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.