Heads Will Roll: Ebola Obama Beheads His Own; Michelle Obama Bolts

Election day is exactly one month away. One month away Joe Biden wastes his time with attacks against Hillary Clinton, Bob Gates, and Leon Panetta for telling the truth about Barack Obama and his destructive policies geared towards “managed decline” of the United States of America.

Barack Obama’s policies towards a “managed decline” are a purposeful destruction of America. Those that aid and abet Barack Obama’s purposeful destruction of America tried, with some great level of success thus far, to publicly distance themselves from Barack Obama even as their recorded votes demonstrate they are locked in step with Barack Obama’s destructive policies. Now these ghouls are exposed. The credit goes to 28 words from the lips of Barack Obama:

Instead, Obama just gave every Republican ad-maker in the country more fodder for negative ads linking Democratic candidates to him.

Here are the four sentences that will draw all of the attention (they come more than two thirds of the way through the speech): “I am not on the ballot this fall.  Michelle’s pretty happy about that.  But make no mistake: these policies are on the ballotEvery single one of them.” Boil those four sentences down even further and here’s what you are left with: “Make no mistake: these policies are on the ballot.  Every single one of them.

You can imagine Sen. Mark Pryor of Arkansas or Sen. Kay Hagan in North Carolina or Alison Lundergan Grimes in Kentucky grimacing when they heard those 28 words. That trio has spent much of the campaign insisting that this election is NOT about Barack Obama, that it is instead about a choice between themselves and their opponents.

[snip]

It doesn’t take a political mastermind to realize that an ad in which the President of the United States says “Make no mistake: These policies are on the ballot. Every single one of them” might not be helpful to the Democratic candidates trying to run away from him this November.

Read his lips: No more Obama Dimocrats. As the Washington Post notes this does not help Obama Dimocrats in sheeps clothing. Obama “(on video no less!) bluntly insisting that an election in 33 days is indeed a referendum on his policies. Republicans couldn’t have written a better script than that.”



Yup, Republicans couldn’t have written a better script. So why try to improve on the perfect?

Barack Obama wrote the script for Republican ad-makers:

“Alison Grimes says this election is not about her support for Barack Obama and his failed polices,” a narrator says over footage of a Grimes commercial that showed her shooting a gun. “But Obama himself says a vote for Alison is a vote for his policies.”



Hillary Clinton will campaign for Grimes soon. The Clinton’s are friends with the Grimes family and the Clintons have a political debt to pay. It makes no sense otherwise to campaign for Grimes.

Grimes is well behind in fundraising. Grimes is well behind in the polls. On the RCP average Grimes is at least 5 points behind and losing all the recent and not so recent polls. The recent Ebola scare in Kentucky is also not helpful to those who pretend to be “not Obama” but vote consistently to support Barack Obama’s destructive policies.

In Kansas, Barack Obama struck with his machete tongue. Republican Pat Roberts, a squishy RINO, was in trouble because Roberts resides in Washington D.C., not Kansas, in more ways than one. Republicans abandoned Roberts after a particularly nasty primary. Now Barack Obama has come to the rescue of Republican Roberts:

“I am not on the ballot this fall … But make no mistake: these policies are on the ballot — every single one of them,” he said.

In Kansas, the Roberts ad, which will air statewide, replays Obama’s remarks and agrees that his policies are on the ballot — including Obamacare, the increased national debt and the number of Americans out of work. A vote for Roberts’ opponent, independent Greg Orman, would be as good as “a vote for the Obama agenda,” a narrator says.

Roberts has been painstakingly trying to connect Orman to Obama, even though the independent insists he’s not beholden to either party and hasn’t decide who he’d align with if he wins. That’s why this clip was such catnip for Roberts ad-maker Wilson Grand.

Pat Roberts was deservedly in re-election trouble. In the RCP average he is over 5 points behind. But Kansas is a strong Republican state and Republican leadership voices from Bob Dole to Sarah Palin have begun to campaign for Roberts. The alleged independent is more than likely a vote for Harry Reid and Barack Obama’s policies. Thanks to Barack Obama the issue in Kansas is now clear for Republican voters. Unless Orman begins to attack the policies of Barack Obama with full ferocity Orman will lose.

Read my lips, this November my policies are on the ballot, every single one of them.’



Read my lips, this November my policies are on the ballot, every single one of them.’ It’s a nationalized election:



The Brown web video also replays the president’s remarks and then cuts to a grainy clip of Obama embracing Shaheen, who Brown is trying to unseat.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee said the president has helped them “nationalize” the election at a time when many vulnerable Democrats are seeking to localize their races.

For that footage, we thank you Mr. President,” NRSC spokesman Brad Dayspring said in an email to supporters.

Shaheen is barely ahead in New Hampshire. Thanks to dead weight Barack Obama Shaheen is in for tough times.

Read his lips. Obama’s own words. Can’t blame anyone but Barack H. Obama. Some do try to protect Barack Obama and now they fling those nearest and dearest under the bus:

As the Obama administration crashes and burns, insiders begin to blame Valerie Jarrett.

Are significant chunks of the mainstream media in despair over Barack Obama? This past week, Obama used 60 Minutes to attempt to shift blame for the failure to anticipate the rise of ISIS, endured a cover-up of White House security disasters by the Secret Service, and saw a government-agency report that he had skipped nearly 60 percent of his intelligence briefings.

The reaction from some longtime Obama defenders was swift and harsh. “President Obama this week committed professional suicide,” wrote former CNN host Piers Morgan, now an editor-at-large for Britain’s Daily Mail.

He called Obama’s throwing of the intelligence community under the bus a “shameless, reprehensible display of buck-passing” that will result in some analysts’ exacting “cold-blooded revenge on Obama by drip-feeding negative stories about him until he’s gone.” As for the Secret Service fiasco, Morgan said it was “no wonder the Secret Service gets complacent when The Boss exudes complacency from every pore.”

Chris Matthews of MSNBC, the former White House speechwriter who once rapturously recounted that he “felt this thrill going up my leg” as Obama spoke, didn’t hold back on Wednesday’s Hardball. “Let’s get tough here,” Matthews began, as he lambasted Obama for being “intellectually lazy” and “listening to the same voices all the time.” He even named names, saying that Obama had become “atrophied into that little world of people like Valerie Jarrett and Mrs. Obama.”

Jonathan Alter, a columnist for Bloomberg News and the author of a sympathetic book on Obama’s first term, reported that Jarrett is an unusual presence in the White House: “Staffers feared her, but didn’t like or trust her. At meetings she said little or nothing, instead lingering afterwards to express her views directly to the President, creating anxiety for her underlings and insulting them by saying, ‘I don’t talk just to hear myself talking.’”

Everyone expects a presidential spouse to weigh in on issues, but the reference to Valerie Jarrett, the White House senior adviser who mentored both the president and the first lady at the start of their careers in Chicago, is telling. Her outsize role in many presidential decisions is known to insiders, but she remains resolutely behind the scenes. So when Jarrett does enter the news, it’s significant, because it may provide a window into how the Obama White House really works.

As the corpse of the Obama presidency freezes up tuning Barack’s lips purple-er Barack defenders are now ready to blame the women. It’s a war on women closest to Barack, under the bus style. Valerie Jarrett is a monster and Michelle Obama is an old style Chicago ward boss spawn who loves to Mooch. But the problem is Barack Obama.

Jarrett is an abuser of the under-staffed Secret Service from whom she receives undeserved round-the-clock protection. Jarrett is a monster. But deep down the cobwebbed halls the knives are out to behead her. ‘I’m a fan of Obama, but his continuing reliance and dependence upon a vacuous cipher like Valerie Jarrett concerns me.’”

The problem is Barack Obama:

The Insiders: Obama’s policies and management are on the ballot

Good for President Obama. It is not unfair to extrapolate out from the president’s own words and argue that his management record is also on the ballot. Which brings us to the obvious question about the management of the latest crisis: the Ebola epidemic. [snip]

And given all the lies and incompetence we have witnessed from this administration, it is not unreasonable to be skeptical about what the White House is saying. It isn’t cynical or partisan to believe that mistakes are being made today and that we are not being told the whole truth.

There are plenty of examples to illustrate this administration’s inability to manage things from Obamacare to the Veterans Affairs Department to the IRS to combating terrorists in Syria and Iraq (including the Islamic State) to the Secret Service. Just look at CNN medical correspondent Elizabeth Cohen, who relates her own incredible, shocking experience returning through U.S. customs from Liberia with her colleagues, reporting that they were not uniformly questioned about their potential exposure to Ebola or screened for the disease.

The Ebola threat is a vivid illustration of why competence in government matters, and recent history confirms that Obama and the Democrats can’t deliver. Voters can see for themselves that there is a pattern of how the Obama administration deals with a crisis. After mistakes are revealed, the White House will first deny anything is wrong, then proclaim the problem is being fixed, next say everything is fine and finally deflect any blame from the president by blaming President George W. Bush or crying about partisanship in Washington. In addition, the White House will claim that Obama didn’t know anything until he saw it in the newspaper, and then it will move on to the next crisis in short order.

The president was right to say that his policies are on the ballot; whether it was wise to do so depends on your perspective. I’m sure that his partners in governance — a.k.a. the Democrats on the ballot in November — are not happy about it, but voters have every reason to make this election a referendum on how the president and his party have performed over the past six years and whether more of the same is desirable.

Obama’s policies and management are on the ballot this November. Obama Dimocrats beware:

Obama’s Blow to Endangered Democrats

The structure of the president’s speech was familiar. First, blame his predecessor for leaving the economy a shambles. Second, tout a few “accomplishments,” such as enacting Obamacare and fighting for financial regulation that has made it harder for people to get mortgages. Finally, call for the same economic prescriptions he has been promoting since 2011.

But the speech quickly became noteworthy for the pronouncement that simultaneously delighted Republicans everywhere and caused huge headaches for every vulnerable Democrat seeking re-election:

“Make no mistake,” Obama said of his agenda. “These policies are on the ballot. Every single one.”

With those few words, the president turned an election that many Democrats wanted to make about local issues into one that will be decided on his national policies. Vulnerable Senate incumbents such as Mark Pryor, Mark Begich and Mary Landrieu can no longer talk about all they have done for Arkansas, Alaska and Louisiana. They now have to answer for Obamacare, the uneven recovery, and instability in the Middle East and elsewhere in the world. [snip]

The working-age population has risen since October 2009, but the number of people who aren’t in the labor force has increased by 11.7 million. Since he took office, workforce participation has dropped steadily, from 65.7 percent to the current 62.8 percent. Average hourly earnings, adjusted for inflation, are down from $10.38 to $10.33. And the number of people in poverty has risen by more than a million from 2008 to 2013.

It’s a terrible cement filled worn out rubber tire of a noose for Obama to hang Dimocrats with. In state after state, Obama Dimocrats are dead because of Barack Obama:

Many voters in states with competitive Senate races have already taken their measure of the president and his policies. His approval ratings are in the low 40s in these states, and this impression of him isn’t changing before November. A broad majority thinks the country is on the wrong track, and Obama earns low grades for his handling of almost everything, from jobs and the economy to foreign policy.

Maybe it was good, then, that Obama gave his speech in Illinois, one of the few places where Democrats still welcome his presence. But vulnerable Democrats in other states are wishing that what he said in suburban Chicago could have just stayed there.

So, as the big three (Alaska, Louisiana, Arkansas) senate races slip away, as another three (West Virginia, Montana, South Dakota) have long since vanished from possible Obama victory, as more states (Iowa, Colorado, New Hampshire) escape the grasp of Obama’s bony fingered allies, as the GOP edge grows in the final stretch, as by all accounts the odds of Republicans winning the Senate are growing what is there to do?

The idea was that because Barack Obama is Ebola and no candidate wants to be seen with him (Rubio is especially funny on this point) Mooch, er, Michelle Obama would take up the slacks and once again wear the pants in the Obama family. But Michelle wants to stay with her cocktail waitress dresses on:

Why Is First Lady Scarce in Campaign? Her Last Name Is Obama

MILWAUKEE — She can rouse a crowd as she did here this week, connect with women and drive turnout among African-American voters. Yet despite the nail-biting closeness of state contests to decide which party will control the Senate, Michelle Obama has been largely absent from the campaign trail so far.

She has her reasons, Democrats say: Mrs. Obama hates to be away from her daughters. She loathes Washington’s toxic politics. She resents Republicans for their opposition to her husband’s agenda. But she also believes some Senate Democrats have been insufficiently supportive of her own efforts to end childhood obesity.

Michelle Obama, like a dutiful daughter of Chicago ward politics does not want to do anything unless she is paid up front in cash. Or in travel to exotic places on the taxpayer dime. Michelle Obama wants to be paid.

Michelle Obama will campaign for some governors. No doubt even she does not want to get blamed for the November disaster a’coming (N.B. to Hillary: get a clue) in the senate races. First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton “crisscrossed the country for Democrats in 1998, visiting about 20 states”. Michelle Robinson wears that Obama scar and senate candidates worry her “deeply unpopular” husband’s name is a cement filled tire and “Mrs. Obama’s presence would tie them too closely to the president they are trying to distance themselves from“.

In 1998 Hillary Rodham Clinton became “a one-woman campaign machine” and “the hottest politician in the land,” according to the New York Times article lamenting Michelle Obama’s disappearance from the campaign trail.

It’s not 1998. It’s 2014. The “Obama Factor” is back for 2014. The Boob is back:

Registered voters are more likely to view their choice of candidate in this year’s midterm elections as a message of opposition (32%) rather than support (20%) for President Barack Obama. That 12-percentage-point margin is similar to what Gallup measured for Obama in 2010 and George W. Bush in 2006, years in which their parties performed poorly in the midterm elections.

In 1998 Bill Clinton was in his sixth year in office facing impeachment and at 60% popularity. Hillary Clinton campaigned ceaselessly in every part of the country. Instead of a disaster, seats were gained in the House and there were no losses in the Senate. It’s not 1998.



It’s 2014. “Read my lips, this November my policies are on the ballot, every single one of them.’

Barack Obama is chopping heads – of his own party members. Barack Obama beheads his own.

Share

101 thoughts on “Heads Will Roll: Ebola Obama Beheads His Own; Michelle Obama Bolts

  1. One of our meany fact filled links features Marco Rubio:

    http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/10/03/rubio-if-obamas-policies-are-working-why-wont-democrats-campaign-with-him/

    Sen. Rubio said, “None of these candidates are campaigning with him. If his policies were working out so well, they would all want him to come into their states and campaign with them.”

    But that’s not happening. “In fact, they either don’t want him to come or when he comes to their state, they all avoid him. Why aren’t they campaigning on these things? Why aren’t they bragging about Obamacare in their ads? Instead they want their campaigns to be about all sorts of other issues. here is the bottom line, this country is not doing as well as it should be doing. This new century, an American century. This is a country right now that should be creating millions of jobs. We shouldn’t have to be forcing companies to stay here in this country and a lot of them are now leaving because of our tax code and so forth…”

  2. This is from 1998. Before “Senator Clinton”. It is called “Give ’em Hillary”:

    http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/time/1998/11/09/hillary.html

    Give ’em Hillary
    Jubilant campaign rallies showed she could win sympathy. Results showed she can also win elections

    Hello, this is Hillary Clinton,” gurgles your answering machine. And it really is Hillary, no joke, asking you to vote Democratic in last week’s elections. She wasn’t quite so tireless that she actually phoned individual voters, but she came close. That phone message–left automatically on thousands of machines across the nation–was just one of 100 phone scripts and radio spots she recorded. She also banked millions at some 50 fund raisers and spoke at 34 rallies, blasting through 10 states in the final days like a madwoman.

    We all thought a woman who has loved Bill Clinton would dramatically influence the midterms, and we were right. It just wasn’t Monica. Most people might have gone into therapy or hiding after what Hillary suffered this year. She tore up the campaign trail instead. The operative analogy best describing her ceased to be Tammy Wynette. It became something more like Jackie Joyner-Kersee.

    And she delivered. Of course, not every candidate she stumped for won–but well over half did, many in squeakers. “Her impact was electric,” says Hank Morris, a consultant who helped Democrat Charles Schumer beat Alfonse D’Amato in New York. “We trended up every time she was here.” [snip]

    The Vilsack campaign crested when Hillary was there. “The polls were showing a dead heat, and then she brought this burst of enthusiasm,” says David Axelrod, a Vilsack operative.

    She helped in part because her almost evangelical rallies made great TV. In Illinois, “she got more free media than both Senate candidates,” marvels Tony Podesta, campaign manager for Senator Carol Moseley-Braun. Some folks came out of loyalty; others exhibited a daytime-talk-show curiosity about the Hillary Calvary. In any event, her speeches were crammed. In San Francisco two weeks ago, Boxer’s people booked a room for 600 for Hillary. Double that number showed up (and they paid to see her). A Rhode Island group tarried four hours to hear and cheer her. In California, Hillary’s phone message startled many of the women who got home from work to hear it (the Boxer campaign targeted 775,000 women with phone banks). Some who then went to see her at public events would shriek, “I got a message from you at home!”

    Nationally, Hillary’s approval ratings have never been so high–up to 70%, double the level they reached after the health-care fiasco and the reports of her cosmic communing with Eleanor Roosevelt. So how did she suddenly become the most powerful politician in America? For one thing, she turned out to be right on some key issues. Republicans and reporters mocked her when she began the year charging that the President was the victim of “a vast right-wing conspiracy.” But as the plotters crawled out onto the stage, the phrase started to ring true to some. Later, as paperback versions of the Starr report described the precise topography of her husband’s infidelity, she focused not on the humiliation but on how to get out from under it. Privately, she fueled a fight-back strategy against Kenneth Starr. Publicly, she defined poise. Politics, she told crowd after crowd, remains a noble pursuit. Her silence about her inner life reinforced a public-private boundary the public was beginning to feel had frayed too much.

    That’s the fluffy stuff, but there was a gritty truth too: Hillary could help rescue her party and husband in part because she was nearly untouchable. Handlers kept nettlesome reporters away. Even the most acrid G.O.P. candidates couldn’t hit her too hard after her visits. Her pain spoke silently to too many voters. “She can talk to the most sought-after swing voters, which are women,” says Axelrod in Iowa. Boxer got 60% of the women’s vote in California. [snip]

    Could her success this year push her into a race of her own? She says she has no such plans. But the ecstatic crowds in Chicago leave Podesta wondering: “There’s no doubt in my mind she could beat Peter Fitzgerald in 2004.”

    Homework assignment for readers: Compare and contrast the work habits of Hillary and Bill Clinton to lame show-horse Barack Obama and Michelle Obama. Compare and contrast the sensible work day pant-suit clothes of work-horse Hillary to the cocktail waitress costumes and stapled on eyebrows worn by Mooch.

    Extra credit: Compare and contrast the schedules of the First Lady in elections of 1998 and the cocktail waitress occupant of the White House in the 2014 elections.

    Essays are due by November 4th.

  3. admin

    October 4, 2014 at 4:25 pm

    Homework assignment for readers: Compare and contrast the work habits of Hillary and Bill Clinton to lame show-horse Barack Obama and Michelle Obama. Compare and contrast the sensible work day pant-suit clothes of work-horse Hillary to the cocktail waitress costumes and stapled on eyebrows worn by Mooch.

    Extra credit: Compare and contrast the schedules of the First Lady in elections of 1998 and the cocktail waitress occupant of the White House in the 2014 elections.

    Essays are due by November 4th.

    I’m going to copy wbb’s paper. So wbb, write a good one! 😀

    Stellar post, admin!

    Hillary 2016

  4. TheRock

    I’m going to copy wbb’s paper. So wbb, write a good one! 😀

    ———
    Funny stuff.

    —-

    I’d write a pretty good paper, if I have to bleep out the cuss words for MO, there won’t be anything left to ponder.

    One woman is a credentialed, a hardworking sweetheart that is qualified to be one of our greatest presidents.

    The other is selfish, feelings of grandeur and has a temper like an old buffalo.

  5. Grimes is well behind in fundraising. Grimes is well behind in the polls. On the RCP average Grimes is at least 5 points behind and losing all the recent and not so recent polls.

    True about the fundraising; but look, I can’t compete with the Koch brothers.

    But about the polls, the Grimes campaign says that polls over the last 2 weeks put Grimes neck-and-neck with McConnell and even at a slight advantage (44-42), well within the margin of error.

    For me, that spells victory for Grimes: undecideds go for the insurgent when it gets down to the wire. Dick Morris had a good analogy about that situation, with someone worrying about his marriage while his wife was “undecided.”

    I think the visit by HRC will do the trick for Grimes. A lot of Kentucky is Appalachia where strong women are appreciated, and Bible Belt too, where HRC’s strong Methodism will pull a lot of weight.

    Grimes is a strong woman and McConnell is a weak man. The more I think about it, the more I’m sure McConnell will be out on his ass.

    Anyway, for the rest of the post, spot-on as usual, admin.

  6. Hillary will be back in NH campaigning for Shaheen and our totally embarrassing congressional representatives, Annie Kuster and Carole Shea-Douche-Bag.

    I love ya, Hillary, but I ain’t voting for ANY of them.

  7. This is what I received yesterday from the Grimes campaign:

    This week we had some good news when a new poll released by the Mellman Group showed us ahead of Mitch McConnell – 42 to 40!

    That’s right – we’re still in a dead heat, even after the $40 million McConnell and his shady dark money Super PACs have spent falsely attacking our campaign.

    Poll after poll shows it: we can win….

    and so forth. The 18% undecideds will probably break more than even for Grimes. I think this race is won….

  8. alcina
    October 5, 2014 at 7:33 am
    October 5, 2014 at 8:04 am

    Shaheen… Annie Kuster and Carole Shea-Douche-Bag, Maggie Hassan. won’t be voting for her, either.

    I love ya, Hillary, but I ain’t voting for ANY of them.

    Well, are you considering the alternatives? Have you turned Repug?

  9. jeswezey

    I registered Independent in 2008. And yes, I have considered (and had to put up with) the alternatives. I will be voting for the following:

    Governor – Walt Havenstein
    Senate – Scott Brown
    House Rep – Marilinda Garcia

  10. Some people thrive on adversity. Like, during the status quo, they are good, but nothing special. But when shit happens, they rise to the challenge and shine. In 2008, I had always planned to vote for Hillary but it was not until the corrupt Obama campaign arose that she really showed her stuff. That is when I came to really admire her. And did she shine! She simply deserved the nomination. She is the person this country needs.

    When shit happens, Hillary goes to work and rises to the challenge. O goes golfing.

  11. Lu4PUMA October 5, 2014 at 10:07 am

    When shit happens, Hillary goes to work and rises to the challenge. O goes golfing.

    Exactly my sentiments, and I think a lot of people see that essential difference between the two of them: strong woman/weak man.

    In my view, the difference has never been very great on the ideological level. It’s just a matter of “Who is going to put his/her nose to the grindstone and work out & implement a solution?”

    That’s why I don’t think we’ll find HRC making a lot of negative comments about Obama just to put daylight between them for her own political benefit. She doesn’t have to do that, so she won’t.

    The same ethic is on display in the race between Grimes and McConnell. McConnell has launched dozens of attack ads and is now trying to attach Grimes to Obama. It has all backfired. Grimes versus McConnell is also seen as strong woman versus weak man. Plus, the people of Kentucky have had enough of that simple fuck for the last 30 years.

  12. I think Hillary is an artful politician who will distance herself from Ebola Obama as well as it can be done. So far, just a few stink bombs as his mask has worn thin. It is not appropriate to go on the attack just before these elections. The candidates that want to win are going to have to do that. Ofucktard has been such a perfect example of what not to do, she can come in with positive plans and be solution oriented to distinguish herself from him. She is not running against him anymore. Negative stuff can very well backfire.

    Hillary has the compounded problem of trying to unite the party O is trying to destroy as she come into leadership. I think O’s destruction of the party is intentional, as in, “If I cannot successfully lead you, no one will”. I think his last 2 years will be about the destruction of the Democratic Party as well as the nation. Like he would rather see a Republican in office, than Hillary who can show them how it is supposed to be done. The Dimocratic Party better wake up fast and take his pen and phone away. The golf course is the right place for him. Although, I would prefer to see him in jail.

    Like O has been Clarence the Angle to show the world what it is like without a strong USA, so he has shown the party what it is like to be without competent leadership. They need to kiss Hillary’s feet.

  13. There is one word that describes the kind of government we have under big media beloved Obama:

    KAKISTOCRACY

    It means a government “ruled” by the worst and the least qualified.

    P.S. Notice it rhymes with catastrophy which is the inevitable result of a kakistocracy.

    P.P.S. Notice as well, the word ruled. This was the very word used by fat fucking Howard Dean when he proclaimed this is OUR turn to rule.

    1 English
    1.1 Etymology
    1.2 Pronunciation
    1.3 Noun
    1.3.1 Translations
    1.4 External links

    English
    Etymology

    Ancient Greek κάκιστος (kákistos, “worst”), superlative of κακός (kakós, “bad”) + -κρατια (-kratia, “power, rule, government”).
    Pronunciation

    IPA(key): /kækɪsˈtɑkɹəsi/

    Noun

    kakistocracy (plural kakistocracies)

  14. You can add the name of the current head of CDC to that list.

    He reminds me of Danny–word salad Werthal, big dim contributor and former head of the uber corrupt IRS.

  15. Grimes versus McConnell is also seen as strong woman versus weak man
    ———————-
    The problem with McConnell is that he is a corrupt man, not a weak one.

    As for Grimes, I do not see much strength when it came to standing up to Obama..

    The comparison here is unpersuasive.

    However, I do want Grimes to win just to be rid of McConnell.

    What she offers beyond that is pure conjecture.

  16. True about the fundraising; but look, I can’t compete with the Koch brothers.
    ——————
    Oh yes, the Koch Brothers

    That ignis fatuus conjured up by the DNC to frighten gullible democrats who have never heard of the Old Nazi Soros who spends five times their money to corrupt elections and to destroy the country. Who’s afraid of the big bad Wolfe (soros lieutenant). Apart from money the difference between Kock and Soros is one wants to preserve this country and the other wants to transform it along the line of Obama. The left hates Koch mainly because he fights their oppressive regulations which impact his businesses.

    https://www.google.com/search?q=ignis+fatuus&sa=X&espv=2&biw=1034&bih=751&tbm=isch&imgil=AYD-527LJ9-3cM%253A%253BlZeqrsesiUZw0M%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fravirr17.deviantart.com%25252Fart%25252FIgnis-fatuus-217473399&source=iu&pf=m&fir=AYD-527LJ9-3cM%253A%252ClZeqrsesiUZw0M%252C_&usg=__R-Tv6UiMusVjfRdCd3vg-2Ml8IY%3D&ved=0CFAQyjc&ei=eoUxVIKjFYqqigKfm4CYBg#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=AYD-527LJ9-3cM%253A%3BlZeqrsesiUZw0M%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fth04.deviantart.net%252Ffs71%252FPRE%252Fi%252F2011%252F190%252Fc%252F0%252Fignis_fatuus_by_ravirr17-d3lh7jr.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fravirr17.deviantart.com%252Fart%252FIgnis-fatuus-217473399%3B1081%3B739

  17. Hillary is only campaigning for Grimes out of a sense of political payback. There is no advantage for Hillary to do such a foolish thing otherwise. When Grimes loses the headlines will be “Hillary couldn’t do it” and “If Hillary can’t help in Kentucky where she is popular can she win anywhere?”. This is a stupid move by Hillary and bound to hurt her. This is the type of idiocy that indicates to us that Hillary is not running because if she were she would not do any campaigning for losers or likely losers.

    The latest poll from Kentucky out today: CBS/NYT McConnell ahead by 6.

    As to that ridiculous Mellman internal poll NOT released to the public (only the phony results) and commissioned and paid for by Grimes, here’s the Hill:

    http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/senate-races/217259-grimes-internal-shows-tied-race-with-mcconnell

    Facing a string of troubling public polls that have shown Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) opening up a solid lead, his Democratic challenger, Alison Lundergan Grimes, released one of her own on Wednesday that pegged the race as a tie.

    The survey, from the Mellman Group, actually gives Grimes a 1-point lead, with 43 percent support from likely voters to McConnell’s 42 percent support; 15 percent remain undecided.

    Candidates typically release internal surveys in an attempt to push back on a souring media narrative surrounding their chances, which is what Grimes has faced following four surveys out in the past month giving McConnell a lead greater than the margin of error.

    The survey didn’t include the libertarian in the race, who observers say could siphon votes away from both candidates and, in a tight race, potentially be a deciding factor. And without further details on the makeup of the polling sample, it’s difficult to weigh the accuracy of the Grimes internal poll against the handful of public polls showing a tougher fight ahead for her — but it should be taken skeptically, as it remains an outlier in the race.

    If Grimes wasn’t so grimey she would not ask Hillary to campaign in Kentucky where she can hurt herself. Grimey also should not fool the gullible into wasting their money by donating to her campaign using a phony poll that will produce the results she wants by manipulating the sample.

    Hillary Clinton 2016 does not inspire confidence when idiotic mistakes like this one that can be easily avoided are the product.

  18. As to that ridiculous Mellman
    —————
    I almost said that too. I am afraid McConnell will survive.

  19. Surprised to hear those words coming out from you Admin regarding Hillary and Grimes, but very understandable.
    This is what always drove me crazy in 2007, and her all too over thought comments of support for Ebola o…when she over thinks it rarely comes out right.
    When she makes decisions from the heart, that’s when it works for her.

  20. If Grimes wasn’t so grimey she would not ask Hillary to campaign in Kentucky where she can hurt herself
    —————–
    That is an important sentence.

    Where she (Hillary) can only hurt herself.

    My district director wanted me to go into Kentucky since we worked together in Indiana and Pennsylvania to campaign for Hillary in the 2008 primary. I had a conflict so I could not go. So I stayed home and manned the telephones. The support for Hillary in that state was very strong.

    Grimes is backed by Speilberg and other Hollywood luminaries.

    In Kentucky that is the kiss of death.

    Furthermore, when she sites in a rifle she reminds me of a certain Massachusetts liberal Michael (aka The Duke Dukakis) manning a Sherman tank.

    Not exactly Heinz Guderian. More like Tinkerbell.

    It is a fine prop, but it does not work.

  21. Hillary’s support for Grimes might not be so wise, but then again she may get away with it because McConnell is such total scum, just to stand against him counts for something.

  22. Grimes is Annie Oakley for a day.

    McConnell is Boss Tweed.

    Which is the lesser of the two evils.

    That is an epistomological question.

    Like how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

  23. I can’t imagine Hillary not running for President in 2016.

    I think Hillary’s largest weaknesses are loyalty and believing in people she shouldn’t. I certainly understand this flaw in politics, I have been the same way towards people in my life and been burned for it.

  24. Ky is solid Republican … they hate McConnell and he’s a dick in every sense and needs the boot. IF Grimes had enough $$$$$$$$$$$$$ she could do it. McConnell is ripe for the taking but he’s got tons of dough.

    As I said earlier, Hillary 2014 is not Hillary of the past. I sincerely have NO idea anymore.

  25. Shadowfax, loyalty is a value in politics and in life. But loyalty as a fetish is destructive. As you wisely state, from experience, this misplaced loyalty can burn you.

    Treachery is profitable until it catches up to you (as Obama is discovering) in politics and in life.

    There is a however a wide spectrum between fetish loyalty and treachery. Hillary needs to understand that in her life (which is none of our business) and in politics (which is our business) there are plenty of options between being a gulled wide-eyed dope and a duplicitous back-stabbing Obama.

    It was a loyalty fetish that smacked Hillary in the face in 2008 in her worst campaign debate. She tackled the licenses for illegal immigrant issue while at the same time trying to protect the governor of New York. Result: she sounded to the untutored public as incoherent or an outright liar. In that debate she should have stated her views and let the chips fall where they may for other public officials.

    It was also a loyalty fetish that destroyed Hillary in Iowa in 2008. The reports of the suspect and deleterious Patti Solis Doyle sabotage behavior (and her brother was a Chicago city alderman!) still did not budge Hillary from her unwavering support of PSD until after the Iowa disaster. Ditto Rahm Emanuel, ditto Chuck Schumer, ditto Ted Kennedy, ditto John Kerry, ditto a long long list.

    This is a time for cold, hard, calculation as to what is best for a potential campaign. This is not about Hillary the person but Hillary Clinton 2016 (the potential campaign). Those are two entire distinct entities. If Hillary wants to commit suicide on the altar of loyalty she can go right ahead and it is nobodies business. If Hillary wants to run for president then she needs to subsume her loyalty fetishes towards the needs of the campaign. That is something all candidates need to know and it is usually only first time idiot candidates that do not make this very clear and simple distinction.

  26. That’s why Obama numbers can’t be and are not trusted by the public:

    http://thepunditpress.com/2014/10/03/last-two-election-cycles-unemployment-dropped-drastically-right-before-election-rose-soon-after/

    Last Two Election Cycles, Unemployment Dropped Drastically Right Before Election, Rose Soon After

    In an odd coincidence, the last two election cycles have seen a drastic, unexpected drop in the unemployment rate immediately before the election. And in 2012 and 2010, the unemployment rate increased the month or the next after the election. Just as big a coincidence, both 2014 and 2012 saw the drop come in September, but reported in October, the best time to report supposed good news on the economy.

    This comes on the heels of this election cycle’s surprise news that the unemployment rate decreased .2% to 5.9%., a mere two months after the unemployment rose to 6.2%. For democrats, this is perfect timing for a party struggling to retain control of the Senate:
    [snip Unemployment Graph 2014]

    But according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the coincidences don’t stop there. In September of 2012, amid talk that a President had never been reelected with an unemployment rate of 8% or above, it miraculously dropped .3% from 8.1 to 7.8. This was particularly odd, as the rate had stayed at (or rose above) 8.2% for seven of the eight months before.

    Amazing, after the two previous elections during the President’s terms in office, in 2010 and 2012, the unemployment rate unexpectedly rose immediately after voters went to the poll.

    In December of 2012, the unemployment rate rose from 7.8% to 7.9%:
    [snip Unemployment Graph 2012]

    The spike in 2010 was more drastic, shooting up from 9.5% to 9.8%.

    Also interesting in 2010 was the fact that, before the election, unemployment didn’t decrease, but held unusually steady for four months straight, then spiked the month after the mid-terms:
    [snip Unemployment Graph 2010]

    The democrats must be very thankful that all of these good things keep happening for them right before a vote, and the bad stuff courteously waits until after the election is over to happen.

  27. ADMIN:

    1. OBAMA SAID I WILL NOT BE ON THE BALLOT THIS FALL, AND MICHELLE IS HAPPY ABOUT THAT.

    2. BUT MY POLICIES WILL BE (ON THE BALLOT)

    3. THE OBVIOUS EFFECT OF THAT STATEMENT WAS TO UNDERCUT EFFORTS BY RED STATE DIMS TO SAY THIS ELECTION IS ABOUT LOCAL ISSUES AND THEIR REPUBLICAN OPPONENT ONLY.

    4. MUCH ATTENTION HAS BEEN FOCUSED ON THAT EFFECT.

    5. BUT WHAT ABOUT THE OTHER EFFECT WHICH IS MORE IMPORTANT AFTER THE ELECTION?

    6. THE ONE WHICH HAS RECEIVED NO COMMENT SO FAR AS I HAVE SEEN.

    6. TO WIT: IF, AS HE SAYS, THIS ELECTION IS A REFERENDUM ON HIS POLICIES.

    7. AND THE REPUBLICANS WIN

    8. THEN IT IS ARGUABLE THAT HIS POLICIES–LIKE AMNESTY THROUGH EXECUTIVE ORDER–HAVE BEEN REJECTED AS WELL.

    9. IN THAT CASE, WITH A REPUBLICAN CONGRESS AND AN ENERGIZED ELECTORATE, HE IS PLAYING WITH FIRE IF HE PROCEEDS WITH THAT ACTION OVER THEIR OBJECTIONS

    10. HE WOULD HAVE BEEN WISER TO HAVE SAID NOTHING, OR IF HE HAD TO SAY SOMETHING, THEN HE SHOULD HAVE SAID THIS IS ABOUT CANDIDATES AND NOT HIS POLICIES.

    11. BY MAKING THE STATEMENT HE DID THE BIG MEDIA BELOVED MESSIAH UNDERMINED HIS CANDIDATES AND HIS POLICIES.

    12. NAPOLEON SAID IT BEST: “NEVER INTERRUPT AN ENEMY IN THE MIDDLE OF A MISTAKE.”

  28. Nobody believed Obama any more. Nobody.

    —————–

    Are those of us questioning the administration’s Ebola policies and plans panicking about the disease? Are we trying to spread panic?

    It’s a legitimate question, largely because everything the administration is saying about the virus and how it spreads is the truth — at least, as far as we understand it. The problem isn’t so much that the White House has their facts wrong. The problem is that because they have little credibility, their reassurances about having everything under control and that it could never happen here ring hollow.

    That, and the fact that the few common-sense precautions recommended by those critics are dismissed with claims that the proposals will only make things worse — a dubious assertion given the circumstances.

    This is a gang that can’t shoot straight, whose demonstrated incompetence in dealing with big public policy issues, both foreign and domestic, worries those of us who have heard this recording about having a handle on things before.

    It doesn’t matter if they think they know what to do. It matters that they have shown in the past that facts are of little value when incompetent execution of policy, or developing the wrong policy, leads to disaster.

    In a brilliant essay, Matthew Continetti of the Washington Free Beacon fleshes out the context of the administration’s pronouncements on Ebola:

    Over the last few years the divergence between what the government promises and what it delivers, between what it says is happening or will happen and what actually is happening and does happen, between what it determines to be important and what the public wishes to be important—this gap has become abysmal, unavoidable, inescapable. We hear of “lone-wolf” terrorism, of “workplace violence,” that if you like your plan you can keep your plan. We are told that Benghazi was a spontaneous demonstration, that al Qaeda is on the run, that the border is secure as it has ever been, that Assad must go, that I didn’t draw a red line, the world drew a red line, that the IRS targeting of Tea Party groups involved not a smidgen of corruption, that the Islamic State is not Islamic. We see the government spend billions on websites that do not function, and the VA consign patients to death by waiting list and then cover it up. We are assured that Putin won’t invade; that the Islamic State is the jayvee team of terrorism; that Bowe Bergdahl served with honor and distinction; that there is a ceasefire between Ukraine and Russia.

    While the public remains pro-Israel, our government negotiates with Israel’s enemies. While the public wants to reduce immigration, the preeminent legislative objective of both parties is a bill that would increase it. While the public is uninterested in global warming, while costly regulations could not pass a filibuster-proof Democratic Senate, while the scientific consensus behind the green agenda is, at the very least, fraying, the president says that climate change is the greatest threat to the United States. While Americans tell pollsters their economic situation has not improved, and that things are headed in the wrong direction—while even Democratic economists acknowledge the despondent state of the middle class—the president travels to Chicago to celebrate his economic recovery.

    These disjunctions and confusions, these missteps, scandals, and miscalculations, have hurt Obama’s approval numbers. They endanger the Democratic Senate majority, contribute to the widespread sense of disorder and decay, shatter trust in government and in public institutions. They have put into stark relief a political class dominated by liberal partisans, captured by ideas and interests removed from those of ordinary Americans. The stories of ineptitude or malfeasance that appear in the daily newspaper are more than examples of high ideals executed poorly. They are examples of the pursuit of ideas—of equality and diversity and progress and centralization and environmentalism and globalization—to absurd and self-destructive limits.

    http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/10/05/are-administration-critics-panicking-over-ebola/

  29. . I think O’s destruction of the party is intentional, as in, “If I cannot successfully lead you, no one will”. I think his last 2 years will be about the destruction of the Democratic Party as well as the nation. Like he would rather see a Republican in office, than Hillary who can show them how it is supposed to be done. The Dimocratic Party better wake up fast and take his pen and phone away. The golf course is the right place for him.

    ___________

    Lu, this makes a lot of sense. What other reason os there for Obama to deliberately sabotage the campaigns and subsequent elections of Dims next month, by declaring his policies to be on the ballot along with them. There’s no way he didn’t know the negative impact that would have. If he didn’t know it, he is even more cognitively challenged and self-focused than we thought. But, he knew.

    Initially, there seemed to be a bit of dissonance. On the one hand Obama has been making promises like “No force on earth can stop us” to Hispanics, attempting to guarantee that the majority of Hispanic voters would vote Dim, and also providing the Dim party with an unlimited supply of future voters – once they were repaid for entering this country illegally by being declared legal. On the other, by declaring his policies to be on the ballot with the Dims in November, he helped ensure their losses. How to reconcile one statement/effort with the other?

    Accomplishing amnesty or something akin to it is all about Obama – his legacy, his ego. He wants this, and who the hell are We the People to deny him. If he accomplishes his goal, he will be able to take credit for increasing votes and donations for the Dim Party. It is, after all, all about him.

    As for sabotaging the Dims, he either just doesn’t give a damn whether they win – or he wants them to lose. The issue of the impact a Repub majority in both houses would have on the remaining years of his presidency is irrelevant. Obama doesn’t care which party is in control of the senate or house. He doesn’t need them. He governs by Royal Edict. When congress won’t support his initiatives and give in to his demands, Barack just issues an executive order. In his mind he is the boss of us. And … damn! He loves being the boss.

  30. The elites blather on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about

    The need for diversity

    But when it comes to their own case, they want their kids to go to Harvard

    And when you look at the Supreme Court of the past fifty years, Harvard has twice as many graduates as their closest competitor Yale.

    And if you look at the federal judiciary today at the district court and the appellate level the same holds true.

    And even in Congress the same hold true—even that idiot Kaine.

    And in big media.

    So what are we to make of this?

    Are Harvard graduates just plain smarter than anyone else?

    In other words are they all like Obama whose wisdom passeth all understanding, as evidence by his remarkable competence?

    If so why is everything the touch fucked up?

    Why why why?

    Or is there perhaps an alternative explanation for this statistical phenomenon?

    Could it be that Harvard is simply the best mutual aid and self promotion society on the planet?

    But if that is the case, then they do not practice the diversity they preach for the rest of us.

    Which is why we have: equality diversity and centralization and globalization taken to absurd and self destructive limits.

  31. I think O’s destruction of the party is intentional, as in, “If I cannot successfully lead you, no one will”. I think his last 2 years will be about the destruction of the Democratic Party as well as the nation. Like he would rather see a Republican in office, than Hillary who can show them how it is supposed to be done. The Dimocratic Party better wake up fast and take his pen and phone away. The golf course is the right place for him.
    —————
    This is not a case of first impression.

    The historical antecedent by another sociopath is clear:

    The German people deserve to die’: Hitler’s rant on how he was deceived by ‘everyone’ during his last days in Berlin bunker

    German leader told Nazi generals their people had not fought heroically enough
    Newly-released documents reveal Hitler was a ‘broken man’ at the end of the war
    Report claims he suffered a nervous collapse and resigned himself to death

    By Kerry Mcqueeney

    Adolf Hitler claimed the German people ‘deserved to die’ in the days leading up to his own death in a Berlin bunker.

    The Nazi leader told his senior officers that he had been deceived by everyone around him during a series of rants in the eight days before he took his own life in 1945.

    Newly-released documents release by the National Archives describe Hitler as a ‘broken man’ and reveal how he gave a speech to his minister of the interior Heinrich Himmler, along with other assembled generals.
    Adolf Hitler
    Heinrich Himmler

    Rant: Hitler, left, was a ‘broken man’ when he told his generals – including Himmler, right – that the German people had not fought heroically enough and deserved to perish, in a speech during his final days

    He ranted that he had been lied to by his own people, claimed the German people had not fought with enough heroism and that they ‘deserved to perish’.

    The revelation about Hitler’s rant came as diaries written ex-MI5 head of counter-espionage Guy Liddell, were published for the first time.

    Among his diary entries written by Mr Liddell – Deputy Director General of the Security Service – is a paper from the Joint Intelligence Committee detailing the German leader’s final days.

    The report states: ‘Hitler came in at 8.30 a completely broken man. Only a few army officers were with him. Himmler urged Hitler to leave Berlin.
    Resigned to death: Shortly after his speech, Hitler (front centre) was reported to have suffered a nervous collapse and subsequently saw death as a ‘release’

    Resigned to death: Shortly after his speech, Hitler (front centre) was reported to have suffered a nervous collapse and subsequently saw death as a ‘release’

    ‘Suddenly, Hitler began to make one of his characteristic speeches: “Everyone has lied to me, everyone has deceived me, non[sic] one has told me the truth. The armed forces have lied to me and now the SS have left me in the lurch. The German people has not fought heroically, it deserves to perish. It is not I who have lost the war, but the German people”.’

    The report claims that shortly after this speech Hitler suffered a nervous breakdown.

    It states that immediately after his speech Hitler turned purple, his twitching left arm became still and he was unable to set his left foot properly on the ground.

    ‘Throughout that night he suffered from a nervous collapse’, the report added.

    The report describe Hitler as resigned to the idea of his own death.

    In contrast to his demeanour after the rant at this generals, the night he shot himself he was ‘calm’.

    Albert Speer, minister of armaments, said the German leader told him death would be a ‘release’ and that he knew the war was lost.

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2223471/Guy-Liddell-diaries-Hitlers-rant-deceived-days-Berlin-bunker.html#ixzz3FKqu67vp
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

  32. Lu4PUMA October 5, 2014 at 12:58 pm

    … Ofucktard has been such a perfect example of what not to do, she can come in with positive plans and be solution oriented to distinguish herself from him. She is not running against him anymore. Negative stuff can very well backfire.

    Yes, we’re really on the same page here.

  33. admin October 5, 2014 at 2:08 pm

    Hillary is only campaigning for Grimes out of a sense of political payback….

    There is no sense demeaning this effort as only political payback. Political payback is what politics is all about.

    In light of which, not stumping for Grimes would be politically suicidal because this KY race is highly visible — everyone is watching it — so that, whether Grimes wins or loses, HRC will gain ground by stumping for her and lose ground by not doing so. More precisely:

    1) Grimes victory with HRC support: +++++ for HRC

    2) Grimes victory without HRC support: —– for HRC

    3) Grimes loss with HRC support: ++ for HRC

    4) Grimes loss without HRC support: —– for HRC

    Case (3) is the one you fear, thinking that people in KY or elsewhere will view HRC as having no coattails, being weak and so forth. However, there is no dishonor in supporting a loser. Prime example: Obama supported Kerry in 2004 and that was never held against him. In fact, look where it got him! And Kerry too!

    You’re being far too purist here. Politics isn’t played for the number (1) situation only and avoiding the rest.

  34. Again, having said about HRC’s efforts to come in KY that “there is no advantage for Hillary to do such a foolish thing otherwise. When Grimes loses the headlines will be “Hillary couldn’t do it” and “If Hillary can’t help in Kentucky where she is popular can she win anywhere?”. This is a stupid move by Hillary and bound to hurt her,” (October 5, 2014 at 2:08 pm), I suppose you are ready to announce that all of the following moves are “stupid… and bound to hurt her:”

    The former secretary of state plans to campaign for Senate candidates in six states: Iowa, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Colorado, Georgia and Kentucky. She’ll also help gubernatorial campaigns in Pennsylvania, New Hampshire and Illinois.

    Her travels will also take her to California, where she’ll headline a fundraiser for Senate Democrats on Oct. 20.

    Do you think HRC should carefully calculate where she can help winners only and avoid all the losers?

    You’re playing Cassandra here, not a political analyst. Not only will HRC support Grimes in KY but Nunn in GA, Shaheen in NH and Hagan in NC, which are three other races where I’m sending money. All four of these races may be lost next month; but the fact of supporting these candidates is not a “stupid move” for anyone, no less HRC.

    On the contrary, you’ve been arguing for months that Obama is dragging Dem candidates down; but now the candidates can argue that Obama is not on the ballot, HRC is! And people know the difference between Obama and HRC. What I mean is, a voter goes into the booth thinking “A vote for Nunn is a vote for Obama” and will vote Republican. But if the voter says to himself, “A vote for Nunn is a vote for HRC,” that might tip the balance in favor of Nunn.

    In any event, I absolutely disagree that backing a loser is a “stupid move” in politics, and repeat the Obama-Kerry example from above to prove it if necessary.

  35. Me: Grimes versus McConnell is also seen as strong woman versus weak man

    wbboei October 5, 2014 at 1:45 pm

    The problem with McConnell is that he is a corrupt man, not a weak one.

    No, it’s the same difference. Corruption is equivalent to weakness in my book. It was evidence of corruption in Obama (brought to light on this website) that set me against Obama in the first place, in 2007. And it was lack of corruption, and therefore character (strength) that placed me firmly in HRC’s camp, then that of McCain/Palin and then Romney’s camp.

    McConnell is a weak, corrupt man. He has to go.

    As far as saying that Grimes is a roll of the dice, that’s not entirely true. She’s got programs and priorities in mind, she’s not on the side of the billionaires who are fighting her, she says plainly she’s a “Clinton Democrat.” And pardon me, but I still have a bias toward women in politics in general, and in the legislative branch in particular. Skewer me for that if you will, but I think I’m right in supporting Grimes and I’m very happy HRC will be in there to help.

  36. Thomas A. Duncan, who became ill with Ebola after arriving from West Africa in Dallas two weeks ago, succumbed to the virus today (Sunday), reports Reuters. Duncan was fighting for his life at a Dallas hospital on today after his condition worsened to critical, according to the director of the US Centers for Disease Control.

    The Dallas hospital that admitted him did not recognize the deadly disease at first and sent him home, only for him to return two days later by ambulance.

    ………………….

    They need to make sure that body is disposed off correctly and the area decontaminated because Ebola in a dead body is so virulent at high peak.

    Handle with care never was so correct here.

  37. An inspiring piece from New York Daily News of all places, likening HRC now as in her “Hamlet moment”:

    http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/gail-sheehy-hillary-hamlet-moment-article-1.1962563

    ends with:

    When she finally conceded the 2008 primary election to a man, women of her age wept bitterly. She lifted them up with inspired words: Do not dwell on the what ifs, she said. “Life is too short. Time is too precious. We have to work together for what still can be.”

    Millions of women around the world took those words to heart and found in them salve for their own crushing disappointments in life. Could Hillary betray the hopes of women the world over and dash the dreams of their daughters?

    I hear women everywhere saying, “If she doesn’t run, I’d never forgive her.”

    And Hillary, it seems almost certain, would never forgive herself.

  38. … the press-free zone around HRC….

    moononpluto October 6, 2014 at 4:25 am

    With all the shit they pulled on her in 2008…….They are lucky to get within a mile of her.

    Yeah, actually, reading that article, the press-free zone does seem to be about a mile. Couple of hundred yards at the least. Maybe the writer was just exaggerating.

    There might be a downside to this, though. I mean, if she sets up a truly impenetrable barrier, they might turn against her just for that. And they do have a lot of power, remember.

  39. moononpluto
    October 6, 2014 at 4:24 am

    Thomas A. Duncan, who became ill with Ebola after arriving from West Africa in Dallas two weeks ago, succumbed to the virus today (Sunday), reports Reuters.
    __________________

    Sad payers for the family,
    I wonder how many he will be taking with him.

  40. foxyladi14 October 6, 2014 at 9:13 am

    Thanx for the laughs. It’s true — what a difference 150 years makes !!!!

  41. Holy Shit Panetta….

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/10/06/leon-panetta-obama-has-lost-his-way-created-vacuum-for-islamic-state/

    Leon Panetta: Obama has ‘lost his way.’ Created ‘vacuum’ for Islamic State.

    It’s going to be a rough week for President Obama, thanks in part to his former CIA director and defense secretary, Leon Panetta, who in an interview published this morning said the president has “kind of lost his way.”

    He said as well that by not pressing the Iraqi government to leave more U.S. troops in the country, he “created a vacuum in terms of the ability of that country to better protect itself, and it’s out of that vacuum that ISIS began to breed,” Panetta told USA Today, referring to the group also known as the Islamic State.

    He said Obama has a “frustrating reticence to engage his opponents and rally support for his cause” and too frequently “relies on the logic of a law professor rather than the passion of a leader.” Sometimes, he told USA Today’s Susan Page, Obama “avoids the battle, complains, and misses opportunities.”

    …………………..

    They are really turning on the teflon king…….

  42. Leon Panetta: Obama has ‘lost his way.’ Created ‘vacuum’ for Islamic State.
    —————–
    The statement assumes the rise of the Islamic state was not his intention from the beginning. If it was his intention ab initio, as I believe it was, then he is on track and it is the American electorate who voted for him that have lost their way. Will they find their way back? Frankly, at this point, I don’t give a fuck, because the damage he has done thus far plus what he will do in the next two years is irreparable within my lifetime.

  43. Oh, no, Karl Rove again…Article from BREITBART

    Doing the same thing over and over but expecting different results was Albert Einstein’s all-too-familiar definition of insanity. Yet that’s exactly what Karl Rove recommended in the Wall Street Journal last week to help Senate Republicans “close the sale” in the midterm elections. We all should be wondering why.
    Rove warns candidates and incumbents “not to be cautious, timid, or unclear” but pushes a playbook largely followed by Republicans with little success since the 1990s. His dated mantra of “pro-growth policies like tax reform and regulatory relief, spending restraint to reduce the debt, and health-care reforms” helped neither John McCain nor Mitt Romney, and they failed to deliver control of the Senate four years ago.
    And don’t forget how the “Architect” suffered a famous meltdown during election-night coverage on Fox News in 2012 — when, confronted with the failure of his prognostications, he challenged projections showing Barack Obama had won the presidency. He also whistled in the dark right up to the disastrous 2006 elections and led George W. Bush to approval-rating depths where even Obama has not sunk.
    Dovetailing with Rove’s column, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus last week offered eleven “Principles of American Renewal” as the party’s campaign “vision.” His warmed-over talking points similarly channeled conservative think-tank wonkiness rather than address the anxieties of Middle America, now in far worse shape than when Ronald Reagan left the White House, the Washington Post just reported. The RNC obviously continues to cling to its own self-conducted “autopsy” blaming Romney’s 2012 debacle on everything but the party’s Wall Street-focused economic agenda.
    Still, Rove and Priebus are clearly not without chops as election strategists. As discredited as their past analyses have proven, they surely know that the ground has shifted with the rise of the Texas border, ISIS, and Ebola — all reinforcing middle-class worries — as 2014’s real campaign issues, and that the party won’t retake the Senate under the same old refrain.
    From Gallup to Kellyanne Conway and the New York Times/CBS News to Politico, the polls practically shout the fears of rank-and-file voters about basic “law-and-order” issues, especially regarding a word nowhere uttered in Rove’s op-ed: immigration. As I have written previously, Americans are furious over the border crisis, oppose Obama’s pending amnesty, and support the GOP over the Democrats on the issue.
    Even Rove and Priebus certainly recognize the president’s promise to confer American citizenship on millions of illegals — of course, after the election — as a gift to the GOP, a tidal-wave theme that could sweep Republican Senate candidates into office, even those whose Democratic opponents enjoy sizeable leads. Rove may think “it is always a challenge for the minority party to offer a disciplined, galvanizing national message,” but there’s no excuse for not playing the very good hand the GOP has been dealt this year.
    So why isn’t Rove telling GOP Senate candidates to stand tough for immigration control and border security? Or mocking Obama’s open-border craziness, as has Laura Ingraham, who tweeted: “Give me your tired, your poor, your infectious diseases… Ebola, TB, Scabies, Small Pox, Yellow Fever.” The answer borders on the unthinkable: Perhaps Rove doesn’t want the party to win big in 2014.
    If the GOP retook the Senate under the banner of American sovereignty and national security, such an achievement would call into question all the advice he’s dumped on the party for years, including his push for “comprehensive immigration reform” since his days with George W. And maybe his honored seat at Fox News and prime territory on the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal, whose editors proposed the beloved constitutional amendment of economic, cultural, and political elites — “There shall be no borders” — just two months before 9/11.
    Perhaps most important: a big anti-amnesty-fueled victory coupled with a Tea Party surge would preclude Jeb Bush, another fan of erasing the border between the United States and Mexico, from gaining the party nomination in 2016.
    Are Rove’s loyalties really more to the Bushes than to the GOP? It would certainly explain why the strategist continues to ignore the immigration elephant in the room and to push antiquated nostrums that seem calculated not to help the GOP.
    That’s unfortunate. As Jon Feere of the Center for Immigration Studies explained last month in The Hill, “There is no other foreign policy-related issue on which the American people and their leaders disagree more profoundly than immigration.”
    Rather than helping his party rebuild the commanding center-right coalition that elected Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan — presidents loved by average Americans but disdained by elites — Rove continues to dispense the same old prescriptions, potentially to pave the way for Jeb and an Establishment GOP comeback.
    Meanwhile, the party’s odds for winning the Senate, and especially the presidency, remain long — proving that the real insanity lies not with Rove, but a party that takes this crafty operative’s advice.
    — Robert W. Patterson served in the administrations of President George W. Bush and Pennsylvania governor Tom Corbett. Follow him on Twitter @RWPatterson.

  44. Tony Stark October 6, 2014 at 10:44 am

    Hillary needs to reconsider her promise to campaign for Grimes in light of this bad news: [staffer says Grimes will go for better resources than coal in response to trick question from a conservative plant]

    You have to consider the source. This is like reading Ed Klein instead of Hard Choices. It’s just one of many attack ads Karl Rove has been throwing into Kentucky along with millions of $$ to save McConnell’s ass.

    Accuse Grimes of lying? And what could McConnell be accused of?

  45. I cannot find any news online about Duncan’s death. They are all saying he is critical, but none reporting him dead. Anybody have a link?

  46. He said Obama has a “frustrating reticence to engage his opponents and rally support for his cause” and too frequently “relies on the logic of a law professor rather than the passion of a leader.” Sometimes, he told USA Today’s Susan Page, Obama “avoids the battle, complains, and misses opportunities.
    —————-
    That is a superb insight–and I dare say, it is the fault of everyone in his administration.

    What do I mean?

    I mean given a choice between engaging an adversary and reaching an accord, or standing aloof from the process–as he frankly admitted he would do in one of the debates only no one but me was listening to the prick on that point–but I sure as hell was because that was a huge tell that he would never be a leader, and everything we see now, every behavior that people like Panetta now point to as a fault was clear and unambiguous ab initio–at the outset.

    So give a choice between negotiating with adversaries–or dancing with himself he prefers the latter. And big media is content to worship him as he does exactly that. Had big media done its job in the beginning, had it not catered to his worst instincts, had it not covered for him, and lied for him, and deceived the country for him, things might have not been as bad as they are now. A man who loves to dance with himself and avoid his adversary and rush off to the rosy lights of fundraisers and adoring audiences is utterly incapable of changing his spots.

    As time goes on he will be a non factor and Jarret will be running the nation—into the ground I might add. That is all she is capable of whether it is a defunct housing project in Chicago, or this nation. The only hope is that the Republicans will change their spots and govern aggressively, and when he thwarts them, go after him with Howitizers. And for gods sake stay clear of big media. Let those cocksuckers die on the vine. They have no business in the affairs of this nation. They are bigger liars than Obama.

  47. Reuters reported it, Israeli news reported then all off a sudden it vanished from any trace online which would not surprise me if they were trying to hide it for fear of creating more of a panic…….

    All traces wiped kind of tells me of a coordinated attempt to surpress information.

  48. moononpluto October 6, 2014 at 10:50 am
    Holy Shit Panetta….

    =====

    What Panetta says about the “vacuum” left for ISIS is essentially what HRC said a few weeks ago.

    But his statement that Obama has a “frustrating reticence to engage his opponents and rally support for his cause” and too frequently “relies on the logic of a law professor rather than the passion of a leader…. avoids the battle, complains, and misses opportunities.” is really a spot-on assessment from someone who has worked with this fucker up close. I kind of wish HRC would confirm.

  49. wbboei October 6, 2014 at 11:38 am

    given a choice between engaging an adversary and reaching an accord, or standing aloof from the process–as he frankly admitted he would do in one of the debates only no one but me was listening to the prick on that point…

    You’re absolutely right, except that I was listening too. I remember, the question was, “The three of you [Edwards was still in the race] are all Senators with no executive experience. How do you see yourselves as running the executive branch of government. I don’t remember Edwards’ reply.

    But I remember Obama’s: “I don’t see myself as the CEO of the federal government. My job will be to set the goals and guidelines, that’s the role of the leader.”

    My reaction was, “Obama has just disqualified himself for the president in a 10-word sentence, because ‘CEO of the federal government’ is a very good definition of the presidency. He has just said he doesn’t see himself as president.

    By the way, Hillary’s answer was, “My management will be very much hands-on,” which was prophetic, because that’s how she eventually ran the State Department — as Kissinger said, the most effectively he has ever seen.

  50. A perfect example of this was the recent interview of a State Department spokesman by Megan Kelley. When confronted with the charge that Obama failed to heed the advice of his generals to secure a status of forces agreement to cover our exit from Iraq and ensure a stable military situation, the Obama spokeswoman blamed the Iraqi government for our failure to do so, rather than taking responsibility. And when Megan pointed out that Hillary, Gates and Panetta all told Obama he needed to leave behind a sufficient force for that purpose, he failed to do so, and that was the cause in fact of the failure to reach a status of forces agreement. Whereupon the Obama spokeswoman did not engage that point, but retreated to her original talking point, that it was the fault of the Iraqi government, not Obama. That is what I mean by dancing with yourself.

  51. jeswezey
    October 6, 2014 at 11:56 am
    ———–
    Well, that makes two of us.

    Big media swept that one conveniently under the rug.

    Along with all the other tells.

    And now when it does no good they complain about it.

    Fuck them.

    These people–NBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, NYT and WashPo have no place in the discussion about our future.

    They represent the elites and they deceive the American People for a living.

  52. Grimy. Via Tony Stark:

    http://freebeacon.com/politics/grimes-staffers-suggest-kentucky-dem-lies-about-coal-support/

    Grimes Staff Caught on Hidden Camera: She’s Lying About Support for Coal Industry

    U.S. Senate candidate Alison Lundergan Grimes is lying about her support for the state’s coal industry according to Kentucky Democrats, including members of her campaign team, who were captured on a hidden camera video.

    The video, produced by conservative filmmaker James O’Keefe, shows five employees of the Grimes campaign and local Democratic Party affiliates speculating that the Democratic challenger to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) is only professing her support for the industry out of political expediency.

    “If we can get her elected do you think she is going to do the right thing and she’s gonna try to wipe out that coal industry and go for better resources?” asks an undercover videographer in one segment of the video.

    “I absolutely think she is,” responds Fayette County Democratic Party operative Gina Bess.

    The video’s release comes as Grimes works to salvage a campaign that has consistently trailed in public polling and which, according to Nate Silver’s election model, has just a 12 percent chance of victory in November.

    “Let me set it straight for you Mitch McConnell. I am the pro-coal candidate in this race,” Grimes declared at a recent campaign event with former President Bill Clinton.

    Grimes has used that type of rhetoric in attempts to distance herself from President Barack Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency, which has enacted regulations on coal-fired power plants that coal companies and supporters say are taking a heavy toll on the industry.

    Support for such regulations is a political albatross in coal-heavy Kentucky, and Grimes campaign staffers featured in O’Keefe’s video recognize that fact.

    She’s saying something positive about coal because she wants to be elected,” said Ros Hines, a staffer in Grimes’ Lexington campaign office. “And in the state of Kentucky, if you are anti-coal, you will not get elected, period, end of conversation.”

    Some Grimes supporters captured in the hidden-camera video likewise suggest that Grimes is lying about her support for the industry in order to get elected.

    She has to say that,” remarked Juanita Rodriguez of the Warren County Democratic Party. “But you know what? Politics is a game. You do what you have to do to get [elected]. … It’s a lying game unfortunately.”

    Rodriguez speculated that Grimes does not in fact support the industry to the extent that she has declared publicly.

    I really don’t think her heart is 100 percent in backing coal. But she has to say she is because she will not get a high number of votes in this state if she doesn’t. But she’s got to get in there first and she’s gonna say whatever she has to say or do. And that’s the way the political game is played.”

    Like Grimes, McConnell routinely criticizes the EPA’s attempts to crack down on the coal industry. McConnell has also introduced legislation to stymie those efforts. However, Senate Democrats have stymied McConnell’s efforts. [snip]

    “It is absolutely shocking that Alison Lundergan Grimes’ own staff now admits that she has no intention of protecting the coal industry,” campaign spokeswomen Allison Moore wrote in an emailed statement. “The level of deception that Alison Grimes and her campaign engages in to appear pro-coal despite virulent opposition is both disturbing and dangerous.”

    Neither Grimes’ campaign nor the Kentucky Democratic Party returned requests for comment.

    Being anti coal killed Al Gore in 2000. Coal is essential heating in many states such as Ohio but that is something liberal elites don’t understand. Coastal elites also think that their low energy costs for things such as air conditioning come from wind mills and the energy fairy so they don’t understand the need for coal in many of the poorer states.

    Saying anything to get elected, talking out of both sides of her mouth, having to explain her policy and sincerity over and over again is not a good place for a candidate to be no matter how the “evidence” came to be. Now Hillary can get herself entangled in this mess.

  53. Blame game begun:

    http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/219768-democrats-start-to-point-fingers

    Democrats are starting to play the blame game as they face the possibility of losing the Senate in November.

    Tempers are running high a month out from Election Day, with polls showing Democratic candidates trailing in the crucial battleground states that will decide whether control of Congress flips to Republicans.

    The behind-the-scenes tension broke into the open last week when former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) questioned Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) decision not to endorse Democrat Rick Weiland in South Dakota’s Senate race.

    Pro-immigrant advocacy groups, meanwhile, are saying Democrats should not blame them if Latino voters don’t turn up to the polls on Election Day. They say President Obama made a tactical blunder by postponing an executive order easing deportations.

    And grassroots organizers are grumbling about Alison Lundergan Grimes’s (D-Ky.) bid to take down Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), arguing her campaign has been disorganized.

    “Yes, you’ve seen pre-emptive finger pointing in the last couple of weeks,” said Gerald Warburg, a former Senate Democratic leadership aide and assistant dean at the University of Virginia’s Frank Batten School of Leadership and Public Policy.

    “I used to work in the Democratic caucus and some of the toughest shootouts we ever engaged in were when we stood in a circle and fired at each other. I think you see a little bit of that now,” he said. [snip]

    With an eye on saving his majority, Reid adopted a strategy of limiting legislative amendments to protect vulnerable colleagues from tough votes that could be used against them on the campaign trail.

    Those moves have at times proved controversial with fellow Democrats, such as Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska), one of the party’s most endangered incumbents.

    “I’ve told Senator Reid more than once that we can’t keep up this gridlock of voting on final bills without considering amendments — which is why I chose to stand up to him today and voted against moving forward,” Begich said in July after joining with Republicans to protest his leader’s policy on amendments. [snip]

    “Senate Ds are remarkably united and free of finger pointing,” the aide said. “A savvy observer would probably not take Pryor’s comments at face value and the Daschle thing is obviously a pet grudge and Daschle is riding solo on that one.”

    Some Democrats have pointed at Obama’s low approval numbers as a major headwind for Democrats in the midterms.

    But Obama’s dropping poll numbers, particularly on foreign policy, could prove fatal for some candidates. The president has tried to deflect criticism over his response to the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) by remarking that U.S. intelligence initially underestimated the threat.

    That did not sit well with Democrats such as former Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.) who might run for Senate in 2016.

    “As commander in chief, you’re accountable. You’re the one who is responsible whether the good ship of state is doing it right,” he told National Journal.

    Some liberal activists say Democratic candidates should be pushing bolder economic proposals, such as expanding Social Security benefits, instead of more modest ones such as raising the minimum wage.

    “I would argue that we would be in a better place if candidates across the board were running on economic populist message,” said Charles Chamberlain, executive director of Democracy for America.

    “We can’t just run on being GOP light,” he said. “For example, in Kentucky, where we polled on expanding Social Security, if Alison Lundergan Grimes was running on expanding Social Security or on a more populist economic message I think she would be in a different place in the polling.”

    Chamberlain said he is optimistic the Democrats would keep control of the Senate. [snip]

    Obama recently pointed to social media as a culprit for voter pessimism. [snip]

    But some liberal activists say Obama’s decision to delay an executive order to ease the deportation of illegal immigrants could dampen enthusiasm among Hispanic voters.

    “I think it was the wrong decision politically when you consider that every year from now until 2028 an average of 904,000 Latino citizen children are going to turn 18,” said Loren McArthur, deputy director of civic engagement at the National Council of La Raza. “In the long term, both parties need to be courting this vote.

    “In the short term, it was the wrong decision. Latino voters can be pivotal in states like North Carolina,” he said

    The Wall Street Journal summed up the message this way: “Hispanic groups to Democrats: Don’t blame us if you lose.”

    “No one is in charge so no one is to blame” is the Dim message.

  54. This is not a good sign for panic.

    Reuters: Spanish nurse who treated Ebola victim in Madrid tests positive for disease in initial tests, authorities awaiting final results.

  55. What’s ironic is that Obama is being (thankfully) hurt by foreign policy (which he actually was strong on just a couple of years ago when he got Osama) and this Ebola thing is unsettling as he claimed it would not reach our shores. He is not getting (and ultimately we will have to wait and see at the polls as pocket book issues are always voters top issues) ) much of a boost from the improving economy. I read and article by Neil Cavuto which opined it may not be helping him now, but will help the dems in 2016 unless the republicans come up with some of their own ideas to further stimulate the economy.

  56. EXTREME. Especially since they got their cigarette tax which was supposed to save them. Not sure who is wagging this tail.

    Philadelphia schools cancel teachers’ union contract. Associated Press. 10/6/14.
    PHILADELPHIA – The Philadelphia School District has canceled its teachers’ union contract in order to take over the union-administered health care fund.
    The surprise move Monday follows a hastily called meeting of the School Reform Commission, which oversees the district, and nearly two years of labor talks.
    The district says it has no plans to cut wages of the 15,000 teachers, nurses and other members of the Philadelphia Federation of Teachers. But it wants teachers to start contributing to their health coverage. Union spokesman George Jackson tells The Philadelphia Inquirer the move is “outrageous.” Superintendent William Hite says union members need to share in the sacrifices made by families and others in the cash-strapped district. He says the plan will yield more than $50 million in savings or new funding this year.
    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/10/06/philadelphia-schools-cancel-teachers-union-contract/

  57. The Supreme Court effectively made same-sex marriage legal Monday in 11 additional states.

    The nation’s highest court declined to review petitions from lower courts whose jurisdiction covers nearly a dozen states. The decision upheld court decisions striking down bans on same-sex unions in those states.

    The decision was announced quietly, but the resulting shockwaves will be felt across the nation.

    The court validated three federal appeals covering Colorado, Indiana, Kansas, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia and Wisconsin, according to
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-10-06/u-s-supreme-court-refuses-to-rule-on-gay-marriage.html?hootPostID=78c6dbb3e7c01056317ee1bc65b60329

  58. Not easy to catch huh?

    https://uk.news.yahoo.com/spanish-nurse-being-tested-ebola-contracted-madrid-media-165234130.html

    MADRID (Reuters) – A Spanish nurse who last month treated a priest in Madrid who died of Ebola has tested positive for the disease, becoming the first to contract it outside West Africa, a source within the health authorities said on Monday.

    The nurse treated elderly priest Manuel Garcia Viejo at the Madrid hospital Carlos III when he was repatriated from Sierra Leone with the disease.

    Garcia Viejo died days later, the second Spanish priest to die after being repatriated from Africa with the disease.

    The source said the nurse had tested positive for Ebola in initial tests and officials were awaiting final results.

    Two separate sources within the health authorities told Reuters the nurse was treated in the hospital of Alcorcon, on the outskirts of Madrid, where she went earlier on Monday with symptoms of fever.

    Spain’s Health Ministry was due to hold a news conference to give further information at 1900 GMT.

    …………………..

    I know its harsh but bringing the infected back with a disease that has that high a death rate is suicidal.

  59. jbstonesfan
    October 6, 2014 at 1:17 pm
    ———
    I do not see the economy as getting better.

    What I look at is the real unemployment rate–not this bullshit figure which factors out those who have been out of work for any length of time.

    Also, the article Admin posted that they goose down the rate at the time of the election.

    Also, the article in WSJ noting asking when will we have a recovery for the 99%.

    Finally, when 2 out of 5 people of working age are not working, the economy is not improving.

    I think what we are seeing here is not just domestic or political issues but a growing realization of the character flaws of Obama and their catastrophic consequences.

    As noted above:

    Over the last few years the divergence between what the government promises and what it delivers, between what it says is happening or will happen and what actually is happening and does happen, between what it determines to be important and what the public wishes to be important—this gap has become abysmal, unavoidable, inescapable. We hear of “lone-wolf” terrorism, of “workplace violence,” that if you like your plan you can keep your plan. We are told that Benghazi was a spontaneous demonstration, that al Qaeda is on the run, that the border is secure as it has ever been, that Assad must go, that I didn’t draw a red line, the world drew a red line, that the IRS targeting of Tea Party groups involved not a smidgen of corruption, that the Islamic State is not Islamic. We see the government spend billions on websites that do not function, and the VA consign patients to death by waiting list and then cover it up. We are assured that Putin won’t invade; that the Islamic State is the jayvee team of terrorism; that Bowe Bergdahl served with honor and distinction; that there is a ceasefire between Ukraine and Russia.

    While the public remains pro-Israel, our government negotiates with Israel’s enemies. While the public wants to reduce immigration, the preeminent legislative objective of both parties is a bill that would increase it. While the public is uninterested in global warming, while costly regulations could not pass a filibuster-proof Democratic Senate, while the scientific consensus behind the green agenda is, at the very least, fraying, the president says that climate change is the greatest threat to the United States. While Americans tell pollsters their economic situation has not improved, and that things are headed in the wrong direction—while even Democratic economists acknowledge the despondent state of the middle class—the president travels to Chicago to celebrate his economic recovery.

    These disjunctions and confusions, these missteps, scandals, and miscalculations, have hurt Obama’s approval numbers. They endanger the Democratic Senate majority, contribute to the widespread sense of disorder and decay, shatter trust in government and in public institutions. They have put into stark relief a political class dominated by liberal partisans, captured by ideas and interests removed from those of ordinary Americans. The stories of ineptitude or malfeasance that appear in the daily newspaper are more than examples of high ideals executed poorly. They are examples of the pursuit of ideas—of equality and diversity and progress and centralization and environmentalism and globalization—to absurd and self-destructive limits.

  60. The problem writ large is not that Obama is not a leader.

    You can get by being a non leader if you have good staff and good people skills.

    The problem writ large is that Obama hates the country and he is the antithesis of a leader.

    Just watch what he does to destroy the country after the November election.

    And watch to see what if anything the Republicans do to stop him, other than running their mouths.

  61. I expect to see him veto legislation and rule by executive order and to see that challenged and to see Roberts fall through his ass again, because where Roberts is concerned, the mold is set that way. The forces of evil lead by the New York Times put water between Roberts legs once before, on the eve of the Obamacare decision. And they are doing it again with their lead article last week end the headline of which read that this Supreme Court term will establish his legacy, for better or for worse.

  62. http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/face-nation-leaves-out-netanyahus-criticism-obama

    ‘Face the Nation’ Leaves Out Netanyahu’s Criticism of Obama

    Anyone watching Sunday’s broadcast of Face the Nation on CBS did not hear critical comments about President Obama from Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Those were edited out and sequestered to CBS’s website, leaving only the positive comments aired.

    What Americans heard as they sat in front of their televisions Sunday morning was Netanyahu’s positive comments about his relationship with Obama over images of the two leaders smiling in one another’s presence. In describing his relationship with the president, Netanyahu said: [snip]

    But on CBSNews.com, the clip that did not air showed sharp criticisms from both leaders.

    Host Bob Schieffer pointed out that after a meeting last week between Netanyahu and Obama, the White House released a statement saying if Israel “goes forward with new settlements in East Jerusalem, [they will] risk the condemnation of even [their] closest allies.”

    A “baffled” Netanyahu responded:

    “Well first of all, I had a very good meeting with the president and I was baffled by this statement because it doesn’t really reflect American values. What we are being criticized for is that some Jewish residents of Jerusalem bought apartments legally from Arabs in a predominately Arab neighborhood and this is seen as a terrible thing.

    Netanyahu explains that “thousands of Arabs” do the same thing, buying up apartments in West Jerusalem. “Nobody says you can’t do that,” Netanyahu said. He went on to liken this to someone in America saying Jews aren’t allowed to buy apartments in a certain area. “Their would be an uproar,” he said.

    Reiterating that he was “baffled” by the White House’s statement, Netanyahu said:

    It’s against the American values and it doesn’t bode well for peace.

  63. This will doom him…absolutely untrustworthy and will go where the grass is greener…he’s a political chameleon…not good to spout this off.

    http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/orman-i-could-absolutely-switch-parties-after-picking-senate-side-n219636

    Independent Greg Orman says he could change parties even after he has allied himself with Democrats or Republicans if he wins the Kansas Senate election in November.

    In an exclusive interview with NBC’s Kelly O’Donnell, Orman says he would initially caucus with whichever party has majority control in the Senate, because “it’s in the best interests of the voters of Kansas that they have a senator in the majority.”

    But, he added, he wouldn’t limit himself to an alliance with one party over the other, especially if the Senate is evenly split.

    “If four or five months goes by, and it’s clear they’re engaged in the same old partisan politics, we’ll be able to change our allegiances and work with the other side,” he said. “And I think that’s a really strong and important tool, to hold the Senate accountable for actually getting something done.”

  64. Admin as we predicted…here we go….

    http://atr.rollcall.com/dccc-cuts-ads-in-eight-tv-markets/

    The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has started to pull back their advertising buys in several congressional districts around the country, according to an aide.

    At this point in the cycle, the cancellations — also known as “triage” — serve as a signal the party does not see a path to victory for these candidates or races. House Majority PAC, a Democratic super PAC, has already pulled some of its buys in the same districts.

    For now, House Democrats are only canceling airtime reservations in open-seat races or offensive opportunities. In some cases, the DCCC is still airing advertisements in some of the affected races for the next couple weeks.

    In addition to the cancellations, the DCCC is also moving money to other districts, including other open-seat opportunities, districts held by Democrats, and one GOP incumbent target:

    House Democrats must net 17 seats to win the majority, but it’s more likely they will lose seats in November. These cuts allow the DCCC to use their resources in other reasons where the party has a higher likelihood of winning.

    The cancellations include:

    California’s 3rd and 10th Districts: This now-canceled reservation for the second-to-last week of the campaign was initially intended as airtime to protect Democratic Rep. John Garamendi and target Republican Rep. Jeff Denham.
    California’s 21st District: The DCCC pulled back reservations for the final two weeks of the campaign in their bid to unseat Republican Rep. David Valadao. His challenger, Democrat Amanda Renteria, will almost certainly be recruited by Democrats to run again in 2016 if she comes up short in November.
    Iowa’s 4th District: The House Democratic political arm is pulling a Sioux City broadcast buy against Republican Rep. Steve King for the last two weeks of the campaign.
    Illinois’ 13th District: The DCCC is cutting a second-to-last-week of the cycle in a St. Louis broadcast buy initially intended to target Republican Rep. Rodney Davis.
    Michigan’s 7th, 8th, 11th Districts: The committee is cutting a Detroit broadcast reservation in the second-to-last week of the campaign. They had hoped to target three Republican-held seats in the area.
    New York’s 21st District: The DCCC is canceling its last two weeks of airtime in its bid to hold onto Rep. Bill Owens’ seat in Upstate New York.
    New York’s 23rd District: House Democrats are canceling reservations for the campaign’s last two weeks in their effort to oust Republican Rep. Tom Reed.
    Pennsylvania’s 6th and 8th Districts: The DCCC is scaling back its buy to target retiring Republican Rep. Jim Gerlach’s seat and oust Republican Rep. Michael G. Fitzpatrick.

    Airtime Additions:

    Iowa’s 3rd District: The DCCC is adding Omaha broadcast airtime in early October to boost Democrat Staci Appel’s bid to replace retiring Republican Rep. Tom Latham.
    Illinois’ 10th District: The committee is bolstering freshman Democratic Rep. Brad Schneider with mid-October broadcast and cable buy in his district north of Chicago.
    Illinois’ 12th District: The House political arm added four weeks of Paducah, Ky. broadcast in support of Democratic Rep. Bill Enyart.
    Minnesota’s 8th District: The DCCC added a month’s worth of Duluth broadcasting to back Democratic Rep. Rick Nolan.
    Nebraska’s 2nd District: The committee added a week of Omaha broadcast in its offensive bid to take out Republican Rep. Lee Terry.
    New York’s 18th District: House Democrats added four weeks of New York City cable from early October to Election Day to back freshman Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney.

    At this point, the DCCC has yet to pull the plug on an incumbent. In 2012, the committee canceled reservations on North Carolina Rep. Larry Kissell, who went on to lose his re-election.Four years ago, the DCCC canceled reservations on a number of incumbents who lost in one of the GOP’s best election cycles in modern history.

    In June, the DCCC placed an initial nationwide round of reservations worth $43.5 million. The committee went on to expand that buy to $56 million.

    The DCCC’s independent expenditure arm traditionally reserves more ad time than they intend to eventually purchase. They do this to secure ad rates at a discounted price.

    Around the same time, Republicans announced a smaller round of reservations worth about $30 million. They have since added reservations in a late, piecemeal fashion. Also last week, GOP outside groups began to step up their House ad buys.

    The NRCC and GOP outside groups tend to reserve late and pay a premium for ad rates. In this effort, they preserve the element of surprise and avoid the frequent cancellation headlines that House Democrats earn.

  65. “Well first of all, I had a very good meeting with the president and I was baffled by this statement because it doesn’t really reflect American values. What we are being criticized for is that some Jewish residents of Jerusalem bought apartments legally from Arabs in a predominately Arab neighborhood and this is seen as a terrible thing.

    ————————————
    It OK for the Arabs, but Obama does not want Jews to own property in our eternal capital.

  66. Leon Panetta is, in no uncertain terms, exposing, emphasizing and illustrating a classic ‘The Emperor Has No Clothes’…

    thank you Leon…

  67. Mistake my ass……..

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/10/06/secret-service-mistakenly-requests-racial-background-of-photojournalists/

    The Secret Service is facing a huge amount of scrutiny, so now might be a good time for them to double-check everything they’re doing — particularly when dealing with the media.

    They didn’t do that on Monday.

    An agent working on a Wisconsin event where first lady Michelle Obama will be present told a staffer for the gubernatorial campaign of Mary Burke (D) that photojournalists would need to provide several pieces of information for security checks and clearance — including information about the journalists’ racial background. The Secret Service now says that was a mistake.

    ……………………………

    So now you need to identify race to get near Mooch…..

  68. How about that Leon Panetta?!

    Paraphrased: ‘you need to (learn to) work with people you don’t like’.. haha.. sounds very much like the advice I gave one of my undergrad students who was having trouble working with his teammates and whining, (and his grade was in jeopardy). Poor Obama, nobody told him that while he was still young and developing.

  69. I hate the Dem and Rethug parties, they are all out for themselves.

    The Rethugs blow smoke and the Dems are crooks too.

  70. MoonOnPluto, amusing news about the triage in the House races and Orman desperation in Kansas. Next up, triage in Senate races. 🙂

  71. Just so you don’t miss the comment from S:

    http://www.globemagazine.com/

    Barack and Michelle Obama hate each other’s guts! That’s the shocking charge by an author and insider who say they learned about the First Couple’s most intimate secrets from a White House maid. Read about their violent fights, her wild booze binges, his midnight calls to a Hollywood beauty – and more! It’s all in this week’s GLOBE.

    So who’s the “Hollywood beauty”? Matt Damon? 🙂

Comments are closed.