The Battle For Bill Clinton

Next week, the I/E Republicans will face off against the E/I Republicans. The E/I Republicans will have the advantage. But thus far we have been very impressed with the I/E Republicans in the face of a great provocation.

The E/I Republicans have the advantage because applauding seals have that distracting effect. The I/E Republicans have a much tougher task and that is to point out the strategic landscape and try to deploy reason and logic against colorful rubber balls.

We’ve written about E/I and I/E before. We’re on the side of Intelligence over Emotion (I/E).

In one of the I/E article from 2010 we quoted an I/E Republican as to why Republicans were not attacking Bill Clinton even as Bill Clinton campaigned in state after state:

“Today at the New York Times a not smart Bill Clinton article, of the type we have repeatedly “refudiated”, has a smart remark from a Republican explaining why the Republican party “mounted no counterattack” as Bill Clinton campaigns this year – “People have respect for him.” Last week Rush Limbaugh joined the NObama Coalition of Hillary Supporters, Tea Party members, Republicans and Independents.”

That’s an I/E Republican. The strategy was to respect Bill Clinton as he campaigned in state after state. I/E Republicans instead focused attacks on Barack Obama and guess what? They won big in 2010.

We understand that Republicans are tempted to go E/I. Bill Clinton is not only going to speak on “behalf” of Barack Obama at the Bank of America convention but today the Obama campaign released an advertisement which features Bill Clinton and only Bill Clinton. So we understand the great temptation for E/I Republicans to indulge themselves and thereby commit an strategic error.

In a smart post titled “Dear Conservatives: Don’t Go There” the Crawdads give good advice:

“I realize he’s not one of your favorite people but the last time you went after him it cost you two House Speakers and he ended up more popular than when you started. Bill and Hillary Clinton are currently the two most popular politicians in the country.

More importantly, the Clintons have a very loyal fan base that despises Barack Obama and the current Democratic leadership. (Most of us believe that Bill Clinton shares our feelings.) Many Clinton fans (like myself) voted for John McCain and Sarah Palin four years ago. Some of us will be supporting Mitt Romney this year.

If you start attacking the Big Dawg you run the risk of alienating these Clinton Democrats. There are plenty of sleazy Democrats you can go after instead, like Ted Kennedy, John Edwards and Anthony Weiner.

Keep your eyes on the prize and the best of luck this November.”

In short I/E, not E/I.

It’s a great temptation to try to beat Bill Clinton after repeated failures to get the better of him. But your focus should be Barack Obama, not Bill Clinton.

Every time Bill Clinton says something “nice” about Obama we have to point out yet again that every time Bill Clinton is seen it is very bad for Obama. Barack Obama suffers by comparison. No need to worry Republicans/conservatives. Focus on Barack, leave Bill alone, for your own good. E/I Republicans/conservatives, consider ingesting drugs to tranquilize your nerves if Bill plucks them every time you see him. But leave Bill alone. For your own good, leave Bill alone. Bill loves your attention and he benefits from the attacks, or haven’t you noticed?

Don’t leave Hillary Clinton alone. Quote Hillary Clinton as much as possible. She is greatly admired too. Do we have to quote Sun-tzu and The Art Of War, to you? Hillary Clinton is a great sun, a brilliant light. Quote her. Quote her often.

Now wasn’t that fun guys? You see how you can benefit?

But as we wrote there is a lot of upset because of that new video by Bill. But there is a dumb E/I way to lash out. There is a smart I/E way to respond to the “Video: Clinton cuts ad touting Obama plan that Obama never talks about“.

“But let’s give at least one cheer to former President Clinton — at least he’s talking about economic policy, even if he’s vague and misleading. When will the Leader of the Free World conclude his multi-city exposition on roof-riding dogs and rubbers to deign to discuss what his specific economic plans are for a second term?”

It’s a bit critical of Bill but the I/E comes from pointing out that Obama is not talking about “what his specific economic plans are for a second term”. When Stephen Moore was asked today by Neal Cavuto what he thought of the ad, Moore went into an I/E response pointing out the different failed policies of Barack Obama as contrasted to the successful Bill Clinton presidency/policies. Give Moore a gold star.

Avoid the temptation E/I Republicans/conservatives. Put on your thinking caps or hit the bars and drink yourself into oblivion. There is a better way. The better way is I/E. Instead of whipping yourselves into an anti-Clinton frenzy – in what will only help Barack Obama – think. Think.

How’s this for an I/E response which hurts Obama using Bill Clinton?:

See how it’s done the I/E way?

And don’t forget Hillary:

* * * * * *

There is a new film from Citizens United about to debut. The trailer for the film has already been released. You can see the trailer for “The Hope And The Change” here:

You see those people in that film? Those are the people that Barack Obama cannot get to vote for him again. Obama wants to use Bill Clinton to get him those votes. It’s a strategy that won’t work – unless E/I replaces I/E. Don’t attack Bill. The people in that film are the ones that like Bill Clinton. Attack Bill, you run the danger of losing these people. Lose these people and Barack Obama wins. I/E not E/I.

A big gold star goes to Sarah Palin who understands I/E. This is one smart lady who is ahead of the curve even though not very deep simpleton “analysts” don’t see how smart Palin is until it is too late for them.

Recently Palin was all I/E. Palin had this to say:

“Palin, the 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee and a Fox News contributor, had said Biden’s comments are the latest example of how he “really drags down that ticket.”

“If that’s not the nail in the coffin, really, the strategists there in the Obama campaign have got to look at a diplomatic way of replacing Joe Biden on the ticket with Hillary,” Palin said. “And I don’t want to throw out that suggestion and have them actually accept the suggestion because then an Obama-Hillary Clinton ticket would have a darn good chance of winning.”

How smart is that? Count the ways. Palin divides the opposition, hammers the real target (Biden) as a dunce, uses Hillary Clinton as a cudgel against Obama/Biden knowing Hillary is popular and has strong supporters who would like her to be in the White House not the boob, and Palin even honestly admits the obvious that an Obama/H_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ticket would be a very strong ticket – thereby making a great jiujitsu slam ensuring that ticket less of a possibility and even if it became a possibility it would be weakened as an attack on Biden. Smart, smart lady that Sarah Palin.

Next week will test Republicans/conservatives in many ways. The following week when Bill Clinton speaks at the Bank of America convention (on the same night many white working class voters will be watching the NFL season opener so even in the scheduling the Obama boobery is manifest) the temptation to attack Bill Clinton will be too great and many Republicans/conservatives will succumb to E/I. We hope that does not happen.

It won’t hurt Bill Clinton to be attacked. In 2008 Barack Obama via his henchmen played the race card against Bill Clinton – according to Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton was labeled a racist and he and Hillary Clinton were given last rites by stupid commentators and Big Media generally. But the other day Bill Clinton celebrated his birthday and his age matched his approval ratings. As he gets older his approval ratings will climb right along with him.

For I/E Republicans the challenge next week, and throughout the remaining few months of the campaign, will be to stay focused on Barack Obama and the economy. Don’t fall into E/I. Don’t let your E/I cohorts take control. Stay focused. Stay focused.

It’s the economy, stupid – and Obama made it worse. That should be your focus, not anything, or anyone, else.


159 thoughts on “The Battle For Bill Clinton

  1. We were asked by email to repost this comment from the earlier article’s comments section.

    “TheRealist, regarding your question(s) at

    We can only provide general principles that we believe lead to success not a detailed calendar of events. Wbboei ably responded to some of your questions and we have in the past published articles on why both a Democratic Party and a Republican Party (along with the occasional third party movement) are needed in order to produce good policies.

    As to your questions about Hillary Clinton this in particular is a discussion that we have had before and no doubt will have again. First of all we respect and greatly admire Hillary Clinton and we have great affection for her. But we do not worship her. We do not think Hillary Clinton is infallible. And we certainly would not jump off a cliff if Hillary asked us to although we would respect her sufficiently to listen to what she has to say and why she would want us to jump off said cliff. We would consider her arguments and then make a reasoned analysis about jumping.

    And specifically if Hillary Clinton would run as Obama’s Veep we would not vote for her or Obama. And here is why which answers some of your broader questions and points which question our “logic”:

    The reason why we support Hillary Clinton is because we believe that she (and Bill Clinton) have good policies. It’s that simple. And that pretty much answers all your questions and suppositions.

    No one can game out what is going to happen in the next few months with any real clarity let alone the next few years. What we do is we look at the strategic landscape. What we look to is good policy.

    When Obama became president we “hoped” for the best. We hoped we would turn out to be totally wrong. But we knew he would be a miserable failure because we believed our analysis of many years was on target.

    When we rail and mock “applauding seals”, and we cannot fully express our contempt for this sort of person, it is because they generally turn out to be unprincipled and unthinking. These barkers differ from each other only in the brand of Hopium they guzzle but they applaud without thought or principle for whatever side they find themselves to be on at a particular time. We not only criticize the “other” side but when necessary we will criticize those on “our” side. This is not true for applauding seals. For instance the Obama supporters at DailyKooks and what passes for the “left” these days now make excuses for what they would quickly denounce if it was anyone else other than the object of their cult adoration.

    When you have no principles, or the experience and hard work required to turn those principles into something real, you usually fail. Barack Obama has never had any principles and certainly none that he has worked hard for – other than advancing himself. This type of flim-flam man can escape justice for a long time but eventually the slow grinding wheels flatten the con men.

    As to Hillary’s chances for becoming president, the fate of what once was the Democratic Party (it is now the Dimocratic Party of corruption and treachery without principles or leaders of character), a President Romney, 2016, etc., we can only say this.

    If Mitt Romney succeeds in winning election the Dimocratic Party will have a lot of decisions to make. They will have to decide if they want to remain the Obama Dimocratic Party or return to the principled Democratic Party of Hillary Clinton/FDR. We are not very optimistic about this. We believe it will take another thrashing in 2014 to begin to bring some sense to the party.

    Further, another thrashing in 2014 will continue to purge the party of those Obama enablers who have brought us to the current situation. Will it be a tough time for those not in the Republican tent? Yes, it will be brutal. But the punishment is deserved and necessary. You cannot do what the Obama enablers in the Democratic Party did in 2007/2008 and not expect punishment. These Obama Dimocrats ignored the rank and file in order to force their will on the Party. This is horrendous treachery which will have to be paid for and brutally so. This must never be allowed to happen again and the punishment of total destruction is necessary and deserved.

    As to how this helps Hillary Clinton that really should not be the question. The first priority is the country.

    But “how this helps Hillary Clinton” is a fair question and we answer it with two words – principles, policy. We are not as sure as you are that the economic recovery is on the way. The economy is in great difficulty and even the CBO is warning about another recession and we still don’t know what will happen in Europe or if Iran decides to bomb Saudi oil facilities. If Mitt Romney has the principles and the policies that bring about prosperity and everyone, not just a few, are doing much better economically and socially then he will deserve reelection in 2016.

    If a President Mitt Romney fails to bring prosperity to all and the economy remains stagnant or worse he will deserve to be booted out. If the Democratic Party is resurrected by then and purged of the Obama enablers such that the American people feel the party is redeemed then Hillary Clinton will be a force to contend with. The answers to the questions about the economy and policies as they will be in 2016 no one knows. But again principles inform us better than guessing games and our hopes and wishes.

    We believe that President Hillary Clinton would stand her ground on principles and that she would seek common ground on how to get there (just like Bill did). It’s those principles and policies which we believe lead to success. We support Hillary because she shares our principles and has usually proposed good policies in the past. If a President Romney has the same respect for principles and policies as Hillary then he will be a success. If not he will fail.

    Notice, it is principles and policies that matter to us. We do not believe in personality politics nearly as much as the principles, policies, and coalitions organized to better the country.

    What we do know is that having a corrupt, treacherous leader who also happens to be a boob is not good for the country. Any Party that supports such a person deserves destruction.

    Finally, and this too has been a discussion that has taken place over many years, is a fallacy in your comment which some continue to make. That fallacy is that somehow Obama is “good” or “better” for those whose principles are aligned with the policies of the now defunct Democratic Party. In the New Testament we noted our opposition to much of what Obama has done. We stated why and how destructive those policies have been. There was a time when those in the “left” would have been in solid agreement with our opposition to the entire Obama agenda.

    Health care was sold as somehow fulfilling the FDR/Democratic Party agenda but we called it what it is: a massive monstrosity designed to force Americans to give their money to insurance companies for insurance they will never get because of the high deductibles and all this will be enforced by the tax power and agency of the U.S. government.

    On issue after issue Barack Obama cannot be trusted. Obama cannot be trusted by his “friends” or his foes. Obama simply cannot be trusted.

  2. At some point during the fall debates Mitt Romney must turn to Barack Obama and say “You’re no Bill Clinton”.

  3. Repost

    August 23rd, 2012 at 7:46 pm
    For the Ladies…The Ryan Gun Show…ACE

    August 23rd, 2012 at 7:53 pm
    Akins diet…toast


    I have to say Admin, when I heard the ad for the fraud by BC earlier today, I had to do a gut check. I am afraid the populace is not as smart as you and will take it as face value that BC approves of the fraud, therefore, so do I.

    I hear it everyday from blue collar workers in WI, family members that I can no longer speak about politics again. They have not seen through the fog, lies and pony shows. They still think it is the FDR/Clinton party. This is what worries me about the ad.

  4. GonzoTx, what you describe is what will happen if E/I beats I/E. See our comment on what Romney should tell Obama in ads or in the debates.

    As to the gun show, maybe a speedo and a beach outing would be a smart move. If you’ve got it flaunt it. If the rumors of a six pack and the pecs is true then show them baby. That would set off a Big Media frenzy contrasting Obama’s beach picture from 2008 and the young gun’s guns. Imagine those old Barack manboobs versus a man with real pectorals.

  5. So glad you posted this new article, Admin. The idiot Ann Coulter was at it again last night on the Hannity show attacking Bill Clinton (and others), urging the GOP to use BC’s affairs as a way to counter-attack the Left’s criticisms of Akin’s “war on women.” I don’t care about Weiner or Kennedy, but leave Clinton alone, GOP!

    “COULTER: Joe Biden?! What about their keynote speaker being Bill Clinton. Let’s look at the women in Mitt Romney’s life and Paul Ryan’s life and the women in Teddy Kennedy’s life — the ones that are still alive and weren’t killed by him — and Bill Clinton and Anthony Weiner and the rest of them.

    Don’t talk to me about a war on women. But I do think there needs to be some clear differentiation here. We can’t give up this seat and we can’t give up Scott Brown’s seat.”

  6. I could not believe Coulter was doing exactly what adm. warned against. The GOP
    is determined to lose this election.

  7. Admin: your political wisdom is unsurpassed, for three (3) reasons:

    1. first, you have a keen understanding of the political process, specifically the battlefield, the players and the rules of engagement. That provides the baseline for your analysis.

    2. second, you have a ethical perspective on the issues, based on such axioms as country first, bi partisanship where possible, policies that promote the general welfare, and principled support (as opposed to blind support) for politicians who have the will and capacity to deliver on such policies.

    3. third, you have an attribute which is common among successful generals. Napoleon called it the coup d’oeil–the inner eye, the intuition, which allows you look through the fog of war and see a path to victory. This has allowed you to be consistently right in your predictions time and time and time again. By contrast, big media pundits are consistently wrong.

    If I were a news analyst, I would book mark your webpage and read it every morning. Well, I am not a news analyst, but I do it anyway. Thank you for all you do for us, to make us smarter.

  8. wbboie, I agree with what you just wrote above.

    I like the admin’s response above that he (yes, I now believe that the admin is a male, and I have my reasons 🙂 ) wrote in response to The Realist. It is fine and dandy to support a person, but eventually one has to choose country over party as not all political candidates are of the same capability, intellect, or trustworthiness. Political party affiliation as zero to do with one’s governing abilities. Do I believe that Hillary would have been a good president? Yes! Do I believe that I would have been supportive of every policy Hillary would have proposed or enacted? Absolutely not! There are a couple contributors here who are now promoting ideological purity themes which is unfortunate. One needn’t be of the left to support a Clinton just as one needn’t be of the right to support a Republican candidate like Romney or Gingrich for tha matter. As a voter, I don’t expect to get everything I want, bu I do expect to get a person who is a problem solver who is not so rigid as to be tied to some ideology that prevents solutions that just might solve the problem. My goal is not to see the next president fail in order to boost Hillary Clinton’s chances at becoming president in the future. That’s awfully shortsighted, and I believe either of the Clintons would agree.

  9. Emotions are a great motivator. So many are easily blinded by emotions. This is why the Democrats are pushing emotion over intellect. I realize that intellect is what one should use when making their voting decisions, but emotion is what is going to draw people out of their homes to actually vote, no? Doesn’t Romney need to tie intellect with the appeal of emotion in order to motivate a voter to choose him?

  10. Truer words could not have been written wbboei. And those from someone that isn’t a novice to the game in their own right. While posting here is not a daily activity for me, reading this blog (and the comments) is. I REGULARLY use arguements presented here to best Texas Obots. More than that, I use the arguments here to learn. About politics. About the political process. About campaigning. I second the emotion that some mainstream journalist should wear this blog on their forehead. I sure as hell DO!

    Hillary 2012

  11. NoMoBama, candidates do need to make an emotional connection with the voters. Bill Clinton’s “I feel your pain” is the reigning example of an emotional connection. For many Reagan had the same effect. When candidates “resonate” with voters emotionally they are almost human tuning forks.

    Our I/E premise is about how to conduct a campaign by making a comprehensive analysis and knowing what is good for you and what is not. Candidates for office must be aware that the voters need more than just position papers. That’s all part of I/E.

    What we decry is E/I when emotions rule even if the result is harmful to getting elected. A nefarious campaign will manipulate the populace emotionally just to get elected but that leads to eventual consequences that destroy all that has been “achieved”. Witness Obama 2008. Witness Obama 2012.

  12. The reason why we support Hillary Clinton is because we believe that she (and Bill Clinton) have good policies.


    I agree. 😉

  13. IMO it’s possible to support R/R in order to get rid of O, without becoming true believers of conservative policies.
    Yes,, of course! I MISREAD possible for impossible …. Whew, sorry!


    Thanks. Whew!



    Stopping the spending means stopping payrolls which stops jobs. You can’t have it both ways.

  15. Believe it or not, I was not political during those years. I found politics to be boring. My husband and I worked, purchased a home and enjoyed our lives during those years. It wasn’t until 2006 or so that we began to notice changes. They started in our neighborhood as several stores changed owners and a few closed down for good. Then some of our friends and family members lost their jobs. Then our neighbors moved away because they could no longer afford the taxes.


    Perhaps you should look up some statistics about what was happening in the country as a whole before and after Bill Clinton’s administration.

  16. I agree that wbboei’s comments were spot on. I hope the Republicans have the self-control and the good sense to take Admin’s advice – and that from Crawdad Hole.

    No surprise than Ann Coulter could not keep her stupid mouth shut about big Dawg. She and Hannity (although I read that Hannity is actually resisting the temptation to slam Bill – some of the time, at least) are mindless parrots of the ultra right tired old themes. One of the factors that made McCain more acceptable to Hillary supporters in 2008 was the fact that his respect for her and their affection for each other were obvious. Romney doesn’t have that going for him, but after hearing the Pubs make the most vicious, vile remarks about Bill Clinton, and Hillary for years, he will endear himself to the Clinton Dems if the Republican talking heads will do just as admin said, and lay off Big Dawg.

    Please check out this video. “The Miracle” – about how O has come so far with so little experience, substance, etc. – If I can’t embed, please help admin.

  17. Geez, I miss a week of comments and all hell breaks loose.


    Well, some people agreed with your last post*, if that’s what you mean. Welcome back!

    * or most of it

  18. trixta
    August 23rd, 2012 at 10:56 pm

    I saw that pic of Ryan BEFORE the P90X last week. My pic’s are AFTER the P90X. Check out the difference in the arms! One can only wonder at the ‘other’ difference’s!

    Romney looks pretty hot!

  19. You’re welcome, freespirit. It was on Drudge, I believe, then it disappeared. I was very surprised such a pic would even be featured by Reuters. I have a feeling if — when — BO loses the election, many in the msm will turn against him with a vengeance (I hope so, anyway.)

  20. Admin, I don’t think he tore DWS to sheds, he did let her have a long last word, but it’s a start. He started off strong, but kind of faltered. I am sure she was surprised to have any push back.

    Truth in reporting is a new concept apparently.

  21. I have noticed in the last few weeks the media is getting tougher on these Obama spokespeople.

    Look at Anderson, Tapper and that unbelievable Newsweek cover from this week.

    I would love to hear Romney say at one of the debates, “Excuse me Mr. President but I thought I was running against YOU, not Bill Clinton. And while we are at it, you are running against ME, not George Bush.”

    That would be a hoot.

  22. ” Check out the difference in the arms! One can only wonder at the ‘other’ difference’s!”

    Yes, indeed, Gonzotx! His arms are quite buff in the pics you provided. Gotta like a guy who works out. I actually have the abbreviated two-week P90X program — but it’s still in the box.

  23. VotingHillary, your suggestion is very much what Hillary Clinton said at one of the 2007 debates. Hillary reminded B.O. and his ally “moderator” that she was running for president not Bill Clinton. Your suggestion is particularly arch in light of that Hillary riposte.

  24. This may be of interest to some of you here.

    Liberals Need to Start Holding Obama Responsible for His Policies
    Conor Friedersdorf | Aug 22, 2012
    An interview with novelist Paul Auster shows how the left is incapable of attributing any blame for policies they dislike to the president.

    A spot-on Election 2012 parody recently published at Reason begins as follows: “The past several weeks have made one thing crystal-clear: Our country faces unmitigated disaster if the Other Side wins.” I though of it upon reading a Salon interview with novelist Paul Auster, whose foray into political commentary sums up what frustrates me about a certain kind of liberal. His remarks presume extraordinary bad faith on the part of right-wing Republicans while ascribing the best intentions to President Obama. The GOP-bashing makes Auster seem unserious. Really? Comparing the opposition to jihadists? Tom Friedman could craft a better metaphor.

    But a second mistake bothers me more, for Auster seems to care about the rule of law and human rights. He’s tangled with a lot of powerful people in proactive attempts to defend civil liberties. His devotion to Obama therefore exacts a high opportunity cost.

    What follows is the relevant excerpt from his interview. The boldfaced questions are posed by David Daley, Salon’s executive editor. Below them are the novelist’s answers. My commentary follows.

    There’s another passage I wanted to ask about. You write of having “manifold grievances against the evils and stupidities of modern American life,” and of the “ascendancy of the right, the injustices of the economy, the neglect of the environment, the collapsing infrastructure, the senseless wars, the barbarism of legalized torture and extraordinary rendition.” That is the sound of someone who must have complicated thoughts about President Obama.

    They are complicated.

    That you understand completely the magnitude of the problems he inherited, and the intransigence of the opposition he deals with …

    I know all this.

    But also thought there were things he would do, or never do —

    Like not close Guantanamo Bay.

    And drone strikes that he’s personally overseeing.

    Listen, when I voted for him, I knew I was voting for a moderate. His politics are not my politics, but he’s a hell of a lot closer to me than any of the others, so I’m vehemently behind him. I desperately want him to win. Has he disappointed me? Of course he’s disappointed me. Do I think he’s rather inept politically? Yes. I think he could’ve out-maneuvered those right-wingers. But he had this knighted notion that he could somehow bring everyone together, and he didn’t know that he was dealing with insane people. I think of the right-wing Republicans as jihadists; they’re as crazy as those people. They want to destroy the country that we want to save. And you know they’re not doing it with machine guns and bombs, but they’re doing it by electing insane people to enact insane legislation that is going to do as much damage to us as bombs would in the long run. So that’s my position. I’m for Obama, I wish he were different, but I know that, under the circumstances, he can’t be different. Anybody farther to the left would never have a chance of winning.

    So I’m respectful of Obama, but I think he’s a strange double-person, warm and cold, compassionate and indifferent, tough and soft, all at the same time. And I don’t really understand who he is.

    What I most want Auster and liberal who think like him to explain is why they think Obama “can’t be different … under the circumstances,” and their unsupported assertion that if he moved farther to the left he “would never have a chance of winning.” I can see why that would be comforting to a liberal who “desperately” wants a guy as illiberal as Obama to be reelected.

    But the facts suggest none of it is true.

    Barack Obama did win in 2008 running on a platform more liberal than the one he has pursued in the interim. Perhaps he couldn’t move any farther left on immigration or health care and stay viable. But on national security, executive power, and civil-liberties issues, he campaigned and won handily repudiating Bush-era policies, only to govern to the “right” of the Bush Administration.

    There wasn’t a political imperative to do so. And I’m tired of that truth being obscured.

    If liberals are going express horror at the GOP agenda as they enthusiastically support Obama’s reelection, it’s time for them to own his policies and stop trying to blame them on George W. Bush, or intransigent Republicans, or the financial crisis, or corporate campaign donations, or the desire to compromise, or an electorate that wasn’t ready for the allegedly “knighted” Obama.

    Barack Obama wasn’t pressured to be executioner-in-chief. He asserted himself as arbiter of which human beings to kill without trial, at times far from any battlefield, sometimes without even knowing their identities. He decided to limit congressional oversight and totally exclude the judiciary.

    House Speaker John Boehner didn’t define militants as all men of military age that American drones kill. The Obama Administration did that.

    Voters didn’t clamor for an unprecedented war on whistleblowers. The Obama Administration decided to wage it.

    An intransigent Congress didn’t force the Obama Administration to make frequent use of the state-secrets privilege, or to keep Bradley Manning in solitary confinement, or to keep secret the legal memo that outlines the theory behind his extrajudicial assassination of American citizens.

    No one made Obama violate the War Powers Resolution in Libya.

    The president wouldn’t suffer politically if he ordered the CIA to stop firing on rescuers who rush to the scene of drone strikes, or instructed the NSA to stop spying on the communications of American citizens suspected of no wrongdoing, or stopped turning military equipment over to police.

    The American public wasn’t clamoring for the naked body scans and genital pat-downs at the airport.

    If liberals like Auster think that President Obama is preferable to Mitt Romney, even given all his flaws, they’ve got a plausible argument. But when liberals who describe the right’s transgressions against civil liberties during the Bush era as horrific — a label that is absolutely justified — and nevertheless describe Obama as man with “knighted” notions, think his major problem is political ineptness, talk of respect for him, and desperately want him to win, I can’t understand it.

    Is his manner so agreeable that his actions count for nothing?

    If Mitt Romney is elected, I foresee a liberal establishment that suddenly rediscovers the problems with executive power, the alarming precedents being set in the War on Terrorism, and the legal arguments against various national security policies. Whereas if Obama wins a second term, I fully expect many liberals to keep on presuming that he is a well-intentioned man who must be doing the best he can on these issues (given Republican intransigence and political constraints).

    It took conservatives until several years into George W. Bush’s second term to see that their champion wasn’t in fact doing as well as could be expected given the circumstances. Liberals have a chance to confront the excesses of the man they’ve empowered sooner. The facts are right there.

    Seeing them is uncomfortable but vital.

  25. FYI for Foxy and anyone else that posted at CGP. It looks like the forum is back up, without any sort of explanation about why it was down.

  26. I loved looking at the pictures. Paul Ryan certainly is a hunk.

    But I also enjoyed seeing Romney’s photos. What a beautiful family he has. What a wonderful impression they make. Those pictures should be published across the nation.

  27. That reminds me – why are the networks refusing to cover the speech by Ann Romney? What do they have against her? Are they afraid the viewers might come to admire this courageous and beautiful lady?

    The republicans should change the date of her speech at the last minute. That would screw up the networks!

  28. Tdo: “Stopping the spending means stopping payrolls which stops jobs. You can’t have it both ways.”

    Unfortunately, you are right to say this. This is why the spending cannot be stopped from one day to the next, and it is why WJC said something like neither taxation nor spending should be stopped until we get this economy rolling again. It was hard for me to accept WJC’s statement at the time because it seemed to support Obama, but there is that simple formula you are expressing here.

    In the current perspective, though, Romney would probably not stop the spending abruptly but would work his way out of Obama’s tax & spend spiral, probably beginning by cutting corporate income tax. That’s as good a way as any other, I think.

  29. Gonzotx: “Admin, I don’t think he tore DWS to sheds…”

    Nor do I. In fact, as indefensible as DWS’ position is, I think she made a couple of good points and that she expresses herself very well: raises her a bit in my esteem.

  30. admin, thanks for your first post above in response to TheRealist. With regards to your outlook over the next few years and into 2016, we are on the same page. The only difference is that I am optimistic about the success of a Romney presidency, whereas you are neutral on this subject.

    I think we both agree, however, that if Romney is successful he will be popular and deserve re-election in 2016, and no Democrat, certainly no Dimocrat, will be able to beat him. That will not stop me, and supposedly us, from supporting Hillary in 2016 if she runs; but the prognosis looks bad for whoever is wearing a D on their shirt in 2016.

    My optimism about Romney is why I am not talking up a storm for Hillary 2016: Leave 2016 to some dazzling freshman D senator with a good speechwriter. The Clintons should spend their time over the coming 8 years re-building the party of FDR and wiping out the Chicago faction, for the good of the country and of the D party.

    As for your emphasis on principles and policies, I’m probably with you on the principles and might diverge on policy; but for the time being and forevermore my emphasis is on the character and competence of elected officials. This is because the Obama era has confirmed what I have always known: Corruption is the antithesis of character and competence; integrity is the essence of character and sincerity is the foundation of competence.

    The corrupt are the scourge of the planet. Obama is corrupt and must go. You have expressed this as “Obama simply cannot be trusted”. Of course a corrupt person cannot be trusted. A corrupt person is naturally incompetent and has no character.

    Romney/Ryan follow my ground rules: Whether or not their policies are better than the ones I would prefer is clearly secondary to me. I want to get this country back on track and only men of character and competence can do it. If I’m right in my judgment, the R/R team will be unbeatable in 2016 and the Ds can kiss that election goodbye.

  31. A good read, but wrong on two counts:

    1. first, I think he and others are looking for love in all the wrong places–if Tapper, Halperin and Todd are their sources. They are part of the problem, not the solution. Furthermore, he perceives their statements as admissions that something is fundamentally wrong. I do not think that is really what they are saying. With the exception of Halperin, I think they spend more time looking for ways to evade the question than conceding the ultimate point. Furthermore, if they were committed to the idea that this was a problem, then they would be proposing a solution, rather than saying they hope it does not happen again in 2012–which is the precatory statement Halperin gives.

    2. second, a fish rots from the head down. Any competent diagnostician knows that. Consequently, it is not the churchmice like Soledad who are the real problem. It is people like Phil Griffin head of MSNBC who is the problems. And they are the damnosa heritas of people like Imelt who along with his mentor Jack Welch converted the newsroom of NBC into an entity whose sole purpose was to elect a man who would advance GE’s interestes at the expense of honest journalism and at the expense of the country. If things were different they would not be the same. And in this case, if the top executives of big media were ethical people, which they are not, the talking heads we despise would be marching to a different drum. And that is an eternal verity of corporate life.

    Not the Behavior of a Winning Campaign

    Posted by Erick Erickson (Diary)

    Friday, August 24th at 4:46AM EDT

    The media keeps showing its rear end. Let me just make that clear. If you are a competent reporter, I’m not sure how you cannot be embarrassed by the majority of those in your profession right now covering politics.

    From Mark Halperin, to Jake Tapper, to Chuck Todd, more journalists are actually now admitting just how pliable the media is when it comes to Barack Obama’s spin. All week long, as the economy deteriorates, most every anchor at most every news outlet, most every editorialist in most every paper, and most every “centrist” and liberal pundit has been pointing out the GOP’s extremist abortion position.

    Few, if any, have pointed out that Barack Obama’s abortion on demand position is extreme. Few, if any, have pointed out how most Americans favor restrictions on abortion. Few, if any, have pointed out that Mitt Romney’s position is actually more mainstream than Barack Obama’s. Few, if any, have wanted to go beyond Politifact’s ham-handed cover for Obama on infanticide and get into what Barack Obama actually said in 2002. Hear him come out for infanticide yourself right here. Remember, the media is hiding behind the left-leaning Politifact (and yes, it does lean left) to avoid having to deal with this.

    They cannot help themselves. But why are they doing it?

    They are doing it for the exact same reason Joe Biden is claiming the GOP will put black people back in chains and why Barack Obama would rather talk about uteri than jobs — they all know Barack Obama is losing this thing.

    Hysteria creeps into campaigns when the campaigns know they are losing. When George H. W. Bush saw the election slipping away in 1992, he took to referring to Bill Clinton and Al Gore as Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum. The invective went up as his poll numbers went down.

    Barack Obama and the Democrats are going to throw in the towel on the tradition of sitting on the sidelines during their opponent’s political convention. In the past, the parties did this with each other. Not now. The Obama campaign cannot afford to. It is too close and polling is about to shift from registered voters to likely voters, which will generate negative numbers for him. He must surrender another tradition to engage in more hyper partisan mudslinging because he is losing.

    More and more polls are showing Mitt Romney trending upwards in swing states. More and more polls are showing Americans growing more pessimistic about the economy. More and more economists are starting to worry about the economy. Gas prices and milk prices are going up while take home pay is going down.

    The hysterics we are seeing from the Democrats come as reality hits everyone. Even I have been convinced that Romney was going to blow this thing. The stupid statement about the Soptics not having the fate they had if they were in Massachusetts could have been game over.

    But then Paul Ryan became the veep pick. He has now given Romney purpose. He has defined the campaign. He has put Barack Obama on defense. Consider this — the sage voices of the GOP were convinced the GOP could not win the fight on budgetary and entitlement reform. They were convinced Paul Ryan would sink the ticket.

    Then the Democrats tried to define Paul Ryan and failed. They have been failing ever since. Their attempts to define Mitt Romney didn’t do enough and they have yet to settle on a narrative to define Paul Ryan. They are grasping at straws. Now they’d even fight the Associated Press style book to try to go after Paul Ryan.

    And that gets us back to the media. At what point will they finally start asking if Barack Obama needs a campaign shake up? Because if it was Mitt Romney in the same boat, they sure as hell would. In fact, there have already been two different media cycles about Romney needing a campaign shake up and not one about Barack Obama.

    Why? The simple truth remains the vast majority of the media is more sympathetic to and friendly with Team Obama and would hate to ruffle the feathers of friends. It’s one of the greatest thing Mitt Romney has going for him right now.

  32. jeswezey
    August 24th, 2012 at 7:47 am
    I went to see him when he was in Bellvue the day before the Washington primary. What he said to the group in his speech at that time is he would take a hard look at every department of government, and every major activity they perform and ask one penetrating question: is this function so integral to government and so important to the general welfare that it is worth borrowing 40 cents on every dollar form China to fund it, said debt to be repaid by our children, grand children and great great grandchildren–essentially, a posterity which has no vote, as George Bernard Shaw described them. Is it right, it is decent, is it fair. Barack Hussein Obama has created millions of jobs which will be subjected to that test. Many of them will fail. And it is right that they should. Cronyism and a racial spoils system have no place in our economy, particularly in this sad chapter of history. The inevitable effect is people will lose their jobs, just as buggy whip makers did with the advent of the automobile and just as lumbermen did when the late Judge Dweyer decided to save the spotted owl. But the alternative for the country, of keeping jobs we do not need, which over regulate business who employ people who contribute to the economy, and adding to the debt problem which will eventually debase our currency, as it has done to every other nation in history who went down the Barack Hussein Obama path, should give pause to even the most stark enthusiast.

  33. VotingHillary
    August 24th, 2012 at 1:20 am

    I have noticed in the last few weeks the media is getting tougher on these Obama spokespeople.

    Look at Anderson, Tapper and that unbelievable Newsweek cover from this week.

    I would love to hear Romney say at one of the debates, “Excuse me Mr. President but I thought I was running against YOU, not Bill Clinton. And while we are at it, you are running against ME, not George Bush.”

    That would be a hoot


    Yes!!! VH it would be a hoot.
    He could even say.
    (I know Bill Clinton he is a friend of mine and You are NO Bill Clinton) 😆

  34. Mitt gets it!!! We must help small
    Business is in trouble and needs help . 🙂

    We’ve got to make it easier for small businesses,” Romney told a crowd of about 300 people at a high-dollar fundraiser in Minnesota. “Big business is doing fine in many places -they get the loans they need, they can deal with all the regulation. They know how to find ways to get through the tax code, save money by putting various things in the places where there are low tax havens around the world for their businesses. But small business is getting crushed.”

    Romney’s running mate Paul Ryan made similar comments in an interview earlier Friday, also in arguing for what the duo says would be a tax code more conductive to a competitive economic system.

  35. Don’t leave Hillary Clinton alone. Quote Hillary Clinton as much as possible. She is greatly admired too. Do we have to quote Sun-tzu and The Art Of War, to you? Hillary Clinton is a great sun, a brilliant light. Quote her. Quote her often.


    I totally agree Admin.And keep reminding people about how she was trashed by HER OWN PARTY. 👿

  36. Look at Anderson, Tapper and that unbelievable Newsweek cover from this week.
    The generals were quite content to follow Hitler when the war was going well for them. But now they are losing they are looking to save themselves.—Omar Shariff in Night of the Generals.

    These people launched the good ship Obama. They helped steer the vessel to the rocky shoal which has ripped open the hull. As the ship sinks their thoughts turn to saving themselves, in the vain hope that people will forget what they did.

    The truth is these people are rats, they carry the bubonic plague, and they deserve to go down with the ship. Let King Neptune hear their case, and decide where in Davey Jones locker they really belong.

    Or, let Comcast reinact The Death of Murat, en masse. Leno says the NBC people are expendable. Many a truth is said in jest. And the truth of the matter is best discerned at a distance where emotional appeals are less likely to influence sound decisionmaking. Let the drums roll and let the Devil’s tooth, i.e. guillotine do its appointed work.

  37. Jesweezy, I’m right there with you on the competence and character thing. Obama has shown us what an administration without either looks like. As we know, politics is a dirty business, and unfortunately, we have come to expect and accept too much corruption. Extreme partisanship and greed are the driving forces behind the corruption in government, and sleazy, dishonest campaign tactics, historically engaged in by both Republicans and Dems. Obama has taken this country to new low in this and many other ways. The total absence of character in Obama and his closest aides and advisers is demoralizing and heartbreaking.

    VH – good to see you again, and I think your suggestion is excellent. lol

  38. He could even say.
    (I know Bill Clinton he is a friend of mine and You are NO Bill Clinton
    Good idea.

  39. Has anyone here seen this movie??
    Not only has “2016: Obama’s America” earned more than $2 million at the box office so far – a very respectable figure for a documentary-style release – the movie is currently ranked number one in ticket sales at

    Breitbart News reached out to the movie mega-site and can report “2016″ ticket purchases represent 35 percent of all sales on the site.

  40. Max Jacobson (July 3, 1900 – December 1, 1979) was a German-born[1] New York physician, nicknamed “Dr. Feelgood”[2] who tended to Manhattan’s rich and famous after they wore out their welcome with psychiatrists in that venue. True to his name if not his calling, Dr. Feelgood administered amphetamines and other medications to several high profile clients which made them feel good, but in one case at least made them also die.

    In 2008, Barcrack Banana was Dr. Feelgood. He promised to heal everything that ails the country. And the suckers actually believed him. Their hour of redemption was at hand. And it was racist to even suggest, hey wait a minute, what do we know about this guy, other than the fact that he is a novice.

    In 2012, faced with a record he could not defend, the Doctor Feelgood mask came off, and what we see now is what was underneath it all the while, namely the Chicago Ghoul, the image of which we have all seen. Thus, it is harder for the rubes to find him likeable. So they drill down on Romney Ryan hate. They have nowhere else to turn.

  41. I think some people have to make a case for hating and fearing R/R in order to feel comfortable about pulling the lever for O. The best of two evils syndrome. They of course cannot justify pulling the lever based on accomplishments.

  42. jeswezey
    August 24th, 2012 at 7:48 am
    Gonzotx: “Admin, I don’t think he tore DWS to sheds…”

    Nor do I. In fact, as indefensible as DWS’ position is, I think she made a couple of good points and that she expresses herself very well: raises her a bit in my esteem.

    She is an idiot

  43. I want nothing to do with AARP. When they support Obamacare, including its $700 billion theft from seniors to support Obmacare, and the calls against it from their own constituents come in 14 to 1, but they turn a deaf ear to those objections, it becomes obvious that they are in the business of betraying rather than serving their constituents and supporting Obama.
    How AARP’s support for ObamaCare was bought and paid for
    By Phil Kerpen

    Published August 24, 2012

    In 1999, the American Association of Retired Persons officially changed its name to “AARP,” which has since officially stood for nothing. So it’s fitting that in the orgy of corrupt backroom deals that resulted in the president’s deeply unpopular health care law, the worst of all was cut by AARP, an insurance purveyor that used to be a seniors group. With Obama taking to the airwaves touting AARP support, it’s important to remember how the dirty deal was done.

    Seniors hated Obama’s bill, because they rightly feared its steep cuts to Medicare with no meaningful cost containment mechanism other than denial-of-care. Those cuts have already ballooned from an initial estimate of $500 billion to $700 billion, and additional cuts from the so-called Independent Payment Advisory Board are authorized without a vote of Congress.

    The last Rasmussen poll before the final House passage vote showed opposition to the law among seniors running at 59 percent, versus just 37 percent support, with strong opponents outnumbering strong supporters more than two to one.

    We now know, thanks to an investigative report by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, that opposition among AARP’s own membership was even more overwhelming. An e-mail from AARP lobbyists Nora Super to White House staffer Lauren Aronson on July 23, 2009 said: “We really need to talk. Our calls against reform are coming in 14 to one.”

    Yet a few months later, AARP was fully on board and officially supporting the very bill that was overwhelmingly opposed by its members. Indeed, so fully on board that Jim Messina (then a top White House staffer and now Obama’s campaign manager) sent AARP executive Nancy LeaMond a December 16, 2009 e-mail with the subject: “Now that byou [sic] support the bill (tomorrow am)” and the body: “Can we get immediate robo calls into Nebraska urging Nelson to vote for cloture?”

    AARP dutifully complied, and their pressure – along with the corrupt Cornhusker Kickback, convinced Ben Nelson to put the bill over the top.

    Why did AARP ignore the overwhelming opposition among seniors, calls from their own members running 14-1 against, and emotional town hall confrontations all over the country?


    AARP is in the business of selling insurance, and their offerings were uniquely well-positioned to benefit from the bill, because the steep cuts to Medicare Advantage would force beneficiaries into traditional fee-for-service Medicare, making them potential customers for AARP’s Medigap policies.

    An investigative report from the House Ways and Means Committee found: “The Democrats’ health care law, which AARP strongly endorsed, could result in a windfall for AARP that exceeds over $1 billion during the next 10 years.”

    That’s a billion reasons for AARP to betray seniors and support Obama’s bill.

    The report found that while AARP offers a Medicare Advantage plan through United Healthcare, it does so under a flat-fee licensing agreement that would give the company the same revenue even following savage cuts to Medicare Advantage.

    Its Medigap policies, on the other hand, are its biggest cash cow and AARP makes money with every policy sold. It was a win-win for AARP’s bottom line, but at a devastating cost to the seniors it pretends to represent.

    Sweetening the deal for AARP, the bill created a special, AARP-specific carve-out exempting its Medigap policies from the rate regulations applied to its competitors.

    In light of this betrayal, my friend Jim Martin of the 60 Plus Association, a fiscally conservative seniors group, has suggested that AARP ought to once again be an abbreviation: the Association Against Retired Persons.

    Sounds right to me.

    Phil Kerpen is president of American Commitment and author of “Democracy Denied

  44. When Obama speaks of the middle class he means unions.

    When the rest of us speak of the middle class, we mean the middle class.

  45. She is an idiot
    Wasserman Schultz is a mere Rabinical automoton with as much mental give and take as a scottish terrier watching a rathole. She can do nothing more than parrot dimocrat party talking points, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. It is pointless to interview her, because she does not answer the questions. She just parrots the same lies. What a wack jog she is. If Putin ever gets the old Soviet Union going again, she would make a good commissar.

  46. Among the women who have either lived, worked or grew up in New York City on the annual list include Lady Gaga, who came in at 14, and famed fashion designer Diane von Furstenberg, who was ranked 33.

    Susan L. Harper, the president of the Financial Women’s Association of New York, said she wasn’t surprised that so many of Gotham’s women made the list because the city serves as an incubator for leaders to thrive and shine.

    “We produce leaders and that’s well known,” Harper said. “Women are in the pipeline and ready to move into these leadership positions.”

    Forbes ranked the women using several factors, including their industry, how much revenue they helped generate and their media presence.

    After Clinton, who was New York’s junior senator from 2001 to 2009, the next-highest ranking woman with Big Apple ties was New York Times executive director Jill Abramson, a native New Yorker who came in at No. 5.

    Pauline Kehm, the president of the American Women’s Business Association’s New York City chapter, noted that the list was extraordinary not only because the women on it are leaders in various fields, but also because many of them have reached high career points later in life.

    “It sends a great message to young women,” she said. “You don’t have to rush to be successful and you can continue to have that success longer.”


    After Vice President Joe Biden infamously told an audience that Mitt Romney is “going to unchain Wall Street,” and concluded they are “going to put y’all back in chains,” Mr. Romney’s campaign cried foul. This was an obvious and unfair allusion to slavery, Mr. Romney’s surrogates argued.

    Well, count veteran Congressman Charlie Rangel among Mr. Biden’s critics on the Democratic side of the aisle.

    “The Vice President said he’s going to put “y’all in chains,” Mr. Rangel told The Perez Notes in a recent free-wheeling interview. “Was he talking about slavery? You bet your ass he was. Was he using the vernacular? Yes, he was. Did he think it was cute? Yes, he did. Was it something stupid to say? You bet your life it was stupid.”

  48. The Age of Fake continues:

    President Obama’s Twitter account has 18.8 million followers — but more than half of them really don’t exist, according to reports.

    A new Web tool has determined that 70% of Obama’s crowd includes “fake followers,” The New York Times reports in a story about how Twitter followers can be purchased.

    “The practice has become so widespread that StatusPeople, a social media management company in London, released a Web tool last month called the Fake Follower Check that it says can ascertain how many fake followers you and your friends have,” the Times reports.

    “Fake accounts tend to follow a lot of people but have few followers,” said Rob Waller, a founder of StatusPeople. “We then combine that with a few other metrics to confirm the account is fake.”

    The author says he regrets his vote in favor of Obama care. Although ratboy Todd asks Webb that very question, i.e. do you regret etc. and he denies it, it is obvious from the rest of his answer that he feels the program itelf was a political and policy mistake, caused by the failure of the White House to provide leadership, and to articulate a coherent set of principles upon which the proposed reform would occur. Instead, the entire program which was labelled reform was driven by health care industrry lobbyists determined to squeeze the last dime out of taxpayers. The same thing can be said about the Dodd Frank financial reform package, which Webb voted for was written by financial industry lobbyists to cover up their raid on the treasury and to fend off legitimate reform efforts like Glass Steegle, which would have protected taxpayers. Both were supported by Obama, and touted as reform when they were nothing more than payola to his contributors. These predators adore Obama. Where else are they going to find the kind of whore who can bamboozle his constitutents, steal them blind and have big media literally kiss his ass?

  50. Even in the most right wing places there are I/E Republicans/conservatives. In this article from Ace of Spades LauraW does the I/E smart thing and separates Obama from Clinton (Carter even) instead of doing the usual E/I of damning all “Demoncrats”. We applaud heartily the understanding implicit here that there are “Obama liberals” as opposed to “liberals”. Next thing you know they’ll be referring to “Obama Dimocrats” and “Hillary Democrats”.

    A tweet from CBS’s White House reporter this morning.

    Obama Campaign says Romney’s career at Bain Capital “was not about creating jobs, it was about creating profits.”
    — Mark Knoller (@markknoller) August 24, 2012

    I’ll leave the logical smackdown to you in comments, darling Morons.

    Can you imagine Clinton, or even Carter, coming out and making such an idiotic statement? No way.

    But these are not your ordinary liberals. These are Obama Liberals, the most caring, supercharged liberals; the razor’s edge, the smartest people in the room.

    Obama Liberals have the cheek to come out, in public, and essentially proclaim “We have no idea where all the money or jobs come from!! WHEEE!!”

    They are pandering to their base, which is dumb people.

    The reason they think they can get away with saying this stupid thing, in public, is that they believe most Americans are too dim to spot the error of understanding in that statement.

    Therefore the statement, as well as the expectation that no one will point out that it is in fact f*cktarded, is an implicit insult to the intelligence of all Americans.

    And fortunately, that is where their main ignorance lies. They do not understand you, America.

    John E. writes:

    The other part that I take away from Obama’s statement is that he believes the word “profits” is widely regarded as a “bad word”, but of course it isn’t. This a pretty obvious anti-capatilist view that is only held by his most collectivist supporters, and not by the American public. The mask slips yet again.


  51. “Money.

    AARP is in the business of selling insurance,”
    Looked at that when AARP shilled for Obamacare…..10 years prior, 10% of their revenue was from their insurance scams, now it’s 90%.

  52. Roseanne lost the Green Party nomination to Jill Stein. Roseanne has teamed up with antiwar activist Cindy Sheehan the Peace and Freedom Party ticket.


    I’m for Jill. But fyi enemies of Pelosi, Cindy is a big enemy of Pelosi also, ran against her for Dem house seat in 2010.

  53. A sceptic might ask why should the American People defer to Obama and his entourage when by any objective measure the country is sinking on their watch? An apologist might well answer because they went to Harvard. To which the skeptic might respond, if you are saying we should defer because they went to Harvard I disagree. If you are saying that the country is failing for that reason, then you are probably on to something. There is, after all, a to the manor borne attitude prevalent among Harvard people which leads them to patterns of failure, because they are too arrogant to accept feedback from reality. When you went to Harvard, you either were or became smarter than everyone else. That being the case, why should you listen to anyone else, unless they too went to Harvard?

  54. keeping jobs we do not need, which over regulate business who employ people who contribute to the economy, and adding to the debt problem which will eventually debase our currency, as it has done to every other nation in history who went down the Barack Hussein Obama path, should give pause to even the most stark enthusiast.


    At least this admits they’re not really about “jobs, jobs” but about other issues. And the cuts the GOPs have been making in states they control are not cutting jobs of ‘regulators’, they’re cutting firemen, police, teachers, librarians, and the women clerks where you wait in line to get your license plates.

  55. Whether or not their policies are better than the ones I would prefer is clearly secondary to me. I want to get this country back on track and only men of character and competence can do it.


    That’s how I felt about Palin (tho her actions as Governor weren’t that much opposed to my preferences, she being more centrist and conciliatory). But I don’t see Romney as showing Palin’s qualities. And his campaign is quite dirty by my standards.

  56. In the current perspective, though, Romney would probably not stop the spending abruptly [….]


    In that case, he’d have to fight the GOP faction whose state legislators HAVE cut local government spending abruptly (thus producing the loss of women’s jobs for which the GOP is now blaming Obama).

  57. the Dodd Frank financial reform package, which Webb voted for was written by financial industry lobbyists to cover up their raid on the treasury and to fend off legitimate reform efforts like Glass Steegle, which would have protected taxpayers.


    We might get more detail on this differnce through the websites of Elizabeth Warren (who wants to revive Glass Steagal) and Scott Brown (who favors Dodd Frank).

  58. When Obama speaks of the middle class he means unions.

    When the rest of us speak of the middle class, we mean the middle class.


    What percentage of the middle class are in unions, or retired on pensions from union work?

    What percentage of union members are above the middle class?

  59. foxyladi14
    August 24th, 2012 at 12:29 pm

    Foxy, I think Forbes got it right with Hillary. A peerless leader. But that was obvious. The rest of the hyperventillation is a bit of a stretch–but typical of the kind of hyperbole we see at public events. Therefore, let me take a stab at bursting their bubble . . .

    If New York is the incubator for great leaders, then how does one explain Mayor Bloomie, Reverend Al, and Hit Her With A Two By Four Schumer–the man with the teenie weenie, the greasy handshake and the plastic smile that mesmerizes blue haired ladies who vote for him. The problem is further compounded by selecting Jill Abramson if NYT as great leaders when there is nothing great or leader-like about her, other than the fact that she climbed the corporate ladder, and shows up for charity events, and lets her newspaper descend into Hades.

    But in a world where girliemon Obama thinks he is Satchell Paige on the pitcher’s mound–or worse yet, President of the United States, magic thinking is clearly in the ascendent. Satchell was a great athlete, a legitmate hero and a man of character. Obama is none of these things.

  60. Speaking of Jill Stein (Green Party nominee maybe), here’s a criticism she makes against Obama:
    Obama cleared path for Ryan; Greens offer only alternative to austerity agenda, say Stein, Honkala
    AUG 14, 2012
    In elevating deficit reduction to his highest priority and setting up the deficit reduction supercommittee in 2011, President Obama made it clear that benefits programs were on the chopping block and that he would negotiate with Republicans on how to curtail them. Now, Representative Paul Ryan’s budget is in the spotlight, which also threatens services that millions of Americans depend on.

    “Ryan’s extreme budget ideas were rejected by Congress, including many of his own Republican colleagues,” said Stein. “Americans value Medicare and Social Security, and do not want to be the sacrificial lambs for deficit reduction, especially when they see the massive waste in the private health insurance industry, the bloated Pentagon budget, and the backroom Wall Street bailouts.”

  61. If Romney wants to win he must show he is not afraid, of Obama or Big Media. This is a good start which the Obama campaign will exploit but which gets into Obama’s head and busts his ego:

    It’s not about the content of the remarks, it’s about showing fight and punching back hard.

  62. “A sceptic might ask why should the American People defer to Obama and his entourage when by any objective measure the country is sinking on their watch? An apologist might well answer…”
    A Black Socialist answers the apologists:

    Fletcherism and Fakery: Guarding Obama’s Left Flank

    “Bill Fletcher and Carl Davidson are two Left opportunists with a problem. Unlike four years ago, when Fletcher co-founded Progressives for Obama, their guy now has a record – and it is indefensible. Solution: nullify the issues right up front in the title to their reworked rationale for backing the Bill of Rights-destroying, Wall Street-protecting, Africa-bombing, regime-changing corporate Democrat.”
    ” The great tragedy of the Obama era, is that his presence has had the effect of shutting down progressive – and, most dramatically, Black – opposition to the prevailing order. This does not happen by the magic of charisma. Political operatives identified with the Left work diligently to maintain such silence – people like Fletcher and Davidson, who are once again guarding the left flank for Obama, whose great legacy has been to create vast political space for Wall Street and the Pentagon, with a minimum of resistance from white progressives, Blacks and the rest of the Democratic base.

    That’s why we at BAR call Obama the more effective evil. “

  63. I agree. No self respecting socialist would claim ownership of this jackass. They see through him as well. I will tell you right now what he is. He is the kind of shill crony capitalists always look for. Not merely a politician who stays bought but one who will raid the public treasury for them, and deflect the blame to others. In addition, he is the mascot of wealthy white liberals, which enables them to thead the needle between their rapaciousness, and their guilty conscience. And if he steals a little swag for himself and Michelle along the way, it is contra bonus mores to make mention of it. All hail the messiah, turn loose the cannibals, and let the feeding frenzie begin.

  64. No self respecting socialist would claim ownership of this jackass. They see through him as well. I will tell you right now what he is. He is the kind of shill crony capitalists always look for. Not merely a politician who stays bought but one who will raid the public treasury for them, and deflect the blame to others.


    And most important, he hijacks the real reform groups and pushes out the sincere leaders (eg Hillary), and leads the parade along to a deadend harmless to the Daleys etc.

  65. CNN NBC and ABC have something that liberals accused Nixon of having, namely a credibility gap. It renders them hypocritical and deceptive to millions of Americans. And it would be so easy for them to cure it. They could borrow a chapter from the pages of Alcoholics Anonomous, and admit their addiction to Obama. Towit:

    “My name is Soledad Obrien, Wolf Blitzer, David Gergen, Jeff Toobin, Jack Cafferty, Rolly Polly Candy Crowley inter alia, and I like the rest of my peers am an Obamaholic. For him I will lie cheat steal twist the truth savage opponents and do whatever is necessary to bamboozle the American People, for whom I have no respect, into repeating the mistake of ’08, so help me god.”

    As Forrest Gump would say: honesty is the best policy.

  66. Sleeping last night? Does that mean she did not recall interiewing Trump? Or is it meant to suggest that she is not dreaming now. The little laugh toward the end as she drills down on the same point reveals how stupid she is. On that point, it is easy to laugh at her, and impossible to laugh with her.

  67. Again, the wisdom of Forrest Gump sheds important light on the subject matter at hand, in this case, Soledad: “stupid is as stupid does”.

  68. jeswezey
    August 24th, 2012 at 12:07 pm

    foxyladi14: Good pic!


    Thanks luv.And please call me Foxy all my friends do 🙂

  69. wbboei: “No self respecting socialist would claim ownership of this jackass. They see through him as well.”

    Thanks for recognizing me.

  70. “CNN NBC and ABC have something that liberals accused Nixon of having, namely a credibility gap.”
    I am not sure what to call Obots, “progressives”, Dims, etc. but they sure aren’t Liberals.
    The “power structure” of the Dim wing of the Uni-Party has purged liberals to the point of near extinction. IMO, “modern”humans, by the fact that they survived (over survived??) for >100,000 years are, by nature, are conservative. However, there needs to be a “Liberal” faction that is willing and able to look at problems in new ways and try new “things”. That is now near extinction in our politics. Both wings are conservative, spouting, old, tired rhetoric left over from the late 19th and 20th century inorder to pander to their respective “bases”. Even if Obama is one term, he has done what he was appointed to do; maintain the politics of bribes and extortion for personal gain; screw the Country.

  71. admin
    August 24th, 2012 at 1:01 pm
    The Age of Fake continues:

    President Obama’s Twitter account has 18.8 million followers — but more than half of them really don’t exist, according to reports.

    Just wait until he has 14 billion twitter followers, that will seal the deal.

  72. Mitt Romney’s birth certificate “joke” has several targets. Yes, it definitely gets under Obama’s skin. It also gets the MSM in an outrage, which helps change the subject. But Romney knows that the majority of swing voters in swing states are suspicious of Obama’s documentation. This was a very deliberate remark by Romney. Notice the reference to hospitals? Neither of the two hospitals in Honolulu which have been credited with hosting BO’s birth will claim the honor. I’m sure Mitt knows that. There is a reason Donald Trump is on the stump. Millions of people share these questions.

  73. You think the media would have let Bush slide on this? Yeah, me neither.
    Barack Obama: ‘I’d advise that you talk to General McRaven, who’s in charge of our Special Ops. I think he has a point of view in terms of how deeply I care about what these folks do each and every day to protect our freedom.’

    The difficulty with this is that William McRaven is and admiral not a general. As a SEAL, he is member of the US Navy, not US Army or US Marines.

    For servicemen, ranks are important – they have worked hard and, in many cases, risked their lives, to earn them. And it’s one thing to omit a rank and another to botch the rank of the highest-ranking Special Forces operator in the country.

  74. Foxyladi14, Ann Romney’s “the promise of America” line is sure to be repeated next week. It’s a good line. Sounds like “morning in America”. Mitt should make sure this is in his speech and everyone else’s.

  75. I saw ‘2016’ this afternoon. It’s really a well done film. Everything was taken from interviews and audio clips. A lot of the information is known – at least to those who have been paying attention – but when it is all put together and presented in one movie, the result is frightening.

    I would not only recommended it, but I would suggest that all of you see it before the election. It is an important film.

  76. admin
    August 24th, 2012 at 5:22 pm

    Foxyladi14, Ann Romney’s “the promise of America” line is sure to be repeated next week. It’s a good line. Sounds like “morning in America”. Mitt should make sure this is in his speech and everyone else’s.


    Oh I am sure that will be.
    And please call me Foxy all my friends do. 🙂

  77. HE doesn’tknow the Navy has admirals and the army has generals? The capacity to know these thing doesn’t exist in Ozero’s head. He’s too busy worring about abortions and sterilization. plus birth control for Sandra Fluke fluje me good. 😯

  78. HE doesn’tknow the Navy has admirals and the army has generals? The capacity to know these thing doesn’t exist in Ozero’s head. He’s too busy worring about abortions and sterilization. plus birth control for Sandra Fluke fluke me good. 😯

  79. Home town boy makes good:

    Greeted by more than 9,100 people at the Long Family Orchard Farm and Cider Mill in a festival-like atmosphere, the Michigan-born Romney said the support brought “a tear to my eye.”
    He recalled his roots growing up in Michigan and falling in love with wife, Ann, here. Ann Romney was born at Henry Ford Hospital, Romney said, and he arrived at Harper Hospital in Detroit.
    “No one’s ever asked to see my birth certificate,” Romney said to cheers. “They know this is the place where we were born and raised.”

  80. Bravo — this is a brilliant analysis. I am so looking forward to reading your review of Bill Clinton’s DNC speech.

    Also, in that ad, Bill Clinton makes 2 points that highlights Obama’s failures: 1) mentions “a plan” that doesn’t exist; and, 2) draws attention to his record. Clinton is the master, Obama is an obvious amateur.

  81. No John. She is not embarassed. Soledad does not have the common sense to be embarrassed. Snippy snippy snippy. By her lights, it is not enough for Romney to say he believes Obama was born in the United States. He must go further and call his supporter Donald Trump a heretic for contending otherwise. But in her view, Obama has no reciprocal obligation to repudiate Mahr for his attacks on women. With her and her employer the gate swings one way.

    And then there is that moment of triumph when Sunnu admits for the first time on the record that Trump is wrong. At that point she laughs, sticks out her tongue and wiggles her ears, onl the cameramen at CNN decided it was best to delete that part. If you are a big Soldad O’Brien fan like I am, I want to see everything. Not really. But if they ever do a re-make Grease, Soledad should audition for the role of The Teenage Brat. Not Chacha de Gregorio (Annette Charles). Soledad lacks the maturity and the voltage for that part.

    Finally, while she is keen to accuse Romeny of not getting rid of Trump for claiming Obama was not born in this country, she is unwilling to tell Obama to get rid of Burton and Cutter for calling Romney a murderer and a felon. Which is worse? Nor did she deny Sununu’s charge that she is reading the Obama campaign talking points which were distributed to her the day before. This is one of those cases where silence is consent.

  82. foxyladi14,

    Women’s health and contracetin are a big concern of Hillary’s. Your language degrades all women.

  83. There is no down side.
    1) It changes the narrative
    2) It forces the media and Obama to defend and sputter
    3) Americans get a joke, liberals don’t; most Americans will wonder why the left is so outraged over a joke.
    4) Anger never, ever gets you votes; this hurts Obama’s image.
    5) Romney looks like the happy, jocular guy; Obama the whining, pouting passive-aggressive bitch.
    6) Obama never–not once–got more popular or more liked during the height of the “birther” controversy. In fact, the more this is an issue the more Americans are reminded, “Hey, there was nothing there but he still made a big deal about hiding it: This guy likes to hide stuff.”

  84. Strassel: The Silent Second-Term Agenda Despite the Democrats’ shellacking in 2010, the president moved left. Re-election in November will reinforce his view that he was correct to do so.


    President Obama has a reputation for talking, but not necessarily for saying much. He has achieved new levels of vagueness this election season. Beyond repeating that he’s in favor of making the “rich” pay for more government “investment,” he hasn’t offered a single new idea for a second term. This is deliberate.

    The core of the Obama strategy is to make Americans worry that whatever Mitt Romney does, it will be worse. That’s a harder case for Mr. Obama to make if he is himself proposing change. And so the Obama pitch is that this election is a choice between stability (giving Mr. Obama four more years to let his policies finally work) and upheaval (giving Mr. Romney four years to re-ruin the nation).

    The pitch is profoundly dishonest. While the choice between four more years of Obama status quo and Mr. Romney is certainly vivid, it isn’t accurate. The real contrast is between Mr. Romney’s and Mr. Obama’s future plans. And while the president hasn’t revealed what those plans are, there is plenty of evidence for what a second term would look like.

    Let’s dispense with the obvious: An Obama second term will be foremost about higher taxes and greater spending. The president has been clear about the former and will consider victory in November a mandate to raise taxes on higher-income Americans and small businesses—at the least.

    Meanwhile, no matter how the coming budget sequester sorts out, nobody should forget why it came into being: It was the result of Mr. Obama’s refusal to consider any real changes to Social Security or Medicare. There will be no reason to budge in a second term. Absent reform to these drivers of debt, and given Mr. Obama’s ambitions to further “invest” in education, energy and infrastructure, a second term means proposals for even broader and bigger tax hikes—and not just for his favorite targets. Continued and growing deficits are likely as well.

    Most voters understand that a second Obama term means the continuation of ObamaCare and the Dodd-Frank financial regulations. But there is also the carte blanche that re-election will give the president to supercharge those laws, which are only now entering key rulemaking periods. The same Obama appointees who have already taken vast liberties with these laws (see: HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’s ObamaCare slush fund) will be crafting the new regulations. The bureaucrats will also have four more years to put in place key civil servants who can be counted on to keep the rules going even past an Obama administration.

    It is likely the Supreme Court will offer up another vacancy, and Mr. Obama might finally have his chance to shift the balance of the court. A slew of appellate-court positions are also in limbo as the campaign proceeds; they would be filled by a second-term Obama.

    Just as important are the things Mr. Obama will not do. His record gives no indication he will revive America’s leadership in free trade. Nor is he likely to restore America’s influence in the international arena. And so we will inch closer to a nuclear-armed Iran and the threats that the regime will pose to international peace and order.

    None of this is hyperbole. Mr. Obama is open about his tax aims, is proud of his spending and has never apologized for his regulatory ambitions. Despite a shellacking in the midterms, he moved left, and a November victory will reinforce his sense that he was correct to do so.

    While Democrats will take careful pains in coming convention weeks to avoid outlining the president’s intentions, they are sitting in plain sight. The real choice this fall will be between Mitt Romney’s reform agenda and a Supersized Obama. No wonder the Democrats are keeping mum.

  85. Despite the Democrats’ shellacking in 2010, the president moved left. Re-election in November will reinforce his view that he was correct to do so.


    Dunno about Obama, but if the Democratic party is to get back to the policies of the Clintons/FDR, a real move to the left is the correct direction. AWay from the DINO fake fascism in leftist clothing of Obama’s policies.

  86. $300 million is alot of money . . . to persuade persuadables who have not been persuaded yet that it is madness to re-hire Obama.

    How to Beat President Obama The man who runs the American Crossroads Super PAC on targeting ‘the persuadables’ with precise messages on welfare, ObamaCare and the economy Steven Law

    Wall Street Journal

    To political pros, they are known as “the persuadables.” By Nov. 6, swing voters in a handful of states will decide whether to rehire Barack Obama. Right now, no one’s studying these voters more closely than Steven Law, president of American Crossroads. Mr. Law, who aims to spend $300 million to defeat Mr. Obama and liberalism generally, likes what he sees.

    The 52-year-old former Republican Senate aide says that centrist voters are moving away from the president. The sense that President Obama is “a fine person” but lacks the ability to solve the country’s problems “has only widened and deepened with people in the middle.” Undecided voters “are among the people who are the most sour about the economy and how Obama’s doing his job,” Mr. Law adds. Meanwhile, these voters see Mitt Romney as “a guy who fixes things.”

    Given that Mr. Obama holds slight leads in several national polls and in key battlegrounds, Mitt Romney seems a long way from closing the sale. But “we feel pretty optimistic,” says Mr. Law. Polls have barely budged in recent months even though “President Obama and his various minions have dumped $100-plus million” of negative ads on Mr. Romney. Meanwhile, “public confidence in Obama’s management of the economy has just cratered.”

    Related Video

    American Crossroads president Steven Law on how Republicans can win the White House. Photos: Getty Images
    Assuming that’s true, how do Republicans translate it into a Romney victory? Voters in presidential elections essentially face two decisions. The first is whether they’re willing to replace the president. Americans seem to be moving toward a “yes” on that one. While Mr. Obama holds razor-thin leads in almost every swing state, his support is below 50% in all of them.

    But now comes the second decision: Even if voters are willing to fire the president, is the challenger an acceptable alternative? Americans aren’t so sure. Mitt Romney’s task, especially at his party’s convention starting Monday, is to define himself in a way that’s “very different than the caricature” that appears in Obama attack ads.

    Mr. Law says Mr. Romney is fortunate that the president has focused on character assaults. If Democrats had persuaded voters that Mr. Romney’s agenda was wrong for the country, the perception would be hard to change at this stage of the campaign. But, says Mr. Law, when Mr. Romney presents evidence that he’s a “decent, competent, successful” person, the “negatives can fall away very quickly.”

    The persuadables encompass roughly 8% of American voters who call themselves undecided, plus perhaps another 3% on each side who are leaning toward one candidate but potentially available to the other side. Mr. Law is working on the people who swung left four years ago: “When we do focus groups, we only talk to people in the middle who voted for Obama in 2008 but are undecided.”

    Mr. Law says their votes this fall will be driven in part by the summer of 2011. “The debt-limit fight of last July was much more of an important catalytic moment in the progress of the Obama presidency than most people focus on. In our own polling and focus-group research, that was the inflection point at which people began to seriously doubt whether President Obama had the skills necessary to solve the most important problems.” Swing voters viewed the Beltway stalemate, which culminated in a downgrade of the U.S. credit rating, as “a sour, lousy process,” one that Mr. Obama “was an unhelpful part of.”

    Enlarge Image

    Terry Shoffner
    The Crossroads chief believes that the president’s greatest vulnerability is that he is “increasingly perceived as a deliverer of controversy. What he produces is controversy and fights and clashes. What he doesn’t produce is the result that people want. And when people look at Romney they look at somebody who doesn’t strike them as terribly ideological and if he has a fault, that’s it, right?”

    It may seem easy to dismiss all this as Republican spin. Mr. Law is, after all, the man who teamed with Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie to build the Super PAC that MSNBC loves to hate. But judging by the way Barack Obama is campaigning, he appears to concur with much of Mr. Law’s analysis. The president’s rhetorical attacks on business and the wealthy, and his promotion of loan subsidies for college students and higher spending generally, seem designed to turn out his base voters rather than persuade moderates that he can create jobs. Mr. Obama’s television ads suggest that he is not so much hopeful of winning over undecided voters as he is trying to convince them to despise the challenger.

    It might work. After the financial crisis, voters may be willing to dislike a wealthy financier. But Mr. Law is skeptical. “I don’t think that the class-warfare push works as well right now as it did last year.” He adds that, according to some of his group’s recent research, “people seem to be increasingly in a mood for problems to get fixed. And the ideological filter or the class filter is becoming less interesting.” Meanwhile, “Romney’s best calling card is that he’s somebody who dispassionately fixes problems.”

    Mr. Law thinks that the president’s demand for higher taxes on the wealthy may benefit Republicans, because a big class war “may feel kind of irrelevant” to the working person who just wants the economy to improve.

    The Crossroads chief says he was surprised when he recently tested an Obama ad called “The Choice” with swing voters. In the ad, Mr. Obama speaks directly to camera. In a calm and reassuring voice, the president claims that Mr. Romney wants to help the wealthy while the Obama plan is to make the rich pay more to fund education and other priorities. Mr. Law thought the ad might be a winner for the president. But voters told him they had heard it all before from Mr. Obama. “I was shocked,” says Mr. Law.

    “On the other hand swing voters are not necessarily fans of capitalism,” he says. They tend to have negative views of big business in particular. Yet they trust Mr. Romney more than Mr. Obama on the economy, presumably because of his business background.

    American Crossroads and other conservative groups enrage the left because they are able to raise unlimited funds and therefore match the spending power of unions. Mr. Law says he expects “rough parity” in this election, with the right and left each spending about $500 million through independent groups outside the two parties.

    Left-leaning groups will likely continue to attack Mr. Romney for his business career and resulting wealth. But Mr. Law says his group doesn’t plan to raise any personal issues, such as Mr. Obama’s pre-presidential associations with radical figures. “We’ve never put a Jeremiah Wright thing in front of focus groups, but my sense is that people would heavily discount previous data. They’re going to judge him from the last election and what he’s done.”

    Swing voters are “resistant” to the idea that Mr. Obama is radical or ideological, although Mr. Law believes that the administration’s relaxation of work requirements in federal welfare rules could change that perception. “You can tell they’re landing punches,” he says of the Romney campaign’s recent effort to raise this issue.

    But the punches have to be targeted very carefully. Recent focus groups have convinced Mr. Law that the issue is “definitely resonating now with swing voters, including those who were Obama voters in 2008.” And yet, he adds, “We also picked up conflicting emotions: The economy is so lousy for middle-income Americans that the same people who chafe at the rise of welfare dependency under Obama don’t automatically default to a ‘get-a-job’ attitude—because they know there are no jobs.”

    Mr. Law concludes that welfare reform could be a “powerful issue to talk about this fall, but it needs to be done sensitively. Right now it may be more of an economic issue than a values issue: In other words, more people on welfare is another disturbing symptom of Obama’s broken-down economy, rather than an indictment of those who are on welfare or the culture as a whole.”

    Among the other campaign issues, “the mother lode is economic insecurity.” That will be the focus of Crossroads advertising. New GOP vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan, with his history of promoting pro-growth tax reform, can help “add texture to a robust economic argument.” The Ryan pick also symbolizes “a newfound aggressiveness with the Romney campaign, and that’s very welcome.”

    What about the most controversial aspect of the Obama presidency? Mr. Law says that Republicans have to be careful not to assume that simply calling for the repeal of ObamaCare will move votes. Many voters have a vague sense that the 2010 law brings too much government into health care and that it passed “under unseemly circumstances,” but they need to know the specific impact on their families before they will base their votes on it.

    Mr. Law says the best opening for the GOP is to show that President Obama’s promise that those who like their health plans can keep them “is patently false.” With many employers now saying in surveys that they will drop coverage under the new law, there is now a concrete message for the GOP: “The health care that you currently depend on—and have at least a reasonably good feeling about—will not be there. You will be dumped in a government pool.”

    For older voters, he likes the Romney camp’s focus on the planned reduction in Medicare spending growth that is contained in ObamaCare. There is also an opening to talk about the law’s new rationing board, known as IPAB, or what Mr. Law calls “the board of unelected bureaucrats that can restrict seniors’ care.”

    As for younger voters, Democrats are trying to figure out how to get them to show up as they did in 2008. A recent Crossroads TV ad targeting such voters asks, “What happened to Barack Obama?” As Mr. Law describes it, the spot contrasts the inspiring message of a 2008 Obama speech with the president’s current habit of running “ads that independent news sources say are riddled with falsehoods.”

    Mr. Law expects Democrats to try to motivate youngsters by painting Mr. Romney as extreme on social and environmental issues. In contrast to 2008, Mr. Obama “is going to have to scare them somehow, not enthuse them.”

    To sum up, Mr. Obama is losing independents, his base is less enthusiastic, the economy stinks, and his re-election depends on his ability to convince people that a Massachusetts moderate is a right-wing ideologue. Also, Mr. Obama won’t have the money edge that he enjoyed over John McCain in 2008.

    Yet many polls still show the president with a lead—and an edge on the electoral map.

    Mr. Law lays out the big caveat to any optimistic GOP scenario. “The toughest part of this election is that Obama can afford to lose Virginia, Ohio, North Carolina, Indiana and Florida and still win the election.”

    Those states often go Republican, but Mr. Obama won them in 2008. With fewer than 75 days before the election, Mr. Law says the Republicans must begin to move some of them into the Romney column, and he is encouraged by recent polling. “We’ve overrun their defenses in Indiana, but we’re also breaching the walls in Virginia and North Carolina,” he says. “We still have some distance to go in Florida and Ohio.”

    He also sees positive trends for Republicans in states that Mr. Obama should have been able to count on, such as Iowa. “Plus we are coming behind their flanks in Wisconsin,” where Mr. Law sees Mr. Romney ahead, as well as in Michigan and Pennsylvania, where the challenger now is “just a few points behind.”

    “We’re really starting to gain ground on the economy,” says Mr. Law as he tries to turn the “persuadables” into the persuaded.

    Mr. Freeman is assistant editor of the Journal’s editorial page.

  87. Mr. Obama’s refusal to consider any real changes to Social Security or Medicare.


    Dare we hope?

  88. Mr. Obama’s refusal to consider any real changes to Social Security or Medicare.


    Dare we hope?

  89. Mr. Law says Mr. Romney is fortunate that the president has focused on character assaults. If Democrats had persuaded voters that Mr. Romney’s agenda was wrong for the country, the perception would be hard to change at this stage of the campaign. But, says Mr. Law, when Mr. Romney presents evidence that he’s a “decent, competent, successful” person, the “negatives can fall away very quickly.” (see article above)
    Admin: that, apparently, is what they are betting on. It is why they stayed their hand, when others were urging them to retaliate against the character attacks. They believe that false attacks on character are easier to refute than attacks on policy. However, the evidence of this is most likely antecdotal. I do not know if it is right.

    But it is interesting that the stupid rag USA Today had a front page article claiming that voters are sour on both Obama and Romney. Obama for his complete failure to deliver hope and change. And Romney, I suspect, because of the constant barage of negative attacks against him by Obama. It those can be reversed then Romney has a clear advantage.

  90. The market went up today by 100 points in response to a letter by Bernake to Issa stating that the FED has more room to move. Since the interest rate is a zero, the only thing they can do is buy back more toxic mortgage securities. This is a calculated move to help Obama. The inherent problem of the fed trying everything possible to goose the economy is it has had no noticeable positive effect on the economy–or employment but has done collateral damage to the stablitity and strength of the dollar, which is something Bernake does not seem to realize or care about. Meanwhile Romney has made it clear that if he becomes president Berake will be gone. Bernake deserves credit for what he did in the immediate aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, but virtually everthing he has done since then has had the effect of debasing the dollar. These points are explained at further length in the following video:!89201B04-D909-4DF9-BE81-686FC506C731

  91. Women’s health and contracetin are a big concern of Hillary’s. Your language degrades all women.
    Nonsense. Obama could care less about this issue. He is cynically expoiting it for political purposes. By now it should be obvious how little he cares about womens issues personally, except as a means to an end, which for him is perpetual power.

  92. Mr. Obama’s refusal to consider any real changes to Social Security or Medicare.


    Dare we hope?

    No. It is a suckers bet. His track record makes plain the fact that every promise he makes is a lie.

  93. Women’s health and contracetin are a big concern of Hillary’s. [….]
    Nonsense. Obama could care less about this issue.


    Of course Obama doesn’t care. But Hillary cares, and attacking young women who share Hillary’s concern is like attaching Hillary.

  94. Sean Hannity (on right now) has more about “The Hope And The Change”. The trailer of the movie is posted in the current article. It’s about Democrats saying they will not vote for Obama.

  95. For certain voters, Romney might do better using more defensible ads.

    Romney said:
    “What I heard is that the president is taking the work requirement out of welfare.”

    [ This ] is utterly, totally false, as any number of fact-checkers* have established. In response to requests from a handful of states, including from several governed by Republicans, the Obama administration recently tweaked the rules to allow greater flexibility in how states implement the work requirement in welfare—with the proviso that the states’ strategies result in work participation rates 20 percent higher than the status quo.

    * Cite to fact-checkers is

  96. Politico has always been a cesspool with jurnolisters galore. But now they are off the charts. All you have to do is run through the titles to realize they are somewhere to the left of marx. Which is fine as long as they are willing to let their own families starve as well as the rest of the proletariat under the imperious rain of their fucked up hero. Or, they believe they are better than the proletariat, which is a dangerous assumption on their part.


    President Obama recently praised Hollywood superstar George Clooney, calling him a “wonderful guy” and good friend. But even in the wake of the headline-grabbing compliments, a rep for the Oscar-winning actor confirmed he will not be attending the forthcoming Democratic National Convention (DNC) in Charlotte, North Carolina.

    And it seems the majority of Clooney’s high-powered Hollywood counterparts are also passing on the 2012 convention – a far cry from 2008’s showdown in Denver, Colorado which attracted dozens of A-listers including Oprah Winfrey, Sarah Silverman, Fallout Boy, John Legend, Cyndi Lauper, Ashanti, Fran Drescher, Ashley Judd, Rage Against the Machine, Aisha Tyler, Anne Hathaway, Susan Sarandon, Jon Hamm, Cash Warren, Jessica Alba, Fergie,, Kanye West, Matthew Modine, Kerry Washington, Stevie Wonder, Rosario Dawson, Jennifer Hudson, Shawn Johnson, Forest Whitaker, Star Jones, Wilmer Valderama, Daniel Dae Kim, Kelly Hu, Jamie Foxx, Ben Affleck, Jennifer Garner, Chevy Chase, Richard Dreyfuss, Melissa Etheridge and Pharrell Williams.

    Just to name a few.

    We reached out to reps for all of the above in an attempt to find out if these stars would be attending the DNC again this year. A majority did not respond, but of those who did, few will be making a return trip.

    Fergie and Cyndi Lauper will not be attending, and neither will Chevy Chase due to “Community” filming commitments. A rep for Fran Drescher said her schedule remained unconfirmed. According to political publication The Hill, reps for Susan Sarandon and Jon Hamm confirmed that their clients too would not be returning to the convention.

    Not only will there be fewer famous faces, but fewer lavish affairs too. For one, Vanity Fair, which co-hosted a hotly-ticketed to-do in 2008, is not holding an event this year.

    “No place is more fickle than Hollywood. Obama over promised and under delivered with regard to ‘Hope & Change’ and he is experiencing the consequences with the lack of celebrity support at this year’s DNC,” political expert and humorist Rob Taub told FOX411’s Pop Tarts column. “Many celebrities are still making large financial contributions to the campaign, but they’re concerned about public displays of affection to a candidate with waning popularity. At best, expect B-list stars at the convention.”

    So who from Hollywood is going?

    A rep for Alba confirmed that the actress intends to make her way to Charlotte, and Eva Longoria, Dave Grohl, The Roots and the B52s are also expected to be on-hand. In addition, Jeff Bridges is slated to attend both the DNC and RNC to promote his efforts to end childhood hunger.

    It has also been widely reported that the Democratic National Committee had a hard time booking musical acts due to the fact that the MTV Video Music Awards will be taking place in Los Angeles on September 6, the same night Obama will accept the party’s nomination for president. The convention also commences just after Labor Day weekend, which means celebs may already have plans.

    Yet one source closely connected to the party assured us that the lack of Hollywood types this year is very deliberate, as the “Democrats try to keep celebrities away as they think it hurts their image.” While Barack Obama’s barrage of Hollywood fundraisers earlier this year did give his campaign fund a significant monetary boost, it proved to be a dangerous double-edged sword as many expressed concern that he was relying too much on celebrities, and that the tactic could backfire with swing voters.

    “It may be that Hollywood is not all that excited as they were four years ago. It also may be that Democrats are trying to brand themselves as the everyday person party more than ever before and Hollywood royalty does not jibe with that,” said PR guru Glenn Selig. “The president has relied heavily on Hollywood for money and Democrats have criticized Romney over his wealth, perhaps Democrats want to keep that as an issue and they certainly cannot do that if Democrats are seen as elitist, too.”

    Don Peebles, Chairman and CEO of The Peebles Corporation and a member of President Obama’s National Finance Committee, concurred that simmering down the star-studded focus was likely a strategic move.

    “It sends the wrong message if you’re a candidate for President, Republican or Democrat, and you’re surrounded by celebrities. The message does not resonate well with middle-income Americans, especially in the current financial climate,” he explained. “And it’s just that the novelty has worn off a bit as it does with any popular candidate. President Obama is still well respected and admired in the celebrity community, but in 2008 he was a transformational figure with a transformational message. That message has been received and the President is now delivering a renewed message.”

    Others have suggested that even over the last four years, celebrities have become more and more about being paid to make an appearance at any party or event, and clearly neither the DNC or RNC is likely willing to shell out the big bucks typically requested by the show business elite.

    And although the Republican National Convention is not typically associated with a huge Hollywood presence, it will still have a touch of Tinseltown (and Nashville) this year as the likes of Kid Rock, Wyclef Jean, Journey, John Popper, Rodney Atkins, Willie Nelson, Lynyrd Skynyrd, The Oak Ridge Boys and Lee Greenwood have all been booked to entertain the masses. An insider also said that country star Sara Evans will be performing at a private party, however her rep did not respond to a request for comment.

    “I don’t think it is surprising that the acts you mentioned are scheduled to be at this year’s RNC convention or after-parties,” added Brian Marriott, Founder of Axiom Strategies in Kansas City, MO. “GOP celebrities participate because of their ideology. Democrat celebrities do it for the party, and with unemployment over 8 percent, the parties just aren’t that fun.”


    Read more:


    FRIDAY 7:30 PM UPDATE: As predicted Millenium/Lionsgate’s The Expendables 2 will finish in first place Friday and this weekend. It’s followed by Universal’s The Bourne Legacy in second place and the Rocky Mountain Pictures’ documentary 2016 Obama’s America in third place. That’s stunning because it’s playing in a 1/3 less theaters across North American than the other wide release actioners. (See below for more details). [snip]

    FRIDAY 2 PM: The anti-Obama movie 2016 Obama’s America went into wider release around America today and is opening right now in first place at the domestic box office. That’s quite a feat since the Rocky Mountain Pictures political documentary is still playing in only 1,090 North American theaters – or about 1/3 as many theaters as big-budget actioner The Expendables 2 (3,355 theaters). But these political documentaries like faith-based films are frontloaded. [snip]

    And, based on matinee trends, 2016 Obama’s America looks to gross $1.2M-$1.7M Friday for a $3.7M-$5.0M weekend. But right now it has grossed $700,000 today compared to $300,000 for The Expendables 2. Its new cume after this weekend could make it the #1 conservative documentary (ahead of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed’s $7.7M). The success of the anti-Obama pic is based on big pre-sales leading into the Republican National Convention August 27-30, and exhibitors are reporting busloads of filmgoers arriving at theaters around the country in pre-organized trips. It also employed much of the same marketing techniques used to garner attention and support for faith-based films, understandable since the audience is overlapping. Its campaign included advertising nationally over the past two weeks on talk radio and cable news channels including Fox News Channel, A&E, History and MSNBC.

    Both online ticket-sellers Fandango and showed advance buying for 2016 Obama’s America were accounting for 35% to 28% respectively before this weekend. The pic is based on conservative author and commentator Dinesh D’Souza’s New York Times bestselling 2010 book The Roots Of Obama’s Rage and co-directed by D’Souza and John Sullivan and produced by Academy Award winner Gerald R. Molen (co-producer of Schindler’s List). It opened on July 13th in a preview on a single screen in Texas grossing almost $32,000 during its opening weekend, then expanded into 61 theaters including New York and Los Angeles. In August, the film widened to 169 theaters nationwide and expanded again this weekend. “Yes, I also didn’t believe it when I first saw the film taking off in pre-sales on Tuesday,” an exhibition insider tells me. “Because there’s not a lot of new product that’s taking off.”

    Hollywood distribution experts expect 2016 Obama’s America to fare similarly to that Kirk Cameron faith-based movie Fireproof. It was #1 in Fandango’s advance sales and did remarkably well during its opening Friday – but then ended up somewhere around #4 at the box office for the weekend. [snip]

    2016 Obama’s America detractors decry it as a slick infomercial heavy with conspiracy theories. But D’Souza says he made the film to motivate moviegoers to question what an Obama second term would look like, and credits liberal documentary maker Michael Moore for the structure of the film: “When he released Fahrenheit 9/11 in 2004 ahead of the election, it sparked intense debate. I learned some lessons from Michael Moore, and hopefully he might learn some lessons from me about handling facts.”

  99. Mr. Obama’s refusal to consider any real changes to Social Security or Medicare.

    Obama has already stolen $700 billion from Medicare. My God! Is that not what you call real change?

  100. Mr. Obama’s refusal to consider any real changes to Social Security or Medicare.

    Obama has already stolen $700 billion from Medicare. My God! Is that not what you call real change?Mr. Obama’s refusal to consider any real changes to Social Security or Medicare.

    Obama has already stolen $700 billion from Medicare. My God! Is that not what you call real change?


    That would be a question for the writer of that rightwing article, who obviously favors “real changes” to SS/Medicare — such as Ryan’s insurance vouchers instead of the current Medicare direct payments to doctors, and the other cuts in Ryan’s plan, which are the same cuts Obama has made.

  101. turndownobama
    August 25th, 2012 at 7:00 am
    Turndown: why do you spend 90% of your time attacking those who attack Obama and no more than 5% of your time attacking Obama? When you attack those who attack Obama, you either dismiss them as right wing kooks, or else you tell them that they are not true to what Hillary wants, as if you really know what Hillary wants or would do? Also, you profess to care about Hillary, but I cannot recall a time when you ever attacked dimocrats like Schumer, Pelosi, Clyburn and others who took down the Clintons. Help me understand your motivation, and most of all why you do not focus the main thrust of your attacks on Obama. I can understand you saying that you are protecting the democratic party, but surely you realize how much the party has changed since Obama and Soros took over. Surely you realize that there is a dialectic here where Obama and his fellow travellers must be purged from the party before the party of the Clintons can re-emerge. I am not asking you to defend Republicans. I am merely suggesting that between now and the election you focus all your excellent research and fact checking on Obama and his people because that is the only path back to sanity and victory for the party.

  102. wbboei
    August 24th, 2012 at 8:09 pm

    Women’s health and contracetin are a big concern of Hillary’s. Your language degrades all women.
    Nonsense. Obama could care less about this issue. He is cynically expoiting it for political purposes. By now it should be obvious how little he cares about womens issues personally, except as a means to an end, which for him is perpetual power.


    Eggzactly right Wbboei

    You always know it’s election time. 🙂
    The DNC drags out these social issues again. 🙄
    Ozero is using them like a club to get the Uppity Wimminz folks back on the Plantation.
    But as soon as he is reelected its back under the Bus.
    I do not think he even likes Women very much
    He threw his own Grandma under the Bus and wasn’t even there when she died or his Mother either. 👿

  103. Well I’ll tell ya.It would tickle me PINK. 🙂
    If at the Debates.
    Mitt Said I know and RESPECT the Clinton’s and they do not have a Racists bone in their bodies.And have done so much for the AA community. 😉

  104. Herman Cain on the Unity Rally 2012:

    “When the eyes of the world focus on Tampa, we want the first thing they see to be the citizens steadfastly refusing to let ourselves be defined by anything but the agenda that the American people overwhelmingly supported in 2010. This is a citizens’ moment for the citizens’ movement. We will show that we stand together, united behind conservative majorities in Congress and the defeat of Barack Obama.”

    Join Mr. Cain and others at the Unity Rally on SUNDAY either in Tampa or online! Visit:

  105. wbboei
    August 24th, 2012 at 3:12 pm

    I disgree with this tactic. I don’t think they should shy away from an honest answer even though its a distraction. Sununu could have said that Obama hasn’t provided answers to issues such as his CT ss # or why he refuses to release college transcripts. Then Obama could put other people’s speculation to rest. Why doesn;t the reporter ask Obama to produce info.

  106. August 25th, 2012 at 10:13 am


    Nobody said Obama cares about women (though he does have to throw them more bones than Romney does). I’m objecting to offensive personal attacks on a young woman for speaking out for one of Hillary’s big causes: women’s health including contraception.

  107. Carol
    August 25th, 2012 at 12:22 pm
    If I understand your point, then I think it is a good one. When John evades a question, he looks partisan. When he answers a question in a responsive manner he looks truthful. That gives him the moral highground to turn around and ask the talking head, in this case Soledad Obrien, “when are you going to ask La Bolt, Cutter et al to repudiate Maher? If you do not ask them that question, then people might assume that you are not neutral, and you do wish to be thought of as neutral do you not?” In other words, instead of accusing them of not being neutral, challenge them to be neutral. Most people will see that as a fair point, and will infer that CNN is not neutral. And you will box in O’Brien. If she says I will do that, then congratulate her and tell her we will be watching to see if that happens before the election.

  108. Nobody said Obama cares about women (though he does have to throw them more bones than Romney does).
    I agree, it is just tokenism. And the reason he does it at all is to advance his war on women narrative. But that is not the political issue de jour. The political issue de jour is the economy, jobs, the debt. I would venture to guess that most women care more about those issues than a new taxpayer financed contractive program. And every moment spent talking about social issues–including that dingbat from Missouri Akin, is a moment lost in focusing on and dealing with the main issue of our time–the economy. That is the trap Obama has set for us, and we must be careful not to fall into it.

    Forget about Seib. He is in the tank for Obama. He has hired some Politico people at WSJ so he is not credible. But Rollins is a pro–of the fallible kind. He made his bones with Reagan and since then he has managed more than one losing campaign, which typically ends with him quitting. Still, his comments are worth noting.

  110. Mitt needs to ask Are you better off then you were four years ago. )

    We may technically be in a recovery, but it sure doesn’t feel like it.

    Median annual income has declined 4.8 percent from $53,508 to $50,964 since the recovery technically began in June 2009 , according to a new study from Sentier Research. That’s nearly double the 2.6 percent drop during the recession.

    One especially hard-hit group: Americans aged 55 to 64, who saw their annual income drop nearly 10 percent. But African-Americans have felt the pain the most during the recovery as their incomes declined 11 percent.

    “Based on our data, almost every group is worse off now than it was three years ago,” Gordon Green, co-author of the report, wrote in a press release.

    Household median income has fallen since the recovery:

  111. ” …This summer, the Federal Reserve reported that the downturn eviscerated two decades of gains in Americans’ wealth. The central bank said the median net worth of families plunged by 39 percent in just three years, from $126,400 in 2007 to $77,300 in 2010, pushing that measure back to nearly 1992 levels.”

    “Digest that information reader – two decades of value have been WIPED OUT – much of that loss occurring AFTER Barack Obama became President of the United States where for two years, he and the Democrats controlled both the White House and Congress. It was not until Republicans took back one half of Congress in 2011 did the Obama agenda slow down just a bit – though even then the president has ruled via executive orders more so than any president before him. He has shut down domestic energy production, pushed for higher taxes, wasted hundreds of billions on taxpayer loans to political supporters, sat back as the Middle East has further destabalized, played over 100 rounds of golf, hidden documents from Congressional investigators, pushed for TRILLIONS in deficit spending, including the still unpopular nearly trillion dollar Obamacare takeover of your health insurance, bailed out his big labor union cronies and indicated he wants to do the same for all American business, bowed to communists, socialists, and mere dictators around the world, all the while apologizing for the great power for good in the world that is the United States.” [….]

  112. And every moment spent talking about social issues–including that dingbat from Missouri Akin, is a moment lost in focusing on and dealing with the main issue of our time–the economy.


    In that case, every post attacking Sandra Fluke is also a moment taken away (and hurts our credibility with those who agree with Hillary’s policies).

  113. “High Flight”

    Oh! I have slipped the surly bonds of Earth
    And danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings;
    Sunward I’ve climbed, and joined the tumbling mirth
    of sun-split clouds, — and done a hundred things
    You have not dreamed of — wheeled and soared and swung
    High in the sunlit silence. Hov’ring there,
    I’ve chased the shouting wind along, and flung
    My eager craft through footless halls of air….

    Up, up the long, delirious, burning blue
    I’ve topped the wind-swept heights with easy grace.
    Where never lark, or even eagle flew —
    And, while with silent, lifting mind I’ve trod
    The high untrespassed sanctity of space,
    – Put out my hand, and touched the face of God.

Comments are closed.