Solid Sterling: Long Lost Big Media Feeding Frenzy Returns

Update: NBA imposes lifetime ban on Sterling, $2.5 million fine. “Sterling may not attend any NBA games or practices, be present at any Clippers office or facility, or participate in any business”.

————————————————————

A physically hideous married rich guy on the phone with a young physically ugly girlfriend reminds us all of the long lost art of the Big Media feeding frenzy. The world is falling apart but Big Media is frenziedly feeding on the private phone call obnoxiousness of an 80 year old troll and his goading younger girlfriend.

Donald Sterling who owns a basketball team comprised of mostly black males made racist comments in private, which became public, and now the frenzy of feeding Big Media types and just about everyone else is in full swing. Sponsor companies of his team are dumping the team, there are attacks on him from just about everyone including Barack Obama and his pig friend Oprah. Even Don Imus of the “nappy headed hos” scandal is going after Sterling in an effort to prove how non-racist he now is.

How this physical grotesquerie has a girlfriend appears not to be an issue. How this monstrously ugly man managed to wrangle a wife is not an issue. We imagine his wealth has something to do with his allure.

The allure of wealth not only snared a wife and girlfriend. Sterling’s wealth got him awards and adulation from corruptions such as the NAACP.

The NAACP used to be a worthwhile organization. Now the NAACP just raises money to keep itself in business. The corruption called the NAACP, just like most mainstream organizations which purport to help this or that cause/group, is really only in it for itself. Donald Sterling was an NAACP favorite because Sterling gave them money:

Sterling had been a prominent donor to the NAACP chapter for more than a decade. He ran newspaper ads touting his charity’s generosity to L.A. organizations that help the poor communities.

But the real estate magnate had just paid $2.73 million to settle U.S. government claims that he refused to rent his apartments to Latinos and blacks in Koreatown. [snip]

The organization decided to go ahead give him the award. And in May, it was set to hand him a second honor as part of a gala marking the NAACP’s 100th anniversary. [snip]

“We deal with the actual character of the person as we see it and as it is displayed,” he said.

Jenkins said NAACP officials spoke with Sterling in 2009 about the housing discrimination case as well as a suit that NBA great Elgin Baylor filed accusing Sterling of racism when he ousted Baylor as general manager.

Baylor claimed that the organization had a “plantation mentality” in a deposition, and that Sterling rejected a coaching candidate, Jim Brewer, because he was black.

Jenkins said the NAACP officials told Sterling: “If any of the allegations in those lawsuits are true, you need to pay those people, you need to make amends.”

The mentality and character betrayed by the NAACP in the comments of Jenkins is one of race hustlers out to make a buck. Want to wash away charges of racism? Pay, baby, pay.

In 2008 Harry Reid referred to Barack Obama as a potential winner because he was “light-skinned” and had “no negro dialect”. There was no Big Media feeding frenzy. Harry Reid flaunted his racist mentality but by supporting Barack Obama he got a get-out-of-jail-free card. Since 2008 Harry Reid has said and done many things worthy of a Big Media feeding frenzy but thus far not even a sign of a nibble.

Harry Reid is not alone in doing and saying as he pleases without risk of a Big Media feeding frenzy. It is usually those that beat their chests the most about not being racists that do the darnest things:

The Unbearable Whiteness of the American Left

At a panel titled “Grassroots Organizing” at the Network for Public Education conference in Austin in March, an audience member asked the all-white panel for its definition of “grassroots.” The conference had been called to “give voice to those opposing privatization, school closings, and high-stakes testing.”

As the questioner pointed out, those disproportionately affected by these developments are poor and minority communities. Chicago, for example, a city that is one-third white, has a public school system in which 90 percent of the students are children of color and 87 percent come from low-income families. When the city schools shut down last year, 88 percent of the children affected were black; when Philadelphia did the same, the figure was 81 percent.

You’d think black people might have something to contribute to a discussion about that process and how it might be resisted. Yet on this exclusively white panel at this predominantly white conference, they had no voice.

One panelist said he found the question offensive. “I didn’t know it was a racial thing,” he said.

At the end of November 2008 Howard Dean put on the same act as those all white panelists in Austin. Dean feigned he was unaware that the 2008 campaign was mud deep in misogyny because he did not have cable TV! Howard Dean was on an all male post election panel

During this election cycle, Chairman of the Dimocratic Party Howard Dean remained silent on sexism and misogyny but any “racial” statements were quickly condemned even if the “racial” statements were merely hoaxes set up by the Obama campaign. The condemnation of “racist” statements however were not made against the Obama campaign when the barely veiled racism benefited Obama. [SNIP]

Howard Dean attributed his silence on sexism and misogyny to ignorance because he did not get cable television. The Chairman must have missed the sexism and misogyny on broadcast television, in Obama statements, in newspapers, magazines and every conceivable Big Media outlet. The Hillary Clinton “nutcrackers” and the “Bro Before Ho” merchandise must also have escaped the Democratic Chairman from the Democratic Left. The good German did not know what was going on – he did not smell the furnaces burning.

Now that it is convenient, in a forum of only men the Democratic Chairman from the Democratic Left, is attempting to rehabilitate his legacy and excuse his complicity. Asked by a woman at the forum about the lack of discussion of women, in an historic campaign that featured a woman candidate, the men on the panel made more excuses and the Democratic Chairman from the Democratic Left outdid himself in hypocrisy. [Dean begins to speak 3 minutes, 45 seconds into the video]



There was no Big Media feeding frenzy when sexism and misogyny directed at Hillary Clinton and/or Sarah Palin smeared the landscape. None. Instead there were calls to “man up” and not complain directed to these women from Barack Obama campaign affiliated Big Media.

An ugly old man and an ugly young woman get into a racist private conversation and the whole world of Big Media explodes into a feeding frenzy never seen against more deserving culprits. It’s not as if Donald Sterling has much of a future in basketball considering that the majority of his team fans and team players are black.

Granted, we don’t know much about basketball nor do we want to know much about basketball. But we believe we are correct in asserting that basketball fans and players are either (a) not racist; or (b) if racist not willing to be seen as such by their fellow fans or teammates due to the demographics of basketball fans and organizations. Donald Sterling is like a long-tailed cat in a room full of rocking chairs – at some point he’s going to have to get out or have his as… er, tail handed to him.

We’re not excusing Donald Sterling or what he has said in private. The fact is that once his remarks became public he has to answer to the ticket buyers of his team and his league.

We’re also not against the Big Media feeding frenzy. t What we lament and loathe is the selecive hypocrisy of this particular feeding frenzy. What we need is more diversity when Big Media goes on a feeding frenzy. Take it away black basketball player and scholar Kareem Abdul-Jabbar: Why aren’t we also outraged that Donald Sterling was secretly recorded?

And now the poor guy’s girlfriend (undoubtedly ex-girlfriend now) is on tape cajoling him into revealing his racism. Man, what a winding road she led him down to get all of that out. She was like a sexy nanny playing “pin the fried chicken on the Sambo.” She blindfolded him and spun him around until he was just blathering all sorts of incoherent racist sound bites that had the news media peeing themselves with glee.

They caught big game on a slow news day, so they put his head on a pike, dubbed him Lord of the Flies, and danced around him whooping…

Shouldn’t we be equally angered by the fact that his private, intimate conversation was taped and then leaked to the media? Didn’t we just call to task the NSA for intruding into American citizen’s privacy in such an un-American way? Although the impact is similar to Mitt Romney’s comments that were secretly taped, the difference is that Romney was giving a public speech. The making and release of this tape is so sleazy that just listening to it makes me feel like an accomplice to the crime. We didn’t steal the cake but we’re all gorging ourselves on it.

We wouldn’t call him a “poor guy” more like a rich ugly sap. Kareem Abdul Jabbar is right that this does have a whiff of Lord of the Flies. The owner of a Dallas team wants Donald Sterling thrown out but is also aware of the dangers of the thought police:

“What Donald said was wrong,” Cuban said. “It was abhorrent. There’s no place for racism in the NBA, any business I’m associated with, and I don’t want to be associated with people who have that position.

“But at the same time, that’s a decision I make. I think you’ve got to be very, very careful when you start making blanket statements about what people say and think, as opposed to what they do. It’s a very, very slippery slope.

“Again, there’s no excuse for his positions. There’s no excuse for what he said. There’s no excuse for anybody to support racism. There’s no place for it in our league, but there’s a very, very, very slippery slope.

“If it’s about racism and we’re ready to kick people out of the league, OK? Then what about homophobia? What about somebody who doesn’t like a particular religion. What about somebody who’s anti-semitic What about a xenophobe?

“In this country, people are allowed to be morons.”

The totalitarian state wants to control not only your actions but your thoughts. Beware! The danger is even greater when citizens find themselves in agreement with the totalitarian state on a particular issue. I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

We don’t see Donald Sterling as a victim. We don’t see his girlfriend as a victim. Indeed it is we who are victimized by Big Media.

While Big Media whooped around in imitation of the Lord of the Flies we have been deprived since 2008 of legitimate Big Media feeding frenzies.

Recently video tapes of race-baiter Al Sharpton trying to buy kilos of cocaine to sell to black people came out. Shortly after, Barack Obama spoke at an event hosted by Al Sharpton. We needed a feeding frenzy but got not even a bite.

We needed a different feeding frenzy yesterday:

Secretary of State John Kerry found his own unique way of marking Yom HaShaoh – Holocaust Remembrance Day – by proposing that Israel is destined, if it doesn’t make peace with the Palestinians, to become an “apartheid state.”

Speaking to the Trilateral Commission Friday, Kerry said that unless Israel agrees to the birth of the Palestinian state he is feverishly trying to midwife, it will become the 21st century South Africa, according to the Daily Beast.

On Holocaust Remembrance Day the American Secretary of State states in a speech that Israel will be an “apartheid state” and from Big Media all we hear is the gnashing of teeth over a ugly old basketball team owner proving being rich does not mean you necessarily have brains nor decency.

Our modest proposal in the spirit of Jonathan Swift?: Ban basketball from the United States because it is now proven to be a racist game. Get it out of the schools, out of the colleges, out of the White House, and out of our TV sets. Basketball fans won’t like it but hey, we have to fight racism right?

Also, let’s have a Big Media feeding frenzy to force anti-Semite John Kerry to resign. And most importantly we require a Big Media feeding frenzy to force Barack Obama out of office for consorting with known hard drug dealers.

Now that Donald Sterling has demonstrated that Big Media is still capable of conducting a feeding frenzy we want more.

Share

A Boob In Asia

He just is not a natural leader.”




Sideshow Bob, a.k.a. Barack Obama is gallivanting around the globe again, stepping on one rake after another. When there is work to do, Barack Obama hops on a plane.

When Obama wants to go on vacation, which is frequently the case, he goes on vacation no matter what is happening in Washington. Obama acolytes and Obama himself defend these constant trips with declarations that Obama can work from anywhere because of all these new technologies. Of course these new technologies also allow Obama to get work done internationally with video conferencing equipment yet stay in Washington to get work done. But Barack always opts for trips in which he gets to hear applause and the banter of mutual masturbatory praise.

This week Obama is wasting taxpayer money in Asia in order to avoid the hard work that needs to be done. Work? Hey, the oceans are not receding and world peace has not broken out as promised by Obama in 2008. Indeed, today the Obama/Kerry Mideast boobery exploded like rotten eggs in a Michelle Obama imposed high school lunch. Don’t blame Bibi, although Obama undoubtedly will.

What is going on with Barack and why is he wasting taxpayer dollars on another vacation trip? Usually an Obama apologist, Dana Milbank does the honors:

Overseas, President Obama projects a whole lot of nothing

President Obama landed in Japan on Wednesday night and delivered an important message on behalf of the American people.

“That’s some good sushi right there,” he said.

That sushi starts at $300.00. We hope Barack loaded up on the expensive treat if the Japanese are paying. An Obama fed on someone else’s dime (if you don’t count the tens of millions in taxpayer money this trip will cost) might be the only good news from the entire trip.

This is another taxpayer paid Obama vacation just like Mooch Obama’s taxpayer paid China vacation. This trip is so important Mooch decided to stay home and away from stinky Barack. For Barack it is a double vacation away from Michelle and away from work:

The seven-day, four-country Asian tour promises to be an excellent adventure for the president. He’ll visit the Meiji Shrine in Japan and dine with the emperor. He’ll visit Gyeongbokgung Palace in South Korea and lay a wreath at the National War Memorial. In Malaysia, he will attend a “royal audience” and visit the National Mosque in Kuala Lumpur. And in the Philippines, he’ll check out an electric vehicle, place another wreath and enjoy his third state dinner.

But one thing is missing from the president’s otherwise exciting itinerary: making news. The one hope for a breakthrough on the trip — an announcement of a trade deal called the Trans-Pacific Partnership — fell through.

Dusting off the myriad defenses of Obama so often applied, like manure to crops, Milbank manages a bit of truth: “He’s seeing the sights, getting some good pics and moving along — more tourist than architect of world affairs.” Tourist Obama.

At the Obama misogynist acolyte owned New Republic Leon Wieseltier amuses himself by reading the New York Times’s discussion of the tourist-in-chief:

At a press conference the other day he was being interrogated about Ukraine when a reporter asked a question about health care. Obama was delighted. As the excellent Peter Baker reported in The New York Times, “Mr. Obama seems intent on not letting Russia dominate his presidency.” This is not the first time the president has attempted to resist such intrusions upon his idea of how the world ought to be. He has been trying to escape the Middle East for years and “pivot” to Asia, as if the United States can ever not be almost everywhere, leading and influencing, supporting or opposing, in one fashion or another. [snip]

What is this strange choice, this retiring either / or calculation? Only small powers think this way. Can the United States ever have “top priorities” only in one place, even if it is a place as big as Asia? Are our “security interests” not also broached by the failure of the Syrian state, or our “core values” not also invoked by its slaughter without end?

The tiresome futurism of Obama, his dogmatic views about what this ritualistically ballyhooed century will be like and what it will not be like, are only a part of what lowers his vision. The bigger problem is that the president feels inconvenienced by history. It refuses to follow his program for it. It regularly exasperates him and regularly disappoints him. It flows when he wants it to ebb and it ebbs when he wants it flow. Like Mr. Incredible, the president is flummoxed that the world won’t stay saved, or agree to be saved at all. After all, he came to save it. And so the world has only itself to blame if Obama is sick of it and going home.

Obama has concluded, according to Baker, that he “will never have a constructive relationship with Mr. Putin,” and so he has decided that he “will spend his final two and a half years in office trying to minimize the disruption Mr. Putin can cause, preserve whatever marginal cooperation can be saved and otherwise ignore the master of the Kremlin.” Ignoring the master, of course, has the consequence of ignoring the master’s victims: the Obama administration abandons to their fates one people after another, who pay the price for the president’s impatience with large historical struggles. The Ukrainians, the Syrians, the Iranians, the Israelis, the Palestinians, the Egyptians, the Saudis, the Moldovans, the Poles, the Czechs, the Japanese, the Taiwanese, the Baltic populations: they are all living with the jitters, and some of them on the cusp of despair, because the United States seems no longer reliable in emergencies, which it prefers to meet with meals ready to eat. No wonder that so much of our diplomacy consists in tendering reassurances. The United States now responds to oppressed and threatened peoples by making them more lonely and afraid—a sentimental objection, I know, and one that is unlikely to trouble Henry Kissinger’s epigone in the White House.

Obama’s impatience with history has left him patient with evil. It is not a pretty sight; but his broken foreign policy is riddled with such ironies. Here is another one: Baker reports that the president has elected to revise his Russia policy into “an updated version of the Cold War strategy of containment.” How twentieth century!

Wieseltier writes: The only country that American containment is containing is America.

We recently asked “Is it still 2007?” Wieseltier also sees today’s problems firmly rooted in the lies of 2007 and the mistake of ’08:

Obama’s surprisability about history, which is why he is always (as almost everyone now recognizes) “playing catch-up,” is owed to certain sanguine and unknowledgeable expectations that he brought with him to the presidency. There was no reason to expect that the Ayatollah Khamenei would take Obama’s “extended hand,” but every reason to expect that he would crack down barbarically on stirrings of democracy in his society. There was no reason to expect that Assad would go because he “must go,” but every reason to expect him to savage his country and thereby create an ethnic-religious war and a headquarters for jihadist anti-Western terrorists. There was no reason to expect Putin to surrender his profound historical bitterness at the reduced post-Soviet realities of Russia and leave its “near abroad” alone. There was no reason to expect that the Taliban in Afghanistan would behave as anything but a murderous theocratic conspiracy aspiring to a return to power. And so on. Who, really, has been the realist here?

Hillary Clinton called Obama “naive” about the world in 2008 and she was promptly denounced as a racist in the editorial pages of the New York Times by a Harvard sociology professor.

We’ve been called racists too for pointing out the obvious. We noted that world leaders think of Obama as a “SUCKER” who will give them what they want in return for compliments and applause in staged settings. Yes indeed Obama is A Boob Abroad – A Dangerous Narcissist Lost At Sea.

In 2009 we wrote that world leaders thought of Obama as a “SUCKER” and now the idea is discussed in the pages of the Wall Street Journal:

The Dissing of the President
The world is treating Obama like another failed American leader.

I’ve never liked the word diss—not as a verb, much less as a noun. But watching the Obama administration get the diss treatment the world over, week-in, week-out, I’m beginning to see its uses.

Diss: On Sunday, Bloomberg reported that Hasan Rouhani named Hamid Aboutalebi to serve as the ambassador to the United Nations. Mr. Rouhani is the Iranian president the West keeps insisting is a “moderate,” mounting evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. Mr. Aboutalebi was one of the students who seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in 1979. [snip]

Diss: On Friday, Vladimir Putin called President Obama to discuss a resolution to the crisis in Ukraine. The Russian president “drew Barack Obama’s attention to continued rampage of extremists who are committing acts of intimidation towards peaceful residents,” according to the Kremlin, which, as in Soviet days, no longer bothers distinguishing diplomatic communiqués from crass propaganda.

Mr. Kerry was immediately dispatched to Paris to meet with Sergei Lavrov, his Russian counterpart. Mr. Lavrov—who knows a one-for-me, one-for-you, one-for-me deal when he sees it—is hinting that Russia will graciously not invade Ukraine provided Washington and Moscow shove “constitutional reforms” favorable to the Kremlin down Kiev’s throat. And regarding the invasion that brought the crisis about: “Mr. Kerry on Sunday didn’t mention Crimea during his remarks,” reports The Wall Street Journal, “giving the impression that the U.S. has largely given up reversing the region’s absorption into Russia.”

Diss: “If your image is feebleness, it doesn’t pay in the world,” Moshe Ya’alon, Israel’s defense minister, said last month at Tel Aviv University. “At some stage, the United States entered into negotiations with them [the Iranians], and unhappily, when it comes to negotiating at a Persian bazaar, the Iranians were better.” [snip]

Diss: “It seems to me that some kind of joker wrote the U.S. president’s order 🙂 “. That was what Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin tweeted after learning last month that the Obama administration had sanctioned him for his role in the invasion of Ukraine.

Gotta love the ” 🙂 “.

Diss: In March, Iranian Gen. Masoud Jazayeri offered his view of Mr. Obama’s threat to use military force against Iran if negotiations fail. “The low-IQ U.S. President and his country’s Secretary of State John Kerry speak of the effectiveness of ‘the U.S. options on the table’ on Iran while this phrase is mocked at and has become a joke among the Iranian nation, especially the children.

It’s a painful read of insult after insult. Unfortunately they are deserved mockery of a boob who thinks he is bright. A clown stepping on rakes who thinks he is tip toeing through tulips.

More mockery came from Iran when Obama threatened vetoes if Congress dared impose sanctions on Iran. Iran thanked Obama by placing a wreath at the memorial to the mastermind of the 1983 bombing in Beirut, the 1985 hijacking of TWA 847 and other terrorist acts.

No surprise then when Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, began his attacks against the American Ambassador in order to distract from a corruption scandal that threatens to remove him from power. Obama had previously stated how much he favored Erdogan and followed that love note up with psalms about the “bonds of trust” he had with Erdogan.

The Wall Street Journal‘s Stephens catalogs only the most recent examples of insults directed towards the boob in the White House. The most alarming of these insults was the very public mocking in a New York Times editorial op-ed by the Saudi Arabian ambassador to the United Kingdom.

Ron Fournier at the National Journal cites the Peter Baker article in the New York Times then proceeds to wrap the entire stinking foreign and domestic Obaminations up, like a Michelle Obama “outfit”, in one stinking, hideous bow:

Baker reports on a debate inside the administration about how to contain Putin: [snip]

The more hawkish faction in the State and Defense departments has grown increasingly frustrated, privately worrying that Mr. Obama has come across as weak and unintentionally sent the message that he has written off Crimea after Russia’s annexation. They have pressed for faster and more expansive sanctions, only to wait while memos sit in the White House without action. Mr. Obama has not even imposed sanctions on a list of Russian human-rights violators waiting for approval since last winter.

That last paragraph reminds me of Democrats who privately gripe about Obama’s lack of engagement with Congress, his unwillingness to build meaningful relationships, his allegiance to polls and focus groups, and his cautious nature that, in their minds, holds him back from greatness. “He can’t handle Putin. He can’t handle Republicans,” said a veteran Democratic consultant and part-time adviser to both of Obama’s presidential campaigns. Speaking on condition of anonymity, the Democrat told me, “He just is not a natural leader.”

No, he is not a natural leader. He’s not any kind of a leader other than self-interested in his self-interests. He’s a boob. A Boob in America. A Boob in Europe. A Boob domestically. A Boob abroad. This week he is a Boob in Asia.

Share

Is It Still 2007?

April 19, 2007 was the date we first published. In one sense much has changed. Now much of our analysis is indisputable. Can Obama be trusted? Most Americans agree with us that Obama cannot be trusted. Is Barack Obama a boob too? Even his most ardent acolytes realize that Barack has botched his presidency. Barack’s big majorities in congress have been devoured. Barack’s assertions of being a world historical leader are exposed as the delusions of a clanking miniature clod. Barack’s promises of receding oceans have drowned in tsunami seas of troubles.

Hillary Clinton? In 2007 the claim from Obama Hopium guzzlers in her own party was that Hillary was a racist dynasty corporatist neo-con war-monger ugly old witch vagina third way Mcauliffe has-been evil monster loser who should be taken into a back room and beaten with a 2×4 until she disappeared forever and ever. Now? The same DailyKooks and party apparatchiks who thought or said such things see Hillary as their salvation and the only tool they have to save the memory of their once and future Messiah.

But much has not changed at all since 2007. There is still the crazy. Consider the recent shoe thrown at Hillary. Hillary handled the episode very well, to the point of amazingly well. Hillary ducked, then amusingly asked if that flying object was a bat. From there on Hillary, like a super talented jazz musician improvising new riffs and melodies on a popular tune, asked if it was all part of a stray Las Vegas act that had escaped from the strip. Hillary ended with a home run by declaring that the shoe thrower missed her mark because she did not possess the training Hillary acquired as a youthful softball player. That last remark was aggressive, mocking, endearing, and boastful, all at once.

The shoe incident should have come as no surprise to anyone. Hillary has some adversaries that want to throw shoes at her. No surprise. Hillary has been giving speeches for generations to hostile and friendly audiences so no surprise that Hillary can handle just about anything. It’s called experience. But we were back to 2007 real quick as callers to Rush Limbaugh (and others who should know better) could not accept Hillary’s grace under fire and quick wit responses:

“Her theory was based on the fact that Mrs. Clinton looked like she knew it was coming. She didn’t look that shocked. She had too many really cute, pat answers just ready to go. And then this woman said the Clintons, they stage things, the Democrats stage things and I said, “You know, I hadn’t thought about it.”

From there Limbaugh educated his audience with more Monica Lewinsky stories.

Limbaugh was not as bad or stupid as the DailyKooks with their conspiracy stories, but if Republicans want to know why they lose to the Clintons the whole episode is a good lesson. Why not accept that Hillary has a lot of experience handling hecklers and critics? Why not accept that Hillary is very good at interactions with audiences, whether hostile or friendly? No, instead it all had to be staged because that delusion emotionally satisfies more than the obvious truth that Hillary is a force to be reckoned with.

It’s back to 2007 for Rush Limbaugh and the E/I Republicans/conservatives. It’s also back to 2007 for Obama Dimocrats:

Democrats hark back to the politics of race

So now it’s out there. After five years of studied reticence (unless they were talking privately to one another or their supporters), Democratic leaders in Washington finally went public last week with what they really think is motivating Republican opposition to Barack Obama. As Steve Israel, one of the top Democrats in Congress, told CNN’s Candy Crowley, the Republican base, “to a significant extent,” is “animated by racism.” [snip]

But it’s not the reaction of Republicans that Democrats should probably have some concern about. It’s the way American voters, and a lot of younger voters in particular, may view a return to the polarizing racial debate that existed before Obama was ever elected.

Coming in an election year, and in the wake of sporadic campaigns to solidify support among women and gay voters, the sudden Democratic focus on race felt like an orchestrated talking point.[snip]

As far as I can tell, though, this eruption on race actually wasn’t born in the kind of strategy session where consultants lay out which issues will move which voters. What seems to have happened was something rarer: Washington Democrats, unable to suppress their frustration for a minute longer, simply blurted out what they have always believed to be true but had been reluctant to say. One catharsis emboldened the next.

As a unifying explanation for the abject dysfunction of our political system, latent racism seems unsatisfying, at least by itself.”

That article is written by Matt Bai. It is a silly circa 2007 article which tries to convince that the race-baiting to help Obama is not planned but somehow organic or excusable at some level. We read the same crap in 2007.

In 2007 the race-baiting by Obama supporters was masked by talk of a new coalition, ascendant and on the march. Any one who opposed this new coalition and thought the winning coalition was the FDR/Kennedy/Clinton coalition was deemed a racist. This race-baiting strategy was and is by design.

Hillary had experience. Barack Obama had little to no experience outside of his “community organizer” efforts. But to say this was deemed “racist”. Anything said on behalf of Hillary Clinton, or later John McCain, was deemed racist and “old” by these race-baiting “ageists”. Yet Matt Bai dares to publish an article that claims the race-baiting is not by design, not planned, not a filthy scheme to win elections.

Matt Bai’s article is a warning to Obama Dimocrats that the race-baiting of 2014 exposes as a lie the racial unity promises of 2007. Matt Bai is wasting his time. Obama Dimocrats have won with race-baiting and they will race-bait again and again.

In 2007 Hillary Clinton and Hillary Clinton supporters were the targets of the race-baiters. In 2007 we saw the threat and saw there were no websites defending Hillary Clinton against the race-baiters. So we began to publish in April 19, 2007. We’ve been on the job ever since.

We’ve changed a lot since 2007. Experience changed us. On issue after issue experience changed us. We think it was for the better.

In 2007 we wrote what we believed. In 2008 we wrote what we believed. When Barack Obama took the nomination in Denver that year we had a choice. We could accept the truth of what we had written and declare we could not support a treacherous boob like Barack Obama. Or we could do what many of our compatriots did and say “whatever, delete everything we wrote, we’ll endorse Barack Obama.”

Our problem in 2008 was we had written the truth about Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton as we knew it. We decided to follow the truth as we saw it. We could never support Barack Obama nor his abominable acts. We continue to write the truth as we see it as painful as it is at times.

Some who wrote the truth about Barack Obama chose to ignore the truth of what they had written and put a political party above the nation’s interests. They now live in a Hell of their own making.

For Hillary Clinton 2016 as in 2007 the enemy remains the same. For Hillary Clinton the enemy is still Barack Obama:

Hillary Clinton’s top 2016 worry is ‘Obama’s economy

If Hillary Clinton runs for president, she’ll be getting a lot of help from Wall Street. But her friends and confidants there tell me she truly hasn’t decided yet.

So why is she hesitating? The big reason, according to these sources, has to do with the dude who occupies the Oval Office now.

Barack Obama’s rapidly disintegrating presidency — and the chance it will get even worse — is Clinton’s top worry these days as she weighs whether she’ll run, and can win, in 2016, these folks say.”

As in 2007 Hillary Clinton’s opponent in 2016 will be Barack Obama. Very few outside the world of Kookdom will want to vote for an Obama third term. Barack Obama has been a disaster and an obamination and like a radioactive Ebola transmitting parasite Barack Obama threatens to continue to destroy:

“She knows economic recoveries (even ones as weak as the one Obama fomented with ObamaCare, higher taxes and his attacks on business) run in cycles, which often last about seven years. In other words, it could turn sharply down just in time to leave her holding the bag.

“If you ask Hillary what she really fears, it’s that in a year or so, when she’s running, that Obama will be so unpopular that no one wants any Democrat as president,” said one Wall Street executive who knows the former first lady. “That doesn’t mean she won’t run — she’s human and when so many people urge you to do something, you often do it. But that doesn’t mean she will win.”

Hillary’s fear of being stained by Obamanomics isn’t just her own; it reflects a broad-based critique of the Obama presidency you hear muttered at Washington and New York cocktail parties where liberal elites (i.e., her Wall Street supporters) often congregate.

On the other hand, Republicans have a way of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory; who knows who they’ll nominate in 2016.

And time is on Hillary’s side as long as the economy doesn’t crater. She has a formidable campaign and fund-raising apparatus ready at a moment’s notice — money will be there and her celebrity isn’t going away.

One test she’ll be looking at, I’m told, is how her new memoir, due out in June, gets received. If the book tour goes well, she’s even more likely to jump in.

But count me as skeptical that she will run — and even more skeptical that, if she does run, she wins. Because, based on everything she’s telling people about the problems of inheriting the Democratic Party from President Obama, even she’s skeptical of her chances.

In 2007 we began to publish because we saw treacherous Barack Obama as the destroyer of the Democratic Party and the single biggest threat to a successful Hillary Clinton presidential campaign. In 2007 we urged Hillary Clinton and Hillary Clinton supporters to realize that Barack Obama was the greatest threat to America, Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party.

Is it still 2007?

Share

IRS Blood Moon Rising

Update: On a daily basis the evidence mounts of rule by gangster government. The latest evidence? A Freedom Of Information Act release reveals that Lois Lerner, DoJ discussed criminal prosecution of tax-exempt applicants.

A corrupt Department of Justice which is a nest for injustice. An executive branch of government whose agencies and departments wield power to oppress the citizenry. There are constitutional remedies as we detail below.

———————————————————–

Can executive branch gangster government be brought to justice? Is the American constitutional system of government too outdated, too badly designed, too irrelevant to modern day reality to fight back against a corrupt executive branch that employs all the vast powers of the president and the departments and agencies of government? Is “consent of the governed” no longer required as long as the executive branch, allied with a corrupt Big Media, occupies the west wing of the White House?

No.

The American system of government can survive gangster government. The constitutional system of government instituted by the Founding Fathers and Mothers anticipated just such a corrupt system as we face today.

It is true that a corrupt Barack Obama assisted by the corrupt Attorney General Eric Holder is protected from ordinary legal process. Impeachment likewise is always a threat but that is not a viable possibility yet because there are still sufficient votes in the U.S. Senate to protect Barack Obama from justice and a penitentiary cell.

The same does not hold true for Barack Obama’s henchmen and thugs. Obama’s gangland is vulnerable to the rule of law. Exit the Department of Justice. Enter the inherent contempt power of the American Congress.

The contempt power wielded by Congress was popular amongst our own when the target was George W. Bush:

“Congress’s Power To Compel

It seems that the House Judiciary Committee is considering seeking help from the Justice Department to enforce contempt citations against Bush administration officials such as Joshua Bolten who refuse to respond to congressional inquiries into alleged White House wrongdoing. That would be a mistake.

Such a strategy leaves Congress beholden to hostile executive branch officials to enforce its prerogatives on exactly the type of charges that the administration said this week it would not allow officials to pursue. This strategy also would allow the president to pardon his underlings should they ever be indicted and convicted.”

What we advocated against George W. Bush we support against Barack Obama. The Congress can bypass the corrupt Department of Justice and bring back accountability:

“Yet under historic and undisturbed law, Congress can enforce its own orders against recalcitrant witnesses without involving the executive branch and without leaving open the possibility of presidential pardon.

And a Supreme Court majority would find it hard to object in the face of two entrenched legal principles.

First is the inherent power of Congress to require testimony on matters within its legislative oversight jurisdiction.

So long as Congress is investigating issues over which it has the power to legislate, it can compel witnesses to appear and respond to questions. That power has been affirmed over and over in prosecutions for contempt. [snip]

This power of Congress to punish contemptuous behavior itself was reinforced in 1934. In Jurney v. McCracken, the Supreme Court denied a writ of habeas corpus to a petitioner who had been taken into custody by the Senate sergeant-at-arms for allegedly destroying documents requested in a Senate subpoena.

The limitation on the president’s pardon power was most comprehensively discussed in a 1925 opinion by Chief Justice (and former president) William Howard Taft in the case of Ex Parte Grossman. [snip]

Thus, the congressional alternative. Instead of referring a contempt citation to the U.S. attorney, a house of Congress can order the sergeant-at-arms to take recalcitrant witnesses into custody and have them held until they agree to cooperate — i.e., an order of civil contempt. Technically, the witness could be imprisoned somewhere in the bowels of the Capitol, but historically the sergeant-at-arms has turned defendants over to the custody of the warden of the D.C. jail.”

To summarize what must be done by Congress in 2014 or in 2015:

“So, far from being defenseless against the president’s refusal to prosecute or the threat of presidential pardon, Congress could take into its own custody defiant administration officials who refuse to cooperate with legitimate inquiries into executive malfeasance. Those targets would have the right to seek writs of habeas corpus from the federal courts, but as long as Congress could show a legitimate need for the information it was seeking pursuant to its legislative oversight functions, it would be standing on solid legal ground.

Congress should get on solid legal ground and prosecute its need for information by bypassing the corruption at the White House and the Department of Justice.

We thought so in 2007. We think so now. Hells bells, this New York Times editorial page commentary agreed with us in 2007 when the target was George W. Bush:

Congress Has a Way of Making Witnesses Speak: Its Own Jail [snip]

If the Justice Department refuses to enforce the subpoenas, as seems likely, Congress will have to decide whether to do so. Washington lawyers are dusting off an old but apparently sturdy doctrine called “inherent contempt” that gives Congress the power to bring the recalcitrant witnesses in — by force, if necessary. [snip]

This is where inherent contempt comes in. From the Republic’s earliest days, Congress has had the right to hold recalcitrant witnesses in contempt — and even imprison them — all by itself. In 1795, shortly after the Constitution was ratified, the House ordered its sergeant at arms to arrest and detain two men accused of trying to bribe members of Congress. The House held a trial and convicted one of them.

In 1821, the Supreme Court upheld Congress’s right to hold people in contempt and imprison them. Without this power, the court ruled, Congress would “be exposed to every indignity and interruption, that rudeness, caprice, or even conspiracy, may mediate against it.” Later, in a 1927 case arising from the Teapot Dome scandal, the court upheld the Senate’s arrest of the brother of a former attorney general — carried out in Ohio by the deputy sergeant at arms — for ignoring a subpoena to testify.

The Congressional Research Service issued a report in July that confirmed Congress’s inherent contempt powers. It explained how they work: “The individual is brought before the House or Senate by the sergeant at arms, tried at the bar of the body, and can be imprisoned in the Capitol jail.” Congress can do this, the report concluded, to compel them to testify or to punish them for their refusal to do so.

The Bush administration has been acting as if only the executive branch matters. [snip]

This country has seen far too much of this sort of dismissal of Congress’s authority.”

IRS Lois Lerner should be the first to feel the inherent power of contempt of congress and be subjected to a full examination by the full House of Representatives. The hypocrites at the New York Times agreed with us when it was George W. Bush at target range. Now the hypocrites will protect “unitary executive” Barack Obama where once they deplored executive overreach and corruption.

Barack Obama changes laws at will, decides what laws to enforce, yet Big Media protects him. Big Media and Obama Dimocrats will not enforce the law. Will Congress?:

“House Republicans won’t rule out arresting Lois Lerner if Justice Department doesn’t

House Ways and Means Committee Republicans aren’t ruling out the use of the chamber’s “inherent contempt” authority if Attorney General Eric Holder refuses to act on the panel’s accusations against former IRS official Lois Lerner. [snip]

Among those tools is the House’s “inherent contempt” authority under the Constitution, which was initially exercised in 1795 during the First Congress and on multiple occasions thereafter. Lerner could be held until January 2015 when a new Congress is seated, which could issue another subpoena and throw her in the clink again if she still balks at testifying.

How exactly would the exercise of the inherent power of Congress work?:

“If Congress wants to hold someone in contempt for failure to comply with a subpoena, they can do several things:

(1) Hold congressional contempt proceedings. These are quasi-judicial proceedings, rooted in the constitutional investigatory and legislative power of Congress, in which the members of Congress themselves act as judges, juries, and prosecutors. It is very important to note that this is not a judicial process. The chamber of Congress in question has the power to direct the Sergeant at Arms to arrest someone, bring them before the chamber, and put them in jail, all without seeing the inside of a courtroom.

See McGrain v. Daugherty, for an example of this upheld by the Supreme Court. The Court held that such powers were “necessary and proper” for Congress to carry out its legislative function.

This is the “historical” method by which a chamber of Congress has enforced its subpoenas. It was employed some dozen or more times up until 1934 but it was deemed too time consuming because it required the attention of the whole chamber, sometimes for more than a week. In the 1850s an alternative procedure was hotly debated and eventually created. But this method still exists. And this is the source of what is referred to as the “inherent contempt” proceeding.

For completness’ sake I should mention that individuals imprisoned under this procedure may petition for habeas relief from federal courts. They therefore will have some opportunity (though likely limited) to raise defenses (for example, Fifth Amendment or executive privilege) and challenge the validity of the contempt finding. On the other hand, there is general consensus that this type of imprisonment is not a criminal penalty and therefore is not subject to the presidential pardon power.

The third option discussed at that post becomes relevant if Republican win the Senate in November. For now the House of Representatives should make it very clear that the corrupt, insolent officialdom at the White House and the Department of Justice as well as the Internal Revenue Service cannot rely on the presidential pardon power or the corruption of the laws by Obama henchmen.

As we warned in November/December of 2008 the “multi-headed Hydra which is the Obama Chicago Culture Of Corruption is growing another head in Washington, D.C.” Years later a groggy acknowledgement from Watergater Bob Woodward: There’s obviously something wrong at the IRS:



“GEORGE WILL, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: The investigation to take last first, has stalled because the Justice Department has already leaked its conclusion, which is that no one would be prosecuted. It rises to that level because the Internal Revenue Service is the most intrusive and potentially the most punitive institution of the federal government and has been thoroughly politicized. Let me give you five things we know that she’s done right now. She said the delay on approving conservative groups is caused by a serious uptick in applications. The inspector general of the IRS says that is just not true. She said the Tea Party group was very dangerous. In Texas and Kentucky and probably elsewhere, IRS employees have violated the Hatch Act by using federal resources for campaigning and obviously for Barack Obama.

WALLACE: Can we — I just want to point out — because the office of Special Council came out this week with a report and they said, now, there weren’t vast cases although in Dallas they apparently — they were wearing campaign buttons and there are screen saver said Obama and stuff like that. But there was at least one case where if you called the helpline this person was in effect tell you when you should vote for Obama and not for the Republicans because they’ll keep you in this mess. On the IRS helpline. So, (INAUDIBLE) with you recitation, I’m (INAUDIBLE).

WILL: Confidential taxpayer information of the organization, the National Organization for Marriage was leaked to a rival group. And finally, when Senator Schumer and Durbin and others were exerting the IRS to be more political in their application of views, she said with regard to Crossroads GPS, the most important conservative group, we are working on a denial of the application. Not expediting, not coming to a quick conclusion, but we are working on denial of it. That’s why this rises because as Bob Woodward remembers, the Watergate scandal was fundamentally in the words of John Dean using the machinery of the federal government to punish our enemies.

WALLACE: All right, Mr. Woodward, you know something about scandals. And if that’s forgetting them, how serious is the IRS scandal and, you know, I think one of the key questions is, does this really begin and end with a midlevel bureaucrat who we never heard of a year ago named Lois Lerner?

BOB WOODWARD, THE WASHINGTON POST: Well, there is obviously something here. And the question is does this committee know how to investigate? And they’re worried about this one person who has invoked her Fifth Amendment rights not to answer questions and you have congressmen on the committee going on and saying we have evidence she’s involved in criminal activity. I don’t think you should cross that line. The second thing is there’s always one person who’s not going to talk. And when you conduct an investigation like this, I have not gone into the details, you need to find people who will talk. And there are always people who will do this. And, you know, we should dig into it. There should be answers. It’s quite correct. And for the president to take that position is very, very unusual and say there is not a smidgeon of evidence here. I mean George has got a good list — I think, actually, there’s more. And there’s a question and you’re right, the IRS particularly this week as we know will file our tax returns has a big place in everyone’s life. And they have immense power. And the power of the federal government to come and say we’re auditing you or we’re going to do something to you, I mean it’s a ten ton truck coming at you. And it’s the sort of thing that the leadership and the White House should take a position. Look, we will not tolerate this. [snip]

HUME: Chris, the same set of facts that Bob and George have described would have touched off, I think, in previous days a media firestorm. What we had was kind of a campfire in most of the media, which was doused before very long and the story has been basically dormant. We at Fox News have continued to pursue it and some other media outlets have as well. But when that kind of firestorm occurs, it creates an atmosphere in Washington where for the administration with a message to try to promote day by day, you can’t get it out. You can get nothing out. We can all remember what it was like. And that creates a hothouse sort of atmosphere, in which all investigations end up being accelerated. There are minute details leaked, they get reported and the thing develops a life of its own and ultimately the combination of things, you know, brings the issue out and you get to the facts. It has not happened here.”

Big Media will protect Barack Obama and his gangster government. It will be up to Congress to get the truth.

Since the beginning of the IRS scandals we have stated that a special select committee was needed. Instead on issue after issue we have seen mostly bumbling from the committees charged with investigation.

Soon the entire House of Representatives will have to rise up to defend the law. The Constitution provides the shield and sword of law for the House of Representatives to take back representative government from the corrupt gangster government of Barack Obama. “This government of the people, by the people, and for the people. shall not perish from the earth” unless Congress and the people abandon principles and the solid rock of law.

Share

Reality Intrudes: Sebelius Resigns

Update: Obama is right about Sebelius but not in the way he meant it. “Kathleen Sebelius resignation: Obama says the HHS secretary will ‘go down in history‘” That’s like saying “Brownie, you’re doing a heck of a job.” She’s “going down” in history alright. We’ll make sure of that. Maybe Sebelius will retaliate like Brownie did and call out Obama as an incompetent boob not bothered about his supposed “legacy” “achievement”.

Even as Obama and Sebelius tried to polish their ObamaCare turd today there was One final glitch: Sebelius’s farewell speech derails because … it’s missing a page. Ah, good times, good times. The Obama circus is losing one of it’s biggest clowns.



————————————————————

Barack Obama is the one that should be forced to resign or be removed. But for now Sebelius is the one to take the fall. Yup, Sebelius to resign as secretary of HHS.

To punish Sebelius she should be forced to go on ObamaCare. She was not fired. She has not been punished. Force ObamaCare down her throat. Next stop: the nomination fight of her successor, OMB Director Sylvia Mathews Burwell.

There will be a lot of updates on this resignation as the **it hits the fan. For now it is time to polish the ammo to be used in the nomination fight to come in the midst of the November midterm elections.

In the nomination fight to come, one of the issues will be the necessary repeal of ObamaCare. The response to this from Obama ObamaCare shills is that the problem with ObamaCare is not enough ObamaCare. To them a “fix” here and there will solve the nonexistent problems.

We point out that the “fixes” proposed for ObamaCare effectively kill ObamaCare. ObamaCare cannot be fixed. “Oh, but people want ObamaCare fixed with more ObamaCare” these apologists claim. Enter reality, via former darlings of Obama Hopium Guzzlers- Nate Silver and the Huff n’ Puff:

“FiveThirtyEight, HuffPost Destroy Idea of ‘Secret Majority Supporting Obamacare’

On Thursday, a USA Today/Pew Research Center survey confirmed what most already know: the Affordable Care Act is not popular. 50 percent of respondents in that survey said they continue to disapprove of the ACA compared with 37 percent who approve of the law. That is largely stable from that survey’s results last month which found 53 percent disapproving and 41 percent approving of the ACA.

In fact, Pew’s results are consistent with other polls which have found broad disapproval of the law since it’s passage in 2010. Today, the Real Clear Politics average of opinion polls shows the ACA remains unpopular with an average of 52.2 percent of the public compared with an average of 39.8 who approve.

No matter, some of the ACA’s supporters say. For within those surveys that persistently show the public disapproving of the law lay secret subsets of respondents who, when added together, reveal that majorities actually adore the health care reform law.

“If one combines the segment that wants a more liberal approach to health care reform with those who approve of the law, a plurality of Americans view health care change favorably,” declared the New York Times‘ Allison Kopicki on the day the ACA’s troubled online presence went live last October.”

We read the same rubbish all the time. “Americans want more ObamaCare” not less recite the apologists:

“Based on a November CNN survey which asked respondents who say they oppose the law why that is the case, MSNBC.com analyst Steve Benen declared that, in spite of the fact that 58 percent said they oppose the law, the ACA is secretly beloved. “In other words, as the CNN analysis explained, 54% of the country either supports Obamacare, or say it’s not liberal enough,” he exclaimed.”

Jamelle Bouie at The Daily Beast has written the same rubbish. Ditto CNN (“Thirty-nine percent say they oppose the law because it’s too liberal, but 12% say they oppose it because it’s not liberal enough.” “That means half the public either favors Obamacare, or opposes it [because it] doesn’t go far enough.”.)

This delusion will be tested fully in November. Kathleen Sebelius tried to sail that river of denial but reality intruded on her reveries. The “math” from the once beloved Obama acolytes at 538 and Huff n’ Puff tell another story:

“Recently, partnering with the polling firm YouGov, Huffington Post polling analyst Mark Blumenthal attempted to duplicate CNN’s method of divining support for the ACA among those who do not support the ACA. To clarify CNN’s findings, he performed one extra step. “In your own words,” HuffPost asked select respondents, “what do you mean when you say the health care law is not liberal enough?”

“[V]ery few said they opposed the law because they would prefer a ‘single payer’ system (6 percent of those answering) or would prefer either the ‘public option’ or an alternative to ensure “healthcare for all” (4 percent),” Blumenthal revealed.

A much larger portion of the not-liberal-enough group referenced high costs (15 percent), the mandate to purchase health insurance (12 percent), or more general complaints about a lack of choice or too much government control (13 percent).

“I don’t think forcing everyone to buy insurance is liberal at all,” one respondent told Blumenthal.

Liberal means choice to me at least and it leaves us no choice, we are forced to buy insurance we may neither need or want,” another said.”

Call rewrite at the ObamaCare Dreamworks studios of delusion.

Bad enough coming from the Huff n’ Puff. Then Nate put the Silver knife right through the heart of this bloodsucker’s delight argument:

“But the fatal blow to this happy theory came from statistical guru Nate Silver‘s outlet, Five Thirty Eight. On Thursday, analyst Harry Enten observed ACA supporters have not only misread polling results that show some say the ACA is not liberal enough, but they have also misconstrued polling results which show ACA does not go “far enough.”

“The ‘not far enough’ group has been read as opposition from the political left,” Enten wrote. “But in the Democracy Corps survey, 13 percent of Republicans said Obamacare didn’t go far enough in changing health care. Only 4 percent of Democrats said the same.

The ABC News survey was more evenly split, but there was still no major Democratic opposition. Nine percent of Republicans and 8 percent of Democrats said the law didn’t go far enough, according to ABC News.

For most, the ACA is, in fact, unpopular. To the extent that this fact remains murky to some, the Pew survey released this week indicates that it will become clear as day in November.

“In the survey, taken after President Obama announced a surprising 7.1 million Americans had signed up for health care through the law’s exchanges, more than eight in 10 registered voters say a candidate’s stance on the law will be an important factor in determining their vote,” wrote USA Today‘s Susan Page. “A 54% majority call it very important.”

By 2-1, those who rate the issue as very important disapprove of the law,” she continued. “That means it is more likely to motivate opponents than supporters to vote — a critical element in midterm elections when turnout often is low.”

Reality is paging Sylvia Burell in the lobby of the Roach Motel. Don’t go in there girlfriend.

Share

Get Over 2008 Big Pink! – Campaign Finance Edition

We’re constantly implored/commanded by the Obama cult to “get over 2008“. But we know our Alinsky Rule #4 and we promised at the end of 2008 to hold Barack Obama’s stinking feet to the fire. Think of us as Banquo’s ghost with a red hot poker to shove up the ass of Obama acolytes.

What we find particularly galling however, is that the whine to “get over 2008” comes from the same people and Big Media institutions that bemoan the Koch brothers and weep about the need for “campaign finance reform“. What Obama supporters mean by “campaign finance reform” is that the other side stop fundraising so that Obama supporters can keep buying/stealing elections.

The hypocrisy of Obama cultists who demand we “get over 2008” was further exposed this week thanks to the Supreme Court’s ruling in a major campaign finance case. Oddly, the hypocrisy of Obama supporters was exposed by a pretty good article from the Obama cult website DailyBeast. Stuart Stevens at DailyBeast made a very good policy case for not getting over 2008:

When Obama rejected federal funding for presidential campaigns before his first term, he changed campaigning as we knew it, with candidates on both sides shifting their focus from what’s important (votes! dialogues! press!) to what’s not (money! money! money!). [snip]

Campaign finance is a complicated, vexing issue. There are freedom of speech issues which are legitimate and compelling with a fierce disparity of opinions on the proper solutions. But for over thirty years we had one positive reform that both parties embraced and maintained: federal funding of presidential elections. That ended in 2008 when Barack Obama became the first nominee since Watergate to reject federal financing.

Hey! that happened in 2008! Obama cultists don’t want to remember that it is Obama that lied and it was Obama they let get away with his lies. That’s the DailyBeast talking, not good ol’ Big Pink. That pig Barack Obama destroyed campaign finance reform:

“Let’s look at the history.

After Watergate, a series of reform campaign finance measures were passed. For the first time in US history, a system was established to fund presidential campaigns with tax dollars. [snip]

The same legislation provided for a partial federal funding mechanism for the presidential primaries. [snip]

This system of federal funding and limits held for both primaries and the general election lasted until 1996, when Steve Forbes running in the Republican primary for President rejected federal funding to self-finance his primary campaign. On the Democratic side, the same happened in 2004 when Howard Dean realized he could raise a lot of money on the Internet and therefore rejected federal funding for the primary. It was probably a mistake as it gave permission to John Kerry, married to a billionaire, to spend personal funds. Kerry did, outspending Dean and quickly won.”

Well isn’t that special? Capitalist tool Steve Forbes and tool/fool Howard Dean broke the public finance system aided and abetted by John Kerry. It wasn’t evil Bill Clinton or corporatist evil Hillary Clinton that broke the system but rather the ‘Dimocratic wing of the Dimocratic party’ Howie and ketchup king weenie John Kerry. Who would’a guessed? According to Big Media it is those evil Clintons raising money in Lincoln’s bedroom that are the cause for all the calamities of campaign finance. Enter the DailyBeast which informs the Obama cult that it was Howie that began to kill the system they whine about.

But it was another beast, a beast that walks on hind legs, a beast from Chicago, that finally chewed the public finance system to death – IN 2008! The beast is called Barack Obama:

“But Kerry still accepted federal funding and limits for his general election, as had every candidate from 1976 until 2008. In the 2004 campaign, Kerry and Bush each received $74.6 million for the general election.

In 2008, Barack Obama, of course, pledged to accept federal funding if he were the nominee. At the time, Hillary was the fundraising juggernaut and it was assumed no progressive candidate could be the first to reject federal funding in a general election. As David Plouffe detailed in his book, The Audacity To Win, the campaign had committed in writing to stay in the federal system. “It was declarative, and it was unquestionably stated we’d be in no matter what the GOP nominee did.”

But Obama and his campaign realized they could raise a lot of money. A lot of money. “I thought if we opted out of the system,” Plouffe wrote, “We could enjoy a significant financial advantage over McCain.”

So they did what no campaign had done since Watergate: They rejected Federal funding and campaign spending limits. In a classic Obama touch, he announced the decision not to accept federal funding in a video that claimed, “I support a robust system of public financing of elections.”

Get over 2008!!!???!!! It’s a year that lives in campaign finance Big Media infamy.

How could that dog chewing carnivorous beast Barack Obama get away with such monstrous acts??? How???? How???? How indeed?:

“The Obama campaign knew they would face criticism in the media. But they were betting that Obama’s special appeal to the media would allow them to get away with it. They were right. The New York Times and Washington Post wrote weak editorials slapping Barack Obama on the wrist; meanwhile the Obama campaign went on to raise historic levels of money. Much is made of their small dollar contribution, but over 20 percent came from a single source: Wall Street, breaking all records.”

Get over 2008? Get over 2008? We’ll never get over 2008! We’ll remember 2008 for eternity and shove our red hot poker up your hypocritical asses so far you’ll see Game of Thrones episodes in holographic 3D!

Meanwhile, as treacherous liar Barack Obama was aided and abetted in his crimes by Big Media and the hypocrite horde of Obama cultists, John McCain was living up to his ideals:

“Meanwhile John McCain, long a champion of campaign finance reform, stayed in the system. He received $84 million and stuck to the limits. By Election Day, Barack Obama had raised $750 million. The Obama campaign smothered McCain in money.

Today many people, including some in the media, have a tendency to confuse Obama’s decision to reject Federal limits with the Citizens United Supreme Court decision that opened the door to corporate dollars in Superpacs. The two are completely unrelated. The Citizens United came two years after Obama rejected federal funding.

The history of campaign finance reform demonstrates that once a voluntarily imposed limit is broken, it is very difficult to go back. For 2012, Obama announced early that he would continue to reject Federal funding. To avoid the financial mismatch that faced John McCain, every Republican said they’d do the same. The system was dead.

The DailyBeast article further notes that the system that Obama spawned in the same way his father spawned him almost insures that incumbent presidents will always win reelection. That’s because a president can amass billions from now on while the opposition party will exhaust it’s finances in primaries. Of course, this scenario can be avoided with a super-rich opposition candidate that self-finances. This means that thanks to Barack Obama 2008 a super-rich candidate is empowered. And we’re supposed to get over 2008?

In addition, because of Obama 2008, which we are supposed to “get over”, the wealthy donor primary is more important than ever:

“A strong candidate who has grass roots appeal but lacks an ability to attract major donors can now be attacked for that weakness as a potentially disqualifying factor. “We can’t nominate a candidate who doesn’t have what it takes to raise a billion dollars from April to November” is a legitimate concern for both parties focused on winning in November.

Everybody hates money in politics. Candidates hate to raise it, most donors would rather not give it and there is almost universal agreement that our system is crazy. Still, it continues and just gets worse. Federal funding of presidential campaigns with spending limits was one of the last great reforms keeping some sanity in the system.”

Big Media and the Obama cult pigs that snort and yelp because we won’t forget 2008 or let 2008 be forgotten are the culprits, not the Koch brothers, not the Supreme Court, not Republicans. It is Barack Obama, Big Media and Obama voters that are to blame for the state of campaign finance reform:

When Barack Obama announced he was thinking of breaking the system, there should have been a much stronger reaction from those invested in good government. The Commission on Presidential Debates should have announced they would not allow any candidate who rejected spending limits in the debates. The New York Times and Washington Post should have called it disqualifying for a nominee. That would have signaled the pain was too great for anyone, even Barack Obama, to undo the Watergate reform. [snip]

The new, post-Obama system requires candidates to spend upwards of 60 percent of their time raising money deep into September and October. That takes them away from voters, away from the press, away from every dialogue we value in our campaign system.”

The Obama hypocrites that want us to “get over 2008” can go f*ck themselves. We’ll provide the red hot poker.

Share