatory actions. Senator Inhofe is apoplectic:

    Global warming regulations imposed by the Obama-EPA under the Clean Air Act will cost American consumers $300 to $400 billion a year, significantly raise energy prices, and destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs. This is not to mention the ‘absurd result’ that EPA will need to hire 230,000 additional employees and spend an additional $21 billion to implement its [greenhouse gas] regime.

    Former top scientists at the U.N. IPCC are protesting publicly against falsification of global warming data and misleading media reports. Dr. John Everett, for example, was the lead researcher on Fisheries, Polar Regions, Oceans and Coastal Zones at the IPCC and a former National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) senior manager, and he received an award while at NOAA for “accomplishments in assessing the impacts of climate change on global oceans and fisheries.” Here is what he has to say on global warming:

    It is time for a reality check. Warming is not a big deal and is not a bad thing. The oceans and coastal zones have been far warmer and colder than is projected in the present scenarios … I would much rather have the present warm climate, and even further warming…No one knows whether the Earth is going to keep warming, or since reaching a peak in 1998, we are at the start of a cooling cycle that will last several decades or more.

    That is why we must hear from all the best scientists, not only those who say fossil fuel use is dangerous. It is very important that we honestly discuss whether this theory is true and, if so, what reasonable steps we can afford to take to mitigate warming. If the theory is not based on solid science, we are free to develop our fossil fuel wealth responsibly and swiftly.

    Instead, federal policies are based on global warming fears. Obama has adopted the California model. The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 has shed a million jobs in that state. California now has almost 12% unemployment, ranking 50th in the nation.

    …snip…

    great article… more info at link

    http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2011/11/scientists_in_revolt_against_global_warming.html

  72. moononpluto
    November 28th, 2011 at 2:43 am

    unfortunately we could not save the puppy, he died at 5am. May the bastard who dumped him in the rubbish rot in hell.
    __________

    Sorry to hear that moon- I was hoping for good news this morning. I guess, it wasn’t meant to be. Thanks for trying to save the little pup and for your generous heart.

  73. NYT: Obama campaign set to abandon white working class…

    http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/27/the-future-of-the-obama-coalition/

    The Future of the Obama Coalition
    By THOMAS B. EDSALL

    For decades, Democrats have suffered continuous and increasingly severe losses among white voters. But preparations by Democratic operatives for the 2012 election make it clear for the first time that the party will explicitly abandon the white working class.

    All pretence of trying to win a majority of the white working class has been effectively jettisoned in favor of cementing a center-left coalition made up, on the one hand, of voters who have gotten ahead on the basis of educational attainment — professors, artists, designers, editors, human resources managers, lawyers, librarians, social workers, teachers and therapists — and a second, substantial constituency of lower-income voters who are disproportionately African-American and Hispanic.

    It is instructive to trace the evolution of a political strategy based on securing this coalition in the writings and comments, over time, of such Democratic analysts as Stanley Greenberg and Ruy Teixeira. Both men were initially determined to win back the white working-class majority, but both currently advocate a revised Democratic alliance in which whites without college degrees are effectively replaced by well-educated socially liberal whites in alliance with the growing ranks of less affluent minority voters, especially Hispanics.

    The 2012 approach treats white voters without college degrees as an unattainable cohort. The Democratic goal with these voters is to keep Republican winning margins to manageable levels, in the 12 to 15 percent range, as opposed to the 30-point margin of 2010 — a level at which even solid wins among minorities and other constituencies are not enough to produce Democratic victories.

    “It’s certainly true that if you compare how things were in the early ’90s to the way they are now, there has been a significant shift in the role of the working class. You see it across all advanced industrial countries,” Teixeira, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, said in an interview.

    In the United States, Teixeira noted, “the Republican Party has become the party of the white working class,” while in Europe, many working-class voters who had been the core of Social Democratic parties have moved over to far right parties, especially those with anti-immigration platforms.

    ……………………………………..

    I really don’t see how Dems think they can win on a strategy like this, its like a wtf strategy.

  74. The Ftrst Lady Of The World has a plate full today then on the road again where she receives a warm welcome great crowds and extended cheers.

    -Public Schedule
    Washington, DC

    November 28, 2011

    SECRETARY HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON

    9:00 a.m. Secretary Clinton and Secretary of Energy Steven Chu co-host a U.S.-EU Energy Council Ministerial Meeting, at the Department of State.
    (OPEN PRESS COVERAGE FOR OPENING REMARKS)
    Pre-set time for video cameras: 8:05 a.m. from the 23rd Street entrance lobby.
    Final access time for journalists and still photographers: 8:35 a.m. from the 23rd Street entrance lobby.

    10:30 a.m. Secretary Clinton holds a bilateral meeting with EU High Representative Catherine Ashton, at the Department of State.
    (CLOSED PRESS COVERAGE)

    11:00 a.m. Secretary Clinton meets with International Energy Agency Executive Director Maria van der Hoeven, at the Department of State.
    (CLOSED PRESS COVERAGE)

    11:45 a.m. Secretary Clinton attends the U.S.-EU Summit meeting hosted by President Obama at the White House.
    (MEDIA DETERMINED BY WHITE HOUSE)

    PM Secretary Clinton departs for foreign travel. Click here for more information.—————————————————

  75. Re: Mrs. Smith/Global Warming & MoonOnPluto non-colleged degree working whites
    ——————————————————————————-
    First, I state unequivocally that I tend to simplify things, perhaps to a fault.
    Undeterred, I continue, to comment first on global warming:
    Living where I do, within 1/2 mile of the elevation sign for an old mountain range so it’s flat for miles at the top, I can state that deforestation changes weather. The only road through from town to town previously did not have a problem with snow drifts. Then a farmer cleared land, and there was one stretch which was frequently a tricky patch in the winter. A generation or so later, commercial enterprises came in and clear-cut a larger area. Now there are two tricky patches; no matter how many times the road is plowed, the nearly-constant winds up here blow the snow back. When snow/ice lay on the ground for extended periods of time, the ground trends colder. During the summer season, both areas are hotter than they used to be when the trees shaded them. There is nothing to stop the winds, there is nothing to stop soil erosion, nothing to stop the heat of the sun. Changes are taking place that would not have had common sense, rather than clear-cutting been employed. I don’t pretend to know the extent of the difference exacted; however, extensive tree removal guarantees extensive climate change.

    On to point two: “non college educated working whites”. Sounds pitiful, doesn’t it? Bet they’d be surprised how many in this collection are college educated. Yet everyone dutifully continues to pass on the whole phrase. Besides, you don’t need college to ‘get’ what is moral and what is not.

  76. This may interest those of us interested in Israel and Arab discontent. I’m not sure of the source, just says “Online Mail” = Brit or something? It seems the writer doesn’t have much love for any of the parties involved…:

    As the Arab Spring turns to the winter of Islamic discontent, now Netanyahu should make his move
    By THOMAS FLEMING

    As the Arab Spring turns inevitably to the winter of Islamic discontent, President Obama and Hillary Clinton have some explaining to do. As they were fomenting these rebellions, training and aiding the rebels, and finally bombing Libya, how could they not have foreseen the inevitable consequences?

    Every time we hear about a democratic uprising in the Arab world, whether in Iraq, in Palestine, or in North Africa, the movement is either taken over by an Islamic extremist group like Hamas or the Muslim Brotherhood, or sectarian fighting breaks out, as it did in Iraq. Somehow Christians always end up getting targeted.
    Attacks on the Copts in Egypt are all-too reminiscent of the Kurdish campaign of ethnic cleansing in northern Iraq that has virtually eliminated on of the world’s most ancient Christian communities. It should be noted that this campaign was carried out under the protection of US military forces that taught to regard the Christians as ‘Arab’ interlopers who had recently moved into the area.

    Unanswered questions: President Obama and Hillary Clinton have some explaining to do

    As all Hell breaks loose in Egypt, I do not hear a word of explanation much less apology from President Obama, Mme. Clinton, Mr. Cameron or any other leader of a US satellite. Surprisingly, very little has been heard from the country that has the most to lose when America’s Egyptian practical joke blows up.

    For months, Prime Minister Netanyahu has kept a low profile, alternating between reticence and cautious disapproval as the US assisted in the overthrow of Israel’s greatest ally, Hosni Mubarak. Perhaps he felt sufficient confidence that the military could repress the upsurgence, every day more public, of Egyptian Muslims’ hatred of Israel. On America’s Thanksgiving holiday, Netanyahu broke his silence.

    The Arab Spring uprisings are, as he quite correctly told the Israeli parliament, ‘Islamic, anti-Western, anti-Israel, undemocratic.’ Netanyahu knows who is to blame and is not shy about naming names. Calling President Obama and other western leaders ‘naive,’ he is astonished by the ignorance of history displayed by anyone who thought a stable democracy would emerge from these uprisings.

    Wise: Netanyahu knows which side Clinton and Obama are on

    This is great timing for the Israeli Prime Minster. As the US is pushing the moderate Assad regime over the cliff and watching Egypt spin out of control, the Obama administration has been urging Netanyahu to make concessions to the Palestinians. But the PM, whose hand has been strengthened by the failure of Obama’s naive policies in Egypt and North Africa, does not have to back down one inch.

    It is hard to find fault with Netanyahu. He knows which side Clinton and Obama are on, and it is not Israel’s, and he knows how much Israel depends on support from American, mostly Protestant Zionists. To portray poor beleaguered Israel as betrayed by the West is only partly a stunt. Israel may have cried wolf many times in the past, but this time there is a real wolf, one that has been fed in part by the Obama administration.

    Peace in the Middle East, if it can ever be secured, will require sober leadership and a willingness to make compromises. But one by one, comparatively rational leaders are being replaced by unstable men whose power rests on their appeal to fanaticism. In the past, this has always meant the same thing: an increase in Israeli militancy. If Arab leaders had acted with discretion, Israeli voters would probably not have turned in despair to dangerous men like Begin, Sharon, and Netanyahu.

    If Arab leaders had acted with discretion, Israeli voters would probably not have turned in despair to men like Sharon
    We saw this dynamic at work with Menachem Begin and Yasser Arafat. Arafat would rattle a saber, Begin plant or expand a settlement, then Arafat would sponsor a raid, to which the Israelis would retaliate with much greater force. They were a pair of neighborhood bullies who depended on each other to stay in power. Each was the justification for the other’s existence.

    Begin, a former terrorist, Sharon a ruthless tough, and the inflammatory Netanyahu could also exercise statesmanship, when they worked in tandem with an Arab leader who saw the advantage of collaborating with a US ally, first Anwar Sadat and then his successor Hosni Mubarak. Now, even the hawks in Israeli wanted peace, an Islamicist Egypt would be an unlikely partner in any peace process.

    It is foolish to make any detailed predictions about the Middle East, but there are some things we can count on. If (or rather as?) Egypt walks hand in hand with Turkey down the road to an Islamic state, both countries will turn increasingly cold to Israel, and the Israeli hawks will depend more and more on the support of their US allies. And as Israel gives up on its last chance to have normalized relations with its neighbors, it will become, more and more, a crusader state that will depend forever on US assistance. If I were an Israeli, I’d be buying property somewhere else.

    It is hard to blame Obama, whose knowledge of foreign affairs can be reduced to a bumper sticker
    Who is responsible for this mess? It is hard to blame Obama, whose knowledge of foreign affairs can be reduced to a bumper sticker. His secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, has a slightly broader base of experience–she shared a bedroom with an American president. She also says she knows where that red telephone is.
    There must be people in the Obama State Department who know what they are doing, but neither Obama nor Clinton will do what the experts are knowing.
    In recent years, American Presidents do not so much conduct foreign policy as play at it, the way small children take delight in sitting behind the steering wheel of a parked car. ‘Vroom vroom,’ they cry, pretending to gun the accelerator. ‘Beep beep,’ they honk at the other parked cars just as if they were really driving. The problem with Obama, Biden, and Clinton is that the car is actually running and it is carrying 5000 nuclear warheads in the trunk.

  77. From the Baltimore Sun…

    Hillary 2012?

    You may want to dig out those old ‘Clinton for president’ buttons

    Susan Reimer
    November 28, 2011

    Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has famously declared that she wants her next job title to be “grandmother.”

    But a Harris Poll indicates that Mrs. Clinton is just about the only politician with a job approval rating above sea level.

    And a second survey suggests that American moms — remember the role of the soccer mom in 1996? — would rather vote for her for president than Barack Obama or any of the Republican candidates.

    It might be time to change the date on those “Hillary 2008” buttons.

    The Harris Poll of 2,463 men and women surveyed online in October showed that only Mrs. Clinton, and, oddly, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, had positive ratings. Mrs. Clinton’s job approval rating was 52 percent. (More Americans gave Mr. Panetta positive ratings than negative — 20 percent versus 17 percent — but 64 percent said they weren’t familiar enough with him to make a judgment.)

    Other politicians, as well as both political parties, got abysmal approval ratings and high negative ratings: Speaker of the House John Boehner, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke.

    Even Vice President Joe Biden was not spared. Almost half of those surveyed (46 percent) gave him negative ratings.

    And it is a race to the bottom for the two political parties. More than half of those surveyed have a negative opinion of both Republicans in Congress (53 percent) and Democrats in Congress (54 percent).

    The explanation for Mrs. Clinton’s popularity, the Harris people theorize, is that secretaries of state are not involved in domestic matters and generally aren’t blamed for trouble at home.

    This makes the survey results from CafeMom, a social network website with more than 9 million monthly unique visitors, all the more intriguing.

    The women surveyed — not CaféMom members, but a national sample representative of them — said they would rather vote for Mrs. Clinton than Mr. Obama, and none of the Republican candidates even registered with this group.

    Most important, the women surveyed are looking for someone “to get things done across party lines,” according to CafeMom. And if Mrs. Clinton were a candidate for president, she would get a whopping 58 percent of the mom vote, compared with 42 percent for President Obama.

    “It seems like everybody wants an option of ‘none of the above,’ said Tracy Odell, executive vice president for CafeMom.

    “Women are frustrated with what is going on in Washington, and we want another option. Hillary has carried herself very well over the last three years. She seems a better choice than what we have.

    “The survey results were not a surprise to us,” said Ms. Odell, herself a mother of two young boys.

    “We have this huge community of moms that we have been listening to for five years, and we have seen this feeling of dismay and this feeling that nobody is listening to them. “The survey just backed that up.”

    The results prompted CafeMom to begin a Moms Matter 2012 campaign. “We want to be a megaphone for what matters to moms, to make sure they are heard,” said Ms. Odell.

    If you want something done, the saying goes, give it to a busy woman to do, and I am guessing that is part of what is at work here.

    These women, who also report that they are more worried about their family’s financial future than they are about the well-being of their children, are looking for someone to fix things.

    Mrs. Clinton is seen as multi-tasking dynamo who is keeping about a dozen international hot plates spinning at once. When compared to the stubborn and dithering men in Congress, she shines.

    “A third of the moms were undecided,” said Ms. Odell. “That’s a huge voting block just waiting for someone to come out and say something.”

    http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-reimer-hillary-20111128,0,4509547,print.column

  78. A fresh Rasmussen and it’s holding up better than I could have hoped:
    Monday, November 28, 2011

    The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that 21% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-one percent (41%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -20 (see trends).

    The president gets low marks from gun owners and home owners. Additionally, 48% trust Republicans more than Democrats on the economy. Only 37% trust the Democrats more.

    Most voters to continue to favor repeal of the health care law passed last year and most now think repeal is likely.

  79. Pat Caddell seems like a reasonable man to me. Draft Hillary Clinton? Fine idea, but unlikely. Giving Hillary blind allegiance? Never. I would not do that for anyone, sorry. My support will need to be earned again. She earned it once, and may earn it again. That will only happen after a frank discussion of her role in the current administration, and her proposals to turn this behemoth of a country around. Within the past year, I have become much less trustful of government, and the politicians that populate it. I will give Hillary a fair shake, but I will do it with open eyes and ears. If she promotes current Obamacrat policies, then I may very well work to defeat her. If she displays a marked independence from her own party, then I will more than likely support her if a draft Hillary campaign actually takes off. My main objective is to defeat Obama either through voting for his opponent in the upcoming election, or promoting his resignation before the upcoming election, or encouraging someone else to
    be the next Democrat candidate. The Democratic party is a corrupt, dishonest party, and I dare to say worse than the Republican party at this time. Hillary will have her work cut out for her.

  80. Sweet Joys and Heavenly Blessings to: lil ole grape- 10:31 am and ABM90- ( I take it you’ve been in a few wars…as have I..)
    ________________

    Does Obama really want to win?

    Joseph Curl/WT

    “Over the last decade, we became a country that relied too much on what we bought and consumed.”

    – President Obama, Nov. 19, 2011

    “Too many of us now tend to worship self-indulgence and consumption. Human identity is no longer defined by what one does, but by what one owns.”

    – President Carter, July 15, 1979

    There are only two ways to look at the Obama re-election campaign right now: Either the upstart candidate who stunned the world when he defeated the Clinton machine to capture the Democratic nomination three years ago has lost every bit of that massive mojo, or the bruised and battered president, after three years in office, just doesn’t want another spin in the Oval Office.

    How else to explain the nonstop missteps, the stammering and stuttering campaign, not to mention the brazen attacks on American voters, who, he has said, have “fallen behind,” lost their “ambition and imagination,” gotten “lazy” and “a bit soft” – this is a guy seeking the support of America?! ( struck me the same way! )

    For the past 36 months, Americans have hoped for the best. But it hasn’t turned out that way. In fact, some argue that Mr. Obama actually made the economy worse – the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said last week that his 2009 stimulus package may have sustained as few as 700,000 jobs at its peak and that over the long run it will be a net drag on the economy.

    But then, this. The president, traveling the country purportedly to look for votes in 2012, decided to lecture the American people on their shortcomings: fat, lazy, stupid. And now, he’s channeling – of all people – Jimmy Carter.

    Don’t doubt the premise here. Democrats must spend – spend and spend and spend. It’s in their DNA. Mr. Obama offered a $3.8 trillion budget this year, to be paid for by – $2.1 trillion in revenue (read: your money). He knows that over the next four years, with automatic budget cuts set to take effect and the American people’s rising ire over the profligate spending in Washington, he’s going to have no money to redistribute to the masses.

    So, why bother? It’s going to get worse before it gets better. Who needs it? Why preside over a government that, instead of giving everything to everybody free, takes it all away, cuts so deeply that nearly every American will be affected? Especially if you think Americans are lazy, lack ambition – they’ll never rise to the challenge, so why not just bail?

    Crazy? Not according to two Democratic strategists. Patrick H. Caddell, who coincidentally worked as a pollster for Mr. Carter, and Douglas Schoen think Mr. Obama should follow LBJ and just pack it in.

    “He should abandon his candidacy for re-election in favor of a clear alternative, one capable not only of saving the Democratic Party, but more important, of governing effectively and in a way that preserves the most important of the president’s accomplishments. He should step aside,” they wrote, “for the one candidate who would become, by acclamation, the nominee of the Democratic Party: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.”

    Of course, Mr. Obama’s hubris will not allow such a move. But consider this, 344 days before Election Day 2012: The president’s greatest advocate, Chris Matthews, who got a chill up his leg every time he heard the candidate speak, has thrown in the towel.

    “Once having won the office,” the MSNBC cheerleader said, “he seemed to think that that was the end of it in terms of his connection to the American people. … I think everybody feels an absence of communication from the time he’s been elected. And it’s not about not being left-wing enough or too left. That’s not his problem. It’s connection. And Mrs. Obama, she’s an amazing asset. And what has she done? Obesity? How about connecting with the American people about being Americans? I don’t think she’s happy. I don’t think they like being in the White House. The American people can tell that. They don’t seem thrilled at the fact the American people have selected them as our first family. I don’t sense the gratitude, the happiness level, the thrill of being president.”

    Mr. Matthews went on: “What are we trying to do in this administration? Why does he want a second term? Would he tell us? What’s he going to do in the second term? More of this? Is this it? Is this as good as it gets? Where are we going? Are we going to do something the second term? He has yet to tell us. He has not said one thing about what he would do in the second term.”

    Because he doesn’t really want one. And Americans seem ready to oblige.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/nov/27/curl-does-obama-really-want-to-win/
    ____________

    To me, the only card left for Obama to play is the Marshall Law card. Which, due to his indifference towards the American People, he is required to play if he intends on maintaining his role as president. There can be no other explanation for the insults hurled at the American electorate calling them “lazy”, “lacking ambition”, “imagination” and “gone soft”. Obama doesn’t care what we think- and the reason his arrogance has become all too obvious is because he has a plan that doesn’t include any input from us, the voters.

    By Executive degree, he has the power to declare Marshall Law in the name of National Security and suspend elections indefinitely.

    I had hoped by now the OWS Protests would be well on the way to being disbanded nationwide. Instead, accomplishing nothing, they are hanging on for dear life keeping a presence and their dysfunctional protest simmering on the back burner. Just waiting for the signal to start burning cities, destroying businesses and objectifying citizens who has not really taken them seriously.

    This may be a subjective opinion, but it’s the only one that corresponds with the signs and signals given off by Obama and his campaign staff. We can stop this IF, the House acts responsibly pre-empting his plan, removing him, putting him under investigation in the interests of National Security.

  81. nomobama
    November 28th, 2011 at 12:13 pm

    duly noted- Blind allegiance? where did that come from? No need to put words out there that do not and never did exist. No one has asked that or expected such from anyone here..

    When your house is on-fire and burning to the ground do let me know if the credentials of the Fire Fighters come to save you are within the parameters of your expectations.

  82. The Muslim Brotherhood Prepares for Power

    It seems clear that the Muslim Brotherhood will emerge from the current elections in Egypt with significant power. But what does the group intend to do with it? During the 30 years of Mubarak’s iron-fisted rule, Mahmoud Ali became one of many Egyptians who experienced the regime’s despotism first hand. Ali was repeatedly taken into custody, often arrested at dawn and whisked away. He would be imprisoned for a week at a time, hung up by his ankles and give electric shocks. But Ali prayed regularly and eventually became an Imam. Along the way, he often worked for the forbidden Muslim Brotherhood.

    Ali was one of the thousands of Egyptians who, when protests erupted on the banks of the Nile in January, threw themselves into the struggle. Finally, it seemed, there was an opportunity to put an end to the hated Mubarak regime. “In the mosques where I lead prayers, I mobilized people to go out onto Tahrir Square,” the 42-year-old Ali says. The day that Mubarak was forced to step down, he adds, was one of the happiest in his life.

    Now, though, Ali is in eager anticipation of the next, greatest day of his life: “The day on which we will introduce Sharia law in Egypt.”

    Mahmoud Ali is one of the 15 million Egyptians who, according to conservative estimates, will cast their vote for the Freedom and Justice Party in the coming weeks. While there are no reliable public opinion surveys, forecasts indicate that the party, founded by the Muslim Brotherhood, could end up with 30 percent of the vote — and thus become the largest group in Egyptian parliament. Some observers even think that the Islamist party might be chosen by up to half of the 50 million Egyptians eligible to vote. Either way, it is clear that, by the end of the long and complicated voting procedure, the Muslim Brotherhood will emerge in a position of power….

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,800338,00.html

  83. Judge Blocks Citigroup Settlement With S.E.C.

    By EDWARD WYATT

    November 28, 2011

    WASHINGTON — A federal judge in New York on Monday threw out a settlement between the Securities and Exchange Commission and Citigroup over a 2007 mortgage derivatives deal, saying that the S.E.C.’s policy of settling cases by allowing a company to neither admit nor deny the agency’s allegations did not satisfy the law.

    The judge, Jed S. Rakoff of United States District Court in Manhattan, ruled that the S.E.C.’s $285 million settlement, announced last month, is “neither fair, nor reasonable, nor adequate, nor in the public interest” because it does not provide the court with evidence on which to judge the settlement.

    The ruling could throw the S.E.C.’s enforcement efforts into chaos, because a majority of the fraud cases and other actions that the agency brings against Wall Street firms are settled out of court, most often with a condition that the defendant does not admit that it violated the law while also promising not to deny it.

    That condition gives a company or individual an advantage in subsequent civil litigation for damages, because cases in which no facts are established cannot be used in evidence in other cases, like shareholder lawsuits seeking recovery of losses or damages.

    The S.E.C.’s policy — “hallowed by history, but not by reason,” Judge Rakoff wrote — creates substantial potential for abuse, the judge said, because “it asks the court to employ its power and assert its authority when it does not know the facts.”

    Judge Rakoff also refers at one point to Citigroup as “a recidivist,” or repeat offender, which has violated the antifraud provisions of the nation’s securities laws many times. The company knew that the S.E.C.’s proposed judgment – that it cease and desist from violating the antifraud laws – had not been enforced in at least 10 years, the judge wrote.

    The S.E.C. did not respond immediately to a request for comment on the judge’s decision, which was released Monday morning. A Citigroup spokesman said the company was studying the decision and had no immediate comment.

    Citigroup was charged with negligence in its selling to customers a billion-dollar mortgage securities fund, known as Class V Funding III. The S.E.C. alleged that Citigroup picked the securities to be included in the fund without telling investors, claiming that the securities were being chosen by an independent entity. Citigroup then bet against the investments because it believed that they would lose value, the S.E.C. said.

    Investors lost $700 million in the fund, according to the S.E.C., while Citigroup gained about $160 million in profits.

    The settlement established none of those allegations as fact, thereby making it impossible for the court to properly judge whether the settlement meets the required standard of being fair, adequate and in the public interest.

    “An application of judicial power that does not rest on facts is worse than mindless, it is inherently dangerous,” Judge Rakoff wrote in the case, S.E.C. v. Citigroup Global Markets. “In any case like this that touches on the transparency of financial markets whose gyrations have so depressed our economy and debilitated our lives, there is an overriding public interest in knowing the truth.”

    The S.E.C. in particular, he added, “has a duty, inherent in its statutory mission, to see that the truth emerges.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/29/business/judge-rejects-sec-accord-with-citi.html?emc=na
    ___________

    This judge may become very unpopular for his clear headed thinking- but he is absolutely right!

    The S.E.C. through it’s familial ties with the financial markets has become whether deliberately or by fiat an enabler to the financial system it’s laws and regulations.

    An ‘enabler’ of any stripe is an abysmal coward ensconced in the ties that bind rather than getting to the bottom of the problem, seeking the truth for putting an end to cyclical recidivism.

    That claim not only goes for the financial industry but for people too-

  84. Yes, Obama may not really want another term. Too much work, people keep interrupting his waffles.

    If he gets the nomination and loses, he’s blocked Hillary again, and his fatcat backers get an open Republican WH, not just a DINO. So they’ll be well served.

  85. moononpluto
    November 28th, 2011 at 9:59 am

    US Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) will not seek reelection.

    …………………..

    Good riddance.

    x2

  86. admin: “…the maid, the occupants of the room she visited several times that day, the odd connections all of which helped bring down DSK. Question is: Was this all staged to destroy DSK?”

    That is definitely the take in France, that the whole thing was staged to knock DSK out of the running for President, and the assumption is that it was staged by Sarkozy supporters.

    However, he gets no sympathy support from the population, not even from the Socialist Party, and he is acting like his political career is over. The Socialists selected François Hollande (the father of Ségolène Royale’s 4 kids) as presidential contender, and the general feeling is that Sarkozy will beat him.

    After the presidentials will come parliamentary election, and my prognosis there is that Sarkozy will be facing a left-wing parliament, which will lead to what the French call “cohabitation”, with the president on one side of the political fence and the government on the other side. I like cohabitation. It worked well twice with Mitterrand and once with Chirac.

  87. This entire article frosts my cupcakes…

    NYTs

    The Future of the Obama Coalition
    By THOMAS B. EDSALL

    For decades, Democrats have suffered continuous and increasingly severe losses among white voters. But preparations by Democratic operatives for the 2012 election make it clear for the first time that the party will explicitly abandon the white working class.

    http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/27/the-future-of-the-obama-coalition/

    —-> As if anyone with a college degree is a professor, and anyone that is a working stiff has no degree.
    I hate to wake these morons up, but most of the work force in corporations, small businesses and schools do have degrees you nitwits.

    As if the folks that will stand behind the tarnished calf are the only well educated, and the rest of the white folk are either racist or too dumb to vote for him.

    The only white folk that will still vote for him are guilt ridden, ahhh, give the half black guy another 4 years to try and be a good president.

  88. There seems to be some soul-searching here about the degree to which we owe some kind of allegiance to HRC.

    After decades of voting mindlessly, i.e. voting D consistently, I had some hard thinking to do as a PUMA in 2008: would I vote for McCain or would I pass the buck again as I had in 1980 when the options were awful either way?

    McCain, and Palin, made me think about my priorities in judging a political candidate, especially the presidential candidates. I realized that my highest priority was Character, or integrity, and both McCain and Palin had that aplenty. Obama had none.

    Next came Competence and, while neither McCain nor Palin impressed me much in this regard, I was dead certain that Obama was as incompetent as they come.

    Third and last come the issues. I had definite disagreements with McCain and Palin on many issues, but the New Yorker in me prefers to have a scrap with a straight-talking guy I don’t agree with, rather than be charmed by a smooth-talker who’s telling me what he thinks I want to hear. I was dead certain that Obama didn’t mean a word of what he was saying – zero credibility in my book. So here again, even on the issues, Obama was a loser in my book.

    There was never any question of my voting for Obama. But on the basis of the above priorities, I did not abstain but voted McCain/Palin with a clear conscience.

    Looking forward, I approach the 2012 elections with the same priorities. To my mind, Hillary has the Character and integrity I want to see in a president. She definitely has the Competence. And on the issues, I pretty much agree with the viewpoints she expressed in 2008.

    Carol seems to be a one-issue voter – it’s all about immigration policy. So be it. But immigration is an issue and is thus of tertiary concern for me. Besides, it may not even be on the roster in next year’s campaign, so what is Carol to do? Withdraw and not vote? Vote against someone who is pro-immigration? I see that as cutting off your nose to spite your face. Better to get involved in politics, make your opinions and solutions known and promote them, get in touch with your Rep and Senators (Carol once told me “it’s no use” to get in touch with Gillibrand, for example, but what else is there to do?).

    Anyway, I am not a one-issue voter, nor even a multi-issue voter. I now vote for Character and Competence first, and I agree with WJC: Hillary fits the bill better than anyone else out there.

  89. I’m in a similar place as Jeswezey. I cannot think of any politician whose views were 100 percent the same as mine. Before 2008, I was more of an Independent than a loyal Dem, but I usually voted Dem. Like Jeswezey, I voted for McCain/Palin in 2008 with a clear conscience. Unfortunately, I have a lot of problems with the Repubs who are running this time around, yet I cannot and will not vote for Obama in 2012. As long as there is even a teeny, remote chance of Hillary 2012, that’s where I am going to be.

  90. Gm is recalling the chevy volt because of fire problems with the electrical charging system. The goal of 1 million electric cars on the roads by 2015 would mean an INCREASE in coal-powered plant emissions as electrical plants rely on that power source. Solyndra = epic fail. Greene energy, green jobs, proven a scam. Holland abandoning windfarms as too costly and inefficient. HOLLAND.

    And now this report that PROVES what those of us at His44 also know was media slant against HRC and pro-BO showing media has lied, obfuscated, obscured, concelaed and fabricated climate reports.

    Sounds like grounds for a grand jury investigation to me. Oh, well, I can dream.

    Leaked Emails Raise Questions About NYT’s ClimateGate Coverage
    Alana Goodman | @alanagoodman 11.28.2011 – 12:30 PM

    A new batch of stolen emails from the East Anglia climate research center was released last week. Anthony Watts and JunkScience are doing some of the best up-to-the-minute blog coverage, and if you feel like digging through the 5,000+ emails, EcoWho has compiled them into a handy search engine.

    The most striking take-away from the emails is how obsessed the climatologists seemed to be with media coverage – almost as if they were public relations associates as opposed to scientists. The extent of cooperation between the climate researchers and some friendly news outlets is also fascinating. (David Rose has an excellent article exploring the connections between East Anglia and the BBC.)

    One New York Times​ writer, Andy Revkin, pops up numerous times in the emails. During the time the conversations took place, Revkin was a supposedly objective reporter on the environmental beat for the Times. He became an opinion blogger for the paper after leaving the news section at the end of 2009, which seems to be a better fit after reading some of his emails.

    In one 2006 exchange between Revkin and the scientists, the reporter makes his disdain for Sen. James Inhofe – and “a big chunk” of the American public – clear, while promoting his book on the Arctic:

    [Sen. Inhofe] still speaks to and for a big chunk of America — people whose understanding of science and engagement with such issues is so slight that they happily sit in pre-conceived positions. [T]hat might be one reason he doesn’t like [my] book, which is devoid of easily-attacked spin and scare tactics and lets the science point the way itself. [I]‘m just trying to be sure that folks like all of you take an extra couple seconds to use Inhofe against himself and forward the blog/book link to a few people who might not be aware of this book — the first on Arctic and global climate change for all readers 10 and up — and of Inhofe’s moves.

    At the time, Inhofe had been critical of Revkin’s book, which promoted the theory of human-caused climate change, and said it undermined his objectivity as a reporter. Revkin responded to the senator publicly, though in a much less condescending manner. But the snideness in this private email isn’t nearly as bad as the fact that Revkin – at the time, an allegedly objective, neutral environmental reporter for the New York Times – seemed to be asking his highly ideological sources to back him up in this fight against Inhofe and other skeptics.

    In another email, Revkin and climate scientist Michael Schlesinger​ appear to muse about how much better the world would be if only Al Gore​ had won the 2000 election.

    “[H]ad the 5-to-4 ‘hanging-chad’ decision of the U.S. Supreme Court swung the other way, the U.S. would have confronted the challenges of human-induced climate change these past 6 years, rather than deny and avoid them,” Schlessinger wrote to Revkin in the 2007 email. “And, we would not now be mired in Iraq.”

    “[A] very very very poignant and true point, [M]ichael,” responded Revkin. “[I] have a song called “a very fine line” that explores all those facets of life like that.” (In addition to his journalistic talents, Revkin is also a musician.)

    In other emails, Revkin is dismissive of climate change skeptics, people who probably should have been an integral part of his beat. “[W]hat’s amusing, in a way, is how the ‘skeptics’ jump on a cold patch as evidence of global cooling but attack enviros for highlighting warming trends,” he wrote in February 2008.

    In another message, he informed the scientists:

    Because the ‘Average Joe’ out there is only hearing radio soundbites about the sun turning off, or cable-news coverage or some stray TV image of snow in Baghdad (and particularly with a big ‘skeptics conference’ coming next week), I think it’s important to do a story putting a cold stretch in context against the evidence for the long-term warming trajectory from greenhouse forcing. Would need input from you by end of Thursday ideally.

    Revkin’s view of climate change skeptics at the time couldn’t be clearer: he thought they were uneducated morons, and took it as his mission to enlighten them with the facts as determined by himself and his fellow global warming advocates. Revkin speaks even more candidly about how he views his “job” in a 2007 email to NASA scientist Jim Hansen and others (emphasis added):

    [A] key take-home point, please, is that this story was written mainly for the benefit of the 10s of millions of disengaged or doubtful or simply under-educated Americans out there for whom it is NEWS that the only discourse now is among folks who believe human-forced climate change is a huge problem. (as Jim Hansen said in my story, exclamation point included!)

    the ‘hotter’ voices are doing their job well. i’m doing mine.

    Which may explain why the scientists seem to view Revkin as more of an ally than a reporter in some of the emails among themselves. “I’ll let all of you know if there are any other reasonable interview requests from folks we trust (e.g. Andy Revkin, etc.),” wrote climate scientist David Thompson to his colleague Phil Jones in one message.

    Some may argue that it’s unfair to criticize Revkin for his private comments, and point out that none of these emails on its own could be characterized as an egregious ethical lapse. Maybe. But combined, they point to a pattern. There’s also this: Revkin was the same Times reporter who refused to publish the first trove of ClimateGate emails in 2009, claiming they were off-limits because they were “private” conversations (a standard the paper evidently hasn’t applied to other leaked documents). He also dismissed the scandal as meritless.

    As one of the leading national environmental reporters, Revkin had a huge amount of influence over whether the ClimateGate controversy went anywhere. He ended up doing all he could to snuff it out. Should the fact that he wasn’t just involved in the emails, but also seemed to portray himself as an ideological ally to the scientists, raise ethical questions about the Times’ coverage of the first ClimateGate? I’d say so. And maybe Revkin’s departure from the news section one month after the emails leaked in 2009 means that, internally, the Times thought so as well

  91. Blind allegiance, Mrs. Smith, are my words, not anybody else’s. It is the feeling that I sometimes get from ultra-partisans. It is a feeling that I get on this site from time to time. Question: Is there anything that Hillary has promoted or supported in her political career that you have disagreed with? You do not have to be specific. There have been a couple of things that come to mind, including something from her SoS stint. My refusal to act as if I agree with her 100% in order to prop her up in some way is a principled stand, nothing more, nothing less. I suspect that anyone who is in complete agreement with any politician may actually be showing “blind allegiance” to that politician which in my book is dangerous. I can’t condemn Obama groupies, and then overlook those who might behave the same way toward Hillary (or Ron Paul, Mittens, or any other politician). Hillary is a capable person, but she still is a politician which should give most people some pause as they honestly assess the pros and cons of a possible President Hillary Clinton. People should have the right to discuss this, even on this site. I’m willing to guess that anyone who comes to the conclusion that they would rather support someone else at this time will gravitate away from this site without harboring any animosity toward the admin, or toward those who continue to post here.

  92. Perhaps some of Hillary’s circle lurk here occasionally, and imo it’s good for them to see what complaints her supporters have — ie feedback.

  93. nomobama-

    I wish you had read what I wrote here:

    Mrs. Smith
    November 28th, 2011 at 8:33 am
    ______________

    Then scroll forward to jeswezy’s post for what I didn’t write but felt exactly as he wrote- Carol is a one issue voter. If a one issue voter’s concerns are not addressed by a candidate, as a group, they tend to dismiss that candidate as not worthy of their vote. Which is fine by me- unfortunately they ensnare people with their drama as if it is a major flaw in that candidate-

    Jeswezy @ 5:22 makes the point of 3 prerequisites of importance that I totally agree with for a candidate… Character, Integrity and Competence… I would only add to that list, Past Performance i.e. their record in public service especially for the presidency.

    Obama had none of those qualifications and like so many others, I vote the McCain/Palin ticket as a protest vote against Obama for stealing the Nomination from Hillary-

    Do I have any issues with Hillary’s policies? To date I’ve only had one difference with her and that was at the beginning of the Banking Crisis at the end of Bush’s term when the Banking Crisis was coming to a head- and fingers were pointing blaming the Mortgage Industry for the upending of the Banks- and she reiterated that misnomer publicaly to the point of using the words… we’ll have to “crack down” on loan officers and mortgage brokers.. I happened to be a Loan Officer at that time and I knew first hand it wasn’t the brokers, LOs or the consumers receiving the loans. It was the promise of Banks giving out adjustable mortgages that could be refinanced several years forward. Precisely at the same time people began losing their jobs, especially in the North East.

    When Hillary repeated the meme public, I knew she hadn’t had the chance to do her own research because the Crisis came out of nowhere virtually overnight- within a week, she found a solution which no one listened to… which was have the Banks set the mortgage interest rates at 4% across the board for everyone behind in their payments which is basically in broad terms what Obama’s HARP program for people keeping their homes ended up to be- but his program was delayed for more than a year and has resulted in people just giving up and walking away from their homes.

    Hillary never had an issue with Social Security- In fact, she said SS is not in trouble and will not be touched when she is president.

    Other than this one issue which I fully understood- I don’t have any qualms about supporting Hillary. She is the most qualified person on the planet that can straighten out the mess Obama has created for us. What I have to remember, dear friend, nomobama, is not everyone here supported Hillary from day one as I did and so many others who have confidence in her ability. There were Edwardians, Bidenites, Richardson fans who joined our group when their candidates floundered and have yet to get up to speed on what Hillary is all about.

Comments are closed.